leaders, and, in the tumult which was the inevitable consequence of their attempt to force a way through so dense a crowd, three or four lives were, unfortunately, lost.
So unusual a catastrophe called out the energies of both parties. The Radical leaders published manifestoes declaring the people had been 'massacred' by the soldiers by the orders of the government. Meetings were held to denounce the conduct of the ministers, one being even promoted by Lord Fitzwilliam, as Lord-lieutenant of Yorkshire, a dignity of which he was instantly deprived; while, on the other hand, the grand-juries of Cheshire and Lancashire made reports of the condition of those counties to the Secretary of State, which showed that a most alarming spirit prevailed over the greater part of the district. 'The most inflammatory publications had been issued in the principal towns, at a price which put them within the reach of the poorest classes of society. The training and military drilling of large bodies of men under regular leaders had been carried on to a great extent for some time, chiefly by night; and there was no doubt that an extensive manufacture of arms was going on.' What was a hardly inferior symptom of danger was a system of intimidation which prevailed to a most serious degree. Many magistrates had received notices threatening their lives, and combinations had been formed to withhold custom from publicans and shopkeepers who had come forward to support the civil power. In many parts of the two counties the grand-juries declared 'that no warrant of arrest or other legal process could be executed; the payment of taxes had ceased, and the landlords were threatened with the discontinuance of their rents.'
It was admitted that the spirit of disaffection was local, confined to three or four counties; but those counties were, next to Middlesex itself, the most populous and among the most important in the kingdom, and there was danger lest the feeling, if not checked, might spread. The crisis seemed so momentous, that some even of the Opposition leaders volunteered their counsels and aid to the ministers in dealing with it. And the ministers, after long deliberation, decided on calling Parliament together in November, and introducing some bills which they conceived necessary to enable them to restore and preserve tranquillity. They were six in number; and-perhaps, with some sarcastic reference to Gardiner's Six Acts in the sixteenth century-they were very commonly spoken of as Lord Sidmouth's Six Acts, that noble lord being the Home-secretary, to whose department they belonged. It is not necessary here to do more than mention the general purport of five of them. One prohibited military training without the sanction of the government; another empowered magistrates to search for arms which they had reason to believe were collected for illegal purposes; the third authorized the seizure of seditious and blasphemous libels; the fourth subjected publications below a certain size to the same stamp as that required for a newspaper; the fifth regulated the mode of proceeding in trials for misdemeanor of a political character. But these enactments were regarded as little more than arrangements of detail or procedure involving no principles, and some of them were admitted even by the most steadfast opponents of the ministers to be necessary. But the sixth, designed to restrain the practice of holding large open-air meetings-not, indeed, forever, but for a certain period, fixed at five years-was strongly resisted by the greater portion of the Whig party in both Houses, as a denial to the people of one of their most ancient and constitutional rights.[179]
Its principal clauses enacted that 'no meeting exceeding the number of fifty persons (except a meeting of any county or division of any county, called by the Lord-lieutenant or sheriff of such county, etc., or by five or more acting justices of the peace for such county, or by the major part of the grand-jury; or any meeting of any city, borough, etc., called by the mayor or other head officer of such city, etc.) should be holden for the purpose or on the pretext of deliberating upon any public grievance, or upon any matter relating to any trade, manufacture, etc., or upon any matter of Church or State, or of considering, proposing, or agreeing to any petition, address, etc., etc., unless in the parish or township within which the persons calling any such meeting usually dwell;' and it required six days' notice of the intention to hold such meetings, with their time, place, and object, to be given to a magistrate. It empowered the magistrate to whom such notice was given to alter the time and place. It forbade adjournments intended to evade these prohibitions. It forbade any one to attend such meetings except freeholders of the county, or parishioners of the parish, or members of the corporation of the city or borough in which they were held, or members of the House of Commons for such places. It empowered magistrates to proceed to the places where such meetings were being held, and, if they thought it necessary, to require the aid of constables. It enacted that any meeting, the tendency of which should be 'to incite or stir up the people to hatred and contempt of the person of his Majesty, his heirs and successors, or of the government or constitution of this country as by law established, should be deemed an unlawful assembly.' It empowered one or more justices of the peace, in the event of any meeting being held contrary to the provisions of this act, to warn every one present, in the King's name, to depart; and made those who did not depart in obedience to such warning liable to prosecution for felony, and, if convicted, to seven years' transportation. It forbade the display of flags, banners, or ensigns at any meeting, and the employment of any drum, or military or other music; but it excepted from its operation 'any meeting or assembly which should be wholly holden in any room.'
There was one peculiarity in the line taken by the opponents of the bill, that they did not deny that the meetings which had induced the ministers to propose it were an evil, dangerous to the general tranquillity; but it was strongly urged by Lord Erskine and others that the existing laws were quite strong enough to deal with them, so that a new enactment was superfluous; and by others, in both Houses, that such meetings were 'an ancient and constitutional mode of discussing abuses or petitioning Parliament,' any interference with which was a greater evil than the meetings themselves, as being a violation of the constitution. Mr. Brougham in particular admitted, to the full extent of the assertions of the ministers themselves, 'the wickedness and folly of many of the speeches' made at the recent meetings. He expressed with great force his entire disapproval of the system on which these meetings had been conducted, and admitted that the martial array which had been exhibited, and the vastness of the numbers of those who had attended, were of themselves calculated to excite alarm; but he declared that 'he could not on that account acquiesce in a total subversion of a popular right.' On the other hand, the ministers themselves did not deny 'the general right of the people to petition the Legislature, or to carry their addresses to the foot of the throne. And therefore (as Lord Harrowby, the President of the Council, admitted) there could be no doubt of their right to assemble, so far as was necessary to agree to their petitions or addresses. It was a right that did not depend on the Bill of Rights, on which it was usually grounded, but had existed long before. But this bill,' he contended, 'imposed no restrictions on the legitimate enjoyment of that privilege; it only regulated the meetings at which it was to be exercised.' And Lord Liverpool affirmed that the bill was not only 'consistent with the existing laws and principles of the constitution, but was even proposed in furtherance of those principles, and for the purpose of protecting the people of this country against a series of evils which, if not checked, must subvert their laws and liberties.'
In attempting to form a correct judgment on the question whether this bill were constitutional or unconstitutional, it must, I think, be admitted that, as has been remarked before, the terms 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' are somewhat vague and elastic. There is no one document-not Magna Charta, nor the Petition of Eight, nor the Bill of Rights-which can be said to contain the whole of the British constitution. Its spirit and principles are, indeed, to be found in all the laws, to which they give animation and life, but not in any one law. And among its leading principles are those which embrace the right of every individual to freedom of action and freedom of speech, so long as he does not commit any crime himself, nor tempt others to do so. Yet it does not follow that a new enactment which for a while abridges or suspends that freedom of action or speech is inconsistent with those constitutional principles.
Ministers, to whom the government of a country is intrusted, do wrong if they limit their operations to the punishment of offences which have been committed. It is at least equally their duty, as far as possible, to prevent their commission; to take precautionary measures, especially at times when there is notorious danger of offences being committed. At the same time they are bound not to legislate under the influence of panic; not to yield to fears having no substantial ground. And in their measures of precaution they are farther bound to depart from or overstep the ordinary law as little as is compatible with the attainment of their object. In all such cases each action of theirs must stand or fall by its own merits; by the greatness of the emergency which has caused it, and by its sufficiency for its end. For as no law, except such as forbids moral crimes, is invariable, so even the dearest privileges of each subject, being his for the common good, are liable to temporary suspension for that common good. But the burden of justification lies on those who propose that suspension.
Now, that this bill was such a suspension of the long-established rights of the subject, and so far an overstepping of the principles of the constitution, is admitted by the very fact of its framers only proposing for it a temporary authority. Had it not invaded a valuable and real right, it might have been made of perpetual obligation. But it is not easy to see how it can be denied that the dangers against which it was intended to guard were also real. It was certain that itinerant demagogues were visiting districts with which they had no connection, for the sole
