versal suffrage, annual parliaments, and the rights of man; and reformers of all degrees were to be scouted as revolutionary. The calm and lofty spirit of Mr. Pitt was little prone to apprehension. He had discountenanced Mr. Burke's early reprobation of the French revolution: he had recently declared his confidence in the peace and prosperity of his country; and had been slow to foresee the political dangers of events in France. But he now yielded to the pressure of Mr. Burke and an increasing party in Parliament; and while he quieted their apprehensions, he secured for himself a vast addition of moral and material support. Enlarging his own party, and breaking up the opposition, he at the same time won public confidence. It was a crisis of unexampled difficulty, needing the utmost vigilance and firmness. Ministers, charged with the maintenance of order, could not neglect any security which the peril of the time demanded. They were secure of support in punishing sedition and treason: the guilty few would meet with no sympathy among a loyal people. But, counselled by their new chancellor and convert, Lord Loughborough, and the law officers of the crown, the government gave too ready a credence to the reports of their agents; and invested the doings of a small knot of democrats chiefly workingmen with the dignity of a wide-spread conspiracy to overturn the constitution. Ruling over a free state, they learned to dread the people, in the spirit of tyrants. Instead of relying upon the sober judgment of the country, they appealed to its fears; and in repressing seditious practices, they were prepared to sacrifice liberty of opinion. Their policy, dictated by the circumstances of a time of strange and untried danger, was approved by the prevailing sentiment of their contemporaries: but has not been justified, in an age of greater freedom,-by the maturer judgment of posterity. - The next step taken by the government was calculated to excite a panic. On the 1st of December, 1792, a proclamation was issued, stating that so dangerous a spirit Proclamaof tumult and disorder had been excited by evil- tion. Dec. 1st, 1792. disposed persons, acting in concert with persons in foreign parts, that it was necessary to call out and embody the militia. And Parliament, which then stood prorogued until the 3d of January, was directed to meet on the 13th of December. 66 King's The king's speech, on the opening of Parliament, repeated the statements of the proclamation; and adverted to designs, in concert with persons in foreign speech. Dec. 13th, 1792. countries, to attempt "the destruction of our happy constitution, and the subversion of all order and government." "1 These statements were warmly combated by Mr. Fox, who termed them an intolerable calumny upon the people of Great Britain," and argued that the executive government were about to assume control, not only over the acts of the people, but over their very thoughts. Instead of silencing discussion, he counselled a forwardness to redress every grievance. Other speakers also protested against the exaggerated views of the state of the country which the administration had encouraged. They exhorted ministers to have confidence in the loyalty and sound judgment of the people; and, instead of fomenting apprehensions, to set an example of calmness and sobriety. But in both Houses addresses were voted,2 giving the sanction of Parliament to the sentiments expressed from the throne. The majority did. not hesitate to permit popular privileges to be sacrificed to the prevailing panic. But as yet no evidence of the alleged dangers had been produced; and on the 28th of February, Mr. Mr. SheriSheridan proposed an inquiry, in a committee of dan's motion, the whole House. He denied the existence of se- 1793. Feb. 28th, 1 Comm. Journ., xlviii. 4; Parl. Hist., xxx. 6; Fox's Speeches, iv. 445. 2 In the Commons by a majority of 290 to 50. Parl. Hist., xxx. 1-80. Ann. Reg., 1793, p. 214–219. ditious practices; and imputed to the government a desire to create a panic, in order to inflame the public mind against France, with which war was now declared, and to divert attention from parliamentary reform. The debate elicited no further evidence of sedition; but the motion was negatived without a division.1 Trial of 1793. Meanwhile, prosecutions of the press abounded, especially against publishers of Paine's works.2 Seditious speaking was also vigilantly repressed. A few examples will illustrate the rigorous administration of the laws. John Frost, March, Frost, a respectable attorney, who had been associated with the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt, a few years before, in promoting parliamentary reform, was prosecuted for seditious words spoken in conversation, after dinner, at a coffee-house. His words, reprehensible in themselves, were not aggravated by evidence of malice or seditious intent. They could scarcely be termed advised speaking; yet was he found guilty, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to stand in the pillory at Charing Cross, and to Mr. Winter be struck off the roll of attorneys. Mr. Winterbotham, 1793. botham, a Baptist minister, was tried for uttering seditious words in two sermons. The evidence brought against him was distinctly contradicted by several witnesses; and in the second case, so weak was the evidence for the crown, and so conclusive his defence, that the judge directed an acquittal; yet in both cases the jury returned verdicts of guilty. The luckless minister was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, to pay two fines of 100%, and to give security Case of 3 for his good behavior.* Thomas Briellat was tried for the use of seditious words in conversations at a public-house and in a butcher's shop. 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 523. Briellat, 1793. 2 E. g., Daniel Isaac Eaton, Daniel Holt and others; State Tr., xxii. 574-822; Ibid., xxiii. 214, &c. The Attorney-General stated, on the 13th December, 1792, that he had on his file 200 informations for seditious libels. Adolphus' Hist., v. 524. See also Currie's Life, i. 185; Roscoe's Life, i. 124; Holcroft's Mem., ii. 151. 8 St. Tr., xxii. 522. 4 Ibid., 823, 875. Here again the evidence for the prosecution was contradicted by witnesses for the defence; but no credit being given to the latter, the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and Briellat was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of 1007.1 Dr. Hudson, 1793. The trial of Dr. Hudson, for seditious words spoken at the London Coffee-House, affords another illustration of the alarmed and watchful spirit of the people. Dec. 9th, Dr. Hudson had addressed toasts and sentiments to his friend Mr. Pigott, who was dining with him in the same box. Other guests in the coffee-house overheard them, and interfered with threats and violence. Both the friends were given in charge to a constable: but Dr. Hudson was alone brought to trial. He was found guilty, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and to pay a fine of 2001. Trials at Sessions. Nor were such prosecutions confined to the higher tribunals. The magistrates, invited to vigilance by the king's proclamation, and fully sharing the general Quarter alarm, were satisfied with scant evidence of sedition; and if they erred in their zeal, were sure of being upheld by higher authorities. And thus every incautious disputant was at the mercy of panic-stricken witnesses, officious constables, and country justices. societies for Another agency was evoked by the spirit of the times, dangerous to the liberty of the press, and to the Voluntary security of domestic life. Voluntary societies were repressing established in London and throughout the country, for the purpose of aiding the executive government in the 1 St. Tr., xxii. 910. sedition. 2 The bill of indictment against Pigott was rejected by the grand jury. 8 St. Tr., xxii. 1019. A yeoman in his cups being exhorted by a constable, as drunk as himself, to keep the peace in the king's name, muttered, "D- you and the king too:" for which the loyal quarter sessions of Kent sentenced him to a year's imprisonment. A complaint being made of this sentence to Lord Chancellor Loughborough, he said "that to save the country from revolution, the authority of all tribunals, high and low, must be upheld."— Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vi. 265. discovery and punishment of seditious writings or language. Of these the parent was the "Society for the protection of liberty and property against republicans and levellers." These societies, supported by large subscriptions, were busy in collecting evidence of seditious designs, often consisting of anonymous letters, often of the reports of informers, liberally rewarded for their activity. They became, as it were, public prosecutors, supplying the government with proofs of supposed offences, and quickening its zeal in the prosecution of offenders. Every unguarded word at the club, the marketplace, or the tavern, was reported to these credulous alarmists, and noted as evidence of disaffection. Such associations were repugnant to the policy of our laws, by which the crown is charged with the office of bringing offenders to justice, while the people, represented by juries, are to judge, without favor or prejudice, of their guilt or innocence. But here the people were invited to make common cause with the crown against offenders, to collect the evidence, and prejudge the guilt. How then could members of these societies assist in the pure administration of justice, as jurymen and justices of the peace? In the country especially was justice liable to be warped. Local cases of sedition were tried at the Quarter Sessions, by magistrates who were leaders of these societies, and by jurors who, if not also members, were the tenants or neighbors of the gentlemen on the bench. Prosecutor, judge, and jury being all leagued against the accused, in a time of panic, how could any man demand with confidence to be tried by his peers? 1 sious of Meanwhile, the authorities in Scotland were more alarmed Apprehen- by the French revolution than the English govern democracy in ment; and their apprehensions were increased by Scotland. the proceedings of several societies for democratic reform, and by the assembling in Edinburgh of a "convention of delegates of the associated friends of the 1 Proceedings of the Friends of the Liberty of the Press, Jan. 1793; Erskine's Speeches, iv. 411. |