and his miscreant gang. To the honour of Englishmen, few were guilty of plotting this bloody and insensate crime, the discovery of which filled all classes of men with horror and disgust.1 Hunt and 1820. While the country was still excited by this startling Trials of event, Hunt and his associates were convicted, with Sir C. five others, of unlawfully meeting together, with divers Wolseley, other persons unknown, for the purpose of creating discontent and disaffection, and of exciting the king's subjects to hatred of the government and constitution. Hunt was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment, and the others to one year's imprisonment. Sir Charles Wolseley and Harrison, a dissenting preacher, were also tried and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment for their participation in the Stockport meeting.2 the contest between and liberty of opinion. Let us now examine the general results of the long Review of contest which had been maintained between the illregulated, mischievous, and often criminal struggles of authority the people for freedom, on the one hand, and the harsh policy of repression maintained by the government, on the other. The last twenty-eight years of the reign of George III. formed a period of perilous transition for liberty of opinion. While the right of free discussion had been discredited by factious license, by wild and dangerous theories, by turbulence and sedition,-the government and legislature, in guarding against these excesses, had discountenanced and repressed legitimate 1 Ann. Reg., 1820, p. 34, and Chron. 29; St. Tr., xxxiii. 681; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 311— 325. Lord Sidmouth himself says (p. 320):-"Party feelings appeared to be absorbed in those of indignation, which the lower orders had also evinced very strikingly 2 Ann. Reg., 1820; Chron. 41; Final domination of opinion over agitation. The advocates of parliamentary reform had Hitherto the government had prevailed over every adverse influence. It had defied parliamentary opposition by never-failing majorities: it had trampled upon authority. the press: it had stifled public discussion. In quelling sedition, it had forgotten to respect liberty. But henceforward, we shall find its supremacy gradually declining, and yielding to the advancing power and intelligence of the people. The working classes were making rapid advances in numbers, industrial re 1 On May 12th, 1817, Earl Grey truly said: "It is no longer the encroachments of power, of which we are jealous, but the too great extension of freedom. Every symptom of popular uneasiness, every ill-regulated effort of that spirit, without which liberty cannot exist, but which, whilst it exists, will break out into occasional excesses, affords a pretence which we seem emulous to seize, for imposing on it new restraints."-Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvi. 446. sources, and knowledge. Commerce and manufactures, bringing them together in large masses, had given them coherence and force. Education had been widely extended; and discontent had quickened political inquiry. The press had contributed to the enlightenment of the people. Even demagogues who had misled them, yet stirred up their minds to covet knowledge, and to love freedom. The numbers, wealth, and influence of the middle classes had been extended, to a degree unknown at any former period. A new society had sprung up, outnumbering the limited class by whom the state was governed; and rapidly gaining upon them, in enlightenment and social influence. Superior to the arts of demagogues, and with every incitement to loyalty and patriotism,-their extended interests and important position led them to watch, with earnestness and sober judgment, the course of public affairs. Their views were represented by the best public writers of the time, whose cultivated taste and intellectual resources received encouragement from their patronage. Hence was formed a public opinion of greater moral force and authority. The middle classes were with ministers in quelling sedition: but against them when they menaced freedom. During the war they had generally sided with the government: but after the peace, the unconciliatory policy of ministers, a too rigorous repression of the press, and restraints upon public liberty, tended to estrange those who found their own temperate opinions expressed by the leaders of the Parliamentary opposition. Their adhesion to the Whigs was the commencement of a new political era1,—fruitful of constitutional growth and renovation. 1 See supra, p. 49. The press not purified by rigour. Confidence was established between constitutional statesmen in Parliament, and the most active and inquiring minds of the country. Agitation, no longer left to demagogues and operatives, but uniting the influence of all classes under eminent leaders, became an instrument for influencing the deliberations of Parliament,— as legitimate as it was powerful. From this time, public opinion became a power which ministers were unable to subdue, and to which statesmen of all parties learned, more and more, to defer. In the worst of times, it had never been without its influence but from the accession of George IV. it gathered strength until it was able, as we shall see, to dominate over ministers and parliaments. Meanwhile, the severities of the law failed to suppress libels', or to appease discontents. Complaints of both evils were as rife as ever. A portion of the press still abounded in libels upon public and private character, which the moral tone of its readers did not yet discourage. It was not in default of legal repression that such libels were published: but because they were acceptable to the vitiated taste of the lower classes of that day. If severity could have suppressed them, the unthankful efforts of the attorney-general, the secretary of state, and the magistrates, would have long since been crowned with success. But in 1821, the ConstiSociety, tutional Association officiously tendered its intervention, in the execution of the law. The dangers of The Constitutional 1821. 1 Mr. Fremantle, writing to the lating most extensively, and which are dangerous much beyond anything I can describe. I have an opportunity of seeing them, and can speak, therefore, from knowledge." -Court and Cabinets of Geo. IV., i. 68; Cockburn's Mem., 308. such a scheme had been exposed nearly thirty years before1; and were at once acknowledged in a more enlightened and dispassionate age. This association even ventured to address a circular to every justice of the peace, expounding the law of libel. An irresponsible combination, embracing magistrates and jurymen throughout the country, and almost exclusively of one political party, threatened the liberty of the press, and the impartial administration of justice. The Court of King's Bench, sensible of these dangers, allowed members of the association to be challenged as jurors; and discussions in Parliament, opportunely raised by Mr. Brougham and Mr. Whitbread, completed the discomfiture of those zealous gentlemen, whom the vigilance of Lord Sidmouth, the activity of the attorney-general, and the zeal of country justices had failed to satisfy.2 Had ministers needed any incitement to vigour, they would have received it from the king himself, who took the deepest personal interest in prosecutions of the press3; and from men of rank and influence, who were over-sensitive to every political danger.4 Associa The government had soon to deal with a political Catholic organisation more formidable than any which had tion. hitherto needed its vigilance,-the Catholic Association 1 See supra, p. 141. 2 Ann. Reg., 1821, p. 205; Edinb. Rev., vol. xxxvii. (1821) 114131; Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., v. 891, 1046, 1487-1491. On January 9th, 1821, His Majesty wrote to Lord Eldon:"As the courts of law will now be open within a few days, I am desirous to know the decision that has been taken by the attorneygeneral upon the mode in which all |