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 purpose of stirring up political agitation. It was clear that such meetings as they convened, where those assembled could only be counted by tens of thousands, were too large for deliberation, and were only meant for intimidation; and equally clear that, though the existing laws may have armed the magistrate with authority to disperse such meetings, they did not furnish him with the means of doing so without at least the risk of bloodshed (for such a risk must be involved in the act of putting soldiers in motion), and still less did they invest him with the desirable power of preventing such meetings. It was necessary, therefore, to go back to the original principles and objects of every constitution, the tranquillity, safety, and welfare of the nation at large. And it does not appear that this bill went beyond what was necessary for that object. Indeed, though party divisions are not always trustworthy tests of the wisdom or propriety of a measure, the unusual magnitude of the majorities by which on this occasion the minister was supported in both Houses may fairly be regarded as a testimony to the necessity of the bill,[180] while its sufficiency was proved by the abandonment of all such meetings, and the general freedom from agitation in every part Of the country which prevailed in the following year, though its most remarkable incident was one of which demagogues might well have taken advantage, if they had not had so convincing a proof of the power of government, and of the resolution of the ministers to exert it.[181]
Notes:
[Footnote 172: Against Junot, at Vimiera and Rolica, in 1808; Soult, at Oporto, and Victor, at Talavera, in 1809; Massena and Ney, at Busaco and Torres Vedras, in 1810; Massena and Bessieres, at Fuentes d'Onor, in 1811. Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz had been taken in 1812, in spite of the neighborhood of Soult and Marmont. In July, 1813, a month after the formation of Lord Liverpool's ministry, he routed Marmont at Salamanca; in 1813 he took Madrid, and routed Jourdain at Vittoria; and, having subsequently defeated Soult at Sauroren, he crossed the French frontier in October.]
[Footnote 173: A resolution, moved by Mr. Canning, to take the claims of the Roman Catholics into consideration in the next session had been carried in June by the large majority of 129; and when Lord Wellesley brought forward a similar motion in the House of Lords, not only did Lord Liverpool "protest against its being inferred from any declaration of his that it was, or ever had been, his opinion that under no circumstances would it be possible to make any alteration in the laws respecting the Roman Catholics," but the Chancellor, Lord Eldon, who was generally regarded as the stoutest champion of the existing law, rested his opposition entirely on political grounds, explaining carefully that he opposed the motion, "not because he quarrelled with the religion of the Roman Catholics, but because their religious opinions operated on their political principles in such a way as to render it necessary to adopt some defence against them," and met the motion by moving the previous question, avowedly because "he did not wish, at once and forever, to shut the door of conciliation;" and the previous question was only carried by a single vote-126 to 125.]