The "wicked and seditous" words charged against M'Laren were: "That our sufferings are insupportable is demonstrated to the world; and that they are neither temporary nor occasioned by a transition from war to peace is palpable to all, though all have not the courage to avow it. The fact is, we are ruled by men only solicitous for their own aggrandisement; and they care no further for the great body of the people than (as) they are subservient to their accursed purposes. If you are convinced of this, my countrymen, I would therefore put the question-Are you degenerate enough to bear it? Shall we, whose forefathers set limits to the all-grasping power of Rome?-shall we, whose forefathers, at the neverto-be-forgotten field of Bannockburn, told the mighty Edward, at the head of the most mighty army that ever trod on Britain's soil, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further' ?— shall we, I say, whose forefathers defied the efforts of foreign tyranny to enslave our beloved country, meanly permit, in our day, without a murmur, a base oligarchy to feed their filthy vermin on our vitals, and rule us as they will? No, my countrymen. Let us lay our Petitions at the foot of the throne, where sits our august Prince, whose gracious nature will incline his ear to listen to the cries of his people, which he is bound to do by the laws of his country. But should he be so infatuated as to turn a deaf ear to their just Petition, he has forfeited their allegiance. Yes, my fellow-townsmen, in such a case, to hell with our allegiance." 1

The Lord Advocate, who prosecuted him, .contended that: "Any speech or writing calculated and intended to vilify the House of Commons, stating, for instance, that it is not the House of Commons, that it is the mere nominal and pretended representative of the people, and does not represent them, that it has become corrupt, falls under the crime of sedition."

Mr. Clerk, who defended M'Laren, made a most powerful speech: "If the right of petitioning belongs to the people, they must of necessity have the right of deliberation upon the subject of their Petitions, to consult with each other at public meetings, to be advised by those who are able to advise them, or think themselves able, upon the various points which may occur in considering what are grievances, and what are the

2 Lord Cockburn says this last sentence was "clearly sedition."

remedies to be proposed. . . . And generally, whatever the grievance or fancied grievance is, it may lawfully be the subject of a Petition to the Legislature, and for the same reason it may lawfully be the subject of deliberation and discussion, even in public meetings held for the purpose of petitioning. There can be no limits to this right of petitioning, and previously deliberating, for when it is limited, the right is gone. The right is to present unreasonable as well as reasonable Petitions. Or if unreasonable Petitions were unlawful, the Legislature alone is the judge of what is reasonable or unreasonable in Petitions. If the right of petitioning could be restrained by the courts of law, there would be an end to the right of petitioning-a fundamental law of this monarchy, a law, the palladium of our other rights. . . . It has been reserved for the present Lord Advocate to bring such a case as the present to trial, in which, if the verdict find the persons guilty of sedition, the right of petitioning, hitherto unchallenged, seems to be attacked almost in direct terms. Is the right of petitioning then to be interrupted in this extraordinary manner by bringing the Petitions into the Court of Justiciary? The sacred right of petitioning is the bulwark of the right of free discussion."

Jeffrey, in his defence of Baird for selling reports of the meetings, also made an excellent speech. He declared "that a great part of the evils arose from a defect in one of the great bodies of the Legislature, from want of due communion of sentiment between the body of the people, and those whose function it is to express their sentiments and watch over their interests.

"There is a dissension known to this country, and known to all free countries, and to them only, which, however terrible it may appear to the sons of habitual slavery, or the minions of arbitrary power, or the contented and envied possessors of present influence, is of that wholesome nature that on it the life and health of the Constitution ultimately depend. It is not a frightful commotion, but a healthful exercise, not an exhausting fever, but a natural movement proceeding from the vigour of the Constitution, and at once indicating and maintaining that vigour unimpaired. In a free country, where the principles of Government are well under

stood, and the laws well administered, parties will ever be found opposed to parties. . . This dissension is the life and heart and spirit of our Constitution; and true policy should promote discussion on those great points on which discussion must always be keen, and, in some degree, stormy and violent, because it is on them that the liberty, the prosperity, and happiness of the nation depend, and to them that all men of spirit, ingenuity, and talents have devoted their whole lives. . . . If this dissension were prevented, liberty would be extinguished. That very hostility which appears to excite so much apprehension is the parent of public prosperity, and of all the advantages in a free state for which it is worth while to contend." Though the Petition was received by Parliament, both the prisoners were convicted; but being men of exemplary character, the Jury recommended them to merey, and they escaped with a sentence of six months' imprisonment each, and then to find bail.

The subject which had driven the Government into this wild panic, and led to such repressive legislation, was brought before the House of Commons on the 20th of May by Sir F. Burdett, who moved for a select Committee "To take into consideration the state of the representatives of the people in Parliament."1 More Petitions, he asserted, had been presented on this subject than on any other occasion whatever, for there were Petitions from every part of the country bearing not less than a million of signatures. "The House of Commons has lost its former connection with the people; they no longer regard themselves as their stewards or servants, but as a master uniting in himself all the different springs and species of authority." 2

Brand, who seconded the motion, spoke of the unprecedented energy with which the people had petitioned for reform: "There had been at no former period so great and decided an expression on the part of the public in favour of a Parliamentary reform."

William Lamb-afterwards to be Lord Melbourne and Liberal Prime Minister-was not prepared to attach much weight to this expression of opinion.

He said: "When I consider the manner in which these 2 Ibid. p. 728.

1 Hansard, vol. xxxvi. p. 705.

Petitions have been prepared and procured, the pilgrimages which have been undertaken for the purpose of promoting them; above all, when I recollect the speeches which at public meetings have preceded and recommended them, the gross misrepresentations, the delusive promises, the wild hopes, and the excessive exaggerations, under the influence of which they have been voted, I cannot consent to consider them as expressing in any degree the cool, deliberate, well-understood sense of the people of England."1

In a later speech (27th June 1817) he said: "What had been stated at those meetings respecting Parliamentary reform, and the declarations that they were to resort to physical force if their Petitions were rejected, indicated a most dangerous spirit. In fact, the Petitions which had been presented to that House were not Petitions for reform, but for revolution, since they prayed for Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage." 2

One of the illustrious "virtual representatives" also took occasion to express his feelings on the subject.

"I declare," said the Honourable J. Ward, member for the rotten and corrupt borough of Ivelchester, with some sixty electors purchasable by the highest bidder,-"I declare that a motion for reform in Parliament produces upon my mind the same effect as a motion for a democracy-a motion for a revolution."

Seventy-seven members voted for Sir Francis Burdett's proposal. The Government phalanx against it numbered 265.

One more measure for the repression of the Platform was to be adopted by the Government before the session came to an end. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was to expire on the 1st July. Before that date was reachednamely, on the 3d June-a message came from the Regent with more papers in a sealed bag, and again in both Houses Secret Committees were appointed.

The House of Lords Committee reported on the 12th June. In their report is to be seen the same deliberate effort to excite panic, and to exaggerate and make the most of any foolish acts of a few rash or ignorant men, if not actually to invent alarms.

1 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxxvi. p. 790. 2 Ibid. p. 1226.

3 Ibid.

p. 758.

Manchester this time was said to have been the intended scene of an insurrection. The Lords Committee betrayed the real object of their hostility by making a deliberate attempt to connect the cause of Parliamentary reform in Parliament with the acts of the most extreme men outside. "It was," they said, "about this time (May) that the period for another general rising appears to have been fixed for as early a day as possible after the discussion of an expected motion for reform in Parliament."1

As if to give colour to this statement, almost the very day that this Report was presented to the House of Lords came news of a "rising" in Derbyshire. The House of Commons Committee, which reported a few days after the Lords Committee, were able to refer to it. "In some populous villages in Derbyshire a more open insurrection took place on the 9th June.... It began with attacks upon houses, for the purpose of procuring arms, in one of which a servant was wantonly shot. About 200 insurgents were soon assembled, mostly armed either with pikes or with firearms, and began their march towards Nottingham, in expectation of increasing their numbers as they went, and of finding that place in full insurrection. . . They were, however, intercepted by detachments of cavalry, which came up with them in different directions, and totally dispersed them.” 2

Foolish and criminal as was this outbreak its cause could be easily traced to its actual source. It was not the Platform that was responsible for it. Place plainly puts the responsibility on other shoulders. He says: "Attempts had been made by means of spies to get up treasonable conspiracies in the north of England, but as long as petitioning the Houses of Parliament was thought useful, none, not even the meanest and most ignorant of the people, could be trepanned into acts of treason. 3

"But when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended they were able to seduce a few miserable men to attempt an insurrection, and having found a man of resolute and desperate character, reduced to the state of a parish pauper, they placed

1 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxxvi. p. 954.

2 Ibid. p. 1095, House of Commons Report.

8 Place, MSS., 27,809, p. 83.