Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/730

 The Judicial History of Individual Liberty.

673

THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. X. BY VAN VECHTEN VEEDER, Of the New York Bar. THE steady advance toward liberty of opinion which had been made the first half of George III.'s reign was rudely checked by the violence of the French Revo lution. The widespread alarm that was felt throughout the civilized world at the ex cesses of the French revolutionists was fur ther aggravated in England by the extrava gances of a small but turbulent body of so cial and political agitators. The first of the repressive measures which have already been referred to warned the people against the seditious writings which were being cir culated among them, and commanded the magistrates to apprehend their authors, printers and promulgators wherever found; and the reactionary period thus begun, which will now be illustrated by reference to the public trials, was not finally termi nated until the passage of the Reform Bill ir 1832. During this period freedom of speech was severely restrained, and crim inal prosecutions abounded. The number of State prosecutions for political libels and seditious words during the years 1792 and 1793. was only one less than the total num ber of such trials from 1704 to 1789. Brief reference to some of them will indicate the extravagant activity of the government. The notorious Lord Gordon was prose cuted for composing and circulating among the prisoners in Newgate a crazy harrangue which was construed to be a libel on the judges (22 St. Tr. 175). Duffin and Lloyd, two inmates of the King's Bench prison, were prosecuted for posting this placard in the prison: "This house to let. Peace able possession will be given by present tenants on or before ist day of January,

1793, being the commencement of the first year of liberty in Great Britain.'' (22 St. Tr. 317). Winterbotham, a Baptist minister, who had spoken favorably in a sermon of the French Revolution, and had asserted that the taxes were oppressive, was found guilty of sedition, although seven witnesses testified that he had not used the language imputed to him. (22 St. Tr. 875). Thomas Brillât was charged with having said, in con versation at a public house, that there could be no reform without revolution, and that he wished there were no kings. On con flicting evidence he was convicted, impris oned twelve months, and fined one hundred pounds. (22 St. Tr. 909). Dining with a friend at a coffee house, Dr. Hudson had proposed some toasts: "The French Re public," "The System of Equality," etc. He was overheard by others, and in conse quence was convicted of sedition, impris oned two years and fined two hundred pounds. (22 St. Tr. 1019). See also, the cases of Holt (22 St. Tr. 1189), Whyte (ib. 1237) and Binns (26 St Tr. 595). It is refreshing to find that the govern ment occasionally overreached itself in these ridiculous prosecutions, which only served to bring odium upon the administration of justice. Daniel Eaton, who had been twice prosecuted for publishing Paine's works (22 St. Tr. 753, 785), was put on trial m 1794 for the publication of a contemptible pamphlet entitled, Politics for the People, or Hog's Wasb, in which the king was supposed to be typified under the character of a game cock. The whole affair was so trivial that the prisoner escaped punishment (22 St. Tr. 753). In 1795 John Reeves, the author of