PUBLIC SECURITY.
" Discussion " is not plotting, and Sir George Grey's Govern- ment Security Bill no more invades freedom of discussion than it provides for the defence of the capital from the hazard of tu- multuous assemblages. It effects a considerable improvement in the law, and removes a very mischievous doubt ; but it by no means renders the law complete. It is a preposterous absurdity that the law of treason in Ire- land should be laser than it is in England ; but so it is, because one temporary statute which applied to England was passed be- fore the Union, and though the act which made that permanent was passed after the Union, it is doubted whether extension as well as duration was thus given to the original statute. Sir George Grey's bill removes that doubt, by extending the act to Ireland, at the same time modifying it.
The modifications are of two kinds. Treasonable attempts on the life and person of the Sovereign remain punishable with death; but the treason which consists in the endeavour to de- throne the Sovereign, to levy war against the authorized Govern- ment, to intimidate or coerce the Legislature, is to be punishable with transportation. By the other alteration, the promotion of such designs "by open and avowed speaking " is made a felony, and rendered punishable, as treason, equally with any other form of plotting. By this twofold alteration, the law will be able to deal effectually with those overt traitors in Ireland who publicly counsel rebellion, war, and invasion. There is but one excuse for the Crown lawyers in not having supplied the defect long ago— that the excessive multiplicity and intricacy of the Statute-book renders it impossible to note hundreds of inconsistencies and lacunae which exist in it. But the excuse recalls another neglect—the supineness that leaves on the shelf that Criminal Code which was already so far in a state of preparation. A cry is raised by some hasty and undiscriminating Consti- tutionists, that the punishment of "open and advised speaking" will restrict freedom of discussion : that clause has nothing to do with discussion. If we interpret it rightly, every public speaker will be free to discuss any subject whatsoever, from potatoes to re- publics, and will be able to advocate the merits alike of "billy greens " or American forms of government, without stint or qua- lification. Any one who holds that our limited Monarchy secures less freedom and happiness than the deputation appointed by the Paris mob now secures to France, however eccentric that opinion might be, would be able to urge it with just the same freedom and force as at present, and, we conceive, would be able just as freely to recommend it to the consideration of the Legislature by peti- tion. Interpreted according to the plain sense of the words, the bill places no restriction, of any sort, upon discussion—it does not relate to discussion at all. What it does relate to is not dis- cussion but action ; what it does tend to prevent is the deposition of the Sovereign, the levying of war against the Government, and the coercion of the Legislature : you are henceforward to be more effectually restrained from making treasonable attempts of those kinds, first by the application of more appropriate and prac- ticable penalties to the offence, secondly by debarring you from promoting such treasonable projects through public speeches as well as other means. But the licence, or rather the sufferance, which now permits men to promote actual rebellion in public speeches, forms no part of free discussion. The bill, we repeat, is not one to restrict "open and advised speaking," but only actual treason whether promoted by writing or by speech. The champions of free discussion only bring discredit on themselves by objecting to Sir George Grey's bill, since their objection implies that they desire a right to commit open and advised treat- son. It could only be by a twist that any Law-officers of the Crown could make the bill seem to touch any pure discussion, on any subject ; a dishonest and tyrannical Government need not wait for this statute to twist the law ; and our insurance against the success of dishonest tyranny is public opinion acting through trial by jury. The jury will judge whether any words which may be impugned be discussion or plotting. Instead of complaining that the Government bill is too strin- gent on public discussion, we think that discussion itself might derive advantage from some further regulation to render those who engage in it more immediately responsible for keeping to discussion. Such regulations would be very possible. For ex- ample, we see no reason why public speaking should not be placed on a footing similar to public printing : every printed paper is illegal unless it has to it the name of a printer, and in like manner every public meeting should be illegal unless it had a chairman individually answerable for due order. For everything which appears in a newspaper the publisher is prim& facie liable ; and so might the chairman of a public meeting be. The office would thus become one of more real responsibility, and therefore one of more honour and dignity. The bill does nothing to supply defects in the laws which relate to the act of public meeting—nothing to prevent such an in- fliction as the useless and costly suspension of business on Mon- day last, with all the consequent chances of disaster. It is evident that such "demonstrations" are not held for purposes of "discus- sion." They are displays of physical force ; and, granting for the sake of argument, that the people have a right occasionally to exhibit their force, at least crowded streets are not the proper arena for the display. Governments do not choose such grounds for the display of their forces. Without restricting or even ques- tioning the right of the British people to meet, it would be quite possible, and quite reasonable, to protect large towns from being selected as the field for those popular reviews. The feeling attested by the cheerful promptitude of the citizens of London in coming forth as special constables is very satis- factory; but it does not appear quite so certain that if there had been any necessity for active service the respectable individuals would have known very well what to do, or would have been very efficient forces with their new-made truncheons. For defence against actual insurrection, they would have wanted three things— habits of disciplined organization, weapons, and practice in their use. The bill does nothing to supply the defect which exists in the law of national self-defence while the militia act remains a dead letter and unamended. The love of order was universally displayed ; the power to maintain it by civil machinery was not so distinctly shown. On the other hand, with some such force as that recently suggested by Mr. Frederick Hill, not only would there have been an efficient and trusty defence, but it would have served as an excellent nucleus and directing staff for the whole posse of special constables. Here is a defect in our insti- tutions that wants looking to quite as much as the defect in the law of treason.
Previous page
