did not repeal the statute of Charles II.;1 but the statute places little restraint on the exercise of the right of petitioning as it now practically exists. It would not be difficult to comply with the requisitions of the statute, if it were desired to present a petition "signed and accompanied by excessive number of people;" but in modern times there is no occasion for such display. It is not now usual to petition the king for alteration of matters in church or state: since the legislative power has become wholly vested in the parliament, and the king's ministers are always members of one or other of the houses, petitions to the king, individually, have been gradually disused ;—when the people communicate with their sovereign directly, it is usually on occasions which call for congratulatory addresses. The houses of parliament have acted in accordance with the statute;their standing orders provide that petitions addressed to either house of parliament must (except in a few instances, of which petitions of the City of London are the chief) be presented by a member of the house. The right of petitioning is a necessary adjunct of the representative system. It is the mode, and the only mode, by which the people communicate with the parliament; and more especially with their own house of representatives, to inform them of their views and opinions on subjects under the consideration of parliament; or by which they suggest any measure that they consider necessary or advantageous to the public good. The right is not confined to electors. As the members of the house of commons are representatives of the whole body of the people, although elected by a part only, so the right of petitioning belongs equally to all; and may be exercised by any individual, whether an elector or not; and either alone or in conjunction with others. The exercise of the right is of great importance; for the number of petitions and of petitioners, and also the absence of petitions, in favour of, or against any measure before parliament, are considered to indicate the feelings and opinions 1 Rex v. Lord George Gordon, Douglas Reports, p. 571, CH. VI.] PARLIAMENTARY REGULATIONS. 527 of the people concerning it; and are taken into consideration, as an argument of weight, in both houses. To facilitate reference to this index of the people's opinions, the house of commons appoints "a committee on public petitions," under whose directions the petitions are classified and analyzed. This analysis gives the name of each petition, the number of the signatures, and its general object. Reports of the committee are printed three times a week, giving these particulars, and also summing up the total numbers of petitions and signatures in favour of, or against each public measure; and when a petition appears from its importance, or its peculiar arguments and facts, to require special notice, it is printed at length, in an appendix to the Report. By these means not only are the two houses enabled to estimate the number and importance of the petitions, and to deduce from them the people's wishes; but the people themselves may obtain the views and opinions of each other by reading the reports, which are procurable at the cheapest rate of purchase. 1 The standing orders enforce on the members entrusted with petitions, the duty of reading, before they present them, in order to assure themselves that no flagrant violation of the standing orders regulating petitions, is apparent on the face of them. In the house of lords a peer may comment on the petition he presents, and upon the general matters to which it refers; and if this should lead to a debate, there is no rule of the house to limit its duration. But in the house of commons, to whom, as representatives of the people, petitions are far more numerously addressed than to the lords, and where economy of time is of great importance, no debate, nor even introductory speech is allowed, unless the petition refer to some matter of immediate importance. But, if required, it may be read by the clerk at the table. This economy of time is compensated by the publications of the committee on public petitions, to which there is no similar publication in the house of lords.2 1 1 May's Parliamentary Practice, p. 410. 2 Ibid., p. 408. Petitions to the legislature now generally proceed from PUBLIC MEETINGS, county, city, town, parochial, or any other district,-convoked by the sheriff, mayor, or other of ficial, on the written requisition of some of the freeholders, burgesses, electors, or inhabitants; but no such concurrence of the official authorities is necessary,- -a meeting may assemble by the spontaneous act of any portion of the people.1 The constitutional right is undoubted; all that the law requires is that the meeting assemble peaceably, for the purpose of exercising the constitutional right, and that it be. conducted without any violence, leading to a breach of the peace. In the event of a meeting, legal in its inception and declared purpose, becoming tumultuous and riotous, it would then be illegal, and liable to be dispersed by the magistrates under the authority of the Riot Act. That act was passed in the reign of George I.2 It provides that if any persons, to the number of twelve or more, being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the public peace, and being required or commanded by a justice of the peace, sheriff, mayor, or other officer, by proclamation in the king's name, to disperse, shall unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously remain or continue together for one hour, such continuing together shall be adjudged felony, and the offender shall suffer death. The magistrate is directed, among the rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, with a loud voice to command, or cause to be commanded-silence, and then to make, or cause to be made, the proclamation following: - - "Our sovereign lord the king chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse them 1 Public meetings for political purposes, it is said, cannot be traced to a higher origin than the year 1769. (Hallam's Constitutional History, vol. ii. p. 420.) 2 1 Geo. I., stat. ii. cap. 5. An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters. CH. VI.] THE RIOT ACT. 529 selves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act, made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies.-God save the King!" Persons who do not disperse within the hour, may be seized and apprehended by any magistrate or peace officer, or by any private person commanded by them to assist; and must be carried before the magistrates of the county or place, to be proceeded against according to law. If any of the rioters happen to be killed, maimed, or hurt in the dispersing, seizing, or apprehending of them, by reason of their resistance, the magistrates and all other persons acting in enforcing the law shall be free, discharged, and indemnified against all persons. The great severity of this law is to some extent mitigated by the warning it requires to be given, and the time it allows for dispersion. It also protects the people from sudden attacks by the military, who usually in such cases act under the direction of the magistracy, and do not use their arms until the Riot Act has been read, and the hour has expired. But if actual outrage has commenced, and the mob collectively, or a part of it, or any individual, within and before the expiration of the hour, attempts or begins to perpetrate an outrage amounting to a felony, it is the duty of the magistrates and all present, to endeavour, by the most ef fectual means, to stop the mischief, and to apprehend the offender.1 1 State Trials, 493. CHAPTER VII. THE PEOPLE. LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. Importance of Liberty of the Press.-A Modern Right.-Not in the Declaration of Rights.-Nature of Freedom of the Press.-Contest before its Establishment.—It lay in the Courts of Law.-Libel Act. -Truth of a Libel.-Libel Act of 1843.-Newspapers.-Printers. THE Liberty of the Press is analogous in its object and tendency to the right of petitioning; as the one is the direct, so the other is the indirect mode which the people possess, of bringing their views and opinions of public affairs under the notice of the king's government, of the parliament, and of each other. The value of this liberty, as an instrument of publicity, needs no explanation. Long experience has made Englishmen aware of the advantage which results from the free discussion of national affairs, of the merits and tendency of laws in progress, of the measures or policy of the government; whilst it is impossible to estimate how much misconduct or injustice is averted or restrained by the dread of public exposure; or how much good conduct, emulation, and zeal-are secured by the hope of public commendation. and applause. The liberty of free commentary on public affairs is one of modern times; anything analogous to it was impracticable until printing was invented; and long afterwards the crown suppressed it, by regulating the number of presses and printers, and prohibiting new publications, unless previously approved by licensers of its own appointment. Breaches of these laws were punished in the court of star-chamber; and |