oppressive
under the circumstances then prevailing. Nor can exception be taken on
the ground of principle to another for "preventing delay in the
administration of justice in cases of misdemeanour," which, indeed, was
amended, by Holland, with Eldon's consent, so as to benefit defendants
in state prosecutions. Two were designed to curb still further the
liberty of the press. One of these made the publication of seditious
libels an offence punishable with banishment, and authorised the seizure
of all unsold copies. When we consider the extreme virulence of
seditious libels in those days, this act does not wear so monstrous an
aspect as its radical opponents alleged, but happily it soon became a
dead letter, and was repealed in 1830. The other, imposing a stamp-duty
on small pamphlets, only placed them on the same footing with
newspapers. The last of the new measures--"to prevent more effectually
seditious meetings and assemblies"--was practically aimed against all
large meetings, unless called by the highest authorities in counties and
corporate towns, or, at least, five justices of the peace. It was,
therefore, a grave encroachment on the right of public meeting, and the
only excuse for it was that it was passed under the fear of a
revolutionary movement, and limited in duration to a period of five
years.

[Pageheading: _SOCIAL LEGISLATION._]

Nor can it be denied that, as a whole, this restrictive code was
successful. From a modern point of view it may appear less arbitrary
than the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ act for a whole year
(1817-18), but it was assuredly tainted with a reactionary spirit, and
was capable of being worked in a way inconsistent with civil liberty.
That it was not so worked, on the whole, and caused less hardship than
had been anticipated, was not so much the result of changes in the
government itself, as of economic progress in the nation, aided by a
healthier growth of public opinion. The violence which marked the early
stages of the reform movement has been described as a safety-valve
against anarchy; it was, in reality, the chief obstacle to a sound and
comprehensive reform bill. While it lasted, the middle classes and
liberals of moderate views were estranged from the cause; when it
ceased, the demand for a new representative system became irresistible.

Whatever allowance may be made for the coercive policy of the government
during the dark period of storm and stress which succeeded