36

IMPERFECTIONS OF INCIDENTAL PUBLIC MEETINGS.

THE FOLK-MOTE; PUBLIC MEETING; AND PETITION.

THE principle of local self-government may be manifested in more shapes than one; and the fundamental laws and institutions of England have always recognized more than one mode of its practical exercise. It having been seen that the shapes of local self-government already dwelt on, have retained less of vitality in this country than they have done in Hungary, it will be important and interesting briefly to notice some of those other shapes, and to remark the comparative vitality in which they exist in the respective countries.

It has been already remarked, that local self-government may be either actual and immediate, or by representation. And it has been also remarked, that the actual and immediate form is retained in some instances in England such as parish vestries. But other instances exist, in which the right of Folk-mote, or Public Meeting, is still, and even more actively, exercised. However much the representative system may have been adopted, the immediate and direct reference of public matters to themselves, and their inherent right to interfere in them, has always, and most properly, been maintained and insisted on by the people of England. On all and any subjects of public interest, either to the nation at large, or to any local district, folk-motes, public meetings, have always been in the habit of being held. And this inherent right though oftentimes attempted to be interfered with, limited, and shackled has happily been maintained with little successful permanent infringement to the present hour; and is certainly exercised, at this day, as often, and as decidedly, as at any former period of English history. And results of the most important character, to the political and other measures taken in this country, have, within the last quarter of a century, as at many former times, followed from the exercise of this unquestionable and most important right.

Essential, however, as is this right, and unquestionable as is the importance of its jealous maintenance, the very statement of its nature shows how imperfect it must always be as a substitute for the institutions of local self-government last dwelt upon, which is what, in point of fact, it has become in this country. In cases of sudden emergency, in cases of a special nature and of certain and universal interest, such public meetings may have an effect equal to that of those institutions; sometimes, by their spontaneity, of even greater immediate effect. But such cases are, necessarily, of comparatively rare occurrence. On the other hand, circumstances of as real, though not so exciting, an interest to individuals, the district, and the public, are of daily occurrence; and, for these to be dealt with well and lawfully and usefully, the careful consideration of them by the public, and the well considered expression

IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION.

37

of public opinion upon them, are equally necessary as in matters like the former. But, unless a recognized and habitual organization and machinery exist, that public opinion has no opportunity of being so expressed. In the cases of established and regular institutions of local self-government, such as those last dwelt on, the organization and machinery exist permanently, and always ready, for having any and every subject brought, by any one, under notice and discussion; and for carrying out, in a lawful and regular way, the opinions expressed upon it. To call together an incidental public meeting, on a given subject, requires, on the contrary, a special, and, what is important, a one-sided effort. Besides the impartiality and freedom of discussion, which are so essential, but which are thus prevented, this effort always falls on some one or two individuals. Such individuals, besides the unfairness of having to bear the exclusive burthen in more ways than one, are always liable to the charge from their opponents (and unless there be opposition there is no freedom) of being busy-bodies, and of putting themselves forward. Many will be ready to take an active and valuable part in a discussion, who are not able or willing, and justifiably not willing, to incur this burthen and these insinuations. Again; such a public meeting being merely incidental, and no regular machinery existing of which it forms a part, the greatest danger is always run of the resolutions adopted not being fully and effectively carried out. There is no one who has the authority, and the duty, necessary to ensure this. Further such meetings being merely incidental and occasional, there cannot exist that habit of discussion -- supposing they were ever really impartial, instead of being always practically onesided which is so extremely important to the arrival at just conclusions, and, therefore, to the giving weight to such conclusions. They are necessarily apt, therefore, to degenerate into mere confirmations of something cut and dried beforehand, instead of giving the sound result of free discussion. And, however important such confirmations must always be, as expressing the general sense of large masses of the people, they can never have the value, either as true and free expressions of popular opinion, or as means to the healthy development of individual energy of thought and independence of character, among those who are assumed to have expressed such opinions, that must attach to meetings which, duly taking place in regular and ordinary course, have, after full discussion, expressed the free opinions of the majority of an assembly, in which the minority have had exactly the same opportunity and freedom of expressing their opinions.

These considerations, and others which might be added, conclusively

*It is obvious that a (so-called) free press cannot supply the deficiency of these. A press, ever so intelligent (and the English press is, beyond a question, by far the most intelligent in the world,) is only the expression of individual opinions, not the result of free discussion. The true value of a free press is the conveyance to the public of all sides of every question, as is necessarily done by the habitual reporting of free discussions in institutions of true local self-government; but as is never done by mere party advocacy, however talented, nor yet by reports of public meetings in support of one side. The reader will immediately see that this is not the fault of the existing English press. It is the necessary consequence of the absence of those habitual free discussions io report. The Times gives both sides of a parliamentary debate.

+ See G. C. (J. T. S.), p. 352.

38

PRINCIPLE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION:

show that the mere exercise of the right of public meeting, on special occasions, can never, in any efficient or practical degree, supply a substitute for those institutions of local self-government under which such meetings take place, from time to time, in frequent and regular course, and as matters of course; at which all and any subjects can, at any time, be brought under discussion by any persons; are fully discussed; and, having been discussed, the result of that discussion is carried out by an organized and regular machinery. And, while the right of special public meeting ought never to be abandoned, the efficiency and weight of even those special meetings, the necessity of which will sometimes occur, will, it is obvious, be very greatly increased by the vital and constant activity of such institutions as have been dwelt on.

Public meetings are quite as common in Hungary as in England. They are indeed much more common, and have much greater influence. But they are there held as necessary and regular parts of the institutions of local self-government existing in every village and county, exactly as was anciently the case in England. The proposition for a special public meeting, such as occurs in England, is always looked upon, and very properly, as suspicious, and indicating a wish to avoid discussion; since a regular county meeting can always be called, by the regular machinery, at any time when necessary. At such meetings, however, and which, by extraordinary circumstances, may from time to time become necessary, the utmost readiness in debate exists, and the greatest independence in its exercise. But the county meetings, summoned at any time when necessary, as well as regularly meeting once a quarter, are the great organs for the expression of public opinion. And the regular and lawful machinery exists, by which that which is determined on in these meetings has effect given to it. This has been unquestionably a far more important means to the preservation of the rights and liberties of Hungary, than any habit of holding incidental public meetings could have ever been. A constant watchfulness is habitually kept up over every measure; and thus hasty and empirical legislation is prevented. And it must always be remembered that the rights and liberties of freemen always have been, and always will be, in much greater danger from disguised and insidious attacks than from open and avowed ones; whence the greater necessity for this constant watchfulness and jealous scrutiny of every measure.

This point cannot be closed without mention of the recognized and sacred character which all these folk-motes had among our Anglo-Saxon fathers. Heavy penalties are denounced against those who interrupted the discussion and business of the folk-mote. "If any one disturb the folk-mote," say the laws of Alfred, "by drawing his weapon, one hundred and twenty shillings [an enormous sum in those days] to the alderman as penalty." And the possible occasion for holding them even on the most holy festivals is recognized. Thus it is said in the Laws of Canute:"Sunday marketting is also earnestly forbidden; and every folk-mote, UNLESS it be for matter of much need."

Public meetings, under any form of local self-government, can, of course, never have other than the general control and management. The carrying out of instructions, and any matters of detailed adminis

AND TRUE APPLICATIONS OF THAT RIGHT.

39

tration, must always be committed to others. Hence the choice of various administrative and executive officers responsible to their constit uents; and hence, under many circumstances, the necessity for representative deliberative assemblies, responsible also to their constituents. But the very existence of a representative assembly implies the right of laying before that assembly, by any one or more of its constituents, the statement of any matter coming within the scope of the object of its appointment. And so it has always been held in this country; and "petitions" to Parliament and other representative bodies and responsible individuals, embodying such statement, and asking redress or otherwise, have always been in use. And, in the same way, the king of England being appointed for the benefit of the community, and for the discharge of certain duties affecting the common weal, every Englishman has the inalienable right of directly petitioning the Crown. That" it is the birthright of the subject to petition" has been always held. Even though the seven bishops were tried for a libel contained in a petition to the king, the Crown lawyers did not pretend to doubt, much less to deny, this inherent right. Nay, it is curious to find the Attorney-General saying, - "We all know the Council doors are thronged with petitioners every day, and access to the king by petition is open to every body." It was, however, thought proper in the Bill of Rights to make one of the points expressly "claimed, demanded, and insisted on," by those then "vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties," to be "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king; and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal."

In Hungary, while the right of individual petition has been, when rarely necessary, used, the counties have always held and exercised a similar practice with respect to the national representatives. But they have exercised it much more stringently than has been the case in England; having been in the habit of giving, on each question, explicit "instructions" to their representatives, and, having exercised the right, to recall them if they did not obey those instructions. Did space allow, it might easily be shown how extremely important this usage has really been, in the special circumstances of Hungary, to the preservation of the liberties of the nation. But it is a usage which has great and manifest disadvantages. Unless the independent action of members of Parliament is secured, the deliberations of the national assembly will always be in danger of losing their due command of the national respect. On the matters committed to their charge, the representatives should have free liberty of action; - the shortness of the unrenewed duration of their office being the one great and best security against the abuse or neglect of it. The fundamental laws and institutions of England require this shortness of duration; and septennial acts are in direct violation of that law, as well as highly and directly dangerous to the preservation of the rights and liberties of Englishmen. On this point, a later page will offer the more proper opportunity for remark.

The subject of "Petition" cannot be closed without remarking that, like everything else which has its foundation in a principle, if that principle be lost sight of, the practice loses its propriety, and may become dangerous to liberty, instead of a wholesome preservative of it.

The inherent right of Petition or Memorial can only properly be exercised, either to give information of a special fact claiming inquiry or redress, or to express true public opinion. It can only, therefore, bę legitimately exercised, -1, by individuals, as individuals; 2, by an associated body having some known and definite object of association, and in reference to that object; or, 3dly, as the result of a public meeting, or, more justly and influentially, of some discussion at the regular and impartial assembly of an institution of local self-government. The practice of getting up petitions and memorials, with numbers of individual signatures, is a most vicious one. It is highly dangerous to liberty. It argues a fear of open discussion; and logically assumes that what is done can only be done by hole and corner means. There is no subject under heaven to a petition, in reference to which signatures cannot be got. Whether such petition or memorial profess to be "national" or any otherwise, it does not represent public opinion, and never ought to have any weight whatever.* It would indeed be a rule most highly protective of free institutions, if no petition or memorial were ever allowed to be received, except such as come, either from one or more individuals on matter special to themselves; from an associated body on the object of its association; or as the formal result of a public meeting, either incidental, or in the regular course of an institution of local self-government. The abuse, whether through ignorance or design, of an important and inherent right, has often been too gladly made the excuse for unlawfully hindering or shackling the due exercise of that right.

The right and use of " Petition," then, as well as the right and use of folk-mote or public meeting, are but modes of carrying out the principle of local self-government. There is one other mode of carrying out the same principle, which, from its great importance, must not be passed

over.

TRIAL BY JURY.

It is written in the laws of King Edgar, (A. D. 959,) as being the law of England in reference to the Hundreds : "First, that they meet always within four weeks, and that

do justice to another."

And again, in the same laws it is written :

every man

"In the hundreds, as in other gemotes, we will that folk-right [individual justice] be done in every suit, and a day given when it shall be pronounced."

And yet again, in the laws of Canute, it is written :

-

"And let no man seek the king, but if he might not have right in his hundred gemote; and let each seek the hundred gemote, under penalty; even as it is right to seek it."

* This is apart from the obvious liability to fraudulent signatures.