Ministers, to whom the government of a country is intrusted, do wrong if they limit their operations to the punishment of offences which have been committed.  It is at least equally their duty, as far as possible, to prevent their commission; to take precautionary measures, especially at times when there is notorious danger of offences being committed.  At the same time they are bound not to legislate under the influence of panic; not to yield to fears having no substantial ground.  And in their measures of precaution they are farther bound to depart from or overstep the ordinary law as little as is compatible with the attainment of their object.  In all such cases each action of theirs must stand or fall by its own merits; by the greatness of the emergency which has caused it, and by its sufficiency for its end.  For as no law, except such as forbids moral crimes, is invariable, so even the dearest privileges of each subject, being his for the common good, are liable to temporary suspension for that common good.  But the burden of justification lies on those who propose that suspension.

Now, that this bill was such a suspension of the long-established rights of the subject, and so far an overstepping of the principles of the constitution, is admitted by the very fact of its framers only proposing for it a temporary authority.  Had it not invaded a valuable and real right, it might have been made of perpetual obligation.  But it is not easy to see how it can be denied that the dangers against which it was intended to guard were also real.  It was certain that itinerant demagogues were visiting districts with which they had no connection, for the sole purpose of stirring up political agitation.  It was clear that such meetings as they convened, where those assembled could only be counted by tens of thousands, were too large for deliberation, and were only meant for intimidation; and equally clear that, though the existing laws may have armed the magistrate with authority to disperse such meetings, they did not furnish him with the means of doing so without at least the risk of bloodshed (for such a risk must be involved in the act of putting soldiers in motion), and still less did they invest him with the desirable power of preventing such meetings.  It was necessary, therefore, to go back to the original principles and objects of every constitution, the tranquillity, safety, and welfare of the nation at large.  And it does not appear that this bill went beyond what was necessary for that object.  Indeed, though party divisions are not always trustworthy tests of the wisdom or propriety of a measure, the unusual magnitude of the majorities by which on this occasion the minister was supported in both Houses may fairly be regarded as a testimony to the necessity of the bill,[180] while its sufficiency was proved by the abandonment of all such meetings, and the general freedom from agitation in every part Of the country which prevailed in the following year, though its most remarkable incident was one of which demagogues might well have taken advantage, if they had not had so convincing a proof of the power of government, and of the resolution of the ministers to exert it.[181]