The Rev. T.

12th Sept.,

1793.

outward show of a fair trial, Muir stood sentenced to a punishment of unwarrantable, if not illegal, severity.1

A few days after this trial, the Rev. T. Fyshe Palmer 2 Fyshe Palmer, was tried for sedition before the Circuit Court of Justiciary at Perth. He was charged with circulating an address from “A society of the friends of liberty to their fellow-citizens". However strong the language of this paper, its sole object was to secure a reform of the House of Commons, to whose corruption and dependence were attributed all the evils which it denounced. His trial was conducted with less intemperance than that of Muir, but scarcely with more fairness. In deciding upon the relevancy of the indictment, the judges entertained no doubt that the paper was seditious, which they proved mainly by combating the truth of the propositions contained in it. The witnesses for the Crown, who gave their evidence with much reluctance, proved that Palmer was not the author of the address: but had corrected it, and softened many of its expressions. That he was concerned in its printing and circulation was clearly proved.

The judicial views of sedition may be estimated from part of Lord Abercromby's summing up. "Gentlemen," said he, "the right of universal suffrage, the subjects of this country never enjoyed; and were they to enjoy it, they would not long enjoy either liberty or a free constitution. You will, therefore, consider whether telling the people that they have a just right to what would unquestionably be tantamount to a total subversion of this constitution, is such a writing as any person is entitled to compose, to print, and to publish."

1 There is little doubt that the law of Scotland did not authorise the sentence of transportation for sedition, but of banishment only. This was affirmed over and over again. In 1797 Mr. Fox said he was satisfied, "not merely on the authority of the most learned men of that country, but on the information he had himself been able to acquire, that no such law did exist in Scotland, and that those who acted upon it, will one day be brought to a severe retribution for their conduct ".-Parl. Hist., xxxiii. 616.

It seems also that the Act 25 Geo. III. c. 46, for removing offenders, in Scotland, to places of temporary confinement, had expired in 1788; and that "Muir and Palmer were nevertheless removed from Scotland and transported to Botany Bay, though there was no statute then in force to warrant it".-Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 50.

"Mr. Palmer had taken orders in the Church of England, but afterwards became an Unitarian Minister.

3" That portion of liberty you once enjoyed is fast setting, we fear, in the darkness of despotism and tyranny," was the strongest sentence.

When such opinions were declared from the bench, who can wonder if complaints were heard that the law punished as sedition the advocacy of Parliamentary reform? Palmer was found guilty and sentenced to seven years' transportation— not without intimations from Lord Abercromby and Lord Eskgrove that his crime so nearly amounted to treason, that he had narrowly escaped its punishment.1

William

1794.

After these trials, the Government resolved to put down the Trial of Convention of the Friends of the People in Edinburgh, whose Skirving, 6th proceedings had become marked by greater extravagance.2 and 7th Jan., Its leaders were arrested, and its papers seized. In January, 1794, William Skirving, the secretary, was tried for sedition, as being concerned in the publication of the address to the people, for which Palmer had already been convicted, and in other proceedings of the convention. He was found guilty and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. On hearing his sentence, Skirving said: "My Lords, I know that what has been done these two days will be rejudged; that is my comfort, and all my hope". That his guilt was assumed and prejudged, neither prosecutor nor judge attempted to disguise. The solicitor-general, in his opening speech, said: "The very name of British convention carries sedition along with it".-"And the British convention associated for what? For the purpose of obtaining universal suffrage: in other words, for the purpose of subverting the Government of Great Britain." And when Skirving, like Muir, objected to the jurors, as members of the Goldsmiths' Hall Association, Lord Eskgrove said, “by making this objection, the panel is avowing that it was their purpose to overturn the Government".

Maurice Margarot and Joseph Gerrald, who had been Margarot and Gerrald, Jan. sent by the London Corresponding Society to the Convention and March,

1 St. Tr., xxiii. 237.

2 It was now called the British Convention of Delegates, etc. Its members were citizens: its place of meeting was called Liberty Hall: it appointed secret committees, and spoke mysteriously of a convention of emergency.

Ibid., 391-602. Hume's Criminal Commentaries were compiled "in a great measure for the purpose of vindicating the proceedings of the Criminal Court in these cases of sedition"; but "there is scarcely one of his favourite points that the legislature, with the cordial assent of the public and of lawyers, has not put down".-Lord Cockburn's Mem., 164; and see his art. in Edinb. Rev. No. 167, art. 7.

1794.

These trials noticed in Parliament, 31st Jan., 1794, 24th Feb., 10th March.

25th March.

15th April.

of the Friends of the People at Edinburgh, were tried for seditious speeches and other proceedings in connection with that convention; and on being found guilty, were sentenced to fourteen years' transportation.1

The circumstances attending these trials, and the extreme severity of the sentences, could not fail to raise animadversions in Parliament. The case of Mr. Muir was brought before the Lords by Earl Stanhope; and that of Mr. Fyshe Palmer before the Commons, on a petition from himself, presented by Mr. Sheridan.3

2

The cases of Muir and Palmer were afterwards more fully laid before the House of Commons by Mr. Adam. He contended, in an able speech, that the offences with which they had been charged were no more than leasing-making, according to the law of Scotland, for which no such punishment as transportation could be inflicted. He also called attention to many of the circumstances connected with these trials, in order to show their unfairness; and moved for a copy of the record of Muir's trial. The trials and sentences were defended by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Pitt; and strongly censured by Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Fox. The latter denounced, with eloquent indignation, some of the extravagant expressions which had proceeded from the Bench, and exclaimed, "God help the people who have such judges!" The motion was refused by a large majority.5

These cases were again incidentally brought into discussion, upon a motion of Mr. Adam respecting the criminal law of Scotland. They were also discussed in the House of Lords, upon a motion of Lord Lauderdale, but without any results.

1 Mr. Fox said of Gerrald, in 1797, "his elegant and useful attainments made him dear to the circles of literature and taste. Bred to enjoyments, in which his accomplishments fitted him to participate, and endowed with talents that rendered him valuable to his country, . . the punishment to such a man was certain death, and accordingly he sank under the sentence, the victim of virtuous, wounded sensibility."-Parl. Hist., xxxiii. 617.

2 Ibid., xxx. 1298.

4 Scots Act of Q. Anne, 1703, C. 4.

5 Ayes, 32; Noes, 171; Parl. Hist., xxx. 1486.

3 Ibid., 1449.

6 Ibid., xxxi. 54.

7 Ibid., 263. For an account of the sufferings of Muir and Palmer on board of the hulks, see St. Tr., xxiii. 377, n. Palmer, Gerrald, and Skirving died abroad; Muir escaped to Europe, and died in Paris, in 1799.—Ann. Reg., 1797, Chron., p. 14, and 1799, Chron., p. 9.

The prisoners were without redress, but their sufferings Sympathy for excited a strong popular sympathy, especially in Scotland. the prisoners. "These trials," says Lord Cockburn, "sank deep, not merely into the popular mind, but into the minds of all men who thought. It was by these proceedings, more than by any other wrong, that the spirit of discontent justified itself throughout the rest of that age." 1 This strong sense of injustice rankled in the minds of a whole generation of Scotchmen, and after fifty years found expression in the Martyrs' Memorial on Calton Hill.2

Meanwhile, some of the cases of sedition tried by the Other cases of courts in England brought ridicule upon the administration sedition in England. of justice. Daniel Isaac Eaton was tried for publishing a Daniel Isaac contemptible pamphlet entitled "Politics for the people, or Eaton, 24th Hog's Wash," in which the king was supposed to be typified Feb., 1794. under the character of a game cock. It was a ridiculous prosecution, characteristic of the times: the culprit escaped, and the lawyers were laughed at.3

Another prosecution, of more formidable pretensions, was Thomas brought to an issue in April, 1794. Thomas Walker, an Manchester, Walker, of eminent merchant of Manchester, and six other persons, were and others, charged with a conspiracy to overthrow the constitution and April, 1794. Government, and to aid the French in the invasion of these shores. This charge expressed all the fears with which the Government were harassed, and its issue exposed their extravagance. The entire charge was founded upon the evidence of a disreputable witness, Thomas Dunn, whose falsehoods were so transparent that a verdict of acquittal was immediately taken, and the witness was committed for his perjury. The arms that were to have overturned the Government and constitution of the country proved to be mere children's toys, and some firearms which Mr. Walker had obtained to defend his own house against a church and king mob, by whom it had been assailed. That such a case could have appeared to the officers of the Crown worthy of a public trial, is evidence of the heated imagination of the time, which discovered conspiracies and treason in all the actions of men.

It was not until late in the session of 1794 that the

1 Lord Cockburn's Mem., 102; Belsham's Hist., ix. 77-80.

2 Erected 1844.

3 St. Tr., xxiii. 1014.

4 Ibid., 1055.

sage respect

practices, 12th May,

1794.

16th May.

King's mes- Ministers laid before Parliament any evidence of seditious ing seditious practices. But in May, 1794, some of the leading members of the democratic societies having been arrested, and their papers seized, a message from the king was delivered to both Houses, stating that he had directed the books of certain corresponding societies to be laid before them.1 In the Commons, these papers were referred to a secret committee, which first reported upon the proceedings of the Society for Constitutional Information, and the London Corresponding Society; and pronounced its opinion that measures were being taken for assembling a general convention "to supersede the House of Commons in its representative capacity, and to assume to itself all the functions and powers of a national legislature ".2 It was also stated that measures had recently been taken for providing arms, to be distributed amongst the members of the societies. No sooner had the report been read, than Mr. Pitt, after recapitulating the evidence upon which it was founded, moved for a bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, which was rapidly passed through both Houses."

Lords' com

19th, 21st.

A secret committee of the Lords reported that "a traitorous mittee, 17th, conspiracy had been formed for the subversion of the established laws and constitution, and the introduction of that system of anarchy and confusion which has fatally prevailed in France".4 Second Re- And the committee of the Commons, in a second report, report of Secret vealed evidence of the secret manufacture of arms in connecCommittee (Commons), tion with the societies, of other designs dangerous to the 6th June.

public peace, and of proceedings ominously formed upon the French model. A second report was also issued, on the following day, from the committee of the Lords. They were followed by loyal Addresses from both Houses, expressing their indignation at these seditious practices, and the determination to support the constitution and peace of the country." The warmest friends of free discussion had no sympathy with sedition, or the dark plots of political fanatics: but, relying upon the loyalty and good conduct of the people, and the soundness of the constitution, they steadily contended that these dangers were exaggerated, and might be safely left to the ordinary administration of the law.

1 Parl. Hist., xxxi. 471.
4 Parl. Hist., xxxi. 574.

2 Ibid., 495.
5 Ibid., 688.

3 See Chap. XI.
6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 909-931.