seditious speeches and other proceedings, in connection with that convention; and on being found guilty, were sentenced to fourteen years' transportation.1 noticed in The circumstances attending these trials, and the extreme severity of the sentences, could These trials not fail to raise animadversions in Par- Farliament. Jan. 31st, liament. The case of Mr. Muir was brought 1794. before the Lords by Earl Stanhope; and Mar. 10th. that of Mr. Fyshe Palmer before the Commons, on a petition from himself, presented by Mr. Sheridan. 3 4 2 Feb. 24th, 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 indig 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 Parl. Hist., xxx. 1298. 4 Scots Act of Q. Anne, 1703, c. 4. 3 Ibid., xxx. 1449. 6 nation, 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.1 These cases were again incidentally brought into Mar 25th. 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 April. 15th. of Lord Lauderdale, but without any results.3 Sympathy for the prisoners. The prisoners were without redress, but their sufferings excited a strong popular sympathy, especially in Scotland. 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.' 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.5 94 Meanwhile, some of the cases of sedition tried by the courts, in England, brought ridicule in England. upon the administration of justice. Daniel Other cases of sedition 1 Ayes, 32; Noes, 171; Parl. Hist., xxx. 1486. 2 Ibid., xxxi. 54. Ibid., 263. For an account of the sufferings of Muir and Palmer on board of the hulks, see St. Tr., xxiii. 377, note. 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. 4 Lord Cockburn's Mem., 102: Belsham's Hist., ix. 77–80. 5 Erected 1844. Eaton, Feb. Isaac Eaton was tried for publishing a contemptible pamphlet entitled 'Politics for the people, Daniel Isaac or Hog's Wash,' in which the king was 24th, 1794. supposed to be typified 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.' Walker, of and others, Another prosecution, of more formidable pretensions, was brought to an issue, in April Thomas 1794. Thomas Walker, an eminent mer- Manchester, chant of Manchester, and six other persons, April 1794. were charged with a conspiracy to overthrow the constitution and 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.2 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. 1 St. Tr., xxiii. 1014. 2 Ibid., 1055. King's message respecting seditious practices, May 12th, May 16th. It was not until late in the session of 1794, that the ministers laid before Parliament any evidence of seditious practices. But in May 1794, some of the leading members 1794. 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.' 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.' 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.3 Lords' A secret committee of the Lords reported that 'a traitorous conspiracy had been formed for committee, the subversion of the established laws and May 17th, constitution, and the introduction of that system of anarchy and confusion which has fatally 19th, 21st. ' Parl. Hist., xxxi. 471. See Chap. XI. 2 Ibid., 495. Report of prevailed in France.' And the committee of the Commons, in a second report, revealed Second evidence of the secret manufacture of arms, Secret Comin connection with the societies, of other mittee (Comdesigns dangerous to the public peace, 3 mons), June 6th. and of proceedings ominously formed upon the French model.2 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. seditious Notwithstanding the dangers disclosed in these reports, prosecutions for seditious libel, Trials for both in England and Ireland, were singu- libels, 1794. larly infelicitous. The convictions secured were few compared with the acquittals; and the evidence was so often drawn from spies and informers, that a storm of unpopularity was raised against the government. Classes, heartily on the side of order, began to be alarmed for the public liberties. They were willing that libellers should be punished: but protested against the privacy of domestic life being ' Parl. Hist., xxxi. 574. • Ibid. 2 Ibid., 688. |