verting the government of Great Britain." And when Skirving, like Muir, objected to the jurors, as members of the Goldsmith's Hall Association, Lord Eskgrove said, "by making this objection, the panel is avowing that it was their purpose to overturn the government.” and March, 1794. Maurice Margarot1 and Joseph Gerrald, who had been Margarot and sent by the London Corresponding Society to Gerrald, Jan. the Convention 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. These trials noticed in Parliament. Jan. 31st, 1794. 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 March 10th. Commons, on a petition from himself, presented by Mr. Sheridan.5 Feb. 24th, 4 The cases of Muir and Palmer were afterwards more fully brought 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 leasingmaking, 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 1 St. Tr., xxiii. 603. 2 Ibid., 805. 8 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. 4 Parl. Hist., xxx. 1298. 5 lbid., xxx. 1449. 6 Scots Act of Queen Anne, 1703, c. 4. ... 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.1 These cases were again incidentally brought into discussion, upon a motion of Mr. Adam respecting March 25th. the criminal law of Scotland. They were also discussed in the House of Lords, upon a motion of Lord April 15th. Lauderdale, but without any results.3 prisoners. The prisoners were without redress, but their sufferings excited a strong popular sympathy, especially Sympathy in Scotland. "These trials," says Lord Cockburn, for the "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 of sedition Meanwhile, some of the cases of sedition tried by the courts, in England, brought ridicule upon the Other cases administration of justice. Daniel Isaac Eaton was in England. tried for publishing a contemptible pamphlet inti- Daniel Isaac tuled "Politics for the people, or Hog's Wash," in 24th, 1794. which the king was supposed to be typified under the character 1 Ayes, 32; Noes, 171; Parl. Hist., xxx. 1486. 2 Ibid., 54. Eaton, Feb. 3 Ibid., xxxi. 263. For an account of the sufferings of Muir and Palmer on board 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., 9. 4 Lord Cockburn's Mem., 102; Belsham's Hist., ix. 77-80. 5 Erected 1844. of a game-cock. It was a ridiculous prosecution, characteristic of the times: the culprit escaped, and the lawyers were laughed at.1 Thomas Walker, of Another prosecution, of more formidable pretensions, was brought to an issue in April, 1794. Thomas Walker, an eminent merchant of Manchester, and six other persons, 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. 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 ministers laid before Parliament any evidence of seditious practices. But in May, 1794, some of the leading members of the democratic societies having been arrested, and their papers seized, a message King's message respecting seditious practices, May 12th, 8 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, 1 St. Tr., xxiii. 1014. 2 Ibid., 1055. 8 Parl. Hist., xxxi. 471. 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.2 And the committee Committee June 6th. A secret committee of the Lords reported that "a traitorous conspiracy had heen formed for the subversion Lord's comof the established laws and constitution, and the mitte, May 17th, 19th, introduction of that system of anarchy and confusion 21st. which has fatally prevailed in France."3 of the Commons, in a second report, revealed Second Reevidence of the secret manufacture of arms, in port of Secret connection with the societies, of other designs (Commons), dangerous to the 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 their 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 oyalty and good conduct of the people, and the soundness of he constitution, they steadily contended that these dangers were exaggerated, and might be safely left to the ordinary administration of the law. 6 Notwithstanding the dangers disclosed in these reports, 1 Parl. Hist., xxxi. 495. 2 See infra, p. 258. 3 Parl. Hist., xxxi. 574. 4 Ibid., 688. 5 Ibid., 688. 6 Ibid., 909-931. Trials for seditious libels, 1794. prosecutions for seditious libel, both in England and Ire land, were singularly 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 invaded by spies, who trafficked upon the excitement of the times.1 1794. Crimes more serious than seditious writings were now to be State trials, repressed. Traitorous societies, conspiring to subvert the laws and constitution, were to be assailed, and their leaders brought to justice. If they had been guilty of treason, all good subjects prayed that they might be convicted; but thoughtful men, accustomed to free discussion and association for political purposes, dreaded lest the rights and liberties of the people should be sacrificed to the public apprehensions. In 1794, Robert Watt and David Trials of and David Downie for Sept. 1794. Downie were tried, in They were accused of Robert Watt a conspiracy to call a convention, with a view to usurp legislative power, to procure arms, and resist high treason, the royal authority. That their designs were dangerous and criminal was sufficiently proved, and was afterwards confessed by Watt. A general convention was to be assembled, comprising representatives from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and supported by an armed insurrection. The troops were to be seduced or overpowered, the public offices and banks secured, and the king compelled to dismiss his ministers and dissolve Parliament. These alarming projects were discussed by seven obscure individuals in Edinburgh, of whom Watt, a spy, was the leader, and David Downie, a mechanic, the treasurer. Two of the seven soon withdrew from the conferences of the con 1 Adolphus' Hist., vi. 45, 46. |