discovery and punishment of seditious writings or language. Of these the parent was the "Society for the protection of liberty and property against republicans and levellers." These societies, supported by large subscriptions, were busy in collecting evidence of seditious designs,—often consisting of anonymous letters, often of the reports of informers, liberally rewarded for their activity. They became, as it were, public prosecutors, supplying the government with proofs of supposed offences, and quickening its zeal in the prosecution of offenders. Every unguarded word at the club, the marketplace, or the tavern, was reported to these credulous alarmists, and noted as evidence of disaffection.

Such associations were repugnant to the policy of our laws, by which the crown is charged with the office of bringing offenders to justice, while the people, represented by juries, are to judge, without favor or prejudice, of their guilt or innocence. But here the people were invited to make common cause with the crown against offenders, to collect the evidence, and prejudge the guilt. How then could members of these societies assist in the pure administration of justice, as jurymen and justices of the peace? In the country especially was justice liable to be warped. Local cases of sedition were tried at the Quarter Sessions, by magistrates who were leaders of these societies, and by jurors who, if not also members, were the tenants or neighbors of the gentlemen on the bench. Prosecutor, judge, and jury being all leagued against the accused, in a time of panic, how could any man demand with confidence to be tried by his peers? 1

sions of

1

Meanwhile, the authorities in Scotland were more alarmed Apprehen- by the French revolution than the English governdemocracy in ment; and their apprehensions were increased by Scotland. the proceedings of several societies for democratic reform, and by the assembling in Edinburgh of a "convention of delegates of the associated friends of the

1 Proceedings of the Friends of the Liberty of the Press, Jan. 1793; Erskine's Speeches, iv. 411.

people" from various parts of England and Scotland. The mission of these delegates was to discuss annual parliaments and universal suffrage; but the excitement of the times led them to an extravagance of language, and proceedings which had characterized other associations. The government resolved to confront democracy and overawe sedition; but in this period of panic, even justice was at fault; and the law was administered with a severity discreditable to the courts and to the public sentiments of that country. Some of the persons implicated in obnoxious publications withdrew from the jurisdiction of the courts; 2 while those who remained found little justice or mercy."

Trial of Muir,

1793.

Thomas Muir, a young advocate of high talents and attainments, having exposed himself to suspicion by his activity in promoting the proscribed cause of par- Aug. 30th, liamentary reform, and as a member of the convention of delegates, was brought to trial before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, for sedition. Every incident of this trial marked the unfairness and cruel spirit of his judges.

In deciding upon the relevancy of the indictment, they dilated upon the enormity of the offences charged, — which, in their judgment, amounted almost to high treason,

4

- upon the excellence of our constitution, and the terrors of the French revolution. It was plain that any attempt to amend our institutions was, in their eyes, a crime. All the jurymen, selected by the sheriff and picked by the presiding judge,5 were members of an association at Goldsmith's Hall, who had erased Muir's name from their books as an enemy to the

1 Ann. Reg., 1794, p. 129; State Tr., xxiii. 385, et seq., 398.

2 James Tytler, St. Tr., xxiii. 2; John Elder and William Stewart, Ibid. 25; James Smith and John Mennons, Ibid. 34; James T. Callender, Ibid. 84.

8 See Trial of Walter Berry and James Robertson, State Tr., xxiii. 79. 4 The Lord Justice Clerk (Lord Braxfield) termed it "the happiest, the best, and the most noble constitution in the world, and I do not believe it possible to make a better.". St. Tr., xxiii. 132. 5 State Tr., xix. 11, n.; Cockburn's Mem., 87.

constitution. He objected that such men had already prejudged his cause, but was told he might as well object to his judges, who had sworn to maintain the constitution! The witnesses for the crown failed to prove any seditious speeches, while they all bore testimony to the earnestness with which he had counselled order and obedience to the law. Throughout the trial, he was browbeaten and threatened by the judges. A contemptible witness against him was "caressed by the prosecutor, and complimented by the court," while a witness of his own was hurriedly committed for concealing the truth, without hearing Muir on his behalf, who was told that "he had no right or title to interfere in the business." In the spirit of a bygone age of judicature, the Lord Advocate denounced Muir as a demon of sedition and mischief. He even urged it as a proof of guilt that a letter had been found among his papers, addressed to Mr. Fyshe Palmer, who was about to be tried for sedition!

Muir defended himself in a speech worthy of the talents and courage which were to be crushed by this prosecution. Little did they avail him. He knew that he was addressing men by whom his cause had been prejudged; but he appealed worthily to the public and to posterity; and affirmed that he was tried, in truth, for promoting parliamentary reform. The Lord Justice Clerk, Braxfield,1 confirmed this assertion, by charging the jury that to preach the necessity of reform, at a time of excitement, was seditious. learned judge also harangued the jury upon parliamentary reform. "The landed interest alone had a right to be represented," he said; as for the rabble, who have nothing but personal property, what hold has the nation of them?" Need it be told that the jury returned a verdict of guilty? And now the judges renewed their reflections upon the enor

66

This

1 Robert McQueen of Braxfield-Lord Braxfield, "was the Jeffreys of Scotland." "Let them bring me more prisoners, and I will find them law," was said to have been his language to the government. - Lora Cockburn's Mem., 116.

mity of the prisoner's crimes. Lord Henderland noticed the applause with which Muir's noble defence had been received by the audience, which could not but admire his spirit and eloquence, as a proof of the seditious feelings of the people; and though his lordship allowed that this incident should not aggravate Muir's punishment, proceeded to pass a sentence of transportation for fourteen years. Lord Swinton could scarcely distinguish Muir's crime from high treason, and said, with a ferocity unworthy of a Christian judge, "if punishment adequate to the crime of sedition were to be sought for, it could not be found in our law, now that torture is happily abolished." He concurred in the sentence of transportation, referring to the Roman law where seditious criminals "aut in furcam tolluntur, aut bestiis objiciuntur, aut in insulam deportantur." "We have chosen the mildest of these punishments," said his lordship! Lord Abercromby and the Lord Justice Clerk thought the defendant fortunate in having escaped with his life, — the penalty of treason; and the latter, referring to the applause with which Muir had been greeted, admitted that the circumstance had no little weight with him in considering the punishment.1

--

What was this but an avowal that public opinion was to be repressed and punished in the person of Muir, who was now within the grasp of the law? And thus, without even the outward show of a fair trial, Muir stood sentenced to a punishment of unwarrantable, if not illegal, severity.2

1 St. Tr., xxiii. 118-238; Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vi. 261. In reference to this trial, Lord Cockburn says, "if, instead of being a Supreme Court of Justice, sitting for the trial of guilt or innocence, it had been an ancient commission appointed by the crown to procure convictions, little of its judicial manner would have required to be changed." - Memorials, p. 100.

2 There is little doubt that the law of Scotland did not authorize 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

The Rev. T.
Fyshe

Palmer, Sept.
12th, 1793.

A few days after this trial, the Rev. T. Fyshe Palmer 1 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,2 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 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.

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

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