XX.

lords would be negotiator on this occasion, and BOOK whether they would assert there was a man in France who had the power to treat with them. 1794. SECURITY was the object of the war; but parliament would not, he was persuaded, call upon ministers to declare the degree of security they required, or in what specific mode it was to be obtained. This depended upon a variety of casual circumstances and fluctuating events. He denied the impregnability of the frontier of France, and vindicated the conduct of ministers towards the neutral nations on the ground of political necessity. His, lordship affirmed our commerce to be flourishing, our manufactures increasing, and our revenue prosperous; and expressed his surprise that the noble lords who supported the motion had not brought forward any specific proposal to obviate the difficulties which impeded a negotiation. In the course of a long speech, similar in all respects to his former effusions on the same subject, excepting that all mention of INDEMNITY was omitted, his lordship ran over the catalogue of his common places; while, such is the wonderful effect of prejudice, the house listened with favorable attention, as if he had been uttering oracles of wisdom. On a division there appeared-for the motion 18; against it 103.

The horrible severity of the sentences passed

BOOK upon the Scottish delinquents, Muir, Palmer, XX. &c. even admitting the conviction to be legal 1794. and just, was so flagrant as to excite great attention; and Mr. Adam, a Scottish advocate of great professional ability, on the 4th of February brought forward a motion in the house of commons tending to a revision of the Scottish law of sedition, with a view to assimilate it more nearly to the mild and equitable system of English jurisprudence; but this generous attempt was negatived by a majority of 126 to 31 voices.

Investiga

tion of the

the Scottish judges.

It was a matter of very great doubt whether, conduct of barbarous as the law of Scotland appeared to be, the Court of Justiciary had not exceeded the limits of their power in substituting the punishment of transportation for that of banishment, imposed by the act of queen Anne, for the of fence charged upon the above-named gentlemen, whose character in private life, however mistaken in their public opinions and conduct, was admitted to be in the highest degree respectable. Mr. Adam therefore moved (March 10th), for a copy of the record to be laid before the house, upon the ground of which he meant to question the legality of the sentence; and if his arguments prevailed with the house, as no appeal could lie from the conviction, he should propose an address to his majesty in favor of these unfortunate men. After a masterly legal discussion

XX.

of the question, Mr. Adam made a sudden BOOK transition to the equity and humanity of the proceeding, addressing himself very powerfully 1794. to the feelings of the house?" What (said he) is the crime? Misdemeanor. What is the punishment? Transportation; and that the most aggravated and afflicting known to the law-to a desolate island, an inhospitable desert at the extremity of the earth, where all is rude and barbarous, where they must be deprived of all communication with intelligent beings like themselves, where they can find no social pleasure, but are condemned to live with ruffians whom the sword of justice has spared." The motion was opposed by the lord advocate of Scotland, who praised the Scottish criminal code in high terms, as "much superior to that of England, and far better adapted to the suppression of sedition. As to the latitude which had been objected against, in charging Mr. Muir, it was, his lordship affirmed, impossible to be perfectly accurate in points of time, or to state all, and the particular words which he had uttered on each particular occasion. According to the laws of Scotland, it was not necessary as it was in the English law, to find out every part connected with the point at issue. The prosecutor was not bound to prove what he stated specifically. It was enough to prove what the nature of the

BOOK charge was generally, to entitle him to give XX. evidence of speech, words, or letters."

1794.

Mr. Whitbread said, he had never, on any occasion heard, since he had occupied a seat in that house, a speech which so much excited his indignation as that of the lord advocate; and he hesitated not to declare, that if the law of Scotland was such as represented by the learned lord, it was the law of tyranny and oppression, and it was absurd to speak of personal liberty in that country. There were those who asserted, that the laws of England were too light; that adequate punishment was not here inflicted on the seditious. But if the ministers of this country should dare to introduce into it the laws of Scotland, he trusted that there would be found men bold enough to impeach them.

Mr. Pitt, in conclusion, declared, "that in his opinion, no doubt could be entertained either of the legality of the trials, or the propriety with which the lords of justiciary had exercised their discretion on that occasion;" and the question was lost on a division of 172 against 32 voices *.

*

Whether any doubt could be properly entertained of the legality of the sentences passed by the Scottish judges, may best be resolved by referring to the statute of queen Anne, upon which the several indictments were founded. It is dated Sept. 16, 1703, and is as follows:

"Our sovereign lady considering that by the acts of parlia

XX.

1794.

On the 25th March, Mr. Adam introduced a BOOK third motion, supported by a strong chain of facts and reasonings, relative to the regulation of the justiciary courts of Scotland, purporting to bring their general practice nearer to that of the English courts. But Mr. Secretary Dundas

ment following, viz.-The act of James I, Parliament 2, Cap. 43, intitled, Leasing-makers, Tines, Life, and Goods," &c. &c. the crimes therein mentioned are made capital, and punishable by death and confiscation; and that the said laws have been liable to stretches, and that in respect of their generality, and the various construction which the same may admit, they may be, as to the foresaid capital punishment, of dangerous consequence: doth therefore, with advice and consent of the estates of Parliament, abrogate and discharge, in all time coming, the aforesaid sanction and pain of death and confiscation, contained in the said acts and statutes; and ordains, that the punishment of the crimes therein mentioned, shall for hereafter only be arbitrary, according to the demerit of the transgression, that is, by fining, imprisonment, or banishment; or if the party offender be poor and not able to pay a fine, then to be punished in his body, life and limb always preserved." Certainly the wise and benevolent framers of this law never intended, or could by any possibility imagine, that any person convicted under it should, under the general idea of banishment, be sentenced to fourteen years residence among savages and felons, in a desolate wilderness on the other side of the globe; because this is a punishment worse than death. And surely, an arbitrary power of fine, imprisonment, and banishment in the mildest sense of the term, might suffice, not merely for any purpose of civil policy, but to gratify any or dinary thirst of vengeance.