264 A 1^ N U A L REGISTER, 1794. 



. five days after the meeting of par- 

 liament in the present sessioHj he 

 intimated to the House, tliat he 

 would, on the 4th of February, 

 move for a bill to grant such an ap- 

 peal. He stated at the same time 

 that the cases of Mr. Muir and Mr. 

 Palmer, which were unforeseen at 

 the period of his original notice, 

 would lead him, in some measure, 

 to enlarge his plan, by moving, if 

 the bill should be received, for an 

 instruction to the committee on the 

 bill to insert a clause that should 

 I'.ave a retrospect to all cases in 

 which the courts of justiciary had 

 pronounced judgments in the yesx 

 1793 ; thereby rendering it compe- 

 tent for Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer 

 to appeal for error in law. 



Mr. Adam's motion for leave to 

 bring in such a bill being rejected, 

 he gave notice on the 14th of Fe- 

 bruary, that he would bring for- 

 ward a motion for the relief of 

 'Messrs. Muir and Palmer, in another 

 form. The consideration of his 

 motion was deferred to the 24th of 

 February : and in the mean time, 

 Mr. Sheridan presented a petition 

 from Mr. Palmer, representing, 

 that he conceived the sentence 

 passed upon him by the high court 

 of justiciary, from which there was 

 no appeal, to be unjust. 



Mr. Pitt objected to the receiv- 

 ing of this petition, which, he said, 

 would be an undue interposition 

 between the sentence of a compe- 

 tent court, and its execution. 



The petition wesjustifiedby Mr. 

 Fox, on the principle that it was 

 the duty of the legislature to attend 

 to all the complaints on thesubject. 



But Mr. I)undas signified, that 

 the sentence was ali-eady executed, 

 the warrant for the transportation 

 of Mr. Pcdrfier being bpth signed 



and issued. This proceeding was 

 loudly condemned by opposition, 

 Vi'hich asserted that while the House 

 was about to deliberate on the law- 

 fulness of the sentence, to suffer it 

 to be executed was a mockery of 

 justice. A motion was directly 

 made to stop the sailing of the 

 transport ; but negatived by a great 

 majority, and the discussion 'of the 

 petition was put oft to the 27th. 



Mr. Sheridan produced on that 

 day sucli valid pr-cedents in proof 

 of the right to present it, that Mr, 

 Pitt wasobiigedto retracthis words, 

 and the petition was admitfed. 



Mr.Adam, onthe lOth of March, 

 moved accordingly for a review of 

 the trials of Thomas' Muir and the 

 Rev. Fysche Palmer. From the re^ 

 cords demanded, his object, he said, 

 was to question the legality of the 

 sentences passed upon them. But 

 as no appeal could lie from the de- 

 cision of tlie court, however ques- 

 tionable, he proposed, in conse- 

 quence of the doubtfulness of the 

 case, to move for the production of 

 certain records relating to the trial, 

 and for a petition to the crown in 

 their favour. The crimes for which 

 thosemen were indicted, werestated 

 in Scotland leasing-making, corre- 

 sponding to that misdemeanor in 

 England, called a public libel on the 

 government, and tending to disturb 

 the peace. No other crime was 

 charged in their indictment ; and 

 transportation could not be legally 

 inflicted for leasing-making : the 

 only punishment for which by law, 

 was fine, imprisonment, or banish^ 

 mcnt. Nor, if the acts charged in 

 the indictments did not amount to 

 leasing-making, were they charged 

 with any crime known to the laws 

 of Scotland. He then adverted to. 

 various circumstances attending the 



trialj 



