HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



265 



trial, which he decidedly repro- 

 bated as oppressive and unjust ; and 

 condemned the sentence altogether, 

 as illej^?.], arbitrar)', and u:iwar- 

 rar'a'ole. On these grounds, Mr. 

 Adam niaintaincd, that their pu- 

 nishment exceeded all the bounds 

 of equity and moderation. He 

 concluded by declaring, that he 

 had undertaken the present business 

 ne»th<j- from interebted motives, 

 personal afftction to the sufferers, 

 whom he knew not, nor disrespect 



'to the judges who had presided at 

 this Iria'j but solely from a persua- 

 sion, that an impartial administra- 

 tion of justice was the surest pre- 

 servative of public liberty, and that 

 the perversion of the l;iw, where the 

 jntertst of the whole community 



.was at stake, tended to introduce 

 despotism or anarchy. 



A midtitude of arguments and 

 reasonings were brought forward 

 on tliis important subject. The 

 Lord Advocate of Scotlimd, Mr. 

 V/yndham, and Mr, Pitt^ contended 

 strongly for the propriety of the 

 sentence, and of the proceedings of 

 the Scotch courts. The first of 

 these gentlemen even went so far 

 as to assert the superiority of the 

 Scotch over the English laws, for 

 the punishment of libels and the 

 suppression of sedition. — Ttie se- 

 cond seemed to insinuate, that if 

 the English laws were not equal to 

 those purposes, the Scottish law 

 should be svibstiluted. — The sup- 

 porters (jf Mr. Adam's motion were 

 ]\Ir. Fox and Mr. Shcrid?n. The 

 former spoke in very severe terms 

 of the sc: timents and opinions de- 

 livered })y the Lords of justiciary, 

 one of whom had said t!)at no man 

 had a riglit to 'speak of t!ie constitu. 

 tion, unltss he possssed lauded pro- 

 perly; ar.d anotherhad asserted, that 



since the abolishment of torture, 

 there was no adequce punishment; 

 for sedition. 



Associations, said Mr. Fox; had 

 net many years before been formed 

 in England, on the very plan and 

 principles of those formed in Scot- 

 land by Mr. Muir andhis associates. 

 These unfortunate men, said Mr. 

 Fox, did no more than the Chan- 

 cellor of the Exchequer and the 

 Duke of Richmond had done be- 

 fore them. The addresses of these 

 two noblemen to the people of 

 England, were not merely to peti- 

 tion for a reform in parliament — 

 not simply to state abuses, and pray 

 for redress, but to demand them as 

 their right. 



Mr. Sheridan was not less pointed 

 at the Lord Advocate, whom he 

 reprehended with the most animated 

 indignation for his preference of 

 the Scotch to the English law. 

 Such assertions, he said, ought not 

 to be made In the hearing of the 

 House of Commons, without meet- 

 ing explicit abhorrence and con- 

 tempt. He examined with great 

 freedom and spirit the particulars 

 of the trial, which both he and 

 Mr. Fox exerted their utmost abili- 

 ties to represent as a base and ini- 

 quitous .'tretch of legal tyranny. 

 The motion was on a division re- 

 jected by 139 against 32. 



Mr. Adam still persisted In his de- 

 termination to introduce, if possible, 

 some regulations into the Scottish 

 courts of justiciary, that would be 

 more favourable than the present to 

 the liberty of the subject, and to a 

 milder administration of justice. 



But he was most strenuously op- 

 posed by Mr. Dundas, who coin- 

 cided with the J..0id Advocate In 

 declaring, that the Eugli h laws 

 were not sufficiently seveie in their 



punishmeut 



