ing advocate for the universal right of suffrage. Do you not know that he presided in Societies, and, like Mr. Pitt, advised a universal formation of such Societies all over the kingdom? Shall what was patriotism in 1782 be criminal in 1793?" But it was all in vain. The Lord Justice-Clerk Braxfield, not alone charged direct against the prisoner, but in one respect declared the charge against the prisoner proven. "In examining whether the prisoner is guilty of sedition or not," said this "coarse and dexterous ruffian," "there are two things you should attend to, which require no proof.1 The first is, that the British Constitution is the best in the world. Is not every man secure in his life, liberty, and property? Is not happiness in the power of every man, except those perhaps who, from disappointment in their schemes of advancement, are discontented? . . . The other circumstance is the state of this country during last winter. There was a spirit of sedition and revolt going abroad which made every good subject seriously uneasy. I coincide in the opinion that proposing reform is very ill-timed. I leave it to you to judge whether it was perfectly innocent or not in Mr. Muir, at such a time, to go about among ignorant country people, and among the lower classes of the people, inducing them to believe that a reform was absolutely necessary to preserve their safety and their liberty. You will keep this in remembrance, and judge whether it appears to you, as to me, to be sedition. "As Mr. Muir has brought many witnesses to prove his general good behaviour, and his recommending peaceable measures and petitions to Parliament, it is your business to judge how far this should operate in his favour. Mr. Muir might have known that no attention could be paid to such a rabble. What right had they to representation? He (the judge) could have told them that the Parliament would never listen to their Petition. How could they think of it? A government in every country should be just like a corporation; 2 and in this country it is made up of the landed interest which alone has a right to be represented; as for the rabble, who 1 State Trials, vol. xxiii. p. 229. 2 The Scotch corporations at this time were dens of jobbery and corruption. have nothing but personal property, what hold has the nation of them?" The prisoner was found guilty. The five judges delivered sentence. The first said: "The punishment to be inflicted is arbitrary, and we have our choice of banishment, fine, whipping, imprisonment, and transportation," and adopting the latter, sentenced him to fourteen years' transportation. The second said: "The crime of which he was convicted was of the most heinous kind, and there was scarcely a distinction between it and high treason, and fourteen years' transportation was a mild punishment. 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." And the third and the fourth of the judges concurred, and the fifth also, after hesitating whether the transportation should be for life or fourteen years, although practically it was the same thing, and said: "Perhaps it is owing to the humanity of the Lord Advocate that the prisoner had not to stand trial for his life." And so the first bolt was launched against the Platform, and the first victim was sent to his death in a penal settlement beyond the seas. All this on the 31st of August 1793-a long way apparently from free political discussion on the Platform. 1 Within a fortnight another prosecution-that of the Reverend T. F. Palmer, for circulating a seditious paper-took place at Perth, resulting in a sentence of seven years' transportation, a trial referred to here only as showing the energy of the Government in Scotland, and as noteworthy for the views it evoked from one of the judges on universal suffrage. Lord Abercromby said: "The right of universal suffrage is a right which 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 a writing as any person is entitled to print and to publish.” Leaving Scotland, for the moment, where the Government 1 State Trials, vol. xxiii. p. 237. 2 Ibid. p. 368. could work their own will without impediment of any sort against any one who made use of the Platform for popular purposes, it is desirable to revert to the proceedings of the reformers in England. Here the London Corresponding Society were making great advances, and by October had attained such an amount of popular support as enabled them to venture on an open-air meeting, and on pressing the Platform into their services. Hitherto their meetings had been confined to members, and held in rooms, but on the 24th of October 1793 a bolder course was determined on, and a meeting was held in a field at Hackney. As it was "the first open-air meeting of the Society," says Place, "it caused a great stir in London, especially in the quarter of the town where it was held." As it was the first occasion on which the Platform was adopted for political purposes by a new strata of society, and one which in aftertimes was to grow to great power and influence, the occasion is a memorable one in history. 1 Place has left us a graphic description of it: "All the streets and avenues leading to the place where the Society assembled were crowded with people; it being also on the public roadside, a multitude of people collected." The Committee of Delegates being in the House arranging and discussing some necessary points previous to the subject being laid before the Society at large, "the people at the outside of the railing which encircled the field behind the House, had attempted to break in upon the Society; some perhaps from curiosity, others from a different motive, to disturb the order of the Society. However, the Committee, being informed of those symptoms of disorder, sent a deputation of three of their number to the Justices, who were at the Nag's Head, to demand their protection, and to invite them to be present at their deliberations. The Justices with great readiness agreed (as to the protection, but declined to be present), and stationed constables all round the field; and in order to convince the people who were present of the erroneous sentiments which they entertained as to the designs of the meeting, Mr. Gerrald and Margarot and some others harangued them from the windows of the House with such effect that they all declared by universal acclamation their approbation 1 Place, MSS., Hardy, 27,814. of the views of the Society." The people outside " were sufficiently near to hear all that was read and spoken by the Chairman of that meeting and other members of the Society." All passed off quietly; "not one man among the vast multitude that was there convened deserved the least censure, but, on the contrary, merited the highest praise for their firm, manly, and orderly behaviour." Once again was the scene of Platform action and Government repression shifted to Scotland. Undeterred by the severe punishment administered to Muir and the Rev. Mr. Palmer, a convention of Delegates from the "Societies of the Friends of the People" throughout Scotland met in Edinburgh on the 20th of October. No English delegates attended, but a few days afterwards some arrived, and a new convention was summoned, and met at Edinburgh on the 19th of November 1793, about 160 persons being at it. Their proceedings were open to the public, and their resolutions were debated and adopted in the presence of all persons who chose to attend. Having met, it changed its name to "The British Convention of Delegates of the People, associated to obtain universal suffrage and annual Parliaments; "1 but with the besetting folly of men anxious to make themselves remarkable, they assumed, even to the form of date, "the first year of the British Convention, one and indivisible," the style and mode of proceeding adopted by the National Convention of France. This silly imitation of the French revolutionists, the affected use of French phrases, the bombastic and imperious language of the speakers, all gave colour to the view of the Government, that the real object of the Convention and of all these Societies was to follow the French revolutionists in other matters as well-to subvert the Constitution of Great Britain, and to plunge the country into bloodshed and anarchy. The Convention met with no interruption for a fortnight, but having passed a defiant resolution that, despite any legislation to the contrary, they would continue to meet and act -a proceeding which naturally attracted the attention of the law officers of the Crown-the Provost, and some of the Mag 1 See Report of Secret Committee of the House of Commons, Parliamentary History, vol. xxxi. p. 731. istrates of Edinburgh, attended by a constable, "invaded the Convention," and insisted on its dispersion; and on the following day the ringleaders-Margarot, Gerrald, and Skirving —were arrested, all their papers seized, and prosecutions instituted against them. Skirving was the first to be tried. The charges against him were circulating a seditious writing or publication, being an active member of an illegal association, and taking part in the Convention, where the members "did wickedly and feloniously make harangues and speeches." The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, said, "That the whole proceedings of the meeting of the Convention were from first to last illegal, seditious, and not to be tolerated in any established Government. The people of Great Britain, we have reason to be thankful, are represented in Parliament. The very name of British Convention carries sedition along with it. . . . It is assuming a title which none but the members of the established Government have a right to assume. And the British Convention associated for what? For the purpose of obtaining universal suffrage; in other words, for the purpose of subverting the Government of Great Britain." Skirving was found guilty and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. Lord Swinton, the judge, laying down the law, "that sedition consists in every attempt to excite, by inflammatory discourses and illegal associations, the people to outrage and violence against the Constitution, to hurt the public peace. A week later Margarot was indicted. His must have been a more flagrant case in the eyes of the Scotch authorities, for he had come from London as a delegate of "an association of seditious people," calling themselves the "Corresponding Society of London," to attend the Convention. Among other charges against him was that of uttering and making "various seditious and inflammatory speeches, tending to vilify our present happy Constitution, and to withdraw therefrom the confidence and attachment of our subjects." He was convicted, and was sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. Lord Swinton said: "They have pretended a reformation in 1 6th January 1794. 2 State Trials, vol. xxiii. p. 476. 3 Ibid. p. 597. |