only the morals and characters of the men with whom you must negociate." When the conduct of our allies was mentioned, we were told, "Think not of the cruel and perfidious dismemberment of Poland, look only to the present object, and the aid they can afford you to obtain it." Hence he conceived this was the inference, "Make peace with no man of whose good conduct and good faith you are not perfectly satisfied; but make an alliance with any man, no matter how profligate or faithless he may be." who did not then call for La Fayette? With how much more effect might he have been sent commissioner to Toulon than sir Gilbert Elliot? But, mark the horrible contrast between our words and our actions. While we were holding this lan guage to the people of Toulon, he who loved rational liberty, who loved his country and his king, who had sacrificed, in their defence, all that makes life desirable, was languishing in one of the most loath. some dungeons of a Prussian prison. About the same time that we were profess ing to support the constitution of 1789, general Wurmser had entered Alsace. What were his orders from the emperor ? Did he profess to support the constitution of 1789? No: his orders were to abrogate every authority under that constitu tion, and restore the old form of government. This, which was matter of fact and practice, proved that the views of the emperor could not be the same with ours. When he spoke of kings, he desired always to be understood as speaking of courts and cabinets; for he held it to be, in general, as true in other countries as in this, that for the actions of princes their ministers were responsible. Till that disgrace on civilized society, the imprisonment of the virtuous and meritorious La Fayette was done away, no Frenchman who loved his country could repose confidence in the professions of the combined powers. It was in vain that we had virtue, humanity, religion in our mouths, while passion and malignity were rankling in our hearts, and displayed in our actions. He had been informed that the king of Prussia, in answer to applications for the liberation of M. de La Fayette, had said, that La Fayette was not his prisoner, that he was the prisoner of the combined powers, and he could not be released but by general consent. This answer he knew had been given; with what truth, ministers could best tell: but even if it was false, it was so much the more incumbent upon us to clear our selves from the obloquy of being parties to the cruel treatment he had received. By our own declarations, although these were not all very consistent with one another, we engaged to support the constitution of which La Fayette was one of the principal authors. Under the constitution of 1789, we accepted of the surrender of Toulon, in trust for Louis 17th. According to the forms of that constitution, the government of Toulon was administered while we were in possession of it. Louis 17th was not styled king of France and Navarre, as by the old government, but king of the French, as by the constitution of 1789. On the restoration of monarchy we offered peace to the French, and thus we explained, that we would be satisfied with that sort of monarchy which La Fayette had assisted in endeavouring to establish. Where was the French constitutionalist When Dumourier, the most enterprising and the most active general that had lately appeared, proposed joining the prince of Saxe Cobourg, he was declared a wise and virtuous citizen, resolved to give peace to his country, and to assist with his army in restoring, not the old despotic system, but the limited monarchy of 1789. Why was this proclamation issued by the prince of Saxe Cobourg? Because he meant to adhere to it? No such thing. As soon as Dumourier's defection was found to be, not the defection of an army, but of a general and a few followers, all his wisdom and his virtue vanished with his power, and within four, or at most, five days, the prince of Saxe Cobourg, without waiting to see what effect his proclamation would produce in France, with audacity and effrontery unparalleled in history, issued a second proclamation retracting every word of it. This he mentioned to show, that there was as little sincerity in the emperor's professions as in those of the king of Prussia. The prince of Saxe Cobourg was not a man to issue proclamations hastily or without orders; and from the dates, and other circumstances, it was evident, that he must have had the second proclamation by him when he issued the first. Soon after, the "wise and virtuous" Dumourier came to this country, which he was almost immediately ordered to quit; and he had since been reduced to a situation not to be envied by a French general even before the revolutionary tri bunal. But he should be told, that it was easier to look back and find fault than to look forward and point out a remedy. The motion made by his hon. friend presented the means of finding that remedy. The inclination of Holland to peace could not be doubted; Spain, if he was not much misinformed, would consent to it without any indemnity; and it was very generally reported and believed, that Prussia demanded of us a subsidy of 700,000l. as the condition of prosecuting the war. This, if true, was a fortunate circumstance, for it opened a door for peace with the consent of all the allies. The late campaign had been called successful beyond our hopes. The latter part of it, certainly, was not that which could be thought the most fortunate. Now, after What was the lesson thus held out to Frenchmen? That it was better to run the hazard of the guillotine in France, than to take the certainty of misery and contempt among the allies. Such was the capacity we had shown for overthrowing the Jacobin power in France! Had the king of Prussia, or had Russia, acceded to our views any more than the emperor? If they had, what better security for their good faith had they given us, than they had given to Poland? Were they, who held themselves bound by no engagements, to make a splendid exception in our favour, and keep sacred to us promises which were given to others only to betray? We talked of indemnity for the past, and security for the future, as our objects in the war. Let us suppose ourselves in the situation of a well-being told, as the House was repeatedly disposed person in France, an enemy to the tyranny of the Jacobins, and see how these would operate. Security we might think reducing the exorbitant power of France, and to this the well-disposed Frenchman might assent. For indemnity, we might be content with some of the West-India islands; and to this also the Frenchman might agree. But, then, our allies would want an indemnity, and what would be enough for them? If the Frenchman looked to Poland, he would see that nothing short of the partition of France would satisfy them; and could he be expected to risk his life by rising in opposition to the Convention, when the most flattering prospect was the ultimate ruin of his country? If France should be subdued (an event which he never considered as probable), the whole kingdom might not be sufficient to indemnify all the powers at war; and then we must have to fight for the division of the spoil, without even that delusive calm, which had been said to be all that could now be obtained by a peace with France. It was pretty well known that some of our allies were not very cordially disposed towards one another. Where Prussian and Austrian troops were brought together they were much more inclined to fight with each other than against the common enemy, and were only restrained by the strong arm of power. Except ourselves and Holland, not a state had joined the confederacy but those under absolute monarchies. Holland, we all knew, had been drawn into the combination by influence equivalent to force, and would rejoice in an opportunity of getting out of it with safety. told last session, that France was only capable of one desperate effort; and after seeing that effort baffled, in the early part of the campaign, but the loss nearly repaired in the subsequent part of it, not by desperate efforts but by perseverance, he could not entertain very sanguine hopes of the next campaign, even if it should begin as brilliantly as the last. He was not bold enough to assure himself, or the House, that we should be able to obtain the restoration of Savoy, which we had bound ourselves by treaty to obtain; but if he were, he should still object to giv. ing the means of making peace out of our own hands. When ministers were charged with neglecting the business of convoys, they answered, that France, in the first instance had reaped the fruits of her unexpected aggression; yet this unexpected aggression, as it was called, was made several months after the conquest of Savoy, after the battle of Jemappe, and the invasion of the Austrian Netherlands. Mr. Fox said, it was matter of great consolation to him, that in spite of popu lar clamour, he had used every endeavour to prevent the war; and, when it was unfortunately commenced, to render it as short as possible. Believing now, that several of the allies were disposed to peace, he thanked his hon. friend for affording him an opportunity of repeating and recording his opinion on the subject. He would say nothing of the calamities inseparable from war, although on every question they were perfectly in order. It was idle to say, that because they were general topics, and applicable to every war, they were fit matter of argument against none. The very circumstance of their generality, rendered them matter of serious consideration before we entered upon any war. It was impossible to devise productive taxes that would not fall ultimately upon the lower classes; and when such additional burthens had been imposed, it was impossible to call war a state of prosperity. Every new tax fell heavier than those which went before it, because its weight was added to that of all the preceding. Thus, the taxes for the American war fell heavier than those for the war preceding; those for the present heavier than the taxes for the American war; and those for any future war must be heavier still. Mr. Pitt said :-Sir; the question which has been now brought forward comes within a very narrow compass. If the House or the country conceived the present contest to be what it is represented to be; if they conceived it to have originated from a league of despots for the purpose of crushing the rising liberties of a neighbouring state; if they considered it as a contest into which we had unnecessarily entered, and in which no interest of our own was involved, they might then be of opinion that the present motion ought to be adopted. But if the House and the country continue to think that the war was originally undertaken to repel aggression, and to secure our dearest and most important interests, and that in such circumstances we had the happiness to find allies in some powers already engaged in the same contest, and likewise to find others who were disposed to concur with us for the same purpose, will they not then be of opinion, that instead of seeking to abandon our present alliances, we ought rather to do every thing in our power to cement and confirm them? The arguments, upon which the motion has been supported, have been derived from particular parts of the conduct of some of our allies, or from general objections, which apply equally to all confederacies; but while such are the arguments upon which it rests, what are the effects which it is calculated to produce? It tends to discourage our allies, and impress them with the idea that they can no longer depend upon our co-operation, while it holds out a signal to the enemy that we are prepared to receive such a peace as they may be disposed to give us. The motion is no less than a motion for peace, and that upon any terms. A great part of the speech of the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, was taken up in proving that the objections which are urged against war in general, apply to the present war. This surely was not necessary: so much do the objections against war in general apply to every particular war, that they ought, no doubt, to be allowed the greatest influence, whenever there is any option between war and peace. But in every case where it is necessary to undertake a war in support of the interests or independence of a country, these objections are supposed to vanish. The right hon. gentleman has asked, whether the last year is to be deemed one of the ten years of prosperity? Whatever may have been the peculiar circumstances of the last year, it has certainly furnished instances of the radical resources and real prosperity of the country. If, from the occurrences of last year, the right hon. gentleman means to draw any arguments that our resources are not equal to the contest in which we are engaged, he certainly will fail in his object. The inconvenience experienced by commerce arises not solely from our having taken part in the war; but is, in a great measure, the effect of that continental war, which had previously subsisted. Besides, had not we taken an active share in the war, the inconvenience to commerce might even have increased; the scene of anarchy and confusion, which threatened to overspread Europe, would have become more formidable; and liberty and commerce, against which this war was directly pointed, would have been placed in a situation of more imminent danger. Another cause of the shock which was last year sustained by credit, arose from the extent to which commer cial speculation had been carried. This was a circumstance which might have taken place without the operation of any war; it was an evil which we might naturally have foreseen, and upon which we were bound to calculate. But another argument, upon which the hon. gentlemen have insisted much, is the little probability of success in the present contest; an argument which they, no doubt, particularly address to those who may approve of the principles upon which it was undertaken. I must, indeed, confess, that the prospect of the want of success is pregnant with every mischief to this country. There are no shades, which can deepen the horrors of such a catastrophe; and there are no ex After a short reply from Mr. Whitbread, the House divided. YEAS NOES { Tellers. Mr. John Smith Mr. Pole Carew So it passed in the negative. 26 138 Debate on Mr. Adam's Motion respect ertions which ought not to be employed | But it has been urged that even should in order to avert it. Even were our pros- the combined powers succeed, there may pects of success as bad as has been at- be danger from their subsequent divisions. tempted to be represented, I should still -This is an objection which must think that we had no alternative, and equally apply to all confederations; but that it were better for us to meet the it is surely no reason why Great Britain, danger, even in its utmost extent, than the soul and cement of the confederacy, to court any terms of accommodation.- should at present withdraw her assistance An hon. gentleman has asked, whether and co-operation from the other powers. our prospects of success were as great at the conclusion as they were at the beginning of the compaign? There is no doubt that in the course of a campaign, the prospects of success will become more or less sanguine according to the complexion of events. But the true criterion of the success of the campaign, is to compare the general state of Europe with what it was at the commencement of the campaign. And who will not saying the Trials of Mr. Muir and Mr. Palthat the change in positive circumstances mer.*] March 10. Mr. Adam rose and has been such as fully to justify the pros- spoke as follows: pect of ultimate success? We have seen the great exertions that have been made by France. But are those exertions natural? If we look at what the campaign has cost France, and what it has cost the allied powers, even if we had not gained one battle, or one inch of ground, still we must deem the advantage to be on our side. The short question then comes to be-If the war in which we are engaged is just, is there any thing in the system of our alliances inconsistent with sound policy? Complaints have been made of detached parts of the conduct of our allies; some of them previous to the war, and others during the war, but all of them independent of the cause in which we are engaged. With respect to La Fayette, I have only to say that his fate was never at the disposal of this country. The situation of Poland has often been brought forward, but I have never hesitated to express my disapprobation of the treatment of that country. But the question of criminal jurisprudence in immetion is, whether we should allow one act of injustice to deprive us of the assistance of those powers in resisting a system of intolerable injustice, not merely existing in France, but attempted to be introduced into every other country? It has been asked, what are the views of our allies with respect to the future government of France? Do they mean to restore the former absolute monarchy? I have no reason to impute to them any such intention; but this I know, that this country is engaged in the contest, only so far as relates to her own defence. F Mr. Speaker; I rise, after a variety of delays, to lay before this House the Judicial Proceedings of the supreme court of criminal judicature in the northern part of the United Kingdom, in the cases of Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer. The various circumstances which have, till now, prevented my bringing this subject before you, were not created by me, they are in the knowledge of the House, and I forbear to waste your time by dwelling upon them. The task I have undertaken is an arduous one, and, in the discharge of it, I feel my mind strongly impressed with the opposite sensations of confidence and anxiety. Confidence in the goodness of my cause; anxiety as to my capacity to do it justice. It is a subject at once grave, important, interesting, and difficult. It is grave, in so far as it questions the legal judgment and sound discretion of a court of justice. It is important, as it relates to the administra diate connexion with the liberty of the subject, and the freedom of the constitution; it is interesting, with reference to the individuals, who are to suffer under the severity of the sentence; and it is difficult, because it is a legal subject, relating to Scotland, addressed to a popular assembly, and not to a court of justice. Under these impressions, however, there are some circumstances to give me comfort. It is not my fault that I * See Howell's State Trials, Vol. 23, p. p. 117, 237. am here. The decisions of the supreme appellate court (the House of Lords) have established, that from the justiciary and circuit courts in Scotland, both of which are supreme courts, there is no appeal. I endeavoured to remedy that defect by proposing an act to give an appeal from the criminal courts of Scotland,+ and I meant that it should contain a retrospective clause which would have included these cases. But a majority of this House thought proper to reject my motion; and I am now under the necessity of discussing the legal part of this question in this place, because this is the only place in which it can be discussed. Under such necessity, whether 1 look round me, or whether I look to the benches opposite to me, there are circumstances to comfort me under the impressions which I feel. Around me there are gentlemen whose constitutional knowledge, whose powerful talents and discerning minds enable them to embrace and understand the subject; and there are those, whose great experience in the profession of the law of this country, give them a ready apprehension of legal questions, though arising out of the criminal law of another country. Over against me I see a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt), who, though now one of his majesty's ministers, was originally educated to the profession of the bar, and who to early habits of legal study adds considerable parliamentary experience, who possesses great and undisputed talents, and who, having repeatedly declared his opinion upon the legality and sound discretion of these sentences, must have sifted the question to the bottom; and I doubt not he will take a part in this discussion. I have the satisfaction to see another right hon. gentleman (Mr. Dundas), whose illness was one cause for postponing this business till now. I hope he will not fail to take a part in this debate; for though I have every thing to fear from my own defects, my subject fears no opponent. That gentleman, to long parliamentary experience adds the education and practice of a Scots lawyer, particularly in the criminal courts, where as Solicitor General or Advocate, he served the Crown, almost from the hour he was called to that bar. Sir, I see another gentleman, whose presence we have See Howell's State Trials, Vol. 23, p. 115. + See p. 1346 of the present volume. procured by our last delay, a circumstance which is likewise consolatory to me; for here again I court full discussion. I mean the learned person who instituted and conducted these prosecutions, and who of course must have given his whole mind to this important subject. Sir, I see other gentlemen of great rank, knowledge, and estimation in the law of this country, and some who may, from their habits and practice in the court of appeal from Scotland, be said to be Docti utriusque Juris. To all these gentlemen I particularly address myself; and in the arduous task which I have to discharge, I have much satisfaction in beholding such an audience. Sir, I have no pretensions whatever to practical knowledge of the law of Scotland, but I have some pretensions to sedulous, laborious, and anxious attention to whatever my duty in this House calls upon me to consider. I have viewed this extensive and difficult subject on every side; according to the expressive language and sound precept of lord Bacon-" not to contradict and confute, not to believe or take for granted, not to find talk or discourse, but to weigh and consider." Sir, I have weighed and considered the subject in all its aspects and in all its parts, not only with a view to form a sound opinion, which in such a case I was bound to do, before I ventured to challenge judicial supreme authority, but with a view to frame the motions which I shall have occasion to offer to the House. I mean first to move for certain parts of the record, and certain notes of memoranda of the evidence, which, if before the House, will fairly raise the whole question. The first motion will be for the indictment, the plea, the verdict, and the judgment, which will raise the question of legality. The second motion will be for certain determinations of the court respecting the admitting and rejecting of evidence. The third will be for certain proceedings which took place respecting the admission of objectionable persons to serve upon the jury. The fourth will relate to the commitment of a person of the name of William Muir for refusing, upon a religious scruple, to take the oath. The fifth motion relates to the conduct of the court with respect to one John Russel, |