I deny. Imprisonment cannot be compared with transportation for fourteen or even seven years. But what is the case in this country? The punishment in few cases of libel has exceeded two years; the longest I ever heard of (the case of Lord George Gordon) was five years; and that, Sir, give me leave to say, was not a proceeding which reflected the highest honour on the country. But for a misdemeanour, I know a single instance of seven years' imprisonment having been inflicted. Does any one think seven years' imprisonment is equal to the offence of sedition? Indeed, Sir, when I heard of this severe punishment being inflicted on a man in this country, and when I saw it connected with the name of the judge, for whom I have a personal esteem, (being no other than my learned friend, when recorder of London,) I inquired what crime the prisoner could have committed; but found he was convicted of an offence little short of murder, and that the misdemeanour was aggravated by several other shocking offences. Surely, the crime of sedition does not require a greater punishment than that which our constitution inflicts on those convicted of the most heinous offences! The learned lord has gone into clergyable offences; but, Sir, arguing about felonies has nothing to do with the present question; this constitution could not have been preserved, if we did not observe a greater jealousy with regard to state crimes than any other. I cannot suppose there exists a desire in judges and ministers to press excessive punishment in cases of petty larceny, or other small offences; but I can well imagine that punishment may be pressed against those who oppose their measures, or are obnoxious to their schemes; the jealousy should be greater where we have any reason to fear that men high in power may be actuated by improper motives. Treason is the same in both countries; nor can I see any sort of difference with regard to sedition; it is not more local than treason, and is equally directed against the King of Great Britain, in whatever part of the kingdom committed; the punishment, therefore, ought to be the same on both sides the Tweed.

But, suppose sedition to be an English crime, and that an Englishman in Scotland were to publish a libel against the government of this country, he must by the laws of Scotland be tried upon principles totally different from English. How absurd! An English crime ought to be tried by English laws, and on English principles. I confess, I feel, Sir, the importance of this question; I feel that the House has the greatest interest in the motion of this night. Considering the question merely as it relates to sedition, there is ample ground for going into an inquiry: we should know what it is; that we may not comment upon, speak about, write of, or venture to pro

pose reforms in Scotland. If in England I am accused of sedition, it is not the general crime which is laid to my charge; there is some specific act stated: supposing even the act I am accused of proved, and that I am found guilty, if it does not appear a crime in the eye of the law, I still shall be relieved. But what is the case in Scotland? The general crime is stated in the indictment: I have seen the general crime, the major proposition of the syllogism, in the case of Mr. Gerald : but the lord advocate treats with levity the idea of packing juries; and he tells us with triumph, that in all the late proceedings the juries were unanimous. What does this argument prove? Nothing. It is true they might all be unanimous, but surely they might still have been all collected under the eye of the officer, and direction of the court. Good God, Sir, however I may disagree with many of my friends on other topics, will they not all agree with me in this? Will they not all see its danger in the same view that I do? Will they not all coincide with me in declaring, that no man is safe, no man's liberty secure, if he can be charged generally on the crime of sedition?

I am taking the late proceedings, for argument's sake, to be strictly consonant to law; though God forbid I should ever be inclined to think them so; yet is there not something, with respect to the evidence in those cases, which calls for your interference? The House will recollect the evidence of Anne Fischer, that infamous witness, that domestic spy, whose testimony I cannot think of without shuddering at it; yet she, and other such witnesses, were produced as to the general charge of sedition. Do I stand, Sir, in a British House of Commons? Which of us is safe, if charged on the general ground? If every action is to be examined, if evidences from different quarters are to be collected to prove different charges, without any specific act being stated in the indictment, I appeal to every man who hears me, whether there can be any liberty in the country where such practices are allowed? Which of us can be comfortable in our minds, if such doctrines are countenanced? Let us set free our countrymen in the other part of the island. Let us go into the committee; let us both legislate and declare. The people of Scotland have a right to expect both; and I hope, when the House shall be more accurately acquainted with the proceedings, to see the sentence condemned, the mode of conducting these trials censured, and the production of that most infamous witness Anne Fischer both reprobated and regarded with disgust. What, Sir, is not a man to say out of doors what has been advanced within the walls of this House? Is a man to be punished with transportation for advancing political senti

ments, which, if declared here, would be taken no notice of? Has no one in this country a right to think or speak on political questions but members of parliament? Indeed, Sir, if general sedition is allowed as a charge, and such witnesses as Anne Fischer are produced to maintain and support it, I can easily conceive the danger of delivering sentiments freely in any place. I recollect that, when I was a boy, attending the debates in the gallery of this House, a sentiment fell from the late Earl of Chatham, which warmed and filled my breast with admiration; and which did him more honour in my eyes, than many things that have since been related of him. The American war was then extremely popular, and a member having asserted that there was a rebellion in America, “I rejoice," said this great man, "that America has resisted: I rejoice that she has shewn that symptom of British spirit and British blood in her veins; and I hope it will flow unimpaired to her descendants, till they have accomplished all they merit*." This raised him high in my estimation; this splendid sentiment he never after denied; for though he left this House, it is well known what he uniformly advised in another. If this great man had been in Scotland at that time, and ministers had had the opportunity of prosecuting these words before the court of justiciary, his sentence would have been transportation: or perhaps this punishment would not have been sufficient; if one of those judges who lately presided, had then the direction, the torture might have been introduced as alone adequate.

But, Sir, allow me to say a few words in answer to a challenge thrown out by the right honourable secretary. Does he mean to say that, intrusted as he is with a great employment in this country, and enabled consequently to know the extent and application of the criminal laws of Scotland, he thinks those laws inadequate? Why then, Sir, reflecting on his situation, and seeing all the trusts that are reposed in him, does he suffer crimes to be inadequately punished? Will he, forgetful of his situation, sit supine, and leave them unpunished? Or, will he act the more manly part, and say, I cannot see crimes punished in so inadequate a manner, without attempting to alter the laws? Which will he do? Will he prefer the latter? If he do, I give him credit for his courage, and his consistency, absurd and eccentric as the idea of increasing the punishment is: if he do not alter them, I cannot give him

*The speech to which Mr. Fox here refers, was the last the Earl of Chatham ever made in the House of Commons. It took place on the 14th of January 1766. See New Parl. Hist. Vol. xvi. p, 104.

credit either for courage or consistency: if he attempts to alter them, I then give him credit for his courage; for others have been very severely punished for less dangerous attempts. But this assertion of the right honourable secretary, that the laws are inadequate, is not an assertion which has accidentally escaped in the warmth of debate; it must have been an expression carefully considered, and minutely examined; it has been ruminated over for four or five days; nor, Sir, ought it to be received with indifference: his official situation makes every thing which comes from the right honourable gentleman of importance. The right honourable gentleman does not say he advances this, because he is dared to it. I would nevertheless advise him to beware how he meddles with the liberties of Englishmen, and consider well before he increases punishment. Let him not think our laws inadequate until he shall have made some motion to that purport, and has ascertained whether this House thinks with him on that point. I am fully satisfied that something ought immediately to be done to correct this abuse of law in Scotland, and to put an end to the tyranny practised under the pretext of administering justice in that part of the kingdom.

VOLUNTARY AIDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF PARLIAMENT.

March 17.

THE ministers having issued a requisition under the name of a recommendation, for the raising of volunteer companies of horse and foot, in order to preserve internal peace, and suppress domestic insurrections, and to aid the military, if necessary, against an invading enemy, the subject was mentioned in the House of Commons on the 17th of March, by Mr. Baker, who objected to the measure as an irregular one. Parliament, he said, was the only legal organ of the country, through which the people should consent to assist the carrying on of any measure to be paid for out of the public purse.

Mr. Fox said, that the measure said to be going through the country, by way of a recommendation from his majesty to the people, to stand forth and assist the executive government with voluntary subscriptions, he had held often, held now, and was likely to hold, to be entirely illegal, and a measure the most dangerous to the constitution of this country. If the object was to legalize that practice, he was perfectly sure that there should have been a bill for that purpose. A bill must pass to authorise the application of such money, even after it was raised, otherwise not one shilling of it could be legally applied. This opinion he had frequently given during the American war, and all he had ever heard upon the subject had not, in the most distant degree, tended to alter that opinion. Having said this, he must now confess, that with respect to facts upon the present case, he was without information: he spoke in that respect entirely from rumour. What had been sent to the lords lieutenants of the counties, and what their answers might be, he knew not; but, supposing the message alluded to, of a recommendation for the opening of a general subscription, to have been sent, he had no doubt that acquiescing in such a message, and applying such money without an act of parliament, was not only illegal, but highly dangerous. Whenever the subject came forward, he should be ready to argue it on the points he had just mentioned; and he hoped that the House would not proceed on doubtful points without first removing all difficulties that stood in the way of the regularity of the proceedings.

March 24.

Mr. Sheridan having moved an address to the king for a communication of all the papers relating to this subject,

Mr. Fox said, he could not let that opportunity slip of declaring his opinion on the subject to be the same with the minority of that House, and with the House of Lords in the year 1778, on the illegality of these subscriptions in any case whatever. The whole defence on that occasion was, that those contributions were purely voluntary and bona fide spontaneous, that there had not been a hint on the subject from the crown, or from any of his majesty's servants, and that there was nothing that could be construed into an application in the most remote manner. But in this case, there had been a direct application from the king's secretary of state officially; and it was a maxim universally maintained, that when he wrote a letter of that kind, though he did not say, "I am com