The Judicial History of Individual Liberty. In Scotland the authorities had been much alarmed by the proceedings of several reform societies, and by the assembling in Edinburgh of a convention of delegates of the "associa ted friends of the people," from various parts of England and Scotland. The avowed pur pose of this assemblage was to discuss uni versal suffrage and annual parliaments, and their proceedings were characterized by the usual extravagant language. The govern-
475
of an association which had expelled Muir from membership on account of his opin ions; but his objection to them was met by the contemptuous reply that he might as well object to his judges, who had sworn to maintain the constitution. The crown failed to prove that Muir had made any seditious speeches; in fact, most of the crown wit nesses bore testimony to his earnest counsel for law and order. Muir defended himself
•
THOMAS MUIR.
ment at once proceeded to suppress all such discussion with barbarous severity. The trials of Thomas Muir, Palmer, Skirving and others (23 St. Tr. 391) were outrageous. Muir was a young advocate of high attain ments who had been active in the agitation for parliamentary reform. As a member of the convention of delegates, he was brought to trial before the High Court of Justiciary for sedition. All the jurymen were members
with great courage and ability, but his cause had plainly been prejudged. The lord advo cate denounced the prisoner as a demon of sedition, and the presiding judge, Braxfield, charged the jury that agitation for parlia mentary reform was criminal. The landed interest alone had a right to be represented, he said; as for the rabble who have nothing but personal property, what hold has the nation of them?" Muir and his companions
