just. Dun-das startled those who were about to plead for
the prisoners, by intimating that the sentence was already executed,
and that the warrant for the transportation of Palmer was both signed
and issued. Nevertheless Pitt found himself compelled to allow the
reception of the petition. But petitions on the table of the house of
commons are not always successful in their prayer. On the 10th of March
Mr. Adams moved for a copy of the record to be laid before the house,
upon the ground of which he meant to question the legality of the
sentence. He undertook to prove that, by the lav/ of Scotland, the
crime imputed to them, of "lease-making," was only subject to fine,
imprisonment, or banishment, and not to transportation; and that the
acts attributed to Muir and Palmer did not even amount to that crime.
Adams supported his legal positions with extensive knowledge, both
judicial and historical; endeavouring to establish them by statute,
analogy, and precedent, as well as by civil and political reasons. He
showed that the acts, cases, and decisions which he brought forward were
not detached and isolated, but all resulting from the same spirit
and principles, established in the best times and by the highest
authorities. He also contended that transportation was not a part of the
Scottish law before the union, and that since the union no act had
been passed allowing Scotch courts to transport in cases of sedition.
Finally, he forcibly stated the evils, moral and political, which must
result from a perversion of the law. The Scottish court and its sentence
were defended by the lord-advocate, who had officially acted against
Muir and Palmer, and by Pitt and Windham, while Fox supported Mr. Adams.
The lord-advocate contended that the Scotch laws were better than the
English for the punishment of libels and the suppression of seditious
practices; and the majority of the house seemed to agree with him,
for the motion was negatived by one hundred and seventy-one against
thirty-two. Motions made in favour of the two convicts in the upper
house, by Earls Lauderdale and Stanhope, were not more successful; and
the lord-chancellor afterwards carried a resolution that "there were no
grounds for interfering with any of the criminal courts as administered
under the constitution, and by which the rights, liberties, and
properties of all ranks of subjects were protected."

INTRODUCTION OF FOREIGN TROOPS.

On the 27th of March a mess