19th June 1817: Oliver is discussed in the House of Lords

Oliver was discussed during the third reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill on 19th June 1817:

The Duke of Bedford said, he could not reconcile it to his sense of public duty, now that the bill had arrived at its last stage, not to deliver his solemn protest against it. He trusted their lordships would fairly and dispassionately consider the case. The committee of secrecy, acting in the nature of a grand jury, had, from whatever evidence was laid before them, drawn a bill of indictment against the whole people of England, and it was for their lordships (though unfortunately without evidence) to try the case, and pronounce a verdict of condemnation or acquittal. He was afraid he could not anticipate a verdict of acquittal, but he must say there was no evidence to support a verdict of condemnation. Where was the danger? We were now in a period of profound peace, without any foreign enemy to contend with, without any circumstances existing arising in the slightest degree from external danger; what was there then to fear? Was it from a few discontented individuals driven to despair by privation and distress; was it for this, that the liberties of the whole people of England were to be suspended? It was true he was not without fears, but he feared the power of the Crown, and not the liberty of the people; and the more particularly, because of late years measures for increasing the power of the Crown had been agreed to without hesitation, whilst those which tended to increase the privileges of the people had uniformly met with rejection. In looking to that passage of the report of the committee of secrecy, respecting spies and informers, he could not but express his astonishment that the committee should have given so much credit to statements thus supported. When he had the honour of filling the office of chief governor of Ireland, the office of the chief) secretary was beset by spies and informers, who would have persuaded him that Ireland was almost in a state of rebellion; and had he listened to these tales he might have adopted measures which would have deluged half Ireland with blood. But by pursuing a conduct firm, moderate, and temperate, he put down the tendency to outrage, which had displayed itself, and delivered over Ireland to his successor in the government in a perfect state of tranquillity. By listening to spies and informers, the government here would be led on to measures totally destructive of the liberties of the people. It was utterly impossible that the constitution could stand, if the government were to be carried on upon such a system, and it was with the deepest regret and the greatest alarm, that he had heard the employment of spies avowed and justified by his majesty's ministers. If this were to be the system, the noble secretary of state had better go over to Paris and take lessons from M. de Cazes, or some other celebrated superintendent of police. Such a system of espionage (he used the French word, because, and he rejoiced at it, there was no adequate word in the English language to express the same meaning), was utterly inconsistent with the free constitution of Britain. No argument had been urged in favour of this measure (excepting the ground of humanity stated by a noble duke) save that of necessity, which had been in all ages the tyrant's plea. Necessity had invariably been urged by Buonaparté as an excuse for every measure of tyranny he had imposed upon the people. The same argument had been used for the same purpose by the government that preceded him, the Directory, and in the same way by the power immediately preceding that by the tyrant Robespierre, when it was urged at the bar of the convention, that the law ought to be suspended in order to save the country. With regard to one part of the report of the committee, that respecting blasphemous publications, there was no greater enemy than himself to such kind of publications, but he must remind the noble secretary of state, that at all periods of political agitation, there had been parodies circulated of parts of the church service which, though they could not be defended, yet proved that this offence was not now committed for the first time, and, therefore, that they ought not to be designated in the terms in which they were. One circumstance connected with one of these productions he felt it his duty to state, it was a parody upon the creed, which had been sent from Norwich to the secretary of state's office. It was written 24 years ago by a person then a jacobin and a leveller, but who had since become a supporter of the government, and who had this parody, written formerly by himself, reprinted at an obscure ministerial book seller's at Norwich, and then sent it to the secretary of state's office, as a proof of the seditious and blasphemous spirit that prevailed at Norwich. This statement he had from an authority which he believed could not be questioned. Upon the whole view of the question, though yielding to no man in loyalty to his sovereign, or respect for the constitution, he did not think that any ground was laid for the present measure, and therefore he felt it his duty to vote against the bill.

The Earl of Westmoreland said, it was admitted on all hands that there might be circumstances under which it would be proper to resort to this measure; and some of the noble lords opposite who had spoken against the bill, must allow that there had been times when the measure was necessary. Then, the short question was, is this a proper time for the suspension? It had been objected to this proceeding, that the act would be in existence at a time when parliament would be prorogued, or perhaps dissolved: but it appeared to him only the more necessary, that the power should exist at that period, because, in case a particular emergency should arise, government could not immediately apply to parliament for assistance. Then it had been objected that a period of peace was a very improper time for such a measure: but whether the time was a time of war or of peace was not the question. The question was, whether the exigency existed? But he thought that the reason for such a measure might be stronger in time of peace than in time of war, because in time of peace the country was in a great measure disarmed. But the question was, whether the exigency existed? Now, there could be no question that conspiracies and plots against the government had been and were still carried on to an extent sufficient to excite alarm for the public safety in the minds of all, except in the firm and tranquil minds of the noble lords opposite: this was the conclusion come to by two committees of their lordships. It might be asked, why the duration of the suspension had not been at first continued for a longer period? The answer was, that ministers were anxious that these powers should not continue longer than parliament and the country might think them necessary. Then it had been said, that the suspension might be allowed to expire, and that if a particular emergency arose, government migh call the parliament together, and procure a renewal of those powers. But if that were done, then it would be objected, that ministers had not thought proper to apply for the renewal in a full parliament, but had suffered the suspension to expire that they might get it renewed by a few of their own friends. The noble duke had asserted that the employment of spies was unconstitutional. That was rather an extraordinary assertion, when it was considered that the secretary of state was called upon to swear that part of the secret service money would be employed by him in detecting conspiracies at home. But the fact was, that such agents had always been employed by government, and that it was impossible to detect conspiracies of this nature without them.

The Earl of Donoughmore observed, that the noble earl who had just sat down had said he could answer for the majority of parliament, which, perhaps, he might do; but, as to the people, he was not only convinced the majority of them were not with the ministers in the measures they were now pursuing; but he was satisfied the statement to this effect would excite amongst the people a feeling of indignation, he had almost said though he rather believed it would excite a feeling of a very different kind. It seemed, however, from what had been said by the noble earl, that spies and informers were associated with ministers that they were to be treated with respect; that such men as Castles or Oliver (of whom they had heard something on a former night), or a man who had procured several Irishmen for a rebellion in which he had participated, being himself first a rebel, and then an informer, were all to be treated with respect, and considered as gentlemen. No one could hear what had been said by a noble duke without attaching great importance to what had been said. The noble earl who followed him, had endeavoured to pick holes in that speech, but he had shaken no material part of it. The noble duke had given evidence to them, and most material evidence. He had stated what he himself had done in the government of a country which certainly was not one of the least difficult to govern well, as the noble earl well knew. But certainly the noble earl did not find Ireland in a state so disturbed as it was found by the noble duke, nor did he leave it so quiet as the noble duke left it. The noble duke had stated what he had found the best mode of governing the Irish, and which would also be found the best mode of governing British subjects—conciliation. The circumstances under which they were called on to re-enact the law which had given such power to the ministers, were such, that no man who was at all in the habit of addressing the House should give a silent vote. If he had been in the House when the former measure was proposed, he should have said that the ministers had not made out a case. Majorities of the two Houses had, however, been of a different opinion; the liberties of the people of England had been delivered up to the ministers, and were still in their possession. They had the advantage also of a sitting parliament, and there had been no resistance from any quarter. If any plot had been in existence, there had been time for it to be matured and brought to light. Several arrests had taken place, and they had of course selected for trial the strongest and best case they had. They placed their character as wise ministers, on this issue. This one great case which they selected to vindicate their character and conduct, was brought before a public tribunal, in the manner most satisfactory to British feelings, by a regular trial before the great court of criminal justice. There was a patient trial, and he took it for granted an impartial jury. They knew how that had ended; in contempt, and in so complete a failure, that though three persons remained to be tried, round whose necks the ministers thought they had securely fastened the halter, the prosecution against them was abandoned by the Crown lawyers. The ministers had declared by their committee that there was an absolute necessity for the measure. If they had made this as a distinct proposition, and taken on themselves the responsibility, some weight would be attached to their declaration. But they had chosen to make the House a party in the responsibility by stating the grounds and the facts upon which they proceeded. And upon the showing of the ministers themselves—upon their own statement communicated through the report—he had no difficulty in coming to a conclusion directly contrary to theirs. Here the noble earl read nearly the whole of the report, and argued that there was nothing in it which could warrant their lordships in passing the bill now before them.

The Earl of Limerick rose to reply to some allusions which had been made by the noble earl who spoke last to the character of Mr. Reynolds. He would say, without fear of contradiction, that in a time of great danger and alarm, the individual in question had rendered important services to his country. This individual had originally a considerable fortune, and was connected with respectable society; but having wasted his property, and left his former friends, he had fallen into the company of conspirators and traitors. Being a man of family and carrying along with him some of the influence of his former situation in life, be was received with open arms and admitted to high confidence; but he soon found that his new society were intent on dangerous projects, and had formed designs to involve his country in anarchy, massacre, and blood; that they intended to overturn the laws and government, and to effect a separation of the two kingdoms. He, therefore, reflected on the atrocity of these plans, and determined to retrace his steps. The first time he showed his intention to repent was after a dinner where he had been with some of his associates; in going from which he stated to a friend the desperate achievements that were in contemplation. He told them that he knew the persons engaged in them, and would discover their transactions, provided certain individuals were saved from punishment; and this man laid open the whole plan to government without fee or reward, or the prospect of fee or reward, upon the simple stipulation of safety for some of his friends. The bloody conspiracy which he disclosed was thus prevented, by his means, and yet this man was now declared a spy and an informer, and held up to infamy. This, however, was not the only conspiracy that he detected, or the only service he rendered to his country. The noble person who was then secretary for Ireland thought so highly of his services, that he appointed him inspector of packets at Lisbon, where he was serviceable to government. What was now his crime? Was it that, being once wrong, he had amended and made every reparation in his power; or was it that he was returned a juryman in the jury summoned for the late trial, which it was feared might have terminated differently with a different jury? The noble lord concluded by saying, that he would support the motion before the House.

The Earl of Essex said, he knew nothing of the case of Mr. Reynolds, but he apprehended there was a vast difference between men who acted as spies (revolting to the feelings as that occupation was) and such men as Oliver, who incited their victims to commit the crimes for which they informed against them. That horrid monster, for instance, had endeavoured to engage the wife of a man to induce him by her persuasion to go to a meeting, his presence at which would have involved him in destruction. The employment of these men had the effect of encouraging crimes, not of preventing them. It now became the duty of the House to watch over the rights of the people, which were day after day diminished. This new encroachment on them was in his opinion unnecessary, and he thought it the more unnecessary from the nature of the men engaged in the alleged treasons; men of no sort of property, or commanding talents or influence of any kind.

The Marquis Camden stated, that Mr. Reynolds had given important information to the Irish government of a plot in agitation. He had communicated it to a friend, so as to give intelligence enough to frustrate the plot without personally appearing, and it was not till he was arrested that he was induced to give direct evidence. He had then given testimony in a manner which was not to be contradicted, and on that evidence two or three traitors had been convicted, who afterwards acknowledged their crimes. He gave his hearty assent to the measure under discussion.

Lord Sidmouth said, that of the two persons mentioned, Castles and Oliver, as spies and informers, Castles was not a spy. He had never given information to government till five weeks after the 2d of December. Oliver was employed by government to avert imminent danger. The noble earl had founded his remarks on the statement in a news paper. That statement, he believed, was incorrect, in many material points.

Lord St. John said, he must enter his solemn protest against a measure which he considered to be as unnecessary, as it was destructive of the first principles of the constitution. What was the nature of; the alleged conspiracies? They had seen a proof in the trials which had recently occurred; and he really wondered that the law officers of the down were not ashamed to offer such a case, accompanied with so much solemnity, to the attention and good sense of a jury. When he remembered the issue of that prosecution, he should have thought the noble viscount, feeling impressed with a consciousness of his rashness, would have come down clothed in sackcloth and ashes, and humbled himself before the legislature, instead of persisting in his original error. With regard to the present act, as compared with the former one, he would wish to impress one fact upon their lordships attention. It was unlimited in its extent and duration, not being intended to expire till six weeks after the next meeting of parliament. Now, in whose hands was the control exercised over the assembling of parliament? In the hands of the ministers themselves; and who, therefore, could keep the law in operation as long as they thought it expedient. The noble lord here entered into an examination of all the different occasions, when the Habeas Corpus act was suspended since the Revolution, and contended that there was no parity between them and the present. It was impossible to look at the current of events during the last two or three years, without fixing upon the administration of the country, and especially upon the noble viscount, the responsibility of many of the distresses and discontents which prevail. No one thing had been done to conciliate the public mind; no disposition had been manifested to listen to the complaints of the people. Petitions, when presented, had been carelesly thrown aside; and no steps taken towards conceding the objects of their prayer. It was impossible that such a course of proceedings should not increase the general irritation. He would rather advise the adoption of a different course of policy, instead of going on with that system of coercion. On those grounds, he should give his vote against the third reading of the bill.

Lord Somers could not allow, because there was a character of absurdity belonging to the late conspiracies, that therefore their consequences were not to be feared. Had not the result of those plots been an insurrection, only short of rebellion, in consequence of the vigilance of government? There were sufficient grounds, in his judgment, to call for such a measure as the present. There was the report of the first committee, which contained ample reasons for the bill then brought in. They had now the report of another committee, and which report he thought, was highly honourable to that committee. Called upon, as they were, to investigate matters of such consequence and finding adequate evidence to induce, them to recommend the re-adoption of the former measure, they at the same time, candidly admitted that the government had been obliged, as all governments were, to employ persons for the purpose of discovering the machinations of the conspirators. And after all, what was the proposed suspension? Only for a short time. But the noble lord who spoke last, said that the calling of parliament together depended merely upon the will of ministers, and that therefore the duration of the law would be as long as they thought proper. Good God! could such an argument be seriously urged? It might depend upon the will of ministers whether parliament should be called a week or two sooner or later, but beyond that, what power had they? Could ministers do without the parliament for any length of time. He really never heard so weak an argument. How far could a suspension of the Habeas Corpus act be called a suspension of the constitution? He had heard it said, that if the law passed, there would be an end of the constitution, and the liberties of every man in the kingdom would be at the mercy of ministers. Was that the fact? He firmly believed that the suspension was not, in the slightest degree, liable to produce the deprivation of liberty to any subject in this country, which ought to be preserved, or could be preserved, without prejudice to the general liberty of all. The noble lord who preceded him, had talked about conciliating the people. Conciliation, as far as it was just and proper, he should be ready to adopt. But he would not humour the people by granting whatever they might be instigated to ask. Let every thing be done, that could be done, and let the people see, that so much was done; but go no farther. Their lordships ought not to forget the lessons of experience on this subject. From one step they would be led on to another, till they accomplished the final destruction of the established constitution. We had at present a good one, and for the preservation of it he thought it was not going too far, under the existing circumstances, to vote for a few months the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act

The Marquis Wellesley said, he had not the vanity to think that he could by any flattery perplex the understanding, or change the opinion of the noble lord who had last spoken; although, from an early acquaintance with him, he entertained a sincere respect for his talents, and his integrity. But he would not describe the people of England as the noble lord had described them; nor would he believe that it was in the power of any man, however excellent his character or great his talents, to flatter them either into an abandonment of their rights, or a belief that that was a right which was not so substantially. The noble lord had evidently referred to something which had been somewhere said on the subject of parliamentary reform; but he would at least do him the justice to acknowledge, that he had been always adverse to any change in the constitution of the other House of parliament. On the first day of the present session he had described the new principles of reform, and the doctrine of universal suffrage, as a gross delusion, which it had been endeavoured unsuccessfully to practise upon a people for whose understandings he had too high a respect to suppose them capable of yielding to it. Whenever such principles should gain an ascendancy, revolution would not be merely commenced, it would be completed, and an end be put to all the subsisting forms of our mixed government. He repelled, therefore, as well for the noble lords behind him as for himself, the insinuation that they had humoured the people at public meetings with such notions, or had deluded them with these idle theories.—It was in the present stage of this awful question that he desired to state his sentiments respecting it. The House now came to the discussion of it, with some distinct information as to the precise nature and character of the dangers; and it had also, to a certain extent, a clear view of the operation of the suspension bill upon that danger. In discussing this great subject, he should first consider the real nature or character of the danger, or mischief as it was sometimes called, and whether it might or might not be prevented or corrected by the existing laws, including among those laws the recent act regarding seditious assemblies; secondly, he should inquire whether that danger, and that peculiar system of mischief, could be met by any thing so well as the existing laws; thirdly, whether this extraordinary measure had not practically aggravated the danger and mischief it was intended to correct; and lastly, whether this suspension of the Habeas Corpus must not inevitably produce the dangerous and mischievous effects it was intended to correct. In treating of the first point, he felt called upon to set right some misrepresentations of the arguments of his noble friends. It had been stated, that they had argued against the suspension bill, because the situation of the country was not now exactly the same as in 1745, or at any other period when this expedient had been adopted. In fact, the turn of their argument had been directly the reverse: they insisted only that a case should be shown requiring the infringement of the constitution; to which only a sort of general answer had been made, "will you say that whenever the Habeas Corpus act is suspended the constitution is destroyed?" No noble lord who had resisted the bill had so said; but they had followed up their demand for reasons in favour of the measure, by showing that none of those existing at previous times applied to the present circumstances of the country. They had maintained that the known precedents had no bearing upon the question —no reference to the existing state of things; and they insisted, therefore, that some other ground should be laid for conferring these extraordinary powers. Entering a little farther into the point of the real nature and character of the danger, it was admitted on all hands, that the principles applying to cases of internal rebellion, fostered by external enemies, had no reference to this case: it was not even shown that any domestic conspiracy had been levelled at the regal power of the king, or at what the law construed into an attack upon it, or into a purpose of dethroning him. What adverse foreign power now fomented discontent? Or where could ministers point out general or even particular combinations to overthrow the government and destroy the authority of the sovereign? Stripped of all those circumstances, the case was different from any other known in our history. The noble lord opposite had even gone a great deal farther; for he had admitted that, from the conspiracy recently so much the subject of conversation, he had not apprehended any immediate danger to the constitution: but he, and those who supported him, added, that such practices ought not to be allowed to pass without check or punishment; for if they were allowed, they might lead to others of a more serious and fearful description. If, therefore, it were urged to-night that the constitution had been endangered by that conspiracy, it would be said for the first time, and it would be in direct opposition to what had hitherto appeared and been allowed on all sides of the question. He did not mean to deny, on the contrary it was a part of his argument, that these practices were all contrary to law; they were all certainly dangerous, and required the visitation of punishment; but what he contended was, that without this bill they were all within the grasp of the law; and farther, that as far as the designs had appeared in act, as far as any attempt had been made by the ill-disposed, they had been checked and repelled by the ordinary law: where the offence had been moderately interpreted and regularly prosecuted, the parties had indeed suffered the sentence of the law. Far was it from his intention to state, that because the persons engaged in these offences were of mean birth, and generally of low education; because their means were completely inefficient for the end, they were not criminal, and ought not to be watched by government with a vigilant eye; and even be made to feel the consequences of their crime. But here were no circumstances to excite alarm; no foreign enemy to encourage; no secret intriguers to foment: no persons of rank, education, or talents, to lead and to support. Then arose the question, did these conspiracies derive support from any circumstance? Were they aided and abetted by any great mass of the population, or was the plot so constructed and combined as to make what would otherwise be ridiculous and contemptible, serious and formidable? Assuredly not. Had any thing more absurd been heard of in the history of absurdities than the scheme recently disclosed? He protested that, had he not seen the testimony upon oath, he could never have imagined that such a project could have entered into the head of the most frantic Bacchanalian. Let us see how it was compounded and conducted. The plan was to seize on the metropolis at all its great points; to storm the Tower, to take the Bank, to burn the barracks, to conquer the military, to overthrow the old and to establish a new government: and how was all this to be accomplished 2 The exchequer of these rebels, or to speak more accurately, their military chest, contained 31l.; their arsenal was filled with six pistols and one old gun; their magazine consisted of about half a dozen bullets in a blue stocking, with a stock of powder in proportion, and that not put into the waggon by a conspirator, but by an informer; and, as the design was to employ combustibles, care was taken that they should only have a deadly operation by stench. The soldiers in the barracks were not to be burnt or blown up, but to be stifled. They were to make themselves masters of the Bank in a singular manner; by the abuse of an instrument that ought to be applied to better purposes—wine bottles, which they were to plunder from the hospitable citizens; and having employed these bottles in the attack, they were to employ them again in the defence of the Bank. For the assault upon the Tower a notable expedient was hit upon, quite of a piece with all the rest, and certainly not very flattering to the female part of the population; for the forlorn hope was to consist of a number of white robed virgins; but they unluckily found that the metropolis would not furnish them with a number adequate to the enterprise. They succeeded, however, in producing a dreadful riot, and, as white-robed virgins were not very plentiful, they supplied their places with a few drunken old women, who issuing from the tipliog-houses of the Minories, discharged vollies upon the military, which I will rather leave to your lordships imagination than attempt to describe [Hear, and laughter]. Such being the plan, I will not fatigue the House by detailing the absurdities of the execution; the conclusion, however, was, that one grand division of the army of the rebels was routed by a single trooper, and the remainder received a total defeat, with the loss of baggage, artillery, ammunition, and stores, by the valour of a single alderman [Continued cheers]. Do I exaggerate? Why, I say that this was more ludicrous than any project ever invented as a burlesque and a satire upon the most absurd of mankind. I confess, the examinations of the witnesses to substantiate it were to me a source of the highest amusement: the plan, execution, and defeat, are parallel only to each other, all equally laughable; the civil, much less the military power, had nothing to do with this signal discomfiture: it was not only sedente et cunctante, but dormiente consule. Even the ordinary vigour of the law was not required for its suppression.—The noble marquis then went on to inquire how far a vigour beyond the law, as it had been termed, was necessary for the punishment of the offenders in these disturbances; but proceeding a step farther, to other persons charged with conspiracies in other places, he begged to know what there was in the existing law to prevent ministers effecting all they wished? Could they not arrest and confine, and thus avert the apprehended mischief; and when the conspirators were brought to trial, had not the old enactments been found competent to all the purposes of justice? Although the individuals engaged in the late disorders in the metropolis had been acquitted, did not their arrest, imprisonment, and trial, with the publication of the evidence afford a lesson to the people of England of moderation and loyalty, more instructive than, all the inflictions the wisest ministers might be empowered by act of parliament to impose? By the late proceeding the people of England would first observe the glorious triumph of British justice, as well as the manly fortitude with which the prisoners bore up against prejudice and calumny; but, above all, they would learn that which would make the deepest impression, viz. the dreadful arts by which these unfortunate men were led on to their last excesses. Seditiously inclined they certainly had been, in the first instance, if no higher crime could be imputed; and the lower classes, by the perusal of the evidence, would be taught the danger of taking counsel against the peace and safety of their fellow-citizens, and against the legal and constitutional authorities of the realm. It would instruct them to beware how they allowed men with dubious professions to approach them, and to instil into their ears the poison of sedition or rebellion; it would teach them the truth of the maxim of a great orator, "justa causa nunquam esse potest contra patriam arma capere." With these important truths impressed upon the hearts of the people, it might indeed be said, that public order and happiness would be established on a rock which the efforts of a world could never shake, and which the petty fortifications ministers were now erecting could neither strengthen nor defend.—These considerations now brought him to another part of the subject—how far these great and unnecessary powers actually instigated to crime, and aggravated the evil they were designed to remedy. The report of the secret committee admitted this fact: for it was there said, that in some instances the operations of persons who gave information tended to encourage proceedings they were appointed to detect. With regard to the seditious meetings bill, he did not deny that it was a proper and a useful measure: it had produced a salutary effect: but exactly the contrary was the fact with regard to the suspension bill: it had not only augmented the evil, but, as he was prepared to prove, that augmentation had been a necessary consequence. The noble lord opposite had denied any connexion with the informer Castle: but nobody had charged it: all that was asserted was, that the manner in which he had conducted himself showed, demonstratively, that his object, from the beginning was, to be a spy and a betrayer. The remark would more strongly apply to Oliver, who, being an accredited agent of government, actually suggested one of the most violent outrages committed in the course of the disturbances.—With regard to the general question respecting the employment of informers, no person had contended that their evidence as accomplices might not be sometimes necessary; it might become a positive duty on the part of ministers to receive it; but at best it was an odious duty, and such testimony ought always to be received with caution: it was a bad foundation for a proceeding in a court of justice; but as a reason for a legislative enactment, there was no epithet of absurdity that it did not deserve. One noble lord had asked, did not the free states of antiquity resort to informers? but, upon reconsideration, he must be aware that the question was at least put rather carelessly; since every person acquainted with history would admit, that if there were one point more than another in which the institutions of those states merited the terms odious and detestable, it was in the administration of criminal justice, and above all, in state trials. The death of Socrates was surely not to be recommended to this country as a precedent of justice and impartiality, or of the purity of the courts of Athens. The argument of the noble lords who opposed the measure was not against the use of informers, but against the abuse of them; for whether in ethics their encouragement could or could not be justified, it was quite clear that they had always been the most odious instruments of the most odious tyrannies. When once their employment became so rife as at the present moment, it was to be viewed with the utmost jealousy; and, as it had been sometimes said that the people ruled their rulers, it might not long hence be asserted that informers governed the government.—The great argument for the suspension was, that it was a measure of preventive justice; but how could it deserve that character, when, by its authority, persons were dispatched through the country, not to check, but to promote— not to control, but to instigate and inflame —not to diminish the growth of crime, but to cultivate and cherish it; to bring it to its utmost height and perfection, and to afford ministers an abundant crop of justice and punishment? Such a state of things would alter the whole course of our judicial proceedings. Surely it was one of the gravest objections that could be urged against the measure, that the effect of it was to produce a horde of unprincipled informers, who were interested in raising the crime to the law, instead of adapting the law to the crime. No greater calamity than such a state of things could be contemplated. When a man was arrested, imprisoned, and denied the possibility of clearing his character, and liberating his person by the verdict of a jury, and when all his countrymen saw that such might be their fate at no distant period, was it not giving to the people a real motive for discontent, and an excuse for disorder? The only advantage ministers gained was, that they need not bring their prisoners to trial; but in what way could this be beneficial? Did it not, on the contrary, create an unnatural ardour in the public mind, which engendered the reptiles whose purpose was to ensnare the innocent and inflame the guilty? Upon every ground on which he could consider the subject, he felt it his duty to give the present motion his direct negative.

The Earl of Harrowby maintained, that from the result of the late trials, it could only be concluded, that the persons accused were legally acquitted; but it could not be concluded, that ministers would have been justifiable, if they had declined sending their case to trial. The dangers resulting from the combination of uneducated persons, could not be disregarded by any one acquainted with ancient or modern history. The successful revolts of such people in ancient Greece, must be familiar to the minds of their lordships; and it was notorious to all, that the taking of the Bastile, in France, was accomplished by persons of that description. He might also allude to the case of Despard in this country, and he would ask, could there be a plan more absurd than the one he formed, yet, happily, he was baffled. It was useless then to argue of plans being absurd, or of their being conducted by the lowest classes in society. He was persuaded the committee had done no more than its duty in recommending the further continuation of the suspension, for he firmly believed that much quiet had been introduced into the country since the passing of this act, which would not otherwise have taken place. Alluding to the insurrection in Leeds, it had, his lordship observed, been said that Oliver had been the cause of that insurrection. Now, he begged leave most earnestly to protest against such a doctrine, for the fact was, that government knew every fact connected with this conspiracy before Oliver was on the spot. He could not concur in the reproaches thrown out on spies, for he was of opinion that they were more or less necessary in every free country. As to the measure itself, he was persuaded it never would have been brought forward, had not government felt themselves called upon to do so from the most urgent necessity. Ministers had no cause to be charged with extending their powers; on the contrary, they ought, as he conceived, rather to be praised for their forbearance. It had been said that they had done nothing, and that when the people asked for bread they gave them a stone. Now such was not the case, for his majesty's ministers had only done what they conceived to be essential to the good of the country. To go no further than the poor laws, he would ask, did not their conduct on this show they were actuated by no other desire than that of adopting whatever measures should in the wisdom of parliament seem proper. They had done more, for they had made every possible reduction which in consistency with the public safety could be made. He concluded by giving his cordial support to the measure, from a conviction that it was essential to the liberties, and even the salvation of the country.

Lord Holland said, that the present question before their lordships was simply this, what is the nature of the danger you dread, and what is the remedy you propose for such a danger? Much allusion had been made to the French Revolution, and, indeed, that important event seemed to have got such hold of the minds of some, that looking back to what had occurred, or forward to what might happen, they could think of nothing else. All he wanted to know was, whether the proposed remedy would do that good which was expected to flow from it? He would not particularly allude to the year 1791 as a precedent, because then the country was at war, and besides the conspiracy, if a conspiracy then existed, was connected with France, and supported by it. But surely such was not the case now, for in the very report on their lordships table, it was candidly admitted, that the great body of the people were loyal to their sovereign and the constitution. He was glad to see this admission, but it still confirmed the truth of what a noble friend of his had said, that while a few only were indicted, the whole body of the people were punished. To be liable to punishment, was in itself a truly serious evil; and this bill was in itself the greatest violation of the rights and privileges of Englishmen that could possibly take place. He utterly condemned the system of espionage which the noble viscount was bringing in. For the measure now proposed, not a single case had been made out. Allusions had been made to humouring the people; in reply to which he would state, that neither his friends nor himself had ever attempted to humour them, by sanctioning the wild and delusive doctrine of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. The truth was, that he who held out such miserable and impracticable theories to the people was their worst enemy. But certainly it became every friend of mankind to resist this measure, which was in truth an abolition of public liberty totally uncalled for. Plots never would be wanting to furnish a pretext for the suspension of this act, which, as the bulwark of liberty was to British hearts, dearer than life itself. He had never said, there was no danger; but he had contended, that the remedy was by no means suited to the disease, and could not produce the slightest possible good. The privilege of the Habeas Corpus seemed to be considered as a fine figure in a cavalcade on a holiday; but when the state was in the slightest danger, it was carefully locked up in a chest of drawers. The more frequently this privilege was suspended, the weaker our constitution became. He protested, in the strongest manner, against the grounds on which the bill was said to vest. The suspension had never before taken place on such flimsy pretexts, and he was persuaded that it would lead to the worst consequences.

The Lord Chancellor gave every credit to those who opposed the bill for their love of the constitution, although he thought their opposition altogether unfounded. He was not so absurd as to support the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, because there were many individuals who wished for annual parliaments and universal suffrage, and many others who preferred a republic to a monarchy. There were other and very different grounds for the measure. While he allowed to the noble baron who had just spoken, that the constitution recognized the writ of Habeas Corpus, as essential to the complete system of our liberties, it also recognised the principle, that we must be content mow and then to sacrifice the temporary enjoyment of its benefits, in order to enjoy them for a more durable period. The circumstance of the frequent suspension of the act was a proof of the recognition by parliament of the principle; and if he had not made a false estimate of the present dangers of the country, they were much greater than at any of the periods at which the suspension had hitherto taken place. Adverting to the observations which had been made on the late trials, and on spies, accomplices and informers, he observed, that long before he had heard the name of Castles, he had stated to his colleagues, that he considered the transactions which followed the meeting at Spa-fields to be, in point of law, high treason. With respect to spies, he allowed that they were liable to all the epithets which had been bestowed on them; but he maintained that government, when they knew of the existence of a plot in the country, were bound to employ such persons for the purpose of detecting and defeating it. It was quite a different thing to stimulate such an individual to go any farther. With respect to the person in Yorkshire, respecting whom so much had been said, their lordships would do well to suspend their judgment until the proper time should come for his noble friend to explain the circumstances of the case, and to remember that the authority of a country newspaper on the subject was very bad authority indeed.

The House divided:

Contents—present. 73
Proxies. 68
— 141

Non-contents—present. 20
Proxies. 17
— 37

Majority for the third reading. 104