Commons Sitting of 9 May 1820

MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CRIMINAL LAWS.
Sir James Mackintoshrose, pursuant to notice, to submit certain propositions to the House touching the present state of the criminal law, founded on the report of the committee which had been appointed last session, to take into consideration so much of the criminal code as related to the infliction of capital punishment. The propositions which he should have the honor to propose, embraced two objects; the first was the appointment of a committee for a similar purpose as that which sat during the last session; and, in the second place, he should move for leave to bring in six bring in for the amendment of the criminal law, agreeably to the recommendation contained in the report of the late committee. As he understood there existed no intention in that quarter where he should much regret hostility, to oppose the propositions which he should have the honor to submit, he certainly should not trespass long on the attention of the House, did he not think it respectful towards those new members, who had not heard the former arguments, very shortly to review the nature of the grounds on which this subject was introduced. The object for which the committee was appointed by the last House of Commons, was, to ascertain, by the fullest inquiry and by the best experience, whether the severity of capital punishments did not
228
counteract the very purpose for which they were denounced by the law—whether their effect was not to create such an indisposition in prosecutors, witnesses, judges and juries, to risk their enforcement to such an extent, as in many instances to secure the impunity of persons guilty of very great offences. That was the object to which the late committee applied their diligent attention during the last session of the late parliament. The old, obvious, and common argument in support of the revision of the capital denunciations, was founded on the feelings of common humanity, and on that tender regard to life, which it was at all times so desirable to inculcate; and which it became the special duty of the lawgiver to teach by his commandments, and encourage by his example. Many answers have been made in objection to the extent of the general principle, while some other answers have been directed to the peculiarity of the law, and its practice in this country, which left the question in a great state of vagueness and uncertainty. There have been at all times persons of that vigorous understanding, and, perhaps, of that stern character, who were willing to purchase the efficacy of the law, in the suppression of offences, at the expence of the general principle. There were peculiarities in the denunciations of the law, and the manner in which denunciations were carried into effect in this country, that not a little perplexed the subject. In this country the punishment of death was denounced against many offences, but practised against few. Such a peculiarity gave a turn to the question, which, even on the principles of humanity, produced a state of things materially different from what existed in countries where the practice of the law corresponded with the severity of the denunciation. Such a peculiarity here was not to be supposed the effect of any foresight, refined wisdom, or provident arrangement for such an effect. It arose from no such causes, but was the result of that contest between the disposition of the legislature and the growing humanity and more enlightened feeling of the national character during the last century. It generally happened that innovators and reformers were charged with a love of singularity and paradox, and he believed it was generally true; but there were various instances where the love of paradox could be found at the side of establishment. Indeed it so happened, that one of the

229
eminent men who had directed his attention to the consideration of our criminal code, he meant the late Dr. Paley, had endeavoured to justify this deviation in the practice and the denunciations of the law, by allowing his vigorous understanding to have recourse to the ingenuity of a paradox, in the support of such an opinion. When men of his character adopted such a course of proceeding, it might, perhaps, be traced to those motives which a love of honour and distinction inspired. So soon as they perceived, either from the diffusion of knowledge or the success of previous discussion, that neither honour or distinction was to be acquired by defending the new opinions, they immediately changed their course, and exerted themselves in espousing the cause of received opinions. The natural passion in the support of improvement on subjects freely and fully discussed, would hot distinguish them from their enlightened contemporaries; they ran, therefore, to the opposite side, and became the advocates of antiquated abuses. It was impossible, on other grounds, to account for that love of singularity which was sometimes exemplified by vigorous men. It was the love of distinction, and not of paradox, which impelled them; for the latter was rather the infirmity of secondary talent. It was thus he might be allowed of a great ornament of that House to say, that the strange anomalies in the opinions of the late Mr. Windham were explained. He disdained a communion of opinion on subjects on which all the great men of his time concurred, and undertook, in the spirit of his character, a chivalrous defence of that, which all men but himself had abandoned. The doctrine of Dr. Paley was taking effect when the question was taken up by sir Samuel Romilly, who was so well known and respected, that it would be impossible to raise his fame. He knew it was as impossible for him or any man to raise his fame by commendation, as it was to lower it by censure. It was in that House needless, and would in him be presumptuous. Needless, because that House was best acquainted with his great powers and his greater virtues. What his feelings dictated, and his studies and conviction confirmed, he had brought into parliaments and councils. Though, perhaps, of all men, he retained a most susceptible, and he might say, shrinking humanity, for the sufferings of mankind up to a very advanced period of life, so that
230
it might be considered a part of his temperament; yet during the whole of his labours for the amelioration of the criminal law, he silenced those feelings, and compelled them to remain subservient to a more calm consideration of the great interests involved in the inquiry. What was best calculated to suppress crime and secure the general welfare, was the object that he desired. The undue severity of the punishment had, he was convinced, robbed the law of all its efficacy. There was always in the mind of man a lurking suspicion of the real merits of any plan which, however admirable in theory, had not been submitted to the test of experiment. However injurious such a suspicion might be when carried to excess, it nevertheless comprehended within itself a powerful security against that wild innovation, that precipitate change, which had ever been found fatal to the best interests of society. He by no means therefore complained of this feeling on the present subject. Puerile indeed would such a complaint be—for it was a feeling inseparable from human nature. It was this view of it which struck him in a speech made many years ago by Mr. Fox, and which speech, by a breach of the privileges of that House, he (sir J. Mackintosh) was so fortunate as to hear. In treating of appellate jurisdiction—of the reference of a case from one court to an other—that great man attributed the necessity of such an institution to what he called "a philosophical principle—the first principle of human wisdom—a consciousness of infirmity." It was that consciousness of infirmity, which justified all mistrust of general reasoning until an opportunity was offered for comparing it with particular experiment. The object of the appointment of the committee on the criminal law in the last parliament, was, to put the general reasoning upon that subject to that test. In order to enable themselves to do so, the committee called before them men of all classes and des criptions—prosecutors, witnesses, jurors, and even all judges who could be subjected to such an examination without impropriety. The opinion of the great majority—nay he might say, the unanimous opinion of those persons was, as must always be the case where a theory was founded on just and extensive observation, in favour of that theory which declared the inefficacy of severe punishments. After this, therefore, no man would be at liberty

231
to oppose the test of practical experience to the general reasoning on the subject. Those whose general reasoning had been carried to the greatest extent, were fully justified by the experience and testimony of men who had ample opportunities of obtaining experience, and whose testimony was therefore of the utmost value. The result of the committee which sat in the last session but one of the last parliament, was a recommendation to the House—or rather an instruction to their chairman, to propose to the House, in the next session, several measures calculated to carry their opinions into effect. The last session, consequent on the accession of his present majesty to the throne, was too short to afford leisure for any such propositions. He had therefore deferred any attempt to make them until the present period. The first proposition which he should submit to the House was the re-appointment (if he might be allowed to use a term certainly not altogether correct) of the committee of the late House of Commons on the subject. That committee would have various objects in view; and, among others, to take means for obtaining an experimental answer to the only objection which the late committee had heard against the evidence referred to in their report. It was said, by the objectors; that the evidence taken before the committee was confined to the capital,—that in the country there was no indisposition to prosecute, and therefore that, as respected the country, the alleged extreme severity of punishment did not operate injuriously. Now, to this he replied—first, that this very circumstance was the strongest corroboration of the principle on which the report of the committee was founded. To state that the indisposition to prosecute was greatest, in the capital, where the application of severe punishments was the most frequent, where executions were more numerous, than in all the other parts of the kingdom together, than in any little district where this crying grievance was witnessed perhaps only once in two or three years, was only to show that those who were most familiar with the evil were most solicitous to get rid of it. According to all reasoning on the subject, such should be the fact. The capital should he the place whence the general feeling as to the expediency of the frequent punishment of death ought to be deduced. But although the members of the late
232
committee, and certainly himself among the number, were quite satisfied with this argumentative answer, they were desirous of furnishing an answer from experience. They desired to examine witnesses as to the effect which the severity of punishment had on prosecutors in the provinces. They were desirous also of devoting some time to the consideration of two or three other subjects which appeared to him to be of importance, the mode of pronouncing sentence of death, and one or two other matters.—According to the instructions which he had received, he would move the House for leave to bring in six bills. The three first were for the repeal of so much of the act of the 12th of Anne, chap. 7, as made it a capital offence to steal privately in any dwelling-house to the value of forty shillings; for the repeal of so much of the acts of the 10th and 11th of William 3rd, and chap. 23 as made it a capital offence to steal privately in any shop or warehouse to the value of five shillings; and for the repeal of so much of the act of the 24th George 2nd, chap. 29, as made it a capital offence to steal privately on a navigable river, or in a port of entry and discharge, to the value of forty shillings. He knew that some gentlemen were in favour of two of these bills, and not of the third. They certainly rested on different foundations. The two first had been twice adopted by the House of Commons (though they had not been so fortunate in the House of Lords), and possessed therefore a stronger claim to present favour. With respect to the third, that for taking away the capital punishment from the offence of stealing on navigable rivers, he could not help observing that the legislature had evinced great caprice on the subject. This act was passed in 1751. In a few years afterwards the duke of Bridgwater commenced that magnificent system of internal navigation, which had eventually added more to the greatness and opulence of the British empire than, perhaps, any other enterprise of human ingenuity and perseverance. Canals, from their very nature, were more liable to the attempts of depredators than navigable rivers, and yet to robberies on canals the legislature never thought fit to extend the penalty of death, which they persevered in attaching to the same offences when committed on navigable rivers. He would proceed to state shortly the nature of the three

233
other bills for which, in compliance with the directions of the late committee, it would be his duty to move. The first bill was for the purpose of repealing certain acts of parliament, creating capital offences which the committee thought ought to be repealed, either on the ground that the offences so created were morally no offences, or that they should be considered merely as misdemeanors. Among; those acts were the 1st and 2nd of Philip and Mary, making it capitally criminal for an Egyptian to remain one year in the country; the 18th of Charles 2nd, chap, 3, making the residence of notorious thieves in Northumberland and Cumberland a capital offence; the 9th George; 1st, chap. 29, making it a capital felony to be found disguised in the Mint; the t 12th of George 2nd, chap. 29, making it a capital felony to injure Westminster Bridge. With reference to this last act, he did not mean to say that substantially to injure a public bridge ought not to be classed with very heinous offences; but then it was an offence so unlikely to occur, that the necessity for such an act as that of the 12th of George 2nd, appeared to be altogether removed. The fifth bill for which he should move was, to repeal those parts of certain acts which made the offences specified in them capital felonies, in order to leave those offences I simple felonies. Many of those offences were of a very serious nature. By the 31st of Elizabeth, chap. 9, it was made a capital felony to take away any maid, wife, or widow of property, for the sake of her fortune. If the abduction of women were to be made a capital felony, it should be so made with reference to women generally, rich or poor—heiress or pauper; but the offence was so wholly foreign to our manners, so impracticable—except indeed in some parts of the British dominions, where an exuberance of gallantry sometimes prompted to such achievements—so contrary to our grave and sober character, that it might well be left to the punishment which awaited simple felony. Under the 4th of George 1st, making the receiving of stolen goods a capital offence, only one conviction, that of the celebrated Jonathan Wild, had taken place; a sufficient proof of the expediency of modifying it. By the 9th of George 1st, the wounding of cattle and the destroying of trees were made capital felonies. Then came the statutes respecting bankrupts; and certainly, of all the
234
cases to which the general principle on which the committee proceeded was applicable, that was one which most loudly called for a change of punishment. The Marriage act also, besides the other benefits that it had conferred on society, had created five capital felonies, which it appeared to the committee expedient to modify. Then there were the 6th of George 2nd, making it a capital felony to break down the banks of rivers; the 27th of George 3rd, making it capital felony to send threatening letters, &c. For all these offences the committee proposed, instead of the punishment of death, to substitute transportation, imprisonment, or hard labour, at the discretion of the Court. The only remaining bill, the nature of which he had to describe, was a bill to consolidate and amend the various acts respecting forgery. It was proposed to take away the capital punishment for the offence of being found in possession of forged notes, and, with the exception of forgeries on the Bank of England, for the offence of forgery, on the first conviction; making it a capital offence on the second conviction, but leaving to the prosecutor the option of prosecuting as for a second offence or not; and it was proposed to make all the other offences connected with forgery transportable. To this bill, and to the bill for abolishing capital punishment for the offence of privately stealing in dwelling houses, he certainly expected some opposition. And yet, after the most attentive consideration that he had been able to give to the subject, he was thoroughly convinced, that of all the cases in our criminal law, to which the general principle of a mitigation of punishment was applicable, these were the most striking. If an instance could be selected in which the severity of the punishment prescribed by the law was, especially calculated to deter prosecutors from proceeding against offenders, it would be where those offenders lived in their families, and were in constant intercourse with them. The communication of masters with their servants, of bankers and merchants with their confidential clerks, would, where the common feelings of human nature existed, indispose superiors from prosecuting persons with whom they were in habits of daily conversation and intimacy. Accordingly, the House would find, in the appendix of the report of the committee, a number of cases of this description, and particularly of

235
the offence of forgery, in which the prosecutors had been deterred from prosecuting, and the criminals had escaped from all punishment, in consequence of the severity of the law. It was not, therefore, to the humanity of the legislature that the committee appealed on this subject, but to their policy and good sense—not to their feelings, but to their sound and deliberate judgment. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider of so much of the Criminal Laws as relates to capital punishment in Felonies; and to Report their observations and opinion of the same from time to time to the House."
Mr. Canning,after complimenting his hon. and learned friend on the manner in which he had again brought forward this important subject, proceeded to say, that although he certainly should not object to the present motion, it must not be considered that any man, by acceding to it, was pledged to entertain any further proceeding. He should be happy to see the purposes for which his hon. and learned friend wished the appointment of the committee fully developed; and he could assure him, that no objection would be made on his part to any ulterior proposition, for objection's sake; or unless there should appear to be some solid and substantial ground for doubting its expediency.
The motion was then agreed to, a committee appointed, and the report of the committee of 1819 referred to their consideration. Sir J. Mackintosh then obtained leave to bring in the three bills, which he had described in his speech, for the repeal of so much of the acts of the 12th of Anne, the 10th and 11th of William 3rd and the 24th of George 2nd, as took away the benefit of clergy from persons convicted of stealing privately to the value of forty shillings in a dwelling house; stealing privately to the value of five shillings in a shop or warehouse; and stealing privately to the value of forty shillings on a navigable river, or in a port of entry and discharge. He next moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal certain acts of parliament creating capital felonies specified therein.
Mr. Bennet,after bestowing a high eulogium on the unremitting exertions of his hon. and learned friend to amend the criminal code, and expressing a fervent hope that his humane perseverance would
236
be crowned with success, begged to call his hon. and learned friend's attention as well as that of the House to a very painful circumstance of recent occurrence. His late learned and excellent friend, sir S. Romilly, had succeeded in inducing the legislature to consent to a bill, by which the shocking punishment of embowelling and quartering persons convicted of treason, while yet alive, was abolished. The power of mutilating the bodies of such persons after death, still, however, remained in the hands of the executive authority. Was it his hon. and learned friend's intention to submit to the House any proposition on this subject? He was urged to put this question, from the feeling which had been lately excited by a dreadful exhibition of the nature he alluded to. It was the custom of many persons to attend inflictions of capital punishment, some influenced by curiosity, others by more laudable motives; and he would take upon himself to say, that there never was a feeling of greater horror excited than by the proceedings subsequent to the recent execution. He felt the strongest objection to every thing that weakened the moral taste or sensibility of the people; and, he believed, there never was a public occurrence, the circumstance attendant on which left so painful an impression on the minds of all who beheld it, as that which he had described. He could not illustrate the truth of this assertion more strongly, than by observing, that such were the feelings of the public, that it was necessary for the person who performed the horrid operation to be masked—a circumstance, which, he believed, was unprecedented since the decollation of the unfortunate Charles 1st. And to what did this shocking exhibition tend? Only to wound the survivors—the wives, the children, the families of the sufferers. He felt the injurious consequences of such proceedings so strongly, that he should not discharge his duty if he did not entreat his hon. and learned friend to give the House one more opportunity of wiping away such a stain on our legislation, by taking from the Crown the power of mutilating the bodies of the dead.
Sir J. Mackintoshwould merely address a few words to that part of his hon. friend's speech which was directed towards himself personally. When his lamented friend sir S. Romilly brought in his bill for the abolition of the horrible

237
circumstances attendant on punishment for treason, he (sir J. M.) was certainly anxious for their complete abolition. That however, his excellent friend, notwithstanding all his exertions, had been unable to effect. His opinion remained the same now as it was on that occasion; and he trusted that at some future period an exhibition would be abolished, the only tendency of which was, to show the rancour of the survivors. If, however, he should ever bring forward the subject, he should wish to do so when it might be wholly unmixed with allusions to any temporary occurrence, and when it might therefore be discussed with that calmness and deliberation which all serious and important questions demanded. No one could be mere sensible than himself of his hon. friend's unwearied benevolence, and of the noble manner in which he devoted his whole life to the cause of humanity. For his hon. friend's opinions he always entertained the greatest respect, knowing as he did, that his intentions were invariably pure and excellent. But his hon. friend would excuse him from touching: at present on the subject which he had done him the honour to recommend to his notice, lest a political feeling should be introduced into the consideration of a subject which it was most desirable, should be preserved wholly free from any taint of that nature. Sir James then withdrew his last motion, on the ground that he had discovered that the terms were not sufficiently comprehensive, and obtained leave to bring in a bill to consolidate and amend the laws in being relative to forgery. The three bills for which sir James had obtained leave, were brought in and read a first time.

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of submitting to the House the motion of which he had given notice, for leave to bring in a bill to exclude the borough of Grampound from sending members to parliament, and to enable the borough of Leeds to assume that privilege. In doing so, he would shortly trouble the House with his views on the subject. He had in the course of last session stated his own opinion of the propriety of disfranchising the borough of Grampound, or any other borough similarly situated, and of extending the franchise thus forfeited to large towns or populous districts. When he stated this opinion, it was, he
238
believed, generally admitted, that there might be cases in which that principle might be safely adopted. Whether the borough of Grampound did or did not deserve the punishment which he proposed to inflict on it—and whether or not it would be proper to extend the right of electing members to the borough of Leeds to the West Riding of Yorkshire, or to any other particular place—were questions which he would not now enter into, as they might be discussed with greater advantage in a future stage of the bill. He would at present-merely state the purport of the measure. It disabled Grampound from sending members to parliament, and enabled those voters in that borough who had not been convicted of corruption to vote for members as if they were freeholders of the county. Another part of the bill was, that it empowered the election, by the borough of Leeds, of two members, at the conclusion of the present parliament, or, in case any vacancy occurred in the borough of Grampound, before that period. The right of suffrage which he proposed for the borough of Leeds would extend to persons renting houses of the value of 5l. per annum. The borough of Leeds, it must be observed, comprehended a much larger space than the town of Leeds. It was thirty miles in circumference—comprised eight or ten villages besides the town—and contained about seventy thousand inhabitants. Supposing the right of suffrage to be granted to those who rented houses of the annual value of 5l., the number of voters would be about eight thousand. Some individuals were of opinion that the right should not be granted to those who did not rent houses of the value of 10 l. a year, which would reduce the voters to the number of 5,500; but, on consideration, he conceived that it was better to extend the privilege of suffrage to the smaller sum. His great object was, to have the principle of transferring the elective franchise from convicted boroughs acknowledged and established by parliament. If that principle were established, it would be entirely indifferent to him whether the franchise was extended at all to Leeds; or, if granted to that borough, whether it was given in the particular manner which he proposed; or whether it was extended to the West Riding of Yorkshire, or any other populous place. All he desired was to secure the principle, and, in all he did,

239
his view was to give effect to that principle in the way which appeared to his mind to be the best. If the mode which he proposed did not seem to the House to be the best, and if any other coarse more efficient were pointed out, it would give equal pleasure to him, provided the principle were established. The noble lord concluded by moving "for leave to bring in a bill to exclude the borough of Grampound from sending burgesses to serve in parliament, and to enable, the borough of Leeds to send two burgesses to serve in parliament in lieu thereof."
Mr. Canningsaid, that as it, had been distinctly understood in the last session of the last parliament, that the noble, lord who now introduced this measure should not be in the smallest degree prejudiced in again bringing forward the subject, so far as this proceeding might have been prejudiced by the dissolution of the last, and the formation of a new parliament, that circumstance would be amply sufficient to justify any individual who might wish to oppose the introduction of this bill in abstaining from pursuing that course. He, however, felt no such inclination. He was perfectly disposed, on his own part, and on the part of those with whom he acted, to see the noble lord's bill brought before the House for discussion. And so far as the acknowledgment of the principle, that a borough convicted of gross bribery and corruption, such as in former times would produce an order for disfranchisement, went, he was ready to say that to such disfranchisement, in such a proved case, he had no objection. So far would he go. But he was sure it was not necessary to appeal to the noble lord's candour for the preservation of any ulterior opinion as to the mode in which the franchise, so taken away, should be disposed of; because he was convinced the noble lord would recollect that, in the last session of parliament, the introduction of the town of Leeds rested solely on his own will and opinion, without any previous concert or understanding, expressed or implied, with any other persons, as to the propriety of selecting that particular place. No person, he believed, but the noble mover himself, was cognizant of the place to which he wished to transfer the franchise. When the bill came regularly before the House for discussion, he should be prepared to enter into all the considerations that he longed to it. He was at present only desirous that the consent which, individually,
240
and for others, he gave to the introduction of the bill, should not be considered as pledging any gentleman's opinion beyond the first step, that of introducing the measure—or as pledging any opinion with respect to the principle of the bill, farther than it applied to this specific case. He made this reservation at the present moment, lest his sentiments might be misunderstood; for if there were any point which the noble lord had stated, on which he had decided differently from the noble lord, and to which no circumstances could make him agree, it was this—that the measure itself was comparatively indifferent, but that the establishment of the principle was every thing. He would look only to this specific measure; and, as far as possible, he would, avoid, and he hoped the House would pursue the same course, legislating on the general principle. He would say nothing more, because this was not the time to provoke this discussion; and less he could not have said without being liable to the imputation of not having clearly explained himself. Perhaps the noble lord would allow him to I ask, merely for information, whether it was intended that the borough proposed to be disfranchised should be heard in its defence?
Lord J. Russellsaid, it was not his intention to call for any further proceeding. The inquiry last year rendered it unnecessary.
Lord A. Hamiltonobserved, that, if it were determined to take away the elective franchise from Grampound, he could suggest places in that part of the country with which he was more intimately connected to which it might be extended with advantage.
Lord J. Russellwished to observe, that it was necessary to introduce in the bill then before the House the name of some place to which the elective franchise was to be transferred. He had no objection to granting the franchise any other borough. The right hon. gentleman must know, that when bills were brought in respecting other boroughs in which bribery and corruption had prevailed, the title of those bills was "a bill for preventing bribery and corruption in such a borough." It was quite impossible to give such a title to the bill, which did not go to prevent bribery and corruption for the future in Grampound, but to deprive it entirely of its franchises. With respect to the admission that was made in the last session

241
of parliament, he would offer a single remark. The way he understood it was,—though, perhaps, he ought not to state his view in the absence of the noble lord (Castlereagh) who spoke on the occasion that the noble lord, without deciding any thing on the case of the borough of Gram-pound, expressed his opinion, that many cases might arise in which it would be extremely inconvenient to proceed on the principle of granting the franchise of the convicted borough to the hundred, and that it would be necessary to find some other constitutional body in which that great trust could be safely placed. Suppose one borough were thrown into the hundred, and another borough were afterwards placed in the same situation, it was obvious, that it would create considerable inconvenience. This was the way in which the noble lord viewed the question; and the admission was, that cases might arise where it would be necessary for the House to exert its power. The course which administration might think proper to pursue was now the great point to be considered; and he did hope, for their own sakes, as well as for the sake of the country, that they would lend every assistance to the object which this bill embraced. It had given him great satisfaction to find, that in almost every quarter of the country, the proposition had been received with joy, and with gratitude towards the administration for the part they had taken. This must prove to them at how very low and cheap a price the affections of the people might be gained.
Mr. D. Gilbertperfectly agreed in the observation, that it would be very inexpedient, where several boroughs were disfranchised, to extend the rights thus forfeited to any one place.
Lord Miltonobserved, that it would be extremely inconvenient, supposing a number of boroughs to be disfranchised, to give the right of voting to those who, as freeholders, had now a right of voting for county members. Supposing, for instance, five Cornish boroughs to fall under the lash of the House—a circumstance by no means impossible—those to whom the franchise was transferred would then have to vote for twelve members—two for the county, and ten for other places.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which lord John Russell forthwith brought up. It was read the first time.

THE QUEEN.
Lord A. Hamiltonrose
242
to ask a question relative to the provision which ought to be made for the support of her majesty. On a former occasion he had stated his intention of making some observations on this subject. He now wished to know whether it was intended to propose any specific provision for her majesty; and, if so, when that provision would be proposed. He was surprised that no notice had been taken of that illustrious personage, by his majesty's ministers, in the progress of the resolutions respecting the civil list.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the only answer he could give the noble lord was, that, undoubtedly it would become necessary to propose to parliament to make a provision for the queen, as well as for several other branches of the royal family. The subject would soon be brought under the consideration of parliament.

MOTION RESPECTING THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND PROCEEDINGS OF GEORGE EDWARDS.
Mr. Alderman Wood,in rising to bring forward his motion relative to Edwards, who was said to be connected with the Cato-street conspiracy, begged to assure the House that he had no other end or object in view than that of public justice. Before he gave notice of this motion, he had done every thing in his power, by application to the Secretary of state for the home department, to have this individual brought to trial. The information which he possessed came to his knowledge in his magisterial capacity. He laid the documents before lord Sidmouth, and offered to bring forward, for examination at his office, the different witnesses upon whose testimony they were made out. His representations not having been acted upon, he felt it his duty to bring the subject before parliament. He had looked over the depositions of more than thirty persons, and those documents which he held in his hand he should feel it necessary to read at length to the House, unless his motion for a committee was granted [a laugh]. He assured the House that he had not the slightest wish to occupy their attention more than was absolutely necessary. If the House would allow the appointment of a select committee, he would undertake to satisfy them of the facts which he had to allege against this man, Edwards. This was a question of a grave and serious nature, and called for their most patient

243
investigation. Before he entered upon it, however, he thought it necessary, to state what the nature of the motion was. He intended to move for a select committee to examine evidence of the criminal conduct of George Edwards and his associates during the last two years; and also their connexion with the late Cato-street conspiracy. If he could show that this man was not only connected with, but the instigator of that conspiracy—if he could show that he had for the last two years been agitating it; that he had himself purchased the arms and other offensive weapons; that he had made the tin cases to contain the powder, &c, he thought it would be impossible that the House should refuse a committee of inquiry. He had no hesitation in saying that he could prove all this, not by the testimony of suspicious characters, but by that of men of probity—men who had worked in the same employment for four, live, and some of them six years. He had inquired into their characters, and had found from their employers that they were unexceptionable. The hon. alderman said he would read from different documents extracts of what several persons had deposed before him, and which they stated themselves ready to prove upon oath.—First, he begged to say that he had traced Edwards for the last five years. He would, however, confine his present statement to the last two. He had first found him to be at Windsor, where he was occasionally employed selling plaster busts. All at once, he became to all appearance rich, and he gave out that lord Castlereagh had assisted in recovering a legacy for him. He next found him in connexion with a police-officer, and this he conceived to be an important circumstance in the case. This officer had been in connexion with Castles; they had been engaged, the one in getting French prisoners to desert, and the other in detecting them. He had traced this traitor, he could not call him a man, through all his proceedings. He had found, that before the Cato-street business, he had taken Thistlewood to Harrison's lodgings, and after the failure of that conspiracy, he had traced him to his lodgings. He did not, however, at once betray him; he waited until The Gazette came but, offering a reward of 1,000 l. for his apprehension. Then it was that Thistlewood's retreat was found out, and he could prove that Edwards was seen near the spot at
244
the time of his arrest. He could show, that Edwards, after seeing Thistlewood to his lodgings, called upon his wife and told her he was safe, though within the next half hour he was to betray him to the officers of justice. He could also show, that tins Edwards had for six weeks resided in the house of a Mr. Fowler at Pimlico, under the name of Ward, until it being discovered that he was a spy, he was obliged to leave it. The hon. alderman said he would, before he proceeded further, read to the House the opinion of the lord advocate of Scotland, on the trial of the notorious Watt, the spy, who was tried for high treason, and hanged at Edinburgh. In doing this he did not wish to prejudice the case of Edwards; he did not wish his life should be taken. He thought it sufficient that he should be sent out of the country, in order to prevent him from following his trade of seducing the minds of poor deluded wretches into schemes of treason and rebellion. The hon. alderman then read an extract from the speech of the lord advocate, which pointed out the criminality of a person engaged as a spy, going about deluding poor wretches into schemes of treason to his advantage, but to their utter ruin. It was not to be borne that men should thus go about sacrificing the lives of others to their base and sordid appetites. This was the opinion of the lord advocate of Scotland. Now, there was evidence to show, that letters had passed between this man and Mr. Dundas, and that money had been given to him.—The hon. member proceeded to read the depositions of a man named George Pickard, 15, Hare-street, Bethnal Green, as follows:—"I know Edwards. I first saw him before the first Smithfield meeting. I never much associated with him, I considered him too much of a blackguard. I knew his brother also, who was secretary to the Spencean Society, I met him some time about July, at the White Lion in Wych-street; there were two or three others there. He knew me better than I did him. He asked me how I did, and said, 'what a pity it is, Pickard, that 'we can't destroy these b—y vermin.' A trifling conversation took place; at last, I'll tell you what it is, said he, any body can get into the House of Commons with an order, nor does it require that they should go clean. Suppose we have an iron case made in the shape of a book (for any person is al-

245
lowed to carry in a book), and have some old gun-barrels, which may be got cheap, cut into pieces about three or four inches long; let them be plugged up at each end with lead, and the centre filled with powder, and a touch-hole made; half a dozen of cases may be made full of them for a similar number of men to take into the House. One man might have a bottle of phosphorus, and a lighted match might be taken with a piece of rope without giving any alarm to the persons present, and applied to the fuze, which would communicate with the contents of the cases; they should be thrown when the House was full from the gallery; the opportunity should be taken when some important business was going forward. What b—y destruction it would make,' said he, seemingly quite pleased, and laughing at the idea. He next said, that 'Thistlewood would soon be out, and he was the boy for doing business. When he comes we will set all things to rights.' After some further talk he drew out a grenade, saying, 'What do you think of this?' 'What do you call it?' said I; Oh, you are a d—n'd fool—you know 'nothing,' and then he told me it was a hand-grenade,. He asked me if I would make one of 30 or 35 men, for some desperate purpose which he did not explain; 'but such things,' he added, should not 'be entered into without having a guard against the b—y police.' Upon which he drew forth a curious instrument from his waistcoat pocket, and said, 'it might be put into a common walking-cane by having a hole bored in the bottom, and be instantly fit for use.' I told him I must know him better before I would have any thing to do with him. He replied, that "Thistlewood knew him well,' and that that would be a sufficient recommendation.—I met Edwards and Thistlewood previous to the Cato street business, on the Saturday. Thistlewood asked me various questions respecting business, and after shaking hands he bid me good day; then Edwards turned quite round, and after looking for some minutes, held his hand out to shake hands. I do not recollect the first few sentences that passed, but on parting he said, 'You 'b—, you must fight before long,' On the following Monday two persons called at my lodgings when I was absent, and inquired for me. One of them answered the description of Edwards. They left no message, but called again
246
on Tuesday, but I was away. I never heard of him since then.
"Previous to the last time of my seeing Edwards, I went to the Scotch Arms, in Round court, Strand, and saw Adams and Edwards there. They both talked about destroying the ministers, and invited me to go to a meeting, and Adams gave me a grenade and Edwards gave me a small-pike. I told Whatman of the circumstance; he advised me to have nothing to do with the business. Adams and Edwards called at my lodgings the day before the Cato-street business, but I had left.
Mr. Grenfell.—I beg to know on what authority the hon. alderman is proceeding. Were these affidavits? Was this evidence taken on oath?
Mr. Bennetconceived this interruption to be uncalled for.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that unauthenticated papers could not be read except with the permission of the House.
Mr. Grenfell.—I wish, for my own information, and that of the House, to know on what authority this evidence rests.
Mr. Alderman Woodanswered, that these documents were copies of depositions, many of which had been laid before lord Sidmouth, and were signed by the persons who gave the evidence. Those individuals were ready to swear to the truth of their statements. William Coudry stated that he attended several meetings when Edwards was present, and was informed by him, on one occasion, that a cabinet dinner was to be given at lord Westmoreland's, at which lord Castlereagh would be present. Edwards said, "the b—y Irish butcher must be made away with." Coudry stated also that he had often seen Edwards afterwards, and he was always preparing destructive instruments, Seymour staled, that he knew Edwards four or five, years. He met him some time ago, and he proposed that deponent should go to a meeting in Smithfield. He replied to Edwards that he would not go, for that he was not inclined to join in those bad pranks. Edwards afterwards told this man that the meeting had not turned out to their expectation. This, the hon. alderman observed, was a man of considerable respectability. Another man had seen Edwards at a coffeehouse, in June, and was told by him that the only means was, to destroy his majesty's ministers by throwing hand-gre-

247
nades into their carriages. Another individual was called on by Edwards on the 19th of August, three days after the dispersion of the meeting. Edwards stated to him that Manchester was on fire, that the New Bailey was taken, and that Hunt was killed; and added, "Come out immediately, all are ready; we have nothing to do but racing our forces." Edwards came again at 8 in the evening, arid said something so wicked, that the man would have nothing more to do with him. Edwards called on another man at his mechanical business, and asked if the men were all reformers. After corning Several times, he saw a sword hung Up in the place, and said he would be very much obliged to him for it. The individual gave it. Edwards said "You have more." He replied that he had not. Edwards said such swords were very cheap, and they could get them as cheap as the government. The man rave him no more. But soon afterwards a bundle was brought to him containing 24 swords and some pikes, and Edwards carried away a number of them under his coat, and sent for others. He said to this individual, "Pray come and see what we are about." He went, and there he saw Edwards in a flannel jacket, surrounded with combustibles; he saw him making cartridges and hand-grenades, and arranging all the implements of destruction. The man, who had formerly been at sea, would stay no longer. A man of the name of Chambers was visited by Edwards, and was desired to permit him to leave there some arms. Edwards said that all was ready. He offered money to two Irishmen who came in, and brought them to a public-house, where he treated them with some drink. Mary Barker, daughter of one of the unfortunate men, stated that the hand-grenades and other things found in her father's (Tidd's). house, were entirely brought in the night before by Edwards. Another individual—he was not desired by any of those persons to conceal their names, and if any member wished for the names he was ready to give them—knew Edwards; he had known William Edwards, brother of this Edwards, connected with1 the police, and had worked with him at the palace at Windsor. This man was conducted by Edwards to Cato-street, but when he saw the preparations there, he immediately ran away. Edwards presented his sword to prevent another from going away from Cato-street. To another per-
248
son Edwards said, "Now is the time to destroy his majesty's ministers, if the country is not to be ruined." The man replied, "Such a thing might do very well for a foreigner; it would not do for an Englishman." Edwards then got Thistlewood to come along with him to this man. Thistlewood had Sold an estate of 7,000 l. to a friend of the man's, arid was therefore known to him. But the mart Said to them, "I'll hear no more of that." Another man was applied to by Edwards on the 19th of January, and was told by him that the destruction ministers, either in their Carriages or at cabinet dinners, was determined on. Another person stated Edwards to have been patronized by colonel Taylor at Windsor, and that he knew him to be a spy. Another person, who had been on the waggon at the Smithfield meeting, stated, that Edwards gave a hint to a person who was about to speak, of what he should say—gave him a pint of beer told him to speak out, and among other things suggested, that they were ready with fire-balls. He was sorry to tire the House, but it was a very extraordinary disclosure. Never had there been a thing devised so well. In the whole proceedings not one instance was found of one person seduced, seducing another. A was not found to have seduced B; but in all Cases Edwards was the seducer. Of some of the papers he was not prepared to give any account, as they had come into his hands only since he came into the House. But he had stated the facts brought forward by such persons as were sufficient to convict Edwards. He should hear, perhaps, that those persons were themselves guilty of misprision of treason; he was prepared to hear that, and to say something in reply. But that did not at all lessen the guilt of the individual who was seducing others to acts of treason. Edwards had gone of with these practices, and supplied others with moneys. He could prove money to have passed from Edwards to many of the deluded persons. It was remarkable that Edwards was near the spot when Thistlewood was taken in Haris's house. Whether he had received the 1,000 l. or not, he did not know. If he had, he could now live without labour, at least without such labour as he might otherwise be dependent on. It was certain that he had lived six weeks in great affluence, under the name of Ward. This was established by the testimony of a very-

249
respectable man, who kept a school in St. George's Hanover-square, with respect to whose conduct in this business the trustees had held a meeting, and found nothing to blame. This gentleman (Mr. Fowler) was applied to by Edwards, under the name of Ward, for lodgings, and Mr. Wake, who kept Buckingham-gate, said to Mr. Fowler that he was a respectable person. After he had been six weeks there, he said to Mr. Fowler, if Mr. Sheriff Parkins or Mr. Sheriff Rothwell should call for him, his name was Edwards. Mr. Fowler exclaimed, "Good God! have I got a spy in ray house all this time?" There had been no subscription to provide any money. There had indeed been a subscription for one of the persons implicated, who had been in the debtors prison, but it was very small. There had been, therefore, no money provided among them that could account for Edwards's mode of living and acting. He concluded by moving, "That a secret committee be appointed to examine evidence touching the, criminal conduct and proceedings of George Edwards and his associates for the last, two years, and especially his connexion with the parties forming the Plot lately discovered in Cato-street."
Sir R. Wilson,in seconding the motion, could not withhold his tribute of praise to the worthy alderman, to whose vigilance and attention to the public interests the country was so much indebted. He hoped that his majesty's ministers would not, on consideration, object to the motion. The more particularly as it would afford them an opportunity of vindicating themselves from the reproach of being connected with this Edwards, as well as from the mysterious circumstance of his not having been put either to the bar or in the jury box. He was not in England when the trial took place, but he had not since his return, conversed with any man who did not deplore the, circumstance of that person not having been brought forward, either as a culprit or a witness. It appeared that one of the sheriffs, accompanied by another gentleman, waited on lord Sidmouth, requesting that he might be called as a witness. He was not prepared to say that spies were not necessary under certain circumstances, but he must say, that an organised spy system was most abominable. If ministers were prepared to say, that the state of this, country was such as to require an organized
250
system of this kind, then he would tell them that they ought without delay to abandon the government altogether. Under any circumstances, those who engaged spies, were placed under an awful responsibility. They should take care that their agents should not become incendiaries—that they, should not have the means of providing arms and ammunition, in order to seduce those, who from distress, or a feeling of unredressed wrongs were likely to become easy dupes to their machinations. It was easy to see what the effect would be, if such men as Oliver, or Castles, were to make Paisley or any other, distressed district the scene of their operation. In such a case, the distresses of the people would enable such miscreants to bring, not tens, but thousands to the scaffold. That, Edwards was guilty, was incontestibly proved by the evidence given on the late trials. He did not say that Edwards, was the sole planner of the conspiracy, but he, did believe that Edwards had instigated a number of the unfortunate persons who had been brought to the bar, and some of whom had suffered the penalty of death. He felt more jealousy about this transaction in this country, because it forcibly recalled to his mind what had occurred in another country a few years ago. The unhappy persons in the case to which he alluded were accused on the secret evidence of a spy of the police—the accused demanded that the accuser might be brought forward, but that demand was rejected; they were found guilty, and executed under circumstances of peculiar, barbarity—with a barbarity which never disgraced the French revolution, even in, the very height of its rage. But, barbarous as it was, the execution of those persons did not excite so much indignation as the unjust transaction, disgraced as it had been by the interference of spies. He had good reason to believe that nothing tended so much to make the people of that country treat with distrust and jealousy the public jurisprudence, as the opinion so generally entertained by them, that persons in that country were trepanned and finally executed, through the wicked agency of police spies. He was anxious for the appointment of a committee, in order to ascertain the culpability of Edwards—to ascertain whether the offences imputed to him were contemplated by him—to ascertain whether it was his arts and his instigation that seduced the unhappy persons engaged

251
in the late conspiracy, and brought them to the fate which they suffered. It was important to know distinctly and entirely who were the persons who promoted that conspiracy—it was necessary to satisfy the public mind upon this subject, for many might imagine that there were persons in secret and in reserve anxious to forward the plans of conspiracy and to supply the means necessary to meet expected resistance. Another good effect that would follow the appointment of a committee, would be to show the country at large, that such persons as Edwards, after the commission of every crime, would not be allowed the enjoyment of perfect impunity—to convince the country that that description of persons should, like better men, be accountable for their conduct. If it were otherwise—if impunity were to follow them, swarms of these miscreants would cover the face of the country; they would be organized into battalions, the terror of the people and the disgrace of the government. He supported the motion of the worthy alderman from no party feeling. He supported the motion in order to try whether the charges brought against Edwards were true—in order to see why and wherefore the legal advisers of the Crown refused to place that man in the witness's box. His only object was to establish the truth.
Mr. Bankessaid, that such a motion ought to be supported either by some case of precedent, or some analogy in other times; or it ought to be founded on the urgent necessity of the case. The worthy alderman had not established any grounds applicable to either of those descriptions. The motion was totally inconsistent with every thing he understood constantly to belong to the functions of that House. It was a motion for a secret committee to inquire into the degree of criminality in an individual person. Anything so extraordinary, so anomalous, as the degree of criminality in an individual, he had never heard proposed for inquiry in that House. He had always expressed, when inquiries of certain kinds were proposed, how cautious the House should be in tradeing on judicial grounds. Judicial inquiries could never be conducted by that House, either with honour to itself, or success in eliciting truth. What powers had that House for the purpose of judicial inquiry? Was there any thing of so little weight as evidence given either at the bar, or before a committee of that
252
House? In every other court there was a power essential to the eliciting of truth. There was a power of receiving evidence under the Sanction of God's presence, and the responsibility of an oath. The constitution, wisely as he conceived, denied that power to that House and their committees. The wisdom of our ancestors, when it derived the power of examining an oath, taught them that they ought not to meddle with matters which could only be investigated by the most solemn investigation. Was there no law to be applied to this inquiry? Was there no tribunal in this country? Was the worthy alderman driven from the natural tribunal to trying such charges? What prevented this individual from being prosecuted as all others were prosecuted? He understood that the worthy alderman had applied to a noble lord, and had been so far refused as that the noble lord would give no countenance to the prosecution. But was every individual who indicted a man to ask the secretary of state to give his sanction? It was a miserable state of the country, if a minister of state must give his previous sanction to every indictment. Why did not those whose statements had been read make their depositions before a magistrate? Depositions they could not be called; and for any authority or weight which ought to be attached to them; he looked upon them only as so much waste paper. They had no authority which the House could admit. It was, he conceived, not a little singular, that the hon. alderman had talked all through of Edwards, as the instigator of those plots, yet he never mentioned a word of any body else. It was rather a little surprising that a person of his great acumen could not have conceived that these atrocious proceedings might not have been the result of a conspiracy. Was it nothing that others should have entered into the horrid scheme, or was the only guilty person Edwards? For Iris own part, he believed that some of those men who were not tried were notorious as having been concerned in the plot, and deeply implicated, though not perhaps in the same degree of guilt as their unfortunate companions, who had laid down their lives in expiation of their crimes. When this was so, then, how could the hon. alderman have Omitted to mention that Edwards was alone guilty in this plot? Did the hon. alderman think, by his motion, that a committee of the House was in the nature of a grand jury,

253
and could find a bill? If he did, he held an opinion as to the functions of the House, which was different, he believed, from that of every other member in it. The next point to which he begged the attention of the House was, whether the case stated by the hon. alderman was one of such immediate urgency as called upon the House to take upon itself the functions of the courts of law? Were there faggots placed in the chamber below them, and every thing prepared to blow them up tomorrow, unless they came to a decision that night? Did the hon. alderman think that the danger Was now existing—that the plot was still going on—and that they were now called upon for some extraordinary interference? If not, why was this sudden interference demanded? He (Mr. Bankes) did not deny that Edwards was implicated in guilt, but the others who acted with him were not less so: but, however atrocious the plot, he thought it was shaken at the present moment, and that no danger could now be feared from it. What, then, was the object of the hon. alderman in making this motion? Was it that Edwards should be brought to justice as a traitor to his country, or to those associates to whom it would seem he was more bound? This could not be his object; for by his own admission, he would not have him, or any man punished with death for that or any other crime except murder. The hon. alderman wished that this man should be sent out of the country; but this object would be attained without his motion, and that according to his own statement. The gallant general too, who seconded the motion, who had come fresh from a land where dreadful executions were held in abhorrence, had described that every body from Calais to London was shocked at the circumstance that Edwards was not put. into the witness box on the trials. Now, suppose the House consented to a committee, could that circumstance form any part of their inquiry, or was it intended that this should be a particular instruction to them? If that were intended, it would show the absurdity of the whole of the motion: for it would only in this, shape amount to this—that the law officers of the Crown were to be examined as to why they had not put this man, Edwards, into the witness box to be examined. The proposition was, in his opinion, of a nature too absurd to waste for a moment the precious time of the House upon it. The
254
gallant general had complained that the government was supported by the system of spies; but in the depraved state of the present times, when men of such sanguinary dispositions were abroad, when such plots were embraced, not by one or two, but by a considerable number, was it not necessary that government should have recourse to the agency of spies? He conceived that a good government in such times required the use of spies, and he cared not how much this opinion exposed him to misrepresentation. Would it be held by any man, that the intelligence commmunicated by an informer was to be scouted when it referred to the safety of the state? What would the hon. alderman say if a gang of robbers had laid a plot to plunder his house and attack his family, and information of the intended attack were communicated by one of the party? Would he say to him, "Go, you are as bad as the rest; you deserve no credit, and ought to be punished." Would the hon. alderman say this, and, after having dismissed his informant, go supinely and stupidly to sleep? He was certain that no man would act so incautiously; and were the House to be told that less care was to be taken for the public than for an individual? The hon. alderman was a magistrate; and, as such, did he not know that the principle of the law encouraged men to discover the guilt of those, with whom they were associated in crime? Was not the detection of crime, and the punishment of the guilty very frequently brought about by such means? Why, then, should he condemn that which was in daily practice, and the utility of which bad been so long experienced? There, was a great man, a magistrate of ancient times, and of another, country—he certainly did not mean to compare him to the hon. alderman—whose vigilance and integrity had saved his country from a most foul conspiracy. He had a different opinion from that entertained, by the hon. alderman on the subject of getting, information from some of the guilty parties. Whatever other opinions might be entertained of that great man (Cicero), there would he, he believed, but one. on his conduct on that occasion. He had not hesitated to seek and receive information, from the, courtezan, Fulvia, of Cataline's designs; and the ambassadors of the Allobroges he encouraged to continue to attend the meetings of the conspirators, in eider that their de-

255
signs might be more fully discovered.—"Legatis præcipit, ut studium conjurationis vehementer simulent; cæteros adeant: bene polliceantur, dentque operam, ut eos quam maxume manifestos habeant." Such was the conduct of that great man and excellent magistrate: and it was a conduct for which he had never been accused by the lovers of their country. In conclusion, the hon. gentleman again expressed that he saw no ground whatever for acceding to the present motion.
Mr. Hobhouseaddressed the House for the first time, as follows:—
Mr. Speaker; I feel it incumbent upon me to state shortly my reasons for voting for a motion which, as it has been characterized as senseless, stupid, and absurd, cannot, it appears, be supported without some excuse; and in so doing, I am aware that it is necessary to intreat the House to grant to me the indulgence usually bestowed upon a young member. Indeed I cannot conceal from myself—I cannot conceal from others—that these are peculiar circumstances attending my position here, which make it more than commonly requisite to lay claim to the patience, the attention, and even the candour of the House, whilst I endeavour to explain my sentiments upon a question on which such division of opinion seems likely to prevail [Hear, hear!]. My embarrassment is increased also, since I venture to oppose a gentleman of experience so tried, and of character so high, both in this House and in the country, as the hon. member who has just sat down, and has given opinions so diametrically opposite to those which I venture to entertain. But, unless I am mistaken in every point of view in which I have been able to consider tin's subject—unless I am totally unable to distinguish between right and wrong—unless I have mis-read all the records of this House and of the country, this question is such as an English House of Commons not only should not reject without examination, but is bound seriously to entertain. The hon. member has told us, that this House should not meddle with the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of law. The position, generally speaking, may be admitted—for who does not see that much mischief must ensue from the interference of the makers with the administrators of the laws? And yet it is undeniable that there are many precedents for this interference—it is undeniable that the House of Commons has, in various
256
instances, not only instituted prosecutions, but has assumed all the functions of a court of justice. We are told that the proceeding here would be too summary—that we should be acting as if we could administer an oath, when it is notorious we have not that power—that we should be taking upon ourselves to proceed in a criminal matter. Let me ask the hon. member, let me ask the House—has parliament never proceeded summarily, aye, much more summarily than is now proposed by the worthy alderman? Let me ask, has this House never acted as if it would examine upon oath—has it never proceeded without the pains of taking even simple evidence upon many an important question? Let me ask, are there no instances in which the members of this House have clothed themselves with the attributes and power of courts of law, and have assumed to themselves a criminal jurisdiction, and inflicted punishment without a single solemnity, or the observance of the most ordinary forms? [Hear, hear!] I think I could suggest a case in which sentence has been passed here upon an absent individual, not only without the trial, but without the citation of the accused; but I am too personally concerned in the transaction to which I allude to enlarge upon this topic. I will only observe, that the House in that instance did invest itself with the authority of the legal tribunals of the country, and did so for the purpose of self-vindication. Shall it then now refuse to interfere in behalf of the people when the object demanded is not punishment, but merely inquiry? Permit me also to remark, that these inquiries are now refused when it is asserted that there exist machinations against the government. On such an occasion depositions, with or without name, coming from parties either of no character or interested in their own allegations, are readily received and made the materials for examination by secret committees, and for enactment against the liberties of our countrymen. Will it not, then, be indecent to refuse to look into an alleged conspiracy against the peace and the happiness of the people? Shall we who are so ready to protect the ministers, do nothing to defend the subjects of the Crown? [Hear, hear!] We are told, indeed, that this is riot the proper place for the investigation; because what is proposed to be done here may be done elsewhere. But it is but too clear that unless something is

257
done here, nothing will be done any where. Has not the worthy alderman assured us that the affidavits now offered to the House, have been carried to the secretary of state for the home department—and that the answer received from that noble personage was such as to preclude all hope of further investigation in that quarter? I would intreat the House to look at the difference of the conduct which is recommended as being so salutary now, and of the manner in which this assembly proceeded on the occasion to which I have before alluded. The hon. member for Corfe Castle has ridiculed the danger to which the schemes of Edwards might expose this House. "What," says he, "are we undermined—are we treading on barrels of gunpowder—can nothing save us from destruction but a summary effort to arrest the accused author of so much meditated mischief?" Why, Sir, the charge is, that the instruments for destroying this House were actually prepared; and yet the hon. member ridicules all attempts at punishment or prevention. Now let me recall to the hon. member the dreadful alarms, the prompt proceedings adopted against the author of a pamphlet in which it seemed possible that some recommendations to a dispersion of this House might be found. Here was no plot—no grenades—no mischief either done or meditated; but though this Edwards is to walk at large, the author of a single passage of disputable meaning is to be sent to prison, without trial and without citation.
The principal reason which induces me to vote for this motion is, that it involves interests not partial but universal, and deeply affects the whole people of this great country. I do think, sir, that the language, familiar in the mouths of hon. members is such as to make it suspected that we do, not legislate for the nation at large so much as for individuals. When I first took my seat in this assembly I heard an hon. member say that the first duty of the government was "to reduce the people." Such was the expression of the hon. mover of the answer to the king's speech at the beginning of the session, and similar phrases have often struck, and I may say, offended my ears since that occasion. I am sure that such language must induce a, belief out of doors, that there is a distinction to be made between the governors and the governed; and, to my mind, we cannot have a better oppor-
258
tunity than the present of showing that we are actuated by no selfish motives, but are ready to do our duty by our country, and to promote the interests of all. On this occasion we have an opportunity of showing that we are alive not only to the actual danger, but to the very suspicions of the people. It is indubitable that a very general opinion prevails as to the share which some persons connected with the government may have had with this wretched miscreant. I shall not say that the government is guihy—I shall not say that the government is innocent: I am wholly ignorant of the transaction: but I know that there is a very general feeling abroad that the plot for which the unfortunate men have lately suffered, has been got up by the agents of our police departments. This feeling, whether well-founded or not, makes an enquiry necessary—the people neither will be nor ought to be satisfied without it. They will not be satisfied when they are told that informers and spies are necessary for the maintenance of the government. And here, Sir, permit me to express my astonishment that^ in this assembly, in a British House of Commons, doctrines should have been preached, which may have been acted upon, I confess, but which were never recommended by any body of men, in any country, until now,—doctrines, worthy the institutions of the Dominicans, but totally incompatible with the rights, the happiness, and even the morality of the people. Had those doctrines come merely from the official defenders of all state practices, I should not have been surprised so much; but I am indeed astounded when I hear them proceed from the lips of the hon. and learned gentleman below me (Mr. Brougham), who has been so long distinguished in the struggles for freedom, and has identified his name with so many great exertions in behalf of the happiness of mankind:
As to the quotations made by the honourable member for Corfe Castle—and the practice of ancient times, I think the honourable member has dealt rather unfairly with Cicero. It is true that when that great man found out that there existed a profligate machination against the liberties of Rome, he made use of the information of a woman and of certain foreign ambassadors, and advised them to appear to enter into the nefarious scheme—but the scheme was formed before. I do not find that Cicero employed the lady

259
or the Allobroges to make the plot. [Cheers.] I will say nothing of the extreme aptitude of comparing theLentuli—theCethegi—and the first nobles of Rome with the wretched men whose insignificance makes it almost impossible that they should either contemplate or complete a treason. But since we have heard of the ancients, I may be allowed to say, that their practice and their principles are riot to be quoted in favour of this extraordinary doctrine. The biographer of the Cæsars does indeed record the existence of spies arid informers, but he reckons it "inter adversa temporum" and he adds, speaking of Titus, that he ordered such criminals to be publicly scourged, to be exposed in the amphitheatres—and to be banished to the most rugged arid barren islands of the empire. The emperor Constantine—I hope the House will excuse this pedantry which is not to be attributed to me so much as to the honourable gentleman who has thrown down his glove in this ancient mode of warfare [Hear, hear!]—The emperor Constantine, I say, dealt still more severely with spies and informers, for he put them to death. The hatred to spies was not, however, confined to the best of the Caesars—even the worst discountenanced that odious system. Caligula proclaimed "he had no ears for informers," and Domitian himself was heard to remark, "Princcps qui delatores non castigat, irritat." I find no advocate for these principles of government in modern times—not even Machiavel himself recommends the employment of these abandoned characters, except, indeed, he may be said to allude to them where he says that "in some cases a prince must have recourse to the service not only of men but of brutes." Montesquieu will not allow of the employment of spies even in a monarchy; "for" says he, "the infamy of the person sufficiently denotes the infamy of the thing." What is true of a monarchy is surely true of a commonwealth, and ours is a commonwealth,—at least king James the first called it so; and when the honourable member for Corfe Castle said no good government could go on without spies, he should have said no bad government, and then I would have agreed with him. The learned gentleman below me has endeavoured to draw a distinction between an instigator and a spy. But I would ask, can there be a spy without an instigator? The very subsistence of such unprincipled miscreants depends
260
upon the importance of their intelligence—what they get is measured by what they bring—if they do not find a plot, they must make one, or they must adopt some other mode of living. Such men must, by the nature of their undertaking, be not only instigators but active instigators. If they come amongst those engaged in bad designs, their silence would make them suspicious, and they will effect the more warmth because they feel less. I hope, Sir, we have heard spies defended for the last time in this House. I hope that such a system Will be discouraged, by the House agreeing to the motion of the worthy alderman. By so doing, this assembly will show that it sympathises with the people in condemning a practice which no good government can require or ought to tolerate [Cheers].
Mr. Butterworthstated to the House, that one individual who had been seduced into the late plot, not by Edwards, but by one of his own neighbours (in consequence of reading seditious publications), and who bore a good character theretofore, had repented of his conduct; and having communicated his situation to a friend of his, his friend advised him to go before a magistrate and disclose all he knew of the transactions. Having been introduced to him (Mr. B.),and frankly disclosed the whole of what he knew; he (Mr. B.) brought him before a magistrate; but so terrified was he, that he would not on any account, allow his name to be disclosed—it was notdisclosed. Having been apprised of the present motion he (Mr.B.) sent for him, that day and asked him whether he knew Edwards? He replied, that he knew nothing of Edwards since the execution of Thistlewood and his companions. One of the persons implicated in that transaction had reminded him that Edwards attended some of the early meetings, but he did not see him attend any of the late meetings of the conspirators. He (Mr. B.) asked the man whether it was necessary that such a person as Edwards should persuade to acts of violence? He replied by saying "do you suppose we were children?"—The men engaged were men of firmness and understanding, and they were most desperate in the business; at one of their meetings it was observed, that the servants of the ministers were not involved in their masters' guilt, and therefore ought not to be murdered; but the proposal to spare the servants was opposed, as it was said to be sometimes necessary

261
that the innocent should perish with the guilty. He said he was utterly shocked at the idea that such a motion as that before the House should have been made; he knew not what might have been the motives of the worthy alderman in bringing it forward, but he supposed they were the same motives as those that induced him to intrude on the last moments of Thistlewood—a proceeding which appeared to him to be devoid of common feeling. For himself, he was as little connected with ministers as any man in that House, but he thought it only an act of justice to state to the House, with respect to this transaction, what fell under his immediate observation. Speeches and publications of an inflammatory kind, addressed to the worst passions of the people, seduced them from their duty, and caused those disturbances which were so much to be deplored.
Mr. Humeexpressed himself surprised that the hon. member who had last spoken could impute such improper motives to the hon. alderman who had introduced this question. The conduct of that worthy alderman was as upright and proper as that of the hon. member himself, or any other member in that House. The hon. alderman had acted in situations where that conduct was tried—in.a situation which he (Mr. Butterworth) had not been in, and he was always found humanely attentive to all its duties. Was it to be called a crime in him to endeavour to come at truth? He conceived it was not, and that the objection of the honourable member amounted to nothing at all.—It was too much to attribute improper motives to an hon member for an attempt to come at the truth. [Hear, hear! and laughter from the ministerial benches.] Gentlemen might laugh if they pleased. He was, however, sorry to find such a disposition on the present occasion.—It was different when any matter was brought forward in which ministers were interested; then they were all ear, and gave every, attention. He could not conceive why the; House should refuse inquiry on this important question. In an official despatch from the government of Bengal it was stated, in strong terms that there was the amplest evidence to prove that a person, employed as a spy had devised the robbery and murder of which he afterwards convicted the unhappy person who was seduced by his instigations. The hon. alderman had shown that Edwards, accompanied by his brother, had brought
262
an individual to a particular spot, in order that at a convenient time they might pounce upon him, and receive the money to which his conviction would entitle them. Was a motion for inquiry into such a circumstance a fit object for the ridicule of the hon. gentleman? He would say that the object was laudable, and he would ask whether Edwards was not now about to withdraw, in order to enjoy the money which he had gained by his wicked practices? He must again protest against the statement of the hon. member—that his hon. friend was a man dead to the feelings of humanity. The moment at which those questions which the hon. gentleman censured so strongly were put, was a moment of the utmost importance. The person to whom they were addressed, was about to appear before his God, to answer for all the good and all the evil that he had done; and if, under such circumstances, he wished to make any reparation to society for the injury he had done it, the only means by which he could make reparation was by a disclosure of the truth. In the questions propounded on that occasion by his hon. friend there was not one word which could be considered blameable; and if the hon. gentleman saw any thing improper in any of those questions, he (Mr. Hume), as an hon. gentleman behind him had said, must impute his own inability to view them in the same light, to some peculiar obliquity or distortion of vision. As to what had been said by the hon. gentleman about the speeches in that House having been productive of harm, he would say, in reply, that truth could never be rendered dangerous by publicity. It was rather the suppression of truth, and the secret arts of spies, that did injury to the public. If the case of this, individual were such as it had been represented, and had been so triumphantly receibed concealment was not for his benefit; but inquiry was what he should court, and what ministers should promote. But, to return to the question; he would ask what had led to the catastrophe which had been lately witnessed? This question brought them to the spring and source of all the evil.—Thistlfiwood.declared that he was first led to think of this conspiracy, and to form the plan for executing it, in consequence of ministers having done what the hon. member now recommended, namely, having crushed inquiry into a subject on which the voice of almost all the nation

263
called for an investigation. The result of that refusal had been, that the discontent of the public had increased, and this plot had been formed. And, no doubt, more plots of the same kind were forthcoming, or in his conscience, he believed that ministers had been acquainted with the conspiracy of Thistlewood and his associates for a considerable time before it was suppressed by their arrest. This conviction was strengthened by the fact, that an individual, but a short time before destitute of all means, had been supplied with money and with arms—some of those arras bearing the royal mark. The public wished to know from whom that individual had received this money and those arms, nor would they be satisfied till these circumstances were explained. All that was wished by the present motion was, not to criminate, but to inquire (as had been frequently done by parliament on other occasions) whether there were any grounds for instituting criminal proceedings.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that for the number of years that he had sat in the House, he had never heard a motion brought forward on such extraordinary grounds as the present, unless it was, indeed, the former motion of the hon. alderman to proceed against an individual for a breach of privilege, which consisted in a plan to blow up the House; on which ground, he supposed, Guy Fawkes must also have been guilty of a breach of privilege. It had been said, that in similar cases, when his majesty's ministers had to complain of machinations against themselves, similar committees had been appointed. He had never heard of any such committees appointed on account of machinations against the ministers—they were not appointed to gratify the curiosity of the public, but always, as far as his experience went, to lay the ground of legislative proceedings. Who were the witnesses in this case? Men, no one of whom had done the duty of loyal subjects, and given information of the nefarious designs which had been unbosomed to them. It was said this did not lessen the guilt of Edwards, but did it not lessen their credibility? The case was, there was a plot, of which this person had given information. Was it not likely that those who were implicated in that plot and not tried, would, out of policy, as those who were found guilty would, from revenge, seek to invalidate the testimony, and discredit the character of the informer? Was it not common in
264
other cases, as well as in plots against the state, to hear persons convicted of crimes, go out of the world affirming that they were innocent; and that the witnesses who had appeared against them were the real offenders? The hon. gentleman who had spoken that night for the first time, seemed to wish that the ministers had followed the example of Titus—scourged their informant at the cart's tail, and waited to see whether the plot was executed. Did that hon. gentleman not believe, that if the evidence had not been received, the plot would not have been put into execution? He believed in his conscience that it would. But it was said there was a difference between a spy and an instigator. But who were the persons that acted as spies, but men vitiated to the very core? He believed the case was, that few men entered into a conspiracy with a design to betray it; but that having entered into it, their courage failed them. He thought this circumstance was a source of safety to the state, and that it could not be too generally known as a fact, that those who were the loudest and most active in forming plots, were the first to betray those whom they had led into them. Suppose that ministers had learned the existence of the conspiracy from Edwards, of whom he knew nothing but what he had read in evidence on the late trials, and what he had heard from the worthy alderman, were they therefore to refuse credit to his statement, were they to continue in confident security, and to take no measures to detect the guilty? If after the whole was discovered by those means, were they then to refuse credence to Edwards information? Was Edwards to be punished? The worthy alderman had said, that no criminal ought to suffer capital punishment except in cases of murder; but would he contend that the crime of high treason was lower than of murder? He did not see what was to be done by the motion; they could not enter into an investigation merely of the character of this person; and as he could only have given the evidence of the plot under a promise of pardon, he supposed no one would now say that he should be given up to punishment. He saw not a shadow of argument to support the motion.
Mr. Denmansaid, it was impossible not to observe, that the opinion which he and some of his friends near him had formed on the subject before them was disagree-

265
able to the House, and that the approbation which had been bestowed on spies in general, was the favourite sentiment of an English House of Commons. The House seemed to look with kindness on the basest materials of which the human race was composed, and in the danger which they were supposed to have averted from individuals, to forget that they sapped the interests on which all social comfort rested. They had been told this was a novel mode of proceeding, and eloquence, pleasantry and argument had been used to overwhelm the unfortunate individual who had brought it forward. He (Mr. D.) saw nothing in it that was novel. After the proceedings in the North a few years ago, committees of inquiry had more than once been proposed. At times, this proposal had been seriously debated; at times, met with scorn, but it was never thought repugnant to the principles on which the House should proceed. Such motions had been made in consequence of the proceedings at Derby and those at Manchester; motions had been made for committees, and among the minority on all those occasions, was to be found sir S. Romilly, a name which could never be mentioned without veneration. But it was said the present was a different case—that the motion regarded no system, but merely tended to inquire whether or no Edwards was a respectable man, and whether the Crown lawyers should not have called him as a witness, and on this supposition the hon. member for Corfe Castle had poured out all his pleasantry to overwhelm the hon. alderman and the gallant general by whom the motion had been seconded. He denied that the inquiry was thus trivial and vain. It was warranted by the analogy of their proceedings. When measures for the overthrow of the state had been carried on so far as to call, according to the opinion of the ministers, for legislative measures, they induced the House to inquire into the facts. The House was now called upon to inquire into the prevalence of a practice which would once more lead to that necessity for their legislative interference. As to the employment of spies, the hon. member for Corfe Castle, who had applied his distinguished historical knowledge to the subject, had adduced an instance not less apposite than familiar—the employment of a spy by Cicero in the Catilinarian conspiracy. It was never denied that cases might arise which would
266
justify the employment of spies, and such a case was that when Rome was devoted to rapine, and her citizens marked out for the victims of a wide-spreading and formidable conspiracy. But the question was, whether the present was such a case? The question was, who had furnished the conspirators with arms; who was it that had inflamed that misguided, and, he would add, infamous man, Thistlewood, on his release from prison? Was this the necessary employment of a spy or the manufacture of crime by the means of an accomplice? He did not impute to the ministers the intention of inciting individuals to crime, but it was vain for them to think of separating the spy from the instigator, and by sending among the discontented a man who probably possessed money, something of a better education, or more eloquence or persuasiveness than the herd, those who had the seeds of mischief in their minds, became guilty of crimes, which but for these seductions they might have avoided. By employing such instruments, the ministers took upon themselves an awful responsibility, when they must know that these individuals would almost certainly create what they were employed to detect and prevent. As to the proof on which the worthy alderman proceeded, he admitted that the depositions, either of persons convicted for crimes, or of those implicated in them, were not alone entitled to much weight; but there was enough evidence to call for an inquiry. The questions which the worthy alderman had put to Thistlewood were in themselves useful, as the simple answers as to dates and places might lead to the detection of a conspiracy still more infamous than that for which he suffered—As to the question why Edwards had not been produced in court, it appeared to him that it was one which should not be lightly treated. It was a duty on the part of the lawyers of the Crown to afford the prisoner an opportunity of drawing from an infamous accomplice all the circumstances which might tend to their own exculpation, by a severe cross-examination in open court. Would any one say, that the disclosures made by an infamous witness, might not produce an effect on the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative of mercy? Their refusal to do this made an inquiry necessary, that the country might see whether, in the case of Edwards, there was one of those legitimate occasions for the employment of spies in

267
which the ministry might shelter themselves under the authority of Cicero, or whether the infamous person employed by them had overstepped, the line of his duty, and laid asleep the vigilance of the government. He could not help saying, from his individual knowledge, he had strong doubts as to the propriety of the conduct of the government. Castles, he believed, was originally an accomplice, and, if so, was totally different from a spy; but those persons executed at Derby, in 1817, were, he had not the smallest doubt, led to the execution of the plot in which they were concerned by Oliver who was employed by government. He did not mean to say, that at the time when they took arms and raised their miserable rebel army, which was dispersed by a few hussars, Oliver was ready to join them,—but from the information which he had obtained at the time, as counsel for the prisoners, and which he had subsequently followed up, he had no doubt that the pretended information which Oliver gave, that he was the delegate of 50,000 men, had the effect of stirring up the persons who suffered the penalty of the law. It was asked, why the prisoner's counsel had not, in either case, called those spies as witnesses? The fact was, that by the rules of proceeding in courts of justice, the party which called a witness was bound to take his testimony, such as it was, and as those persons, Edwards and Oliver, would take care to tell their story pretty fairly, they would, when cross-examination was impracticable, have thrown all the weight of their testimony against the prisoners. Besides, in the case of the trial at Derby, as Oliver was not concerned in the overt acts of treason, to have adduced him to speak to his conversations with Brandreth would only have proved that the plan of insurrection was more deeply laid than it was the prisoner's business to contend it was. But, in the recent case at the Old Bailey, the name of Edwards was to be found in every stage of the plot, and the counsel for the prisoners had a right to have had the benefit of a cross-examination of him, and of all such questions as their knowledge of the world or the individual might suggest. He had it from those learned gentlemen, that they had not the smallest doubt that Edwards had been an active instigator from the beginning of the plot; but that fact they could not state in the defence, because Edwards had not been examined
268
on the trial. The whole of the spy system might be described in the words of Mr. Burke—the seeds of destruction were laid in the civilities of social intercourse, the table and the bed were surrounded by snares. But beyond the demoralization, which was thus carried through every part of life, if the principle were admitted with respect to plots against the government, the practice would be followed up in all parts of the administration—The excise would have spies, the public boards would have spies, the Bank had already spies who, they knew, went down to the country with ready-made false paper [cries of no!]. The gentlemen who denied the fact were little acquainted with the courts of law, as nothing was more common at the Lancaster or Warwick assizes than to see these men put into the box against the criminal who had fallen into their snares. Such men, by spreading the evil which they were employed to check, gave a semblance of truth to the complaint of the depravity of the times, which was to justify the use of them, though he had never known any times so little depraved that governments were not disposed to increase their power, or to use it badly. If the hon. mover pressed the subject to a division, he should support it.
The Attorney Generalsaid, the grounds on which the hon. and learned gentleman had proposed to vote for the motion of the worthy alderman were new, and wholly distinct from those on which the hon. members who preceded him had given it their support. The worthy alderman in bringing forward his motion proposed to inquire into the conduct of Edwards, but disclaimed all intention of imputing blame to the government for the use they had made of that person. His hon. and learned friend supported the motion on the ground that the government was wrong in employing him, which: he had assumed without a tittle of proof, and; then he came to the conclusion that he had seduced the late conspirators into the commission of that crime for which they had suffered. He would state that Edwards had never been employed by the government as a spy, and it was not in that character that he furnished that information which had enabled ministers to defeat one of the most horrible plots that had ever been formed. He would ask his hon. and learned friend, if he could suppose that Edwards had seduced Thistlewood and his associates, after reading

269
the evidence given on the trial. From that it would be seen that Monument had proved that when taken before the privy council hand-cuffed to Thistlewood, the latter had told him to say that Edwards had seduced him into the plot. Monument upon this asked how he could say that when he had never seen Edwards. To this Thistlewood replied, that that was of no importance, and said he would describe the man and his dress, that he might answer consistently. More than this, Thistlewood had afterwards desired Monument to hand it round to the others, that they were to say that it was Edwards who had seduced them into the plot. The evidence (as the worthy alderman called that which had been stated to him, but not upon oath) went to impute the whole guilt of the late conspiracy to Edwards. Did he riot know from the testimony of Adams, Hyden, and Monument, that Hyden had been attempted to be brought into it by a person of the name of Wilson, that Monument had been brought into it by Thistlewood, Brunt, and Tidd; and that Adams had been introduced to the conspirators by his acquaintance Brunt. So far was Edwards from being the man of influence and eloquence which he had been presumed to be, that it had not transpired that he had ever made a speech or suggested any plan to the conspirators, and the evidence given by Adams had been confirmed by Brunt himself after his conviction. Adams had said that it was proposed to make some great attempt to carry their plans into execution on the night of his late majesty's funeral, as at that time it was supposed the troops would be out of London, being engaged on that occasion at Windsor. Brunt upon this being suggested, said he would never consent to the adoption of any plan of which the assassination of his majesty's ministers did not form a principal part. Adams on this was unconfirmed. It was that which could not be confirmed by other witnesses; but when brought up to receive sentence, Brunt had not only confessed this, but had gloried in it, and added, that if on the night of the late discovery in Cato-street he could have met with lord Castlereagh or lord Sidmouth, he would have carried that part of the plan which related to their destruction into effect. It had been said, "O don't believe Adams, he is a government spy" (though he was not known to the government till he was apprehended in Cato-
270
street); but Brunt, on coming up to receive his sentence, had confirmed Adams's testimony by the speech which he then made. Brunt said on that occasion, "I never did agree, and this Adams has acknowledged, with the plan for attacking London on the night of his majesty's funeral. I objected to that plan, and said that nothing short of an attack on his majesty's ministers would satisfy me. I acknowledged that I wished for their destruction, and agreed with a plan of which this formed a part." This, however, he contended, ought not to have produced a conviction for high treason. He then said—"I agree that I and others had planned the death of his majesty's ministers, and I wish this had been effected; for, if some of them were put out of the way, it would in some measure compensate the country for what it has endured. This would be just: for the circular of lord Sidmouth went to excite the yeomanry of Manchester to murder the people; and if a man murders my brother, I have a right to murder him." He then went on to justify the intended murders by quotations from Scripture, and finished by declaring that his life (which he valued not) he would willingly have sacrificed to accomplish that which he avowed to have been the object of the conspirators. This was the language which he had used, and was it credible that this man had been seduced by Edwards. Thistlewood, too, on receiving sentence of death had read an address, in which, from its composition, he had been evidently assisted, of which the following was a passage:—
"A few hours hence, and I shall be no more; but the nightly breeze which will whistle over the silent grave that shall (protect me from its keenness, will bear to your restless pillow the memory of one who lived but for his country, and died when liberty and justice had been driven from its confines by a set of villains. For life, as it respects myself, I care not; but while yet I may, I would rescue my memory from the calumny which I doubt not will be industriously heaped upon it, when it will no longer be in my power to protect it.
"I would explain the motives which induced me to conspire against the ministers of his majesty, and I would contrast them with those which these very ministers have acted upon in leading me to my ruin."
Was this man likely to be seduced

271
by Edwards? That person must possess credulity beyond any thing that he had met with, who saw his demeanour in court and his subsequent conduct on the scaffold, and who yet could believe that such a man was to be instigated or seduced by any one to take a part in the plot with which he had been connected. When it was said that the government had, through Edwards, supplied the conspirators with money to prosecute their designs, he would call upon those who held this language to look at the evidence given on the trial. There it would be seen that on the day when the grand attempt was made, on its being remarked that it would be proper to treat the men, Thistlewood said he had six shillings which he would expend for that purpose; and Brunt upon this, added, "and I have got a one pound note." If Edwards had been ready to supply them with money at every turn, would he not on this occasion have done so—was it credible that he would not have stepped forward and said, "O, I have money, do not trouble yourselves about that'—Mr. Thistlewood need not produce his six shillings, and Mr. Brunt may keep his one pound note." But nothing of this kind had been proved, and though the whole case for the Crown had been known from the middle of the first trial, in the course of the three that followed, it had been found impossible to impeach the witnesses called for the prosecutions. When Wilson had endeavoured to seduce Hyden to join them, he had said, we sometimes receive money from a gentleman's servant, and it was known that they did so; and from other quarters it was also known (and he wished it to be understood that it was known from what quarters) they had received money. If, however, they had been flush of money, as had been supposed through the means of Mr. Edwards, how was it that the conspirators did not know it themselves? He would now look at the conduct of the worthy alderman on the occasion of Thistlewood's execution, and in the censures which had been cast on that conduct be must undoubtedly join. He had heard of instances in which, after persons had been convicted Of atrocious offences, attempts had been made by benevolent individuals to remove all doubt as to the justice of their sentence by persuading them to confess their guilt;—he had heard of instances in which,: where persons who like Thistlestfood persisted to the last moment in denying
272
Christianity, benevolent individuals had endeavoured to correct their error even at the hour of execution, and to prevent them from adding that to the number of their other offences;—but this was the first time, and he hoped to God it would be the last, in which he had heard of any one attending at such a time with pocket questions to induce particular answers, which might suit a particular purpose. Whatever the worthy alderman's motives might be, he could only say, that the act was such as he should be sorry to imitate. And what after all bad the worthy alderman got from. Thistlewood? He had asked "when he first became acquainted with Edwards?" To this Thistlewood replied, "a few days after be came put of Horsham gaol." He was then asked "where he met with him?" "At Preston's," was the answer. The worthy alderman then asked "if he meant at Preston, in Lancashire?" To this Thistlewood, replied, "No; at Preston's the shoemaker."—Might he (the attorney-general) ask if the worthy alderman had not had communication with Preston (the shoemaker) within the last twenty-four hours? In putting the questions which the worthy alderman had put to Thistlewood, he had no doubt that his object was to elicit truth, but to elicit it with a particular view. Why did he confine his questions to Edwards?—Wy did he not follow them up, and extend his inquiries to get information respecting others who were implicated in the same plot? He might also be allowed to ask why the worthy alderman, as a loyal subject, on receiving depositions respecting Edwards from persons who were implicated in the conspiracy, had not in his magisterial capacity committed them for trial? He would say that it was fortunate that Thistlewood in going out of the world, had not lent himself to inquiries like those made by the worthy alderman, and given such answers as might have been expected from his conduct on his trial and on receiving sentence. Had he done this, the worthy alderman, would have, conceived his case to be irrefragably proved. But what answers did he get to his other questions. When asked if Edwards had supplied him with money. Thistlewood's answer was—"A trifle. Now and then a one pound note." And when the worthy alderman went on to inquire, "Did he appear to have plenty of money?" The answer of Thistlewood had been, "No, not much." Why did the worthy alder-

273
man keep this back? No mention was made of this conversation till it was very properly brought before the House by the hon. member for Dover. The last answer of Thistlewood proved satisfactorily, if any proof were wanting of the fact, that Edwards, so far from supplying the conspirators with money to carry on their designs, had in truth very little for himself. He would tell those who had assisted the conspirators, if any such were now within the reach of his voice, that it was not unknown that from certain quarters money had been supplied, but there was no proof that any had ever been furnished by Edwards. It had been said that Edwards had purchased for them twenty new swords. Was the worthy alderman at the trial? He believed that he had been, and if so he must know that ail the swords produced were old ones, and it had been made a matter of ridicule by the counsel for the defence, that the conspirators were to accomplish their designs with those rusty old swords. Then the member for Aberdeen remarked that one of the guns had the Tower mark on it. This proved nothing, and the gun in question had been proved to have been redeemed from pledge by one of the parties. Ings was proved to have taken two swords to a cutler to get them sharpened in a particular way, so that the backs would cut and the points be brought as sharp as a needle. This was before last Christmas; these swords had been found on Ings, and yet they were told that the swords were supplied by Edwards, and that they were new ones. He believed that every one of those who had given the worthy alderman information on this subject was implicated in the plot. If he were not misinformed, the worthy alderman's inquiries had commenced before the late convictions took place. He wished to know why the result of these had not been made known till the Saturday before the execution? The four persons he (Mr. Alderman Wood) had mentioned as having given him their depositions, were most deeply implicated in the plot, yet on those persons the case rested, and on information which; was anonymous. It was proved by Monument that this design had been in the mind of Thistlewood almost ever since he came out of Horsham gaol. If any thing could be established to the contrary, why had it not been done before the trials concluded? They, H would be remembered, had lasted tea days, and antece-
274
dently three weeks had been allowed, in which the evidence now offered to be adduced might have been brought forward. He could not see the slightest grounds for agreeing with the present motion, and therefore he should give it his opposition. It had escaped him, though he intended before to notice it, that Castles, the witness on Watson's trial, was an accomplice, but never a spy. He remembered well the attempts made at Derby to connect Oliver with the traitors who were there convicted. This was frustrated by the course taken by his learned friend (sir Samuel Shepherd), who on hearing what was intended, sent for Oliver from London, to be produced in court, that it might be seen whether the witnesses could swear to him. This it was known, they could not do, as he had never been with the conspirators, and his hon. and learned friend could never prove that he had been with them.
Sir Francis Burdeltsaid, that he should occupy the attention of the House but for a very short time. If ever a speech was made which tended to support a motion it was meant to oppose, it was the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down. If all was so clear as he had insisted, where could be the objection to adopting an inquiry, in order to satisfy the doubts which existed in the public mind. If the whole country agreed in taking the same view that the attorney-general had expressed, they might then say with truth that there ought to be no inquiry; but when the public mind was strongly agitated with very different impressions, no simple vote of the House of Commons, nothing but substantial proof, nothing but accurate investigation could satisfy them, whatever statements the attorney-general might offer to their consideration. He had given one reason, which, was in itself a powerful argument against his own advice; lie had stated that there were other persons, and those not few, connected with the conspiracy—persons of importance and wealth in the country. Such was the way in which he understood the hon. and learned gentleman, and if that was his meaning, the propriety of going into a committee could no longer be denied. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated other points in which he was not borne out by fact. There could be no doubt as to the object of the unhappy persons engaged in the conspiracy, or as to the

275
atrocity of that object, but when the hon. and learned gentleman stated that they had all acquitted Edwards of being an instigator, he stated what was not the fact, but directly the reverse. Whatever degree of credit might be attached to their assertions they all agreed in one thing—they wished Edwards might be put into the witnesses box, not with the vain notion that his testimony could lead to their acquittal, but that they might have an opportunity of showing that he was the original instigator. The hon. and learned gentleman's statement, therefore, was directly contrary to the notorious fact. The hon. and learned gentleman had also indulged himself in animadversions upon the conduct of the worthy alderman. To say the least of them such animadversions were unparliamentary and unfair, and calculated to prevent members from fearlessly discharging their duty to the public, if they were capable of being influenced by the opinions of those who could misrepresent and censure acts for which they were entitled to credit from every man in the country. As to the horrid nature of the conspiracy there could be no doubt, for the conspirators confessed it themselves, and gloried in it; but if they had made no acknowledgment on their own parts, and the case rested simply on the evidence that was produced against them, he should have no hesitation in saying, that the evidence was unworthy of belief. Such was his opinion, and he regretted to find that a vein of merriment prevailed on the present occasion, which even the most brilliant excursions of wit could not justify under the circumstances of the present debate. He would say, in defiance of any laugh that might follow the declaration, that the evidence of such men as Adams, Monument, and Dwyer, uncorroborated by less questionable testimony, ought not to be sufficient to take away the lives of men. Happily, however, there could be no doubt either of the crime or of its atrocity. But when he heard that spies were proper instruments for government to employ, he confessed that he felt all the vulgar prejudice against such a doctrine which had so long characterised the people of England. He regarded them not so much as the evil of the times, as symptoms of the evil, for where did we find those reptiles thrive, and where had they been approved as fair supporters of a government? Was it during the freedom of the Roman com-
276
monwealth? Were they employed under a Trajan, or an Aurelius; or under the tyranny of such monsters as Domitian, and Nero, and Caligula? Then they were employed; but now they were employed and justified. The evidence of an accomplice stood upon a different footing; but he could not understand the jargon by which spies were attempted to be defended. A harmless spy—a spy of good character—a quiet, respectable informer, was a sort of being he could not comprehend. The attempt to make a distinction between a spy and an instigator was one of the most clumsy expedients that could be resorted to for the purpose of screening baseness from the infamy that belonged to it. The employment of such wretches was a sign of the evil of the times, and a proof that there was something wrong in the government; it manifested the existence of alarm upon one side, and discontent upon the other; and was resorted to as a defence against machinations which never could have existed under a good government. There was a general dissatisfaction throughout the country—not at the verdicts which were given in those cases, but arising from the belief that government was in the habit of employing spies, who, working on the wretchedness of desperate men, betrayed them into offences against the state. But now it turned out it seemed, that Oliver was an innocent man. Unhappily for his character, however, he was known before this discovery to have travelled through the country, taking advantage of the misery he met. Castles, too, was discovered not to have been a government spy, he had given his information after apprehension; but Oliver still stood on different grounds; and Edwards was a person so enveloped in mystery, that government were called upon to afford some opportunity of investigation, and to defend themselves against the strong suspicion of having employed him. Another fact of some importance had come out on the trial; it appeared that the earl of Harrow by was acquainted with the existence of the conspiracy months before the attempt was made. Now, as this was the fact, if, it could be shown that Edwards went backward and forward between the conspirators add the office of the secretary of state, instigating the one and informing the other, he could not anticipate any possible justification of the conduct of ministers. The right hon. gentleman opposite had lamented the un-

277
happy condition of statesmen, in being under the necessity of employing spies. For his own part, he could not see where the necessity existed; and as for the lamentation, he thought that those who employed them were quite as bad as those whom they employed. It was an old maxim—"Qui facit per alium, facit per se." Whether Edwards had received money from lord Sidmouth he did not know, though the statement of the attorney-general, that they had no new swords among them, was not a satisfactory answer to existing suspicions. Perhaps there were no new hand-grenades, or new weapons of any kind. As to the evidence of Tidd's daughter, it certainly corroborated the case for the prosecution, but it also went to prove that Edwards was at the bottom of all. It was, in fact, a stretch beyond credulity, and even beyond what a minister might expect that House to vote, to suppose that the money given to Thistlewood was in mere charity to his distresses. He could not give up the ground, that an inquiry must lead either to the conviction or exculpation of his majesty's ministers. One hon. and learned gentleman to whom he was sorry to allude, had justified the employment of spies on the distinction to which he had already alluded; but the spies, if so very necessary, were very ill-treated by their employers, who treated them with such disdain. The spies might retort upon them like Thais in the play, "Si ego dignus sum hac contumelia, at tu iudignus ut faceres." He confessed he had the old fashioned prejudice of detesting spies; he believed they were the pests of society, that they poisoned all the sources of confidence and peace, and he had rather suffer the penalties of treason, than enjoy the detestable emoluments of the traitor; he would not even betray the devil. Spies destroyed all morality, they cut up all social feeling by the roots, and would, before long, destroy all that comfort and that glory which were once to be found in England. But their employment was also impolitic and unwise. Montesquieu said spies would not be employed by a good government; and he also said they might prove very dangerous to a bad one. That was a terrible state of a country in which a few desperate and contriving men could succeed in upsetting it; and such a condition could not exist without some mel-administration on the part of those who directed its proceedings. Ma-
278
chiavel added his testimony to the wickedness of employing spies, and no government carried on by wisdom would make use of such degrading instruments or allies. He believed that only in that House could the avowal of their employment and the justification offered for it be made without exciting the loudest indignation. And he thought the president of the board of control, as he was in the habit of addressing large bodies, had only to try it on some of these occasions on English feelings, and he would find whether they responded to the sentiments uttered in the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman would, he suspected, be quite surprised by the result. The greeting which would follow would forcibly remind him of Satan, on the floor of hell, amidst hissing spirits. Inquiry alone would quiet the public mind, and if ministers were clear of all improper connexion with Edwards, in God's name let it be publicly manifested. It was charged against some gentlemen who spoke at his side of the House, that they differed in their views of the subject, but what of that? Would such a difference be any bar to a man in any court of justice, or should it be made a ground of resisting all inquiry? Unless the spy system was checked, the country could not be satisfied, and on that ground he should vote for inquiry.
Mr. Canningwas so satisfied with the state in which the question had been left by the speeches on the other side of the House, and by the speech of his hon. and learned friend, that he had determined not to take any part in this debate, and was only induced to abandon that determination by the speech of the hon. baronet; which had given an entirely different character to the discussion. The worthy alderman proposed that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the conduct of an individual, with a view of bringing that individual to justice, and was so far from accusing the government, that he called upon ministers to give him their assistance, hut they now found that it was considered by the hon. baronet that the motion Was a motion against ministers, and that the result of the inquiry proposed would probably prove, not only that Edwards was criminal, but establish guilt against the government itself. Under this imputation, he thought it would be as inexcusable in him to be silent as it would have been in-excusable under different circumstances

279
to obtrude himself on the notice of the House. One vice ran through the speech of the hon. baronet. He had all along referred to the contents of the depositions in the hands of the worthy alderman as matters that were in proof, and from what was there stated he inferred guilt on the part of the government. The guilt charged was that of employing spies. For this the hon. baronet would put government on their trial, and the overt act which he would prove against them was the detection of a conspiracy. Now prima facie he did not see that there was any great crime in their discovering a conspiracy, proved in the first instance, and had been subsequently avowed, to have been formed for the purpose, not only to destroy his majesty's ministers (the loss of them might be regarded as a very light matter by some who had spoken that night), but to do this with a view of arriving, through their blood, at the means of effecting the destruction of the metropolis and the ruin of the country. Pie advanced no claim to public gratitude on the part of his majesty's ministers for having incidentally saved the country by their efforts to save themselves, but that a plot existed none could deny, and few could doubt the diabolical spirit in which it would have been executed. It was most extraordinary that it should be made a case of guilt prima facie against them—that they had detected the conspirators. But it was charged against them that they had discovered the conspiracy by human means—that they did not arrive at the knowledge of it by revelation—that they did not, like the puritans in former times, "seek the Lord" on the occasion, but availed themselves of such means as had been put into their hands by wicked men, who were disposed to atone for their past conduct by betraying their comrades in iniquity. It was admitted that it was the duty of government to detect and defeat conspiracy; but were they to reject all information which did not come through a perfectly unexceptionable channel?—Were they to believe no one who should give information of the crime, but such a person as they could take to their bosoms and confide in as a friend? Could human ingenuity think of devising restrictions so absurd? The hon. baronet had taken it much amiss that what he had said had provoked what he described to be a smile, but which he might have called a laugh.
280
He had supposed that the most brilliant effusions of wit on an occasion like the present would hardly have produced mirth like that which he had remarked. But the hon. baronet had found that absurdity was more potent to produce mirth than even wit. He had found that that temperament of the House which had resisted the effect of all efforts at wit could not resist the glorious absurdity, that plots might best be discovered by throwing aside every person connected with, or who knew any thing at all about them.—Let this reasoning be applied to private life. Suppose a man should give any hon. member notice that a plan had been formed to murder his family and burn his house. In such a case, according to the ideas of the hon. baronet, the person to whom this communication was made must say—"Traitor! begone from my house. Go and hide your detested head in some remote village. Go and leave your honest colleagues with whom you have been connected, to pursue their designs. Begone, spotted traitor! you have betrayed your fellows—you are worse than they—and you alone I detest."—This course, supposing a man to be living in magnificent solitude—and supposing that he chose to be blown up in his house, there might be no objection to; but if other families were connected with him, and a number of individuals must suffer with him, then, perhaps, in such a case, he would feel it to be right to avail himself of the information given him by the accomplice to prevent the meditated catastrophe, and consider that failing to do this, he would he guilty of a base neglect of duty. The public was but a larger family, it was the duty of ministers to watch over its safety, and not to send away the spy with scorn, as the hon. baronet would advise, if that spy brought them information that might enable them to avert danger. But how was the line to be drawn between the spy and the informer. It was argued that the latter, if faithful to his employer, must become the former. He must take the colour of an accomplice, and doing this deceive them pro tanto at least, by making them believe that he was disposed to concur in all their measures. He admitted that this was an incidental evil arising from the employment of spies, which no human foresight could prevent. It was a counterbalance of evils, between which it was the duty of ministers to choose. But some would

281
say, and saying this think they made a great concession, "I have no objection to an informer; take your informers, but don't make use of a spy." Hut supposing a man should tell him of a plot, Oh, then it would be said, you may act on such information. But suppose it should be stated that it was to break out a week from that time, and he could not then give such good information as he might obtain in a few days. In such a case he would put it to these casuists—these delicate dividers of morality, these weighers of moral feeling by scruples and grains; if he should be informed that the plot was expected to be carried into execution on Saturday, but the informer could get more particulars respecting it on the Friday, ought he to send the man away and act on the imperfect information? If this advice could seriously be given by the hon. baronet, the laugh before raised ought to be redoubled against the hon. baronet; and if he said that the man might be sent back to his accomplices to gain further information, from that moment the informer became a spy, and he would defy any man to draw the line of distinction between them. It was drivelling to say they might make use of such means at all, if they were not to be allowed to pursue them to that point at which they might be made useful to themselves and beneficial to their country. They must, therefore, act as the}' had done in the present case or adopt the stupid proposition, that they were bound to shut their ears against every information by which the threatened dangers might be met. The senseless cry raised against agents like those employed to frustrate the Cato-street plot, seemed to spring from stupidity so dull, that danger could not enlighten it; or from other motives still more reprehensible in their nature; from a wish that conspirators should be secure, and traitors safe. Such motives he might not suppose to belong to any man in that House; but if any man wished that the bond treason should become the "golden round" of confidence, and that those concerned in such proceedings as had lately been brought to light, should thenceforth be free from danger, he could use no other arguments in support of such a proposition than such as had been heard that night.—To impute such a wish to the hon. baronet he knew would be unparliamentary; but it was not unparliamentary to say, that if the motion now
282
before the House should pass, the next conspiracy would unquestionably succeed. And now for the worthy, alderman?—As he could not be answerable for the laugh which had been raised against the hon. baronet, so he could not be responsible for the mirth called forth by the mere mention of the worthy alderman's name. The worthy alderman might himself know to what it was to be attributed, and know that it sprung from those amusing qualifications of which he was possessed. He knew that the worthy alderman was perhaps the most popular man that had ever been in the city of London, with the exception of his predecessor, the great Whittington, and it was his earnest wish by relieving him from the consequences of the rash step he had lately taken, to restore him, pure and unsullied, to that consideration which he so well deserved. By stating the course which he (Mr. Canning) would have pursued on one particular occasion; and comparing it with that which had been pursued by the worthy alderman, it would be seen how anomalous the one would be, or the other had been. If any one had suggested to him (Mr. Canning) that for the love of justice, and for an example to the country, he ought to arrest a man on the scaffold, on his way to death; he should have considered a very grave case must be made out to justify him in taking a step so extraordinary. To call on a man leaving this world—when just on the threshold of a new life, to answer certain questions, was a step not to be taken but in pursuance of an object of some importance. What was the object in the case alluded to. Perhaps, the sufferer had a wife and young family, and humanity called on the party approaching him to offer some relief. Did this appear to be the motive of the worthy alderman?—No such thing. Perhaps then, in the agonies of trial and of conviction, he had implicated some person in his guilt who might be innocent, and the worthy alderman might attend with the pious wish to make him retract what he had advanced, that he might not go out of the world with, the guilt of malice and calumny to answer for in addition to his other crimes.—No, this was not the object neither. But it appeared in the course of the trial that he had falsely accused a man of haying seduced him into the plot for which he was about to suffer. The state-

283
ment had been proved to be false. If any man under such circumstances asked him to give the criminal, on his passage to eternity, an opportunity of repeating the convicted lie, which from his previous conduct, on receiving sentence, there was but too much reason to suppose he was well disposed to tell, he should have repelled the part}' making such a request, not with the scorn with which the hon. baronet would have him send away a spy, but with that horror with which he would repel the tempter of mankind if he stood before him in a tangible shape. Who tutored the worthy alderman he knew not, or whether he acted from himself he could not tell, but it was known that at the last awful moment, he had tempted the wretched Thistlewood to repeat the lie which he had formerly told. What good angel interfered to prevent it, he could not say; but he did resist the temptation. For this they owed the worthy alderman no thanks. To Thistlewood himself they owed that they were not now involved in a discussion on his doing words, uttered to affirm what was previously shown to have been false. Had the answer of Thistlewood been such as might have been expected, it would not have been omitted in the oration of the worthy alderman that night; but on the contrary, the parting declaration of the dying traitor would have been exalted into the legacy of a saint. But that foundation for the motion had not been obtained; and all that had transpired with respect to Edwards was, that he had been an active agent on this occasion—that he was to a certain degree richer than the unhappy men who suffered. If to the question did Edwards furnish money, the answer had been, "Yes, frequently, without stint," would the worthy alderman have forgotten it in his speech?—No! But the answer was, "Not frequently," and that answer made no part of the worthy alderman's speech. The assertion which had been made by his hon. and learned friend in the course of the debate, he (Mr. Canning) would support with his testimony, that though Edwards did not supply the conspispirators with money, there were other persons that did; and that government knew them. But the worthy alderman appeared to suppose, that because Edwards was accused, he must necessarily be brought to trial. With the opinions-entertained by the worthy alderman, why
284
did he not prefer a bill of indictment himself, instead of calling on the government to do it? It was not to be supposed that whenever an alderman fancied a crime to have been committed, the party accused must be put on his trial. But the worthy alderman seemed to think that because he backed the warrants of the secretary of state in the city, when he was lord mayor that the secretary of state was bound to return the compliment, and back his bills of indictment from the other end of the town. Aldermen were great men! Lord mayors were very great men! But notwithstanding this, the secretary of state was not their servants and the worthy alderman had no right to assume that justice was denied to him, because the secretary of state did not think proper to institute a prosecution on his recommendation. They had all read some where that there was no royal road to geometry. He might parody this, and say that there was no al-dermanick road to justice; and the worthy alderman, with all his honours about him, must be content to jog on in the ordinary road, and prefer his bill, if disposed to prosecute, before a grand jury. The worthy alderman must take his course like any other subject of the realm; for, great as he was, he was still no more than a subject. Supposing Thistlewood and Edwards to have been equal in criminality, and Edwards making his disclosure first, the government might choose whether or not they would admit him as an evidence—but having so admitted him, it would be monstrous now to turn round and prosecute him, and yet it was for declining to do this that lord Sidmouth was accused of not doing his duty. The fact, however, was not so; for he denied that Edwards and Thistlewood were by any means of the same category. He denied that Edwards was connected with government in the sense of the hon. baronet, or in the sense in which he (Mr. Canning) had argued it argumenti grati.â Edwards came forward in the first instance as a voluntary informer—he was not sent, but came from time to time, the first information not being that on which proceedings could be instituted. The imputation of the hon. baronet, and gentlemen on his side, on this point, he denied and abhorred. The receipt by ministers of the information had nothing in common with the baseness imputed to it. Those men, on whose testimony the lion; alderman rested the whole of his motion, were men, who, by their

285
own confession, were guilty of at least misprision of treason. And it was upon such a foundation that the House was called upon to institute inquiry! The object, however, of this inquiry, they were told by the hon. baronet, was to put government—who, he allowed had, in this instance, saved the country—on their trial. The House would not, he was assured, pass by the plain rules of justice, at the instigation of the hon. alderman, or from any arguments that could be furnished on the part of the hon. baronet, or his man. Let the House only consider what would be the result of this motion, whether it were carried one way or the other; whether the proceedings instituted in consequence were directed against Edwards for the crime of having betrayed his accomplices; or, against government for having on his information detected conspiracy; the effect would still be to give heart to the remaining conspirators, and teach them to pursue their plots without fear or disturbance. Let them rather continue to treason that which was best calculated to keep it in awe—the fear of betrayal; without which the state would be left to struggle by what means it might through the magnitudinous and multifarious dangers of domestic conspiracy.
Sir F. Burdettrose to explain. He by no means meant to reply to the many stupid, absurd, and senseless exaggerations which the right hon. gentleman had been guilty of with regard to his (sir F. Burdett's) sentiments. In the list of his absurdities it had been represented that if his own house were on fire, and the lives of his own family dependent on the steps he should take in such a case he would hesitate to receive, or to act upon the information of an accomplice in the mischief! He had only blamed government for keeping in constant pay a regular set of spies, who insidiously went about the country for the purpose of fomenting discontents and planning conspiracies in order to inveigle the unwary into the snares of the law. He would not retract what he had said; and under this explanation he would repeat that the right hon. gentleman's logic was most absurd, ridiculous, and senseless.
Mr. Canningdid not think he had misrepresented the hon. baronet. He did not think so before the hon. baronet last rose: nor did the explanation of the hon. baronet alter his opinion. He had never said that the hon. baronet contended for the rejection of evidence after detection.
Sir F. Burdettbegged pardon for such frequent interruptions, but, before the discussion proceeded, he should like to hear from the right hon. gentleman, what he meant when he said his (sir F. Burdett's) "man?" The right hon. gentler man he thought was full of levity that night. He had accused a worthy alderman of being drunk with popularity; but> for his part, he thought the right hon. gentleman was himself drunk with insolence.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the hon. baronet saw and heard not only what was, but also what was not. He distinctly disavowed having used the expression that the worthy alderman was "drunk with popularity." As to his having given to an hon. friend of the hon. baronet's the title of the hon. baronet's "man," it was an expression which he had met with in some speeches made in Westminster during the late vacation, and which he had read in the same way as the hon. baronet might perhaps have read his (Mr. Canning's) speeches on a similar occasion at Liverpool.
Mr. Broughamassured the House that he should occupy their attention but for a few moments, as he had nothing very material to the question to offer, although he differed from the views of his friends near him, by whom the motion was supported as well as from the opinions of the gentlemen opposite, by whom that motion was opposed. He stood in such a situation, that he had to vindicate himself against the observations of both, which he hoped he should be found to do upon some interchange of explanation. As to the remark which the attorney-general was understood to have made, namely, that money was furnished to the late conspirators by some persons of consequence, upon that remark, as it was explained by the right hon. member for Liverpool, he was not disposed to dwell. But there was a remark from the right hon. gentleman himself, with regard to which he felt it necessary to call for some explanation, in: order to prevent any erroneous impression from going forth to the country. Observing that the right hon. gentleman had left the House, he should wait for the explanation he required until his return, being persuaded that he should obtain a satisfactory explanation from the candour of the right bon. gentleman; he meant as to that passage in the right hon. gentleman's speech, in which he was understood to say

287
in reference to the Cato-street plot, that there were some persons who perhaps would not be much disturbed by the destruction of those who held invidious offices. But there were passages in the observations of some of his friends near him, to which it was also necessary for him to advert. The gallant general who seconded the motion, as well as the two members for Westminster, appeared to think that he (Mr. B.) had on a former occasion, been an advocate for the systematic employment of spies and informers, which was certainly a most erroneous impression, as could be testified by every gentleman who heard him upon the occasion alluded to. But he was extremely surprised that any gentleman could suppose him capable of maintaining that which, independently of the odiousness of its character, was quite a ridiculous proposition. For what could be more ridiculous than to maintain that a system should be established, the existence of which was calculated to destroy the confidence, the harmony, the peace, and the happiness of social life? It was only in cases of extraordinary emergency that he could agree to the propriety of using such persons as spies and informers. In such cases, indeed, it was not only justifiable on the part of government, but it was their peculiar duty to employ such persons. But he specified on the occasion alluded to precisely such a case as rendered it warrantable, in his opinion, to resort to informers; for he distinctly said, that when such persons as Thistlewood and Ings were abroad, it was justifiable in government to employ, not Edwards of whose character, at the time he made the observation, he had an impression which had since been rather confirmed than eradicated, but to resort to adequate means for watching the operations and defeating the views of such delinquents. But in expressing this opinion he could never mean that society should be inoculated by the systematic or general employment of such noxious vermin as spies and informers. Such a system could indeed be contemplated or desired by those only who were in the habit of abusing official power and who were conscious of deserving public odium.—But, on the other hand, the employment of spies in any case could never be rationally deprecated. Such employment could not, indeed, be consistently opposed by those whigs who recollected the boast of sir Robert Wal-
288
pole, that the Pretender never received a dispatch with the contents of which he was not made acquainted by the next post. Sir Robert could have derived this intelligence from those only who violated private confidence, and who were, no doubt, bribed for their treachery, for he could not suppose that men volunteered on such occasions; and what was this but the employment of spies? King William also frequently employed spies; but both the minister and the king acted, no doubt in cases of emergency, when a solicitude for the public safety warranted their conduct. There was, he felt, always a danger in using such agents, and those who used them incurred a serious responsibility; for it behoved them to beware of deceit, and to take care that they whom they employed to watch criminals with a view to prevent crime, did not go much farther by promoting plots and conspiracies in order to gratify their own avarice. Those guilty of such misconduct called for signal punishment, for he could not see the policy or propriety of granting to instigators the protection that was due to informers. Therefore he felt that the conduct of Edwards ought to undergo a proper investigation. But then he could not think that House the proper place for such an investigation, and on this ground he wished the worthy alderman to withdraw his motion. He wished his honourable friend to do so, because he saw that there was another remedy for the case, and that was the remedy mentioned by his hon. friend, the member for Corfe Castle, namely, the preferring of a bill of indictment before a grand jury. Perceiving that the right hon. member for Liverpool had returned to his seat, he would address to that right hon. gentleman a question on the subject to which he had before referred, namely, whether the right hon. gentleman, in observing that there were some persons who perhaps would not be disturbed by the destruction of those who held invidious offices, meant to apply that observation to any persons in that House?
Mr. Canninganswered in the negative, adding, that he was not conscious of making such an observation as would imply that he believed in the existence of any approbation of a doctrine that might be as inconvenient to their successors, as to those who at present held the offices alluded to.
Mr. Broughamobserved, that the right

289
hon. gentleman was always ready with a joke. His jokes, however, were sometimes like a knife without a handle, which in wielding cut the hand of the user; for in this instance his joke was against himself. If there was a man in the House who did not heartily rejoice in the frustration of the Cato-street plot, he should be named, that he might be regarded as infamous: and if he were out of, the House he should be indicated as a mark to be shunned by the world. The conduct of the worthy alderman as-to the motive of his visit to Thistlewood was perfectly defensible, that motive being to obtain some clue to further information with respect to Edwards, and upon a subject which the worthy alderman was, as a magistrate bound to investigate. This, he {Mr. B.) thought a fair object-of inquiry, and a laudable motive for visiting Thistlewood, although the right hon. member for Liverpool could not, it seemed, be persuaded to visit Thistlewood on such an occasion for any other purpose than that of administering the consolations of religion, which by the way was an office for which the right hon. gentleman did not appear very well suited by his taste, or qualified by his capacity. He repeated his recommendation to the worthy alderman to withdraw his motion for the present, not with a view to abandon proceedings against Edwards, but, on the contrary, in order to take the case into a court of justice, and if a noli prosequi should be entered, to prevent the prosecution, or any other attempt should be made to screen the individual in question from justice, and the worthy alderman should again think it necessary to bring the matter under the consideration of that House, he (Mr. B.), pledged himself that at least he would not recommend the motion to be again withdrawn.
The Attorney General,in explanation, stated, that in saying the late conspirators were supplied with money from other quarters, hp by no means intended to allude to any persons of particular consequence. But those persons who gave the money were fully known to government; and when he expressed a wish that they should be aware of that fact, he meant that it should be communicated to them through the usual channels, by which the public became acquainted with the public became acquainted with the proceedings of the House.
Mr. Alderman Wood,that as he had been charged in a very unhandsome manner by a right hon. gentle-
290
man opposite (Mr. Canning), with visiting the prison of a dying man in order to induce him to say the thing that was not, he thought it right to tell that gentleman, that his attacks, however severe, would never prevent him from doing his duty. No invective or attempt at intimidation, should ever deter him from doing his duty in that House to the best of his judgment. The attorney-general had, in the course of his remarks, stated what was not correct with regard to those swords that had been supplied to the conspirators; he (Mr. Alderman Wood) did not say that they were new swords, but he said that they were made in a particular shape, and of a peculiar pattern, but it did not follow that they were therefore new. Indeed, the fact he believed to be otherwise, since he knew that the swords were rusty. The hon. and learned gentleman had only replied to those parts of his argument that suited his own purpose; he had never noticed the tin cases procured by and paid for by Edwards, without any knowledge on the part of the person who made them as to their intended purpose. He had named several persons, whose characters were unimpeached, and who had given testimony of the infamy of Dwyer. Yet all the other individuals who gave evidence against these men, were most immaculate in their characters. Dwyer was produced only on the first trial, lest his infamy should be exposed by Hyden, whom he could prove to be also infamous. The hon. and learned gentleman was served by very faithful and expeditious spies; for he had been able to tell him that Preston had been in his company within the last 24 hours. It was certainly true that Preston had been at Guildhall during the course of that day. He had come to state some grievances, and in his magisterial capacity he was bound to attend to any application of the kind that should be made to him. His going to Thistlewood with the questions which he Tiad thought it proper to put to him, had been called in question. He had acted in this according to the dictates of his conscience. He thought that step necessary, in order to obtain what corroboration he could of the evidence he already "had. To the question, whether he had received any money from Edwards, his reply was, not "now and then a pound," as had been industriously promulgated and repeated that evening by the hon. and "learned gentleman, but "some pounds,"

291
He first asked Thistlewood (who had been previously informed who he was) whether he had any objection to answer some questions, and he replied that it would give him great satisfaction to answer any question that he might put to him, provided he had time sufficient. It was his intention to have asked several other questions, but he was prevented by the gaoler of Newgate, who had refused him permission to see the prisoners, except he obtained the previous leave of lord Sid-mouth. On the evening preceding the execution of these unfortunate men, he had ascertained that a Wesleyan clergyman had been prohibited from visiting Davidson upon a similar pretence. On a former occasion, by the request of a gentleman high in office, he had visited Bellingham previously to his execution, and put a question to him; and he had yet to learn where was the diabolical tendency of such an act. He felt indebted to the hon. and learned gentleman below him for the clear and forcible manner in which he had placed his object, in undertaking that investigation. He was ready to prove from the evidence he was possessed of, that Edwards was the sole promoter and instigator of the Cato-street conspiracy. This he stated in the most solemn manner. If the attorney-general would assure him that he would not put a stop, as he had the power to do, to the prosecution which he should immediately begin against this infamous individual, he would consent to give up his motion directly. In that case he would pledge himself to go before the grand jury with the case, and to carry it on at his own expense. From the evidence he had, he could prove that an officer of the police was connected with this individual, and that they had been engaged together in several plots, previous to, and altogether unconnected with the late conspiracy. This, therefore, attached in a slight degree to government, who were supposed to know the officers of its own police. He could declare that so far from being instigated to the present motion by other persons, his intention to bring it forward was not known to any one gentleman in the House excepting the gallant member who seconded it, and who saw it only yesterday.
Mr. Canningsaid, he understood the worthy alderman wished to withdraw the motion; he therefore took the opportunity of stating, that he, for one, would not suffer the motion to be withdrawn.
Sir Robert Wilsonsaid, that it could not fail to have been observed by the House that some warm words had passed between certain honourable members in the course of that debate. It would be much to be regretted if the House should break up without the satisfaction of knowing that those words, so uttered in the heat of the moment, had, in fact, made no unpleasant impresssion on the minds of the parties, who, he hoped, would therefore gratify the House, by manifesting the absence of any feeling contrary to that amicable understanding with which it was customary to conduct the discussions in that House [Hear, hear!].
The Speakerrose amidst loud cries of Hear, hear! He was satisfied, he said, that there could be but one feeling of thankfulness in that House towards the hon. and gallant member for the observations that had just proceeded from him; and he was equally sure, that if any expressions, conjured up by the warmth of debate, had fallen from any honourable members, they would be very ready to give the House that satisfaction, which the hon. and gallant member had so handsomely and so properly solicited [Here a pause of several seconds ensued]. The Speaker at length again rose. The hon. and gallant member, he observed, in addressing the House at first, had not pointed so distinctly to the objects of his speech as to name the members to whom he alluded. He, therefore, now felt it to be his duty to say, that he understood the allusion to apply to sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Canning.
Sir F. Burdettthen rose, and stated, that he considered it his duty to say what he did. It occurred to him that the right hon. gentleman had said, that the worthy alderman was drunk with popularity [a cry of No, no!]. He did not mean to say that the right hon. gentleman used the express words, but certainly he took the meaning to be, that the worthy alderman was intoxicated with popularity. The words he used in consequence of that impression were not intended to be personal.
Mr. Canningsaid, he had not taken any thing amiss which had fallen from the hon. baronet. He had only replied to him as the advocate of the hon. alderman's motion. There certainly were no two persons at greater variance on the subject of politics than the hon. baronet and himself; but there was no member he more

293
wished to discuss a question with than the hon. baronet, for he always discussed it fairly.
The Speakerobserved, that he was happy to find there was no ground for the supposed irritation of the feelings of the hon. members.
The question was then put, and the motion was negatived.