assertion) has stated that he would prove that Oliver had early declared to a respectable gentleman his intention of producing a general insurrection for the purpose of reforming the state by physical force. Now what is the House to think of a "respectable gentleman," who knowing of the existence of such a conspiracy against the state, never disclosed the plot until the conspirator became an informer? This concealment, perhaps, was not treason; I am not lawyer enough to decide whether it was strictly and technically misprision of treason. But, morally speaking, and according to the ordinary dictates of common sense (though God forbid that I should be wanting in charity to an anonymous individual, who may be the most loyal, as well as the most "respectable" of men), is it too much to attribute to him, that he wished to see the Government overturned, and was only prevented by dastardly cowardice from joining in the plot?

The honourable member for Durham arrives from a distant part of the country, to cast new lights upon the subject; and he brings forward another "respectable gentleman," who would swear that he saw Oliver rioting in the Park, on the day that the Prince Regent was assailed; who, though he thought it exceedingly wrong, had also held his peace upon the subject. He had, indeed (this respectable gentleman) confided it to his friend; and, since that time, the most

respectable gentleman had confided it to a most respectable morning paper. Here, again, however, we have a tolerably correct measure of this most respectable witness's motive of action. Why conceal the outrage at the time? Why bring it forward now? After this outrage, was not an anxious inquiry instituted-had not magistrates taken examinations upon the subject-were not the public journals filled with particulars which, for want of evidence, turned to nothing? It was impossible that any man could be ignorant of the fact, that a public investigation was on foot; yet, this "respectable gentleman," whose loyalty was bursting his bosom, who adored his King and country, never thought of going before a magistrate to give his important testimony. Why? because it was false: or if it were true, it only proved that he had not given his evidence because he loved Oliver while he was a traitor, and hates him now that he is an informer. It is impossible, however, not to feel assured, that the whole story is a recent invention; and no man, but a dolt or an idiot, can believe a word of it. Of course I do not mean to apply the epithets, dolt and idiot, to the honourable gentleman (Mr. Lambton); all that I meant to say was, that I should consider myself a dolt, if I could give the statement a moment's belief.

It has been said, that the House will desert its duty, if it does not hear the evidence of all these

respectable anonymi. If this were done, it would presently be found (we are told) that all the imputations against Oliver were true; that he was, in fact, the sole insurgent throughout the country -the contriver of all plots, and the instigator of all violence. Now, how would this be proved? One nameless gentleman would assert-and Oliver would contradict his assertion;-and we should then be just where we are now, balanced between two contradictory asseverations. For instance, the honourable gentleman asserted, that Oliver was sent from London as a delegate. What is the fact? Why that Mitchell was the London delegate, and had taken Oliver with him. Oliver being once introduced as a delegate, was obliged to pass for one. It would have cost him his life to disavow it. Again, the speech ascribed to Oliver, by Mitchell, was true as it related to Mitchell, but false as to Oliver. The story of the 70,000 men came from Mitchell, and not from Oliver. What is the evidence upon this subject? Why a third person, who fell in company with Mitchell and Oliver together, relates the conversation that passed between them, only ascribing to the one speaker, what was, in fact, said by the other. This might be from mis-recollection: but it is not uncharitable to suppose, that it might, also, be from design: for the moment that Oliver's employment was known, all the sayings, and all the actions, the plans, and the outrages, of the dis

affected, were, by common consent, heaped one and all upon Oliver. Many, who had never seen him, quoted his words, and commented on his bearing and how is the truth to be gotten at, among so many irritated feelings, and alarmed interests, by any course of unsworn investigation? It is not, therefore, indifference to truth, that deters the House from such an investigation. It is the uselessless, the hopelessness, and the endlessness, of such a process, which deter it. The honourable member for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce) justly remarked, that an inquiry once gone into, on these matters, must be interminable. Can a better illustration of this truth be desired, than the proposal of the honourable member for Norwich (Mr. W. Smith), that all the private transactions of Oliver's life should be ripped up; that an inquiry should be set on foot, to ascertain whether he had regularly paid his tailor's bill, and of how many chips and shavings he had cheated his master the carpenter? A chip and shaving committee is to be appointed, with power instead of persons, papers, and records, of sending for surveyors, builders, hatchets, planes, and carpenter's rules; with a special appointment to inquire into the merits of three indictments, two suits in the Court of King's Bench, and a disputed These matters are to be referred to a Select Committee.

award.

As to this question about private character,

who is there that disputes, that intelligence respecting plots against the State, in nine cases out of ten, must arrive through polluted channels? It can only be obtained from repentant traitors, from accomplices, or from informers. Though there may be those whose minds are so philosophically turned, that they wish all discoveries to be providential, rather than employ such agents, still I confess I must hold it prudent to employ human means to maintain human institutions.

Some honourable gentlemen have attempted to draw a distinction between an informer and a spy. If a man brings information to Government, it may be credited (say they) for the first time; then, it seems, he is only an informer; but if the informer, at the recommendation of Government, should proceed to gain fresh information, the second fact would be good for nothing, because he would then be an employed informer, and consequently a spy; twice an informer, was once a spy. The bee, it is said, can sting but once,-animamque in vulnere ponit. So the informer can make but one information; and all his power of observation, all his faculty of seeing and hearing, become immediately extinguished. The honourable and learned gentleman (Sir S. Romilly) has been pleased to refer to the immortal bard" (Shakspeare), for illustration of his arguments. Certainly he could not go to a better source. If he had carried his researches into that