melancholy situation of crediting the evidence we have beard, even against the honour of a prince-The honour of a prince!-Alas, we must all come to that fatal period, when death, which knows no distinction, will class the prince with the peasant! and yet let us even turn to that awful spectacle, and shall we not find the wretch, with a rope about his neck, protesting that innocence which he knows he is not possessed of? Protestations, then, I never will heed-in this case. I hear of them with horror!" It had been said, that public virtue was now conspicuous. He admitted, that the desire of gain did not now entice men from their duty as frequently as it had; and why? because exposure had taught them caution; because the appointment of salutary committees had unmasked corruption, and held peculation up to public view. The House had an instance, very lately, in which even its power could not shield a delinquent from condemnation. Did not the very books on the table produce a signal ex ample to the House. Let it reform. Let it profit by its experience. He had heard of calumny and libel; aye, and prosecutions too. He wished such prosecutions to have an end, if their only crime was a belief in abuses which had here been proved. Let the House but do its duty, and the cause in which they originated was gone. He hoped, however, if such prosecutions were pursued, both sides of the question would be viewed, and such productions as the Plain Statement," which would constitute the Duke of York a sort of " imperium in imperio," not forgotten. But he turned to this momentous question, before which Buonaparte and his victories were but fleabites; be besought the House, in the name of every thing sacred, to do its duty. "The plague," said he," is gone abroad-let us offer up the incense-let us stand between the dead and the living ere the disease spreads, and cor Tuption riots 'mid the ruins of our constitution."

The Attorney General said, that as the hon. gentleman bad addressed some observations to him, he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations in his turn to that honourable gentleman. That honourable gentleman had said, that be would not for the world attempt to gain the vote of any man, unless from his conviction. But be well knew what authority he possessed in that House, and it seemed to be his own conviction which he endeavoured to impress upon the mind of others. The present ques

tion divided itself into two, and upon a proper separation of these two distinct questions must rest the fate of the addresses that have been moved. These questions were: 1st. Whether the corruptions complained of existed or not;-2dly. Whether the Duke of York, if they existed, was privy to them. The honourable gentleman observed that the Duke of York, in the eyes of justice, should not be more considered than the lowest subject-granted: but then let not the hon. gentleman deny to his Royal Highness what is allowed to the meanest subject. Let him assert his innocence; and let it not be brought against him as an additional charge, that he declared the charges alledged against him are wholly unfounded. Let the mat-" ter be examined without prejudice or partiality. But the bon. gentleman seems ready to stand forth the champion of Mrs. Clarke's veracity, which he tells us we have made ineffectual attempts to discredit. Mrs. Clarke is the goddess of his idolatry, and he will not allow the sacredness of her character to be violated. But how does the matter stand? Is not her evidence impeached by that of Mr. Nicholls of Hampstead? Did not Mrs. Clarke deny ever having passed herself for a widow; or ever having repre sented herself as wife of Mr. Dowler. Yet it has been proved by Mr. Nicholls, that Mrs. Clarke has passed her self for a widow, and afterwards for the wife of Mr. Dow Ler; and that when asked, why she endeavoured to conceal her marriage? her answer was, that if the Duke of York knew it, he would send Mr. Dowler out of the country. But while the honourable gentleman was busy in de fending one witness, he does not forget to abuse another. Mrs. Clarke had left some papers at Hampstead, in the hands of Mr. Nicholls. The present charges being noised abroad, Mrs, Clarke wishes to get back the papers, and sends to Mr. Nicholls to demand them. Mr. Nicholls re fuses them, and for this refusal the honourable gentleman accuses him of having acted basely, dishonestly, and corruptly. These were hard words; and were Mr. Nicholls in that House, he would be entitled to retort them. But it is the object of the hon. gentleman to beat down Mr. Nicholls, and to uphold Mrs. Clarke. But Mr. Nicholls may defend himself. He may say Mrs. Clarke is my debtor; and I am justified in retaining her papers until I am paid what she is justly indebted to me. But it is not only Mr. Nicholls whom the honourable gentleman at

tacks, but those who brought him forward as a witness. Other witnesses, however, have deposed to the same effect. Is not. Mrs. Clarke again contradicted when she denies that she passed at Reid's hotel for Mrs. Dowler? and here again is a material contradiction to be observed on the part of Mr. Dowler. Mr. Dowler says, he saw Mrs. Clarke on the Sunday after his arrival, and that he only found her address through the medium of the newspapers; yet Mrs. Clarke flew to him immediately on his arrival, and passed a night with him at the hotel he had already mentioned. This again was a material contradiction on the part of Mr. Dowler, who was anxious to make the House believe he was an unwilling witness. Mrs. Clarke's evidence is also contradicted by Mr. Knight, where he asserts, that Mrs. Clarke made it a point that all should be kept a secret from the Duke of York, and that she also threatened to bring forward the Duke's letters. Mrs. Clarke is also contradicted where she says, that she never knew Mrs. Favery under any other name than that of Favery; although it has been proved that she knew Mrs. Favery under the name of Farquhar, and bad even recom mended her as housekeeper to Mr. Ellis, under that name. Were not these contradictions, and contradictions of the most direct nature? Where then is the honourable gen tleman's boasted success in beating out of the field all those who would attempt to discredit the evidence of Mrs. Clarke The transaction of the exchange between Brooke and Knight, only proves that Knight was deluded by Thynne, and that Thynne was deluded by Mrs. Clarke. It may be true that the 2007. was paid; but nothing proves that it was paid to the knowledge of the Duke of York; yet this is the case upon which the greatest stress is laid. The learned gentleman then proceeded through the examination of the other cases; where he again con victed Mrs. Clarke of contradiction, and exposed the arts which she puts in practice to gain money, by inducing a belief that she had great influence over the Duke, which in no one instance can it be proved that his Royal High ness was ever acquainted with any of her stratagems, much less that he had ever participated in the fruits of her impositions. Viewing the charges in that light, and thoroughly convinced of the innocence of the Duke of York, he felt himself bound to vote for the amendment of his right honourable friend.

Mr. Bankes, at that late hour, would only give notice of his intention to move an amendment of the original address, taking the substance of that address as far as he could concur in it. He was glad, too, to take advantage of the few hours the delay would give him to correct his amendment, by the advice of his friends. He should at present merely state, that the effect of his amendment would be to say, that the House negatived the imputa tion of corruption in his Royal Highness the Duke of York, or of participation in any part of the profits of the traffic which had been proved; but thought it unadvise able, under all the present circumstancs, that his Royal Highness should any longer continue to hold the office of Commander-in-chief.

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 10.

Lord Mulgrave alluded to an error in the selection of the papers relative to Spain and Portugal, which had been laid on the table. We understood him to have said, that two documents were stated to be inclosures from Sir C. Cotton to Sir Hew Dalrymple, whereas they were copies of instructions sent to the latter. He now held in his hand copies of the inclosures, and moved that a minute should be made to correct the mistake that had taken place.

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 10.

A message from the Lords informed the House, that they had agreed to the Irish flax-seed bill, and several private bills.

Mr. Huskisson said, he had made an inquiry of the total expence of the officers, non-commissioned officers, &c. re-pecting Colonel French's levy. The number of men approved of at the depôt, by General Whitelocke, was 219, which were gained by the service. It would appear one half of the serjeants were to be retained for the king's service, making in the whole 269. The amount paid per man was 49. He concluded by moving for a

statement of the amount of the expence incurred by Colonel French's levy; which was agreed to, and which paper he presented accordingly.

The mutiny bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.

THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

The order of the day being read for resuming the adjourned debate on the evidence taken of the Duke of York's conduct, the Speaker read the original address moved by Mr. Wardle, and the amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and stated the question accordingly.

Mr. Bankes rose, he said he was confident the House would grant him its indulgence, while he took the liberty of stating what to him seemed the best mode of proceeding to be adopted on the present occasion. He should feel concerned, if through his means, any unneccesary protraction of the affair should take place. But when he considered the necessity of attending to the form in which their deliberations should with propriety be moulded, he must express the conviction of his mind, as to the necessity of laying before his majesty an uniform address. He had no objection to concurring with the resolutions of the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) provided he agreed to the amendment which he would propose. In this discussion he was anxious for a full statement at once, in order that the House may be assured of what it was engaged in. There was nothing which he so much wished to obviate, as any intricacy in the matter. His sole object was to amend the amendment, and substantially to maintain the preliminary part of the resolutions. The propriety of discussion on the point of form, he stated to be proved by precedents, in the years 1759 and 1783, which the Speaker was so kind as to afford him. Founding therefore his motives on those precedents, it was his intention to bring the House to a division upon the amendment, while he should wish to preserve the previous part of the original motion. In that House he was confident there was no individual who attended the pending inquiry with more reluctance than he did. It was impos sible for him to conceal his apprehensions that the result of this inquiry would be of more detriment than service. But as the House had so far gone into the case, he trusted