the number of papers presented to the House ten letters of the Duke, and forty-one of Mrs. Clarke. Now. it was remarkable, that nine out of the ten letters of his Royal Highness were written upon the same paper; paper of the same kind of texture and the same water-mark, and the note referred to was one of the nine; whereas the tenth was of paper of a different texture and water-mark; yet that tenth had not been disputed, nor even suspected by any one. At the same time, upon looking at the fortyone letters of Mrs. Clarke, they all appeared of different paper, and fabricated at different times; and yet not one of them similar to the paper of the nine notes of the Duke of York. Another observation he would apply to Carter, and after what he had heard, he had only to say, if he had met with such an instance in a novel or a romance, he would have felt pleasure in perusing the incident. He next adverted to what had been stated, respecting Mrs. Sutherland, on the opposite side of the House, as superior im respectability to Mrs. Clarke, which he was not disposed to admit; because he believed the only reason which produced Mrs. Clarke in the House of Commons, was ber having been in that situation, which, if he was rightly informed, Mrs. Sutherland formerly enjoyed. He did think Miss Taylor, of whom he knew nothing, no more then he did of Mrs. Clarke, had been unjustly and cruelly used in that House, by their having gone further than propriety warranted, in examining her in such a way as to affect her character, and that was bard, if it were true that her livelihood depended upon her character. He did not approve of the liberty many counsel took in courts of justice to cross examine, contrary to every sense of propriety and just feeling of a man, from which nothing could defend them, except the authority of a court of justice. He declared most unequivocally, that he left out of his sight the testimony of Mrs. Clarke, and founded his determination on other grounds. She was endowed with remarkable talents, bat he witnessed with regret her disposition to use them for improper purposes. From the letters which had been produced in this case, he considered Mrs. Clarke an accomplice in a kind of conspiracy against his Royal Highness; but still some just censure ought to be expressed towards the Duke of York, for having had communication, and communica tion on military affairs, with such people. He did not

approve of the first address, because he did not think the Duke had been guilty himself of any corruption or connivance; yet he could not support the amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was disposed to dommend the one proposed by his honourable friend' (Mr. Bankes). The evidence which is now before the House, is also before the conntry. It will be closely examined; nor would it be prudent to continue the Duke of York as Commander-in-chief under the impression it must produce. He had also to object to the motion of the right honourable gentleman, as being in some measure an echo of the letter which his Royal Highness had addressed to that House. Whether it infringed or not the privileges of the House, le should not now inquire; but re-echoing it in such a manner was treating it as a message or speech of the king. It was giving it all that solemnity and weight which were due only to the most sacred acts of government. In a parliamentary point of view such a thing was indecent. With respect to those solemn and sacred acts of government to which he had alluded, it was an insult, and the country would not fail to treat it as the language of adulation as the language of men who were afraid to comment with spirit and with dignity upon grave offences against morals and decorum. If that House could not erect itself into a censor morum, who could? As long as the foibles and frailties of the Duke of York remained private, he had nothing to do with them. But when coupled with place and power, they burst upon the public eye; they cannot go unobserved or uncensured. He fondly wished to see the first in virtue as the first in place, and he had the satisfaction of seeing it in the reigning monarch, to the purity of whose character, perhaps, it is owing, that, amidst the convulsions of the French revolution, we have preserved our monarchy unshaken. There is no knowing to what dangers it might have then been exposed, if against the person of the monarch might have been brought such charges as are now exhibited against the Duke of York. The lesson we were bound to give on the present occasion, was one which should not be dictated by the heated passions of the moment, but one which would bear the examination, and deserve the sanction of posterity. The debate was then further postponed till Monday, to which day the House adjourned.

:: HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, MARCH 13.

THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

The order of the day was moved for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the conduct of the Commanderin-chief; when the Speaker having stated the question before the House,

The Secretary at War rose and said, that it had been made out, to the satisfaction of the majority of the House, that no reliance whatever was to be placed on the testimony of Mrs. Clarke. (No, no, no!-Hear, hear, hear!) The right honourable Secretary repeated, that in the ma terial part of her testimony, as to her communication with his Royal Highness the Duke of York, her evidence was to be wholly laid out of the question. The right honours able Secretary then proceeded to go through the several cases, and to argue, first, that if Mrs. Clarke bad any influence with the Duke of York, his Royal Highness did not know of it; and secondly, that she had no such in-fluence. He urged the importance which Mrs. Clarke always attached to the Gazette, never knowing of any promotion otherwise; and her ignorance of Major Tonyn's being actually a major, till several days. after; this was actually the case, as appeared by her letters before the House, In the case of Major Tonyn's promotion, the fact was, that when Mrs. Clarke pressed for it, it stopped, and when she ceased to press, it proceeded. The right honourable Secretary admitted the genuine, ness of the letter, which had been so much discussed; but: that was no ground of corruption in the Duke. As to the presumed notoriety of all the corruption which had been proved, so far from the Duke's being obliged to know it, the parties themselves did not know the channel of their applications till a considerable time had elapsed; they did not know Mrs. Clarke was to make their applications. The House had placed itself behind the scenes; but no! one had ever done it before. As to the establishment in Gloucester-place, which had been stated at 10,000 a year, was greatly exaggerated; and except in the artis cit of horses, the right honourable gentleman thought it not an immoderate one. He concluded with a high eulog gium on the Duke's services to the army, for whose

present high state it was solely indebted to his Royal/ Highness.

Sir Francis Burdett said, that after the able and ample statement of evidence which the House had so often heard on this subject, it certainly could not be his intention to detain them by its further detail. All that was left for him to do was to draw his deductions, make his comments, and shew the effect which it had on his mind in forming his decision. It was a little extraordinary to observe ther Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-general, and, in fact, the whole legal phalanx of the House, whose cons stant and practical habit was accusation, now ranged, as if una voce, on the side of the accused. He could not but observe the wonderful bias which their minds seemed to have taken, the surprizing proneness to conviction, all on one, side! Much had they displayed of professional acuteness, and many had been their animadversions on the conduct of his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle). One of them had represented him as putting out bis little skiff upon a large and boisterous ocean. e had, however, steered his voyage by the polar star of truth, and there was little doubt it would have a happy period. (Hear, hear!) Another member had insinuated that infamy must attach somewhere. After their long and anxious sitting, after their protracted debates, and their minute examination of evidence, he would ask could any infamy attach to his honourable friend. (Loud cries of no, no.) Where, then, should it fall but on the head of him with whom the imputation had originated? As to the speech and opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. they were so sophistical and uncandid-so full of mani fest prejudice and bias, that they rather appeared the statement of an advocate than a judge, and even consider ing them those of an advocate, were injudicious from the openness of their partiality. What! when any man ventured to assert it as his impression that Mrs. Clarke had: no influence over the Duke of York, was it not a mild epi thet to say he had prejudged the cause, or was blinded in his judgment of it? There were some minds, it seemed, who could not, in the glare of sunshine, see the plainest objects, but whose vision was most accurate even in the darkness of midnight. Every trifle against Mrs. Clarke's veracity was instantly taken hold of, but her most seriously corroborated statements were utterly disregarded. But it

was in vain to attempt an invalidation of her testimony "She came (said Sir Francis) to the bar of this House. with the most hostile sentiments against her: she was examined as to all the history of her life, its most minute: transactions, from the cradle to the present moment; › as she proceeded, the growing conviction of the House was sensibly apparent; and when she retired, there was not a being among us so sceptical as to doubt her truth, or imagine that any human ingenuity could have fabricated such a mass of circumstances, so well connected, · and so borne out by documents." (Hear, hear, hear!) Nothing but the simplicity of fact could have supported her amid such a trial-against all the lawyers, who, endeavouring to entrap her, were themselves defeated, even his majesty's own Attorney-General was foiled. (A laugh.). What then was the dernier resort to which they were driven in their overthrow? Oh! Mrs. Clarke was a geniussuch talents, such surprizing ingenuity-there never was any thing like it in the world-she could do any thing, say they. But it was a vain subterfuge; she, with all her talents, could never have got up such a drama as had heen presented to the Ilouse; he would as soon believe she could write Macbeth itself. Supposing her even wrong in those transactions where she was the only link, yet there were collateral circumstances there were docu ments there were middle agents which could not be frittered away. But the Duke could not be proved a party to the corruption. Undoubtedly it was not to be expected. that the Duke was to receive money in the face of an au dience that he was to call witnesses to see the fact; but: still the corrupt influence was apparent-the very waver ing of his advocates in his defence might prove it. There, for instance, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out, as indeed the gentlemen of the long robe generally do, with the fairest premises; but instantly, as if he knew the fair position was not tenable, he draws the most fo reign and inconclusive inference. Mrs. Clarke was not to be believed; no, she was too great a genius for that. Nor was Miss Taylor to be believed, she had trumped up the whole story with Mrs. Clarke; and their ignorance of some circumstances was adduced as a proof of their falsity, which very ignorance was the strongest instance of their credibility; for surely had the story been preconcerted between them, they would have taken good care that no