Mr. Williams Wynne began by commenting on the state of the question, and said, that to call it the bounden duty of the House to take one course more than another, was to narrow the privileges of the House. The honourable member adverted to the case of the Duke of Lauderdale, in which the House thought it sufficient to address his Majesty, that the Duke might be removed from bis Majesty's councils; and to the old course of parliament, in which the simple misconduct of ministers was a cognizable matter. In the present instance, if corruption was not distinctly proved, yet there was evidently a degree of inattention which called for redress. In the present prac tice of parliament, every distinct charge had been considered as liable to a verdict of guilty or not guilty: and the honourable member could conceive, that many gentle men might believe that Samuel Carter's case was a single instance, and that no verdict could be entered upon that case, but a verdict of acquittal. But supposing there were fifty such cases, according to the present proceedings, there was no possibility of impeachment; for each was a separate charge. The case which pressed the heaviest on the Duke of York was one which could not be made the object of a charge, that of Kennet. If that case were admitted to its fullest extent, it would undoubtedly prove the charge of corruption in the Duke of York; for nobody could believe that the Duke would have interested himself merely because a letter was produced from one individual, stating that he should be happy to serve another. Mr. Greenwood himself did no understand it in this light; and if this evidence was to remain unnoticed on the minutes, it would imply, that any one who wanted preferment, had nothing to do but to come in the shape of a loan to the Duke of York. Without trusting to the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, although the honourable member had not that sweeping opinion of it which some gentlemen had expressed, there remained to prove the charge of corruption in the Duke of York, the evidence of Miss Taylor, whose character had been admitted to be perfectly credible, in one of the ablest speeches that had been delivered on that side of the House (the Speech of Sir S. Romilly) for it did not affect her credibility that her father was confined for debt, or that he was in distressed circumstances. But, independently of the evidence of

. Mrs. Clarke and Miss Taylor, and putting out of ques !tion the case of Colonel Shaw, and the exchange of Colo. hels Kaight and Brooke, because they only rested upon Mrs. Clarke's testimony, it was proved that the Commander-in-chief had, in six instances, allowed Mrs. Clarke to interfere in the dispensation of his office-had allowed a woman to make application to him upon subjects of such high moment. The Duke had not said to Mrs. Clarke, "you had better tell your applicant that you are an improper channel;" but," there is no opportunity of applying for what you ask." Upon the evidence of the Duke's hand-writing, the honourable member referred to the practice of the right honourable gentleman ( he Chancellor of the Exchequer) when attorney-general, in the trial of Judge Johnson, where the evidence depended solely upon comparison of hands-writing, and where so many persons did not believe the imputed hand-writing ge nuine. So many persons having been unable to say that this was not the hand-writing of the Duke of York, the honourable member thought that, putting Mrs. Clarke's evidence out of the question, in this instance she was allowed to interfere. The honourable member next adverted to the case of Samuel Carter. Of such promotion as his he had heard in a romance, but then it was generally through some merit in the hero, and not solely through the influence of another. The honourable mentber first looked at the degraded situation of the boy behind the carriage of such a woman as Mrs. Clarke, and then saw him sitting down to table as an equal with the Duke of York, simply because he was connected with that wo man. His letter, the honourable member said, did honour to both his gratitude and Mrs. Clarke's generosity, which it appeared had paid his outfits; but his commission constituted one of the heaviest charges against the Duke of York, because it proved that there was no check to the influence of Mrs. Clarke. The natural feelings of the Duke's mind one would suppose to have been, I can use iny influctice for the boy in any other way, but consider your situation and his: what will the army say, if they know this?" Nothing but the greatest influence upon the Duke's mind could have got over this. The honourable member next adverted to the evidence of Mr. Dowler, the credibility of which he defended, and thought his deVOL II.-1809.

sire to conceal what passed, at Reid's hotel pardonable. He thought too that Mr. Alderman Combe might, on horseback as he was, have been mistaken as to his conversation with him.

What would be the effect, the honourable gentleman asked, if the Duke remained in his situation? If ever another woman should be in Mrs. Clarke's situation, she would think herself entitled to the same influence; and if ever this should be the case, the honourable member contended that she had better sell that influence than give it; for a deserving officer might be tempted to give her a sum of money, and have done with her; but he could not be very worthy of the situation, who was intimate enough with such a woman to obtain his promotion gratuitously.

Upon the whole, the honourable member was of opi nion, that there were sufficient grounds to address his Majesty for the removal of the Duke of York; the cases of influence which had been proved were sufficient, and the general notoriety that by means so infamous promotion might be obtained, was a suflicient ground. There was but one way of proceeding, and that was the retirement of the Duke of York. The address originally proposed, the honourable member thought, stated more decidedly than was proved, the Duke's knowledge of the pecuniary advantage which had been derived through Mrs. Clarke's influence; but there were so many grounds upon which the notoriety of that influence was apparent, that he should not hesitate to vote for the honourable member's (Mr. Bankes's) amendment.

Mr. Croker rese, and at some length combated the arguments of Sir Francis Burdett, particularly as to the points of the incompetency of lawyers, whom he could not help considering as equal to decision even as any candidate who had figured on the hustings either of Brentford or Covent-garden. The testimony, of Mrs. Clarke, however, he thought highly impeachable indeed. And here the honourable gentleman proceeded to make comments on it in support of his opinion. He went through a variety of cases, in which he particularly marked not only the places in which she had been contradicted by others, but where she had contradicted herself. For instance, she had said, that from one thousand a year, she could barely pay the wages of six men servants, and keep them in live

ries. Now he would even ask the noble lord himself (Lord Folkestone) economist as he had confessed himself to be, whether this was possible. He was really ashamed, and ought to apologize to the House when he attempted so to undervalue the testimony of Colonel Gordon, as to contrast it with that of Mrs. Clarke. He could not, however, help remarking the bias, the prejudice, the absolute taint which some of the members opposite seemed to have imbibed. He was absolutely shocked to hear her panegyrized as an irreproachable witness-she, who in her attempts to prove the Duke of York the most contaminated of mankind, had only shewed herself to be the most flagi tious of women!-she, a fiend-like creature, an harpy, the vilest of her sex, who deserved to have every vengeance poured on her as much as he was prepared to let it fall!

Here the honourable member acutely analyzed the dif ferent evidences, chiefly with a view to invalidate that of Mrs. Clarke. He considered her testimony as carrying with it every thing combining malignity and falsehood, tending even to prove her traffic of places up to this day, when her influence over the Duke, according to her own account, must have ceased: and tending to shew that even when she represented that influence at the very highest, she was afraid to apply to him for a trifling leave of absence for her own brother, and acknowledged she had sought it through the medium of Captain Sandon. Yes, even for Captain Thompson she would not ask the Duke of York for one fortnight's leave of absence, but begged of another to see if he could possibly obtain it through the adjutant-general's office. (Hear, hear!) From a view even of her evidence, he would acquit the Duke of all participation or corrupt connivance; but he was sorry indeed to say, he could not give him an unqualified acquittal; he could not give him such a triumphant vote as he would have wished, when he considered that he had deigned even to answer so vile and profligate a woman, with respect to the advancement of General Cla vering; he could not help considering such conduct as in some degree culpable, though, at the same time he could never think this circumstance ought to weigh with him to pronounce an unqualified condemnation. When he said this, he spoke with as fair an intention as any man in the

A

the honourable member's speech in which he stated, on the anthority of Donovan's evidence, that Mrs. Clarke had 3 nade mention of his name as that of one of the persons disposed to purchase the papers she was in possession of: relating to the Duke of York. Ile assured the House that no such proposal was ever made by him.

Mr. H. Martin was surprized to hear from the honourable gentleman, that the evidence before the House was not of that nature to sanction the address. Parliament, be maintained, was not to be bound by the rules received, in courts of law. On this, as well as on every such occasion, he wished that they should adhere to the rules of their ancestors. How could the address or the amend ment of the honourable gentleman below him be described as a sentence of condemnation. It was the high privilege of that House to take cognizance at all times of the conduct of great public officers; and if any one doubted the fact, he would refer him to periods when the principles of the constitution were at least as well understood as they were at this day. This was the case upon the celebrated examination relating to the partition treaty, when documents and evidence were heard at the bar, and the House voted an address to his Majesty to remove Lord Somers, and two other Lords from his presence and councils." The House did what was their duty in censuring public functionaries, who had disgraced themselves. They went further, and voted an impeachment. [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches.] A learned gentleman had stated, that they might as well stab the Duke of York to the heart, as pass a vote to remove his Royal Highness from the command of the army. But what was there to distinguish the case of the Duke from that of any other person convicted of similar misconduct? Had Lord Somers no feelings upon that occasion? Was not that great man entitled to as much deference and indulgence as his Royal Ilighness? He recognized no distinction between the Duke of York and any other subject whose conduct might -fall under their investigation. It was not only the right but the bounden duty of the House to act as they had done. They were not to sacrifice their privileges out of respect for this or that person. But it was said, if the. Duke of York be guilty, why not impeach him at once? Where the punishment was commensurable to the offouce