and from other circumstances, that the levy was obtained through the influence of Mrs. Clarke; but having no direct proof of corruption in this case, the noble lord was obliged to make use of the case of Kennet, to prove that the Duke of York knew too well what corruption was going forward. !

The noble lord then said a few words on the second address which had been proposed (that of Mr. Bankes), and which he thought in substance the same as the first, although the second had his lordship's preference, as it appeared to him, to be worded in a less offensive manner than the first, and because the first contained some ex-pressions to which he decidedly objected;" Without any other than the obvious consequence, that if ever the opinion should prevail in the army, that promotion was to be obtained in any other way except by merit and services, such an opinion must tend materially to wound the feelings, and abate the zeal of the army, and to do it essential injury." These were expressions that were particularly dangerous, inasmuch as they tended to convert the army into a deliberative body. The noble lord, regretted, that the House had not come into the proposition that the present inquiry should have been made by a parliamentary commission. The House would not then have heard of the " injustice of condemning without trial," nor would these public exami-nations have gone abroad, to the scandal of all the world; the evidence would then have, been upon oath, and the .House would not have been in the situation of not knowing what to believe, and what not to believe.

Not approving very much of either of the addresses which had been proposed, the noble lord did not intend to burthen the House with any new motion, but should content himself with expressing his own opinion, that neither the addresses nor resolution should be made, but that the whole evidence should simply be laid before the king. At the same time the noble lord had no diffi culty in ex ressing that which he felt upon his mind, namely, that the Commander-in-chief must have had sus picions of the transactions which had come out. The objection to this measure of the noble lord's would be, that it cast the whole responsibility upon the king; but if the House addressed the king, it would be the same, for the Duke's dismissal must go through the king. VOL. II.-1809. 8 S

The noble lord's plan, he thought, the more delicate one, but as he could not flatter himself that he should find "many to agree with him, he should abstain from putting it in any shape to the Honse.

.

In the consideration of the present-question, the noble lord hoped the House would not be deterred either by threats from without doors, to make them do much, or by threats from within, to make them do little; but it "was necessary to the well-being of the country, that some steps should be taken, if the House had formed that conviction, to which alone they must have come, if neither fear nor favour, nor the consideration that he whom they judged was a prince, and a son of the king, had influenced them. The noble lord had great objections generally to the royal family's holding offices of trust. To toach what was so near the throne looked like a kind of sacrilege. The House must not, however, on that "account, be deferred from doing their duty. They must consider themselves as not about to address the throne for the removal from office of the Duke of York, but of the Commander-in-chief. In this light only was he to be considered if he were looked upon in any other, judgment must be warped. The noble lord could not agree with a doctrine which had been laid down, that another commander in-chief, as excellent as the Duke of York, could not be found. There was undoubtedly considerable advantage to be derived from the Commander-in-chief's being one of the royal family; but upon the whole, there were so many inconveniencies arising from that circumstance, that he thought them much more than a counterbalance to that advantage. The excellence of the Duke's generalship was nothing to the present question; he might be a Duke of Marlborough; but it would be recollected, that the Duke of Marlborough himself was removed from the command of the army, and there was no man who would not agree that the Duke of Marlborough was a much greater generál than the Duke of York was, or was ever likely to become. It had been said that the Duke would reform: the noble lord begged the House to recollect that the Duke was a man of five-and-forty; and though the noble lord believed, that where a man possessed the rudiments of wisdom, he would grow wiser as he grew older, be thought

that where a man possessed only the rudiments of folly, he would do nothing but grow more foolish. The Duke of York had acted foolishly and wrongly; he had, though a married man, kept one, two, three, and the noble lord did not know how many more, mistresses; and now he was to reform all of a sudden, because the right honourable gentleman told him he had sinned against the seventh commandment.

1

The noble lord hoped the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning). would now tell the House where infamy was to fall; if upon the accused, he did not know how the House would determine; if upon the accuser, he thought that no other person would agree with the right honourable gentleman.

The noble lord concluded with animadverting upon the Duke of York's letter to the House, which had certainly placed them in an awkward predicament. He was accused, and told the House he was innocent," upon the honour of a prince," an expression never heard of before. By this foolish letter, he had only brought down a second accusation upon his head-that of falsehood too. The noble lord knew not by what logic it could be otherwise reasoned: those who were convinced of the Duke's guilt of corruption, must now inevitably find him guilty of two things-corruption and falsehood too,

Lord Stanley said, the House in its consideration of the present question were not bound by legal opinions, nor by the rules of legal evidence; but had a rational right to give the conviction of their minds. The noble lord hoped he came to this question with a mind as free from bias as that of the learned judge (Mr. Burton), or of any member in the House. If his lordship's mind had any bias, it was, from the many personal obligations he had received from his Royal Highness, rather in his favour than against him. But yet sifted as the evidence before him had been, and in his lordship's opinion rather too finely, he felt it impossible to say the Duke of York was innocent. Upon the charge of personal corruption, and the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, the noble lord agreed with the last speaker. -But the evidence of Miss Taylor, the noble lord defended, -and thought very strong. From the numerous applications of Mrs. Clarke, the noble lord felt convinced suspicions must have struck the Duke of York's mind; and if the House had not heard a tittle of evidence at their bar, still

his lordship should think that the letters on the table alone would prove his Royal Highness's connivance at corrup tion. If there was a natural ground for this suspicion, the Duke should be dismissed. In a former reign, the Duke of Cumberland had been not only deprived of all offices, but dismissed his majesty's councils and presence for ever, in consequence of the capitulation of Closter seven. The noble lord applied to the difficulty of making out charges against a prince, in the high situation of the Duke of York, the speech of Angelo to Isabel, in Shakṣ peare's Measure for Measure:

"Who will believe thee?

My vonch against you, and my place i' the state,
Will so your accusation overweigh,

That you shall stifle in your own report,

And smell of calumny."

The noble ford then cursorily went over, the cases of Kennet, Carter, General Clavering, and Mr. Dowler, to prove the influence of Mrs. Clarke, and the gross and Culpable negligence and connivance at corruption of the Duke of York, and concluded by supporting the original ́address.

Mr. Leycester reminded the House, that the address, on which they were now to vote, declared there was no ground to charge his Royal Highness with personal cor ruption; but that the abuses proved could hardly have ex isted without exciting his suspicion; and even if they could be presumed to have existed without his kowledge (sub stituting knowledge for suspicion) still the command of the army could not properly be continued in his hands. The question ought to be plain and simple, Whether his Royal Highness was or was not guilty of the charge im puted to him? Whoever voted for the address proposed, in substance said this, I acquit him of personal corrup tion; but I suspect, he must either have suspected or known of Mrs. Clarke's corrupt practices; which do you suspect that he suspected, or that he knew? From the vote upon the journals nobody could tell, though there is a great difference between them. Resolve that he is guilty of corruption, and he may have an opportunity of defending himself by a legal trial like any other British subject; but by acquitting him of the guilt, and adding, that you suspect him of it, he can have no trial; you fix an indelible stigma upon his reputation that must last for

ever; you inflict a wound, and "you wrest from him the remedy; a proceeding without a precedent in the history of parliament, or of any court whatever, where the name of justice was ever heard of; a more unfair, a more flagrantly unjust, a more cruel act against the character of his Royal Highness, the most hostile ingenuity could -not have devised.

Persuaded the House would never furnish so dangerous an example of injustice, but would negative this address, the next question would be plain and clear, viz. is he or is he not guilty of corruption or connivance? The case stated against him by Mrs. Clarke was, "That she sold commissions, not only with his assent, but by his original instigation for their mutual benefit; on her veracity the charge depended; it being always understood, though in the arguments on the other side it seemed always to be in dustriously forgot, that the question was not whether his Royal Highness permitted her to apply to him at all on military matters, which was not denied, but whether he was a party in any manner to her pecuniary-traffic; on her credit therefore the debate must turn, though a pros titute or an accomplice, he admitted, was not therefore ne cessarily to be discredited, yet it must be admitted also, that the course of prostitution in which she had lived must tend to loosen her sense of every moral duty; and the practice in which she had been engaged, receiving money for promotions under a pretence that she had ob tained them, in which, in some instances at least, it is demonstrably proved she had no concern, and pretending a great influence over the Duke of Portland, as well as the Duke of York, at a time when it is clear she had no interest with either, exhibited a species of swindling, and a systematic course of imposition, of which the very basis was artifice and falsehood; to this, as the general cha racter she appeared in as a witness against the Duke of York, was added that of a discarded mistress, with revenge against him in her heart, as proved by Colonel M'Mahon; and having threatened to expose him, if her terms were not complied with, as appears in her own letters to Mr. Adam, and also in her declarations to Mr. Knight a short time ago, and then positively deny. ing that she had ever said so, though of the veracity of Mr. Knight there can be no doubt.

With such objections to the credit of a witness, if they