"

"done without exciting at least the suspicion of the Commander in "Chief; and that if such abuses had existed without the know"of his royal highness, that house had great reason to doubt whe"ther the chief command of his Majesty's forces could with propriety, or ought with prudence to remain in the hands of the Duke of York." The amendment likewise expresses, "the deepest concern "at the discovery of a connection fraught with injurious consequences "to the cause of religion and morals, &c." The only difference therefore between Mr. BANKES, Mr. WILBERFORCE and other members who voted who voted for the amendment, and Mr. WARDLE and those who voted for his address, appears to have been on the charge of personal corruption. Now, we do not suppose that Mr. WARDle ever meant to insinuate that the Commander in Chief counted the money which his mistress received as the price of her influence; especially as a learned gentleman, one of his defenders (Mr. Burton) gravely informed the house, by way of apology for royal prodigality, that "neither the Duke of YORK, nor the Prince of WALES, could "be taught in their youthful days the value of money, or the use of

a guinea:" but men who are not unduly prejudiced, or whose judgment is not obscured by interest, or other impure motives, may from the mass of evidence adduced, easily discover that the Duke must have been convinced (if he thought at all on the subject) that Mrs. CLARKE had a material, personal interest in conversing with him on the subject of promotions in the army, and preferments in the church. There is only one apology which can be made for his royal highness on this subject, and which, as we have not, after carefully perusing the speeches of his advocates, yet met with, we beg leave to offer, The Duke must have been habituated to the professions of such statesmen as Mr. PITT, Lord MELVILLE, Mr. PERCEVAL, Lord CASTLEREAGH, &c. who have so eagerly engaged in the most destructive wars for the "defence of our holy "religion" who have, in their apprehensions of the spread of popery, falsified engagements made with a nation of catholics. Whether his royal highness imagined that Mrs. CLARKE was, în her recommendations, inspired with a similar zeal for the welfare of church and state, we shall not presume to determine; but we deem it a debt of justice due to the "darling" of his royal highness to declare, that there is good reason to believe that her motives were equally pure, and disinterested as those of the famous statesmen alluded to. Leaving this apology to the due consideration of the advocates of the Duke, we proceed to remark, on the subject of corruption," that Dr. JOHNSON defines the word corrupt,"tainted, vitiated in its principles;" and the " corrupter,--one ** that taints, or vitiates, or that lessens purity.” Mr. PERCEVAL, who at times is so " tremblingly alive" to the very idea of " corrup

"tion;" who declared "there was no term of degradation he thought sufficiently strong to convey his abhorrence of the nature "and consequences of corruption," .... that " not all the infamy "which had lately disgraced the bar of the House of Commons "amounted to the shameless and abandoned criminality of corrup"tion," acknowledged in another part of his speech, that "his "royal highness had exposed himself to improper imputations by the unsuspecting, unreserved manner in which he had communi"cated with Mrs. CLARKE; but that it was clear that none of the "letters which passed in the course of this communication were ever "meant for the public eye." His royal highness most certainly never intended those contemptible effusions for publication. We know not what may be the ideas of Mr. PERCEVAL concerning "the nature and consequences of corruption;" but we should scarcely imagine that such men as Mr. BANKES, and Mr. WILBERFORCE, who have with such energy reprobated the scandalous transactions in which General CLAVERING, and Dr. O'MEARA were concerned, could have any doubt as to the impure motives that dictated the communications alluded to. The only difference between Mr. WARDLE, and the supporters of his address, and Mr. BANKES and the supporters of his amendment, appears to have been respecting the actual knowledge of the Duke of the illicit gains of his mistress, and whether, as they were in some considerable degree the means of her support whilst she was under his "protection," his royal highness may be said to be a participator in those gains? How far the positive and repeated assertions of Mrs. CLARKE, respecting her communications with her royal paramour are supported by collateral evidence-bow far such evidence has been confirmed by circumstances, such as the expensive establishment at Glocesterplace; also that at Weybridge, adjoining to Oatlands-park, the residence of the Duke and Duchess of YORK;-these are points we leave to be determined by the judgment of the public, and the impartial historian of the times. That judgment we have little doubt will be correct. Leaving these points, we proceed to remark that Mr. WARDLE and Mr. BANKES, with their respective supporters, appear perfectly to coincide in opinion, that from the connivance of the Duke at the corrupt practices alluded to, or (as Mr. PERCEVAL expressed it) "from the unreserved manner in which he "had communicated with Mrs. CLARKE,"-" there was great reason "to doubt, whether the chief command of his Majesty's forces, "could with propriety or ought with prudence, to remain in the "bands of the Duke." Whether depravity or weakness appears most predominant throughout the Duke's connection with Mrs. C. the inference in either case must be the same, All virtuous and imparțial persons must agree with the supporters of both he address and

the amendment, in pronouncing the Duke to be an improper person to hold the important office of Commander in Chief of an army, containing 12,000 oflicers, all looking up to him for promotion, and several as it has been proved to demonstration, bribing his mistress to procure by her acknowledged influence the object of their wishes. For Mr. BANKES's amendment there were-Ayes 199-Noes 294. Majority against it, 95.

The third and the principal party which has exerted itself on this interesting occasion, consists of his Majesty's ministers, their friends and dependants, headed by the Right Hon. SPENCER PERCEVAL; Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their determination, from first to last, appears to have been to bring the Duke off in triumph, and firmly to establish him in office. In the midst of Mr. P's. laboured ingenuity, and although he declares his "conscientious belief that "the Duke of York's knowledge of any of Mrs. CLARKE's corrupt "transactions was not to be concluded from any of the evidence, "either oral or documentary, which had been laid before the "house;" it is evident that the right hon. gentleman had his suspicions that improper communications were made at times, by the Duke to his mistress. "Had any man" (said Mr. Perceval)" seen "the witness to whom he alluded, at the bar; who would not “admit that had he been weak enough to fall into her snares, he “would intrust to her the secrets of his bosom." Now, it is generally understood, that the Duke was not only "weak enough" to "fall into the snares" of Mrs. C. but that he has been ensnared by several ladies of a similar description, and that one of them if not now under his "protection," was so at the commencement of the present inquiry. Are kept mistresses, therefore, to be the depositaries of the "bosom secrets" of the Commander in Chief of the British army? Are they to be the medium of communication between the officers, and the head of that army? The very supposition is disgraceful to the inhabitants of a free, a virtuous nation. Whenever a man in an important official situation lives in a course of vice, by which he is subjected to that improper influence which induces him to" entrust the secrets of his bosom," to his adulterous connections, and to listen to their advice and recommendation, that man is necessarily incapacitated from properly discharging the duties of his office. The remark we have quoted, together with similar remarks from other advocates of the Duke, are sufficient to convince us, were there no other evidence extant, that a man high in office reposing in the arms of one Delilah, then another, and presently a third, entrusting his bosom secrets" to each, and making them the

We have taken Mr. Perceval's Speech from the Report in the Morning Chronicle.

channel of his communications on official subjects, is utterly unfit for his important station.

As a set-off against the vices of the Duke, are placed his great services in the army, and his extraordinary ability and assiduity in filling the duties of his important station: such in short, are his transcendant merits, that Mr. PERCEVAL declared in the most “solemn manner. Believing as he did in his soul, that in the "kingdom there was not an individual more able than his royal "highness to execute its numerous and important duties!" This affirmation is repeated in his second day's speech :-" Indeed it is my confirn, and conscientious opinion, that the place cannot be "better supplied, or its duties better discharged than it is at pre"sent!" Superficial as our knowledge must be of the various duties of the important office of Commander in Chief, there are some which are sufficiently obvious. Mr. PERCEVAL informs us"There were 4000 promotions annually, or 10,000 in the interval " of the connection of his royal highness with Mrs. Clarke." Ability in judging of the merits of the diferent applicants for promotion, impartiality in their selection; freedom not only from party, but undue influence of every kind, are therefore the indispensible requisites for the proper administration of the duties of so important an office. How far the Duke of YORK is possessed of these requisites the late mass of evidence at the bar of the house of Commons affords a tolerable proof. There are duties still more arduous, which the Commander in Chief may be called to execute. It may be his imperious duty to head the army at the crisis of his country-when invaded by a powerful enemy. Whether his royal highness would be the most able man to execute the duties of such an office, at such a crisis, we must leave to his companions in arms, who were the witnesses of the laurels he acquired in his brilliant campaigns in Flanders and Holland, to determine!

The resolutions proposed by Mr. PERCEVAL appear to have been grounded on the letter addressed by the Duke of YORK to the house of Commons; and the address originally proposed by the right hon. gentleman has been very properly termed by several members" a mere echo of that letter." Mr. WHITBREAD in one of his latter speeches on this subject observed-" He felt that it was very natural in the right hon. gentleman to entertain a "favourable opinion of that letter, as he was stated to be a principal party in its authorship. Indeed if his information were "correct, that really was the case, and therefore it was only the "author defending his own production." As neither Mr. PERCEVAL, nor any one on the ministerial side of the house contradicted this statement, the letter alluded to, although subscribed by the Duke of YORK, may be considered as the production of ministers,

constituting an important part of their proceedings, and it may be treated accordingly.

"

The only answer in the above letter to all the serious charges brought by Mr. WARDLE, and the abundant evidence in their support given at the bar of the House of Commons, is, simply, the duke's denial of the whole, " on the honour of a prince". What Mr. WHITBREAD has remarked on this part of the subject will not escape the attention of our readers. We cannot, however, but express our surprise, that Mr. PERCEVAL should dictate such a protestation, or suppose that it would weigh with the House of Commons, or with the public, after what he had observed respecting the forfeiture of honour in one of the most solemn transactions of life. Remarking on the "pernicious effects of adulterous intercourse," he added," There was no man in the house who would be dis"posed to hold stronger language than himself: there was something so loose in the character of the times; there were so many "bills from the other house indicative of that character, that he " saw no reason to repent of the measure he had proposed to make "the adulterer amenable to the criminal law of the country; yet in "that attempt his motives were most grievously misconstrued, and "it was supposed, that there was some fanatic in the Commons; some Puritan; some enthusiast, who was unworthy attention; "while his sole design was to prevent a crime which was cutting up by the roots all that constituted the comfort and charm of society." Here the right hon. gentleman spoke in character, as the faithful husband, and the affectionate father, in the enjoyment of what he must feel infinitely superior to all the emoluments and honours of office, the endearments of domestic felicity. Mr. PERCEVAL when he proposed the measure he alluded to, was in opposition, and ac cordingly it met with the usual reception given by all administra tions to the measures of their opponents: he is now in office, possessed of extensive power and influence. It is, therefore, to be hoped, that he will lose no time in renewing his proposed "measure": should that be the case, we shall deem it our duty to reprobate the language of any man who may dare to term the author of so laudable an attempt to suppress one of the most crying enormities of the age, "" a fanatic, a puritan, or an enthusiast." But in the mean time, let us enquire--With what propriety could the right hon. gentleman recommend to a royal adulterer, whose vicious intercourses had been attended with such fatal effects, as to force the language of regret and censure from men of all ranks, parties,

* Pol. Reg. p. 208 Wishing to do all the justice in our power to this admirable speech, which was heard throughout with the most marked attention of all parties, we have examined the best reports, and have followed those in the Times, and the Statesman.