the consideration of it without any bias upon my mind in favour of the accused: but divesting myself of every prejudice, I determined to pursue the strict line of duty by considering the case of the Duke of York as calmly and temperately as I would that of one of the meanest subjects in the court where I have the honour to hold a seat. Now, sir, if I can possibly hope to be of any use in the present deliberation it will be by stating the course I have taken towards forming an opinion and to bring my mind to its final conclusion. In the first place, therefore, I attended the examinations at the bar so much as to acquire as good an idea as was in my power of the manner in which all the witnesses delivered their testimony. In the next place I had read to me the whole of the evidence from the first word to the last, and much of it more than twice, in order to compare and reconsider what was most material. In such a mass of evidence, so mixed and so confounded, the next step was to clear away all extraneous matter, so as to leave the real subject of investigation open to the view. And in order to this, I had first to observe what was not submitted to our consideration, and to what it was limited. Now, sir, one thing which forms no object of our deliberation in the way of crime or punishment is a circumstance which none of us can contemplate without the deepest regret: I mean the breach of the marriage vow. I trust it will not be suspected that I am an advocate for the sin of adultery, or that I have any desire to excuse or extenuate it; but this is no tribunal for the trial and punishment of that sin against the law of God; so that, how much soever we may lament, we must be cautious not to confound it with the proper subject of our deliberation, an offence against the laws of the land.

This is to be sought in the report of the Committee: and we must recollect the limits of its inquiry. It was not directed to inquire into the general conduct of his Royal Highness with respect to recommendations to places not being under the influence of a Commander-inchief, but was confined to his official acts respecting commissions, exchanges, and promotions in the army. sequently another thing to be laid out of the present consideration is all that concerns mere recommendations to offices or emoluments not in the army, nor within the Duke's patronage, otherwise than as they may tend to throw any light upon the question before us.

Con

Having thus laid aside these extraneous matters, my next step was to separate and throw aside so much of the evidence as is mere hearsay, or of such other description as ought not to be received on any judicial proceeding. As there is much of this, if I should be asked why I neglected to object to it when it was offered at the bar? My answer is this; the House, or the Committee whenever it is sitting, as the grand inquest of the nation, has to pursue two objects, one to examine and record proper evidence produced before it; the other, to exert all due means of discovering and acquiring proper evidence. And this latter cannot be executed without asking questions of hearsay, and such ethers as may lead to the procurement of proper witnesses. It must therefore always remain a subsequent task to separate the chaff from the grain, and to strike out so much of the testimony as ought not to be received: I do not mean according to technical rules, but according to sound principles of justice.

The next endeavour was to disencumber the case from the testimony of such of the witnesses as, however competent or admissible they may be, are nevertheless entitled to no belief. An investigation this of some labour, the persons examined at the bar being no fewer in number than 78.

Of all witnesses it is required. that they should speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; but of none is it more peculiarly expected than of such as appear in the light of accomplices; and it may not be useless that I should here state what I take to be an undeniable rule respecting persons of that description. It is, that no man should ever be convicted of any of the higher crimes upon the testimony of accomplices, unless they shew themselves worthy of credit by consistency with themselves, and unless they are confirmed by other evidence not simply in their history of the offence, but particularly in that link of it which connects the offence with the person accused; for, without this indispensable ingredient, no man could be safe. Wherever an offence has been committed, the accomplice must necessarily know the whole transaction. If therefore he be desirous to accuse an innocent man, he would have nothing to do but to tell his tale acccording to the truth, except in the substitution of the innocent person for the guilty, and his end might be accomplished. Mutato nomine de

te fabula narratur. Suppose, for instance, a murder or burglary perpetrated by two or three, one of whom is admitted king's evidence, and either to screen a friend or to revenge himself against an enemy, he accuses an innocent person in the stead of one of his guilty companions, he has only to relate the crime just as it was committed, and in all probability he will be confirmed in many of the circumstances. The time, the place, the number, the noises, the stolen goods, and so forth, are likely to be confirmed because they correspond with the truth: but if it were to be inferred from hence that he spoke the truth also in naming the partner in his guilt, without evidence to corroborate that particular point of his testimony, many an innocent man must lose his life, unless he had the good fortune to be able to prove an alibi. Once take away the cautionary rule and the danger would be endless. I do not scruple therefore to assert, and I do it in the presence of many of my brethren, whom I challenge to contradict me, that every judge would advise a jury to lay the evidence of an accomplice entirely out of the case, and acquit the prisoner, if that evidence, however confirmed in the general circumstances, be not also corroborated by some unimpeached evidence to bring the offence home to the person of the prisoner.

But it is not the evidence of accomplices alone without confirmation which ought to be disregarded: other witnesses, who are falsified in material points to which their attention has been directed, are wholly undeserving of all credit, and their testimony ought equally to be set aside. The next endeavour, therefore, was to separate those of this description. I will not go through all their names, a few will be sufficient. Sandon and Donovan, the first of whom is suffering for his prevarication, need scarcely be called to the recollection of the House-nor can Mrs. Favery easily be forgotten, who not only contradicted herself in various particulars within her own knowledge, but was contradicted by other unimpeachable witnesses. Among other falsehoods, remember what she said as to Mr. Ellis, with whom she had lived upwards of two years. That he was a carpenter in the city, who had a lodging in one street and a shop in another. That she did not know the name of either, nor could find her way to them. That the family were nearly all dead. That he was perpetually going about to screen himself from his creditors;

one time to Brighton, at another to Ramsgate, and another to Margate. All this she afterwards acknowledged to be a fabrication of her own. You find him to be a respectable clergyman; one of the masters of Merchant Taylor's school; living in a settled abode; in circumstances unembarrassed; and never having once gone either to Margate or to Ramsgate, but only to Brighton for the health of his children, as she well knew, and not for the purpose of screening himself from creditors. Be it also remembered, that in contradiction to her, as well as to Mrs. Clarke, it was proved by Mr. Ellis that Favery was visited by Mrs. Clarke, not once or twice only, but often: and that the manner in which they treated each other, was that of persons living on terms of the most intimate familiarity. Every one must so well recollect the way in which Mrs. Favery contradicted herself, and was contradicted by others, and I think in no less than ten material circumstances, that I should be ashamed to enter into a further recital of them. Such is her evidence that I will venture to say any judge would think he did a common prisoner an unpardonable injury if he stated it as worthy the consideration of a jury; so far at least as to affect him; probably indeed he would strike his pen through it.

Among the foremost of false wi nesses stands also Mrs. Clarke, the accomplice. In her testimony is to be found an absolute tissue of falsehood, I have reckoned up myself as many as twenty-eight positive assertions, in some of which she is contradicted by herself, in almost all by other unimpeached witnesses. I will not pretend to enumerate all of them from memory, nor can it be necessary, but it will be remembered that when she was asked, whe ther she ever represented herself as a widow? her reply was, "never but in joke, except once to Mr. Sutton at a court martial." That assertion was clearly a direct falsehood. She gained credit with Mr. Few by talking of her late husband. To Mr. Nicholls she said her husband had been dead about three years. She was asked, whether she ever represented herself as Mrs. Dowler? to which she positively replied in the negative. But it is proved that to some persons she was known in the character of Mrs. Dowler, and no other. She was so received into Mr. Read's hotel; he knew her only by that name, and heard her called by it. By that name the waiter had introduced her, she had answered to that name,

and was not affronted at being called by it. The porter had carried wine to her in Bedford-place, directed to Mrs. Dowler, which she had received without objection: and there was another instance of wine being sent to her by that name in Wes bourne-place, nor at either was it denied that Mrs. Dowler lived there. But above all, it cannot be forgotten that she made Mr. Nicholls believe that she was married to Mr. Dowler whilst she was lodging at his house at Hampstead, and where Mr. Dowler actually cohabited with her, but that it was to be kept a secret, as the Duke of York would send him abroad if it came to his cars. I am desirous, however, to avoid tiring the House with repeating instances that must be fresh in their memory. I have only to assert that I have in my pocket a list of twenty-eight, which any gentleman is welcome to inspect; and the witnesses contradicting her are twenty in number, thirteen of them of unimpeached characters; in several particulars she is contradicted by two, and in some by so many as four, if not more. Testimony such as this, like that of Mrs. Favery, I am bold to assert would not be deemed credible against the meanest of his majesty's subjects in any court within the realm of England. Certain I am that, sitting judicially, I should have thought it my bounden duty to declare to a jury, that so far as concerned the person accused, this testimony ought to be laid entirely out of the case.

Having thus then disencumbered the case of extraneons matter, not within the proper limits of our inquiry, of irrelevant, of hearsay, and of false evidence, the next step was to apply the scanty remains, for most scanty and insufficient will they presently be found, to the several charges. In doing this, it will not be my endeavour to enter into a minute detail of the evidence; that I must leave to others of stronger memory, and who enjoy that blessing of which I am bereft, contenting myself with a few observations upon the more prominent features.

It is undeniable that abuses had existed. Mrs. Clarke and her accomplices have confessedly been guilty, up to the present time, of many foul practices; but how are any of them to be imputed to the Duke of York? That is the question.

The first charge was that of Colonel Knight's exchange. Now it cannot be forgotten that this appears to have taken place according to the regular course of official business.