support the cause, uninfluenced by any undue consider ation whatever.

The Master of the Rolls observed, that he had hitherto refrained from offering himself to the House, because he was anxious to have the evidence considered by other honourable members before he mentioned the impression it made on his mind. Whatever gentlemen might state respecting an impartial decision on this question, it was impossible that any man sitting there as a judge should not have an opinion on the case. Many persons who took up the subject with extreme zeal on one side, would conceive themselves perfecly right, and maintain that they acted from conviction. This kind of conviction put him in mind of an expression of Dr. Johnson's, speaking of some gentleman who had very hastily and erroneously, as he thought, come to a conclusion on a popular question, "Aye, says he, he is convinced, but then this conviction is not honestly come by." This observation appeared to him to be very applicable to some of the arguments that he had heard from the other side of the House. Their conclusions or conviction were not founded on the evidence that was before the House. It was certainly desirable that this question should be decided on fair and equitable grounds. He trusted, therefore, that the House would come with a manly and erect mind to the decision ; mbiassed by popular ferment, and unawed by power. There seemed to him to be two principles involved in the question before the House: first, whether they should come to any decision on the subject; next, what that decision should be. The second would necessarily branch itself into a number of others, respecting the competence and credibility of evidence, and various other points. If the Duke should be found guilty of the charges brought against him, then the House was to determine whether they should send him to trial; if not, whether the amend ment last proposed should be adopted (for that an endment, let it be recollected, went to absolve his Royal Highness of all personal corruption or corrupt participation), and the House come to a resolution that it was not proper that he should continue longer at the head of the army. He could conceive a case of inquiry where the House might not be called upon to give an opinion; but he could conceive none where they might be called upes

to pronounce an ambiguous opinion. The amendment proposed appeared to him likely to involve them in a dilemma of this nature. He agreed with the honourable baronet in his ideas of corruption, which did not imply the mere personal receipt of money, exclusive of other considerations. It was not necessary, in order to substantiate these charges, to prove that the Duke had received money with his own hands. If it could be made appear that he connived at the receipt of it by Mrs. Clarke or any one else, the accusation was brought home to him. This was a question to be entirely decided by the credibi lity of evidence; and he doubted whether the result of any inquiry before that House ever turned upon such a point. It was impossible that the House, in its judicial capacity, could decide upon the character and interests, he would not say of the Duke of York, but of the meanest man in the land, upon such evidence as they had heard at their bar. The evidence was deficient in that common sanction, which all ages, all countries, and all religions required. It was not given with the solemnity and under the penalty of an oath. This formality was so necessary, that it was known from history that a Roman tribunal had refused to receive the evidence even of Cato, until he had taken the accustomed oaths. It would be for the House to decide, whether they would adopt a measure affecting the honour and interest of any subject, without such a sanction. He would in the mean time admit, that an examination not upon oath would be sufficient to justify the House to put a man upon his trial. They have even gone the length of punishing persons upon such evidence, but it would not be pleasant to him to exercise his judicial functions upon the authority of such a precedent. He would now proceed to examine the evidence in the same way as if it had been given upon oath. [The honourable member here went into a long examination of the evidence, which he analized with his accustomed acuteness and ability.] Mrs. Clarke's evidence was directed wholly against the Duke of York, and that in the most positive manner. She asserted that his Royal Highness sanctioned every act she had done, and that he had not only sanctioned, but suggested and pointed out the way in which it should be done; that these, in fact, formed the ways and means by which the establishment she possessed was supported. Now with respect to this evidence

there were various opinions. A noble lord at the other side expressed his opinion that entire credit should be given to every thing she had said. He did not feel the same prepossession in favour of her evidence. He would admit that many parts of it might be true, but such evidence was always to be received with suspicion. In a court of law any judge would say, that such evidence was to be received with extreme caution. If it were otherwise, the character of any person might be at the mercy of any daring and worthless wretch, who might chuse to come forward and accuse him of a crime. Mrs. Clarke had a suflicient motive to bring the accusations that were the subject of their present deliberations against the Duke. Her object was to force him to a compromise. She was, on that account, not a perfectly credible witness. The only confirmative evidence was, that of Miss Taylor, and that only went to the corrupt dealing with regard to French's levy. With respect to this, he would not call upon the House to discredit Mrs. Clarke's testimony; the question was, whether Miss Taylor's memory was clear as to the fact. It was the evidence of a conversation respecting what might be supposed to have passed in a previous conversation or communication of some kind at which she was not present, or to which she was not privy. A confirmative evidence of this sort ought to be above all suspicion. In his opinion, the evidence of this lady did not come fairly to the fact. But suppose it did, what was its tendency? Was it not that his Royal Highness had avowed his inclination to put an end to French's levy, from which Mrs. Clarke had already derived so many advantages, and from which she might expect to obtain many more. Did it not go to cut up her hopes by the roots? Mrs. Clarke had no reason to complain of French, at the time she is said to have told the Duke that be behaved "middling" to her. He had far exceeded the limits of his original stipulation with her. Exclusive of the first 5007. she had at this very time received 8507. more; and this at a period when French was a loser by the transaction, and when it was uncertain whether it would go forward. Mrs. Clarke's evidence was not, în his mind, sufficiently confirmed by other testimony, to justify the House in proceeding on it. There were only two cases to which the evidence of Mrs. Clarke could at all apply; and if any credit was to be given to the tes

timony of Colonel Gordon, and the documents produced by him, her influence had no share whatever in effecting these promotions. None who believed these, could con scientiously say that his Royal Highness was cognizant of Mrs. Clarke's corruption. The House ought to be careful to distinguish between suspicion and certainty; for such was the frame of the human mind, that mere sus picion often supplied the place, and formed the ground of belief. If the charges were fully made out, let them not acquit his Royal Highness; if they were not, let him be acquitted; but let there be a decis on one way or other. If a man were uncertain whether he should believe or not, it would not be right for him to proceed as if he did believe. He would not take up the time of the House in detailing the various inconsistencies in Mrs. Clarke's evidence; but there was one so glaring, that he must allude to it: she stated, that she did not begin to traf fic in the sale of commissions until some mouths after she came to reside in Gloucester-place, when she first felt herself embarrassed. Now it appeared by documents from the War-office, that the application for French's levy was made on the 1st of February 1801; and she herself acknowledged that she had promised to support it before the proposal was sent in. It these practices were coupled with the object of relieving the Duke of York from the frequent drains which Mrs. Clarke was under the necessity of making on him, they entirely failed. They did not relieve him from her demands, for it was in evidence that he had paid 1,500. for her at once. His Royal Highness is represented as being extremely distressed during the time he lived with her; as not being_able, according to her account, of giving her 1007. But if it were true that he had given Mrs. Clarke authority to open a wholesale warehouse for the disposal of commissions, why did she not turn that privilege to ac count? What became of all the majorities and companies she had to dispose of? Why did she not derive from these the means of supporting her establishment, when the sale of a single ensigncy would be sufficient to render it unnecessary to apply to his Royal Highness? There was also another question. If the Duke of York gave her this authority, if he told her what recommendations were proper, and what were not, she should never have met with the slightest difficulty in carrying

these promotions into effect. It would be a gross absur dity to suppose that he gave her in private this authority, and that he afterwards, in his official character, set himself to oppose the exercise of it. With respect to the extent and efficacy of Mrs. Clarke's influence, it appeared that her recommendations experienced delays in the most favourable cases, and failures in many. French's levy was full five months in agitation, and so long was Mrs. Clarke kept out of her 5007. It was the same in Tonyn's case; for it was many weeks after the 5007. he had agreed to give for his majority was drawn out of the hands in which it was deposited. All this happened at a time that she represents the Duke being so embarrassed as not to be able to advance her so small a sum as 100. It appeared indeed, that she was in a miserable state of ignorance respecting promotions. This was particularly manifest in Tonyn's case, who, as stated by his right honourable friend the Secretary at War, was a major many days before she knew any thing about it; even at the very time that she threatened that his promotion should be stopped. The charge respecting Shaw was, in the manner as it was represented by this woman, one particularly atrocious. She wished it to be understood that his Royal Highness had lent himself to her revenge, and that he put Major Shaw on half pay, merely to satisfy her. Now how did the matter stand? Why, that the two appointments were incompatible, unless, which was not the case, that the regiment to which he was attached, was quartered at the place where he was nominated barrack-master. It further appeared that her interference was of no use whatever in Spedding's case. All her influence was ineffectual to obtain him the accommodation for which he sent in a memorial. So that upon the whole it was evident that her applications failed oftener than they succeeded, and that it was by no means clear that even one of these successes was to be attributed to her. He lamented the immorality of the connection in which his Royal Highness had so indiscreetly engaged, and he agreed with his learned friend (Mr. Burton) that it merited the censure of the House. But he was not aware of any established law in this country (it was different, however, in others) which authorised the making this the ground of a criminal proceeding. It was not an offence cognizable by the laws of