who was Mrs. Clarke's solicitor, to negotiate and raise a loan for him, and for that purpose had referred him to his own maŋ of business. He had without reserve entrusted Mrs. Clarke with the disclosure of his distresses, and there was in his (Mr., Calcraft's) mind no doubt but she had as unreservedly informed him of her own. He next took notice of the Duke of York's letter to the House, through the medium of the Speaker, in which his Royal Highness had shewn that he was very willing to accept their ac quittance, but that he strongly deprecated their con demnation. He thought that letter went in a great degree to question and deny the authority of the House, and as such entrench on their privileges. He felt the strongest objections in his own mind to it when he first heard it read, and was sorry he had not then expressed the sentiments of his mind; but seeing so many others of far greater parlia mentary knowledge and experience than be possessed, pass by it without notice, he had been awed into silence, and so had assented to its being permitted to lie on the table, He would not wish to trespass on the time of the House, and should therefore conclude by saying, that he had endeavoured to make up his mind to vote in favour of the address of the honourable gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes); but he thought the circumstances against the Duke of York so strong, that he would rather choose to adopt some resolution that might be better and more closely adapted to meet the subject on which the House was to come to a decision. If no such resolution should be hereafter proposed, he should prefer the original address proprosed by the honourable gentleman behind him (Mr. Wardle).

Wednesday, March 15, 1809.

Lord Milton rose and said, that upon this momentous subject he felt it his duty to form his opinion upon a mature consideration of the evidence, without attending to the clamours without the House, or the misrepresenta tions on the other side of it. He had not formed his opinion from the doctrines of members of legal habits who had spoken on this subject, still less from the doctrine of the learned judge (Mr. Burton), who spoke on the first night of the debate; a doctrine which bore on its face the absurdity, that because a witness had in some instances contradicted herself, therefore her whole evidence should

be swept away. If this principle were acted up to, the testimony of almost every witness who had been brought to their bar would be impeachable. In examining evidence of the nature of that before the House, it was necessary to attend to slight circumstances, which often confirmed the testimony of a witness even more than an apparent veracity throughout. From the evidence before the House, it must come to a resolution that the present Commander-in-chief cannot with safety retain his situa tion. It was difficult to say, whether he was guilty of personal corruption, although those who entirely believed the evidence on the table, must come even to that conclusion. The noble lord (Milton), however, did not carry his admiration of Mrs. Clarke's testimony quite so far as the noble lord (Folkestone) did; and he should not say, that every part of it was to be believed; for though there were minute circumstances which tended to confirm its general truth, yet there was an air of flippancy about her manner of speaking, which might well lay her open to suspicion. Upon this account, he should leave out of consideration all those parts of her evidence, relating to transactions with the Duke of York, which had not been otherwise proved; but there were so many and such various circumstances corroborated by unimpeachable witnesses and undeniable documents, that if he did not entirely believe the evidence in question, he believed a great deal more of it than many persons who had spoken on this subject. The noble lord mentioned one instance in particular, in which the evidence of Mrs. Clarke was not only confirmed by Mr. Dowler, but by a right honourable member of that House (Mr. Long), He had heard of a nocturnal conspiracy. Would the authors of this charge go so far as to say that that right honourable gentleman was one of the conspirators? As to the charge of corruption in the Commander-in-chief, the only case in which there was direct proof of this, was that of Kennet. This was the strongest case: here was a man of infamous character, a bankrupt, proposing to the Duke of York, through the medium of Colonel Tay, lor, a loan to any extent, in the event of his gaining a place by that means. The noble lord contrasted the conduct of the Duke of York on this occasion with that of the Duke of Portland, on a recent occasion. The one resents the infamous conduct of the applicant (Beasly),

spurns the wretch who could think so meanly of him from his door, and gives up his name to the Bishop of London, his diocesan. The other refers to Mr. Green wood and others, and suffers a negotiation, which the noble lord could call by no milder name than bribery, to go on from Jupe till November. If this was not a direct proof of a corrupt mind in his Royal Highness, the noble lord knew not what further proof could be re quired. But it might be said this case did not come within the order to the Committee; and certainly, upon this ground, it might be contended that no corruption in the Commander-in-chief had been proved. But in several cases, which are cognizable by the Committee, in the cases of French and Sandon, the noble lord thought himself entitled to carry along with him this evidence of a corrupt mind. There was no reasonable doubt, from the continuance of the levy of Colonel French, who ap peared in no better light than that of a crimp for the army, beyond the time stipulated in his letter of service, 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 ad dress which had been proposed (that of Mr. Bankes), and which he thought in substance the same as the first, al though 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 expressions to which he decidedly objected:" Without any other than the obvious consequence, that if ever the opinion should prevail in the army, that promo tion was to be obtained in any other way except by merit and services, such an opinion must tend mate rially 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 con

demning without trial," nor would these public examinations 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 know. ing 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 difficulty in expressing that which he felt upon his mind, namely, that the Commander-in-chief must have had suspicions 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. 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 House.

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 conyiction, 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 touch 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 most 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 añother 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-chiet'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 general 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 wisJom, he would grow wiser as he grew older, he 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.

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