the question, and shifted it to the abuses which might have existed before the Duke of York was born. It had been said, that ministers encouraged this open mode of proceeding that had been pursued. He was one that did so, because he thought that proceeding would lead to impeachment, and not that by restoring the Speaker to the chair, they should proceed from the character of inquisitors to those of judges. He did not repent of that proceeding, because, whatever steps the House might take, it would appear to the public, that they wished the truth to be fully and fairly investigated. From the case of Lord Falkland to that of Lord Melville, the course of that House had always been to proceed by way of resolution, and then an address; but an address with a resolution be thought highly unjust. It had been said the other night, by a great grandce of the House of Commons, styling himself an independent country gentleman, that gentlemen in office were not to be believed. On such declarations he should always look with sovereign contempt. He conceived it to be the fair inference of what would have been the conduct of the man who said it, had he been in office. It was not a glass that reflected others, but a glass that reflected himself. He was the last man who would wish to have any deference paid to the Duke of York on account of his rank; but in proportion as they acted consonant to the principles of justice, posterity would look on them, and he would wish the decision to be such as should do honour to the justice and dignity of the House.

Lord Folkestone, in explanation, begged to make an observation or two on some words which had fallen from the right honourable gentleman in the course of his speech. What he had stated on a former night on the subject of the word "infamy," was from what he understood the right honourable gentleman to have said on the commencement of the inquiry. The right honourable gentleman had this evening given another ground on which he rested it, instead of the head of his honourable friend. He had certainly been in error, and he was sorry the right hon. gentleman had not taken an earlier opportunity of mentioning it, as he then should have escaped the using the language he had done upon it. With respect to another allusion which went to the situation of an ance tor of his in the reign of Charles II. long before the per

son who gave him being was born, it would be ridiculous in him to seem not to know who was glanced at in what had been said; but he begged leave to state to the right honourable gentleman and to the House, that every inquiry and investigation at the time had been made into the truth or falsehood of the report of that connection, and the result was, there was never any warrantable proof of it. And though the Almighty had thought fit, in the plenitude of his wrath, "to visit the sins of the father upon the children to the third and fourth generation," he did not conceive the right honourable gentleman would have arrogated the right to do so. He appealed, however, to the candour, the liberality, the decency, and the justice of the right honourable gentleman, whether he had a right to do so.

Mr. Bragge Bathurst said a few words in explanation. Mr. G. Ponsonby spoke shortly against the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was convinced the Commander-in-chief ought, from the evidence given before the House, to be removed from his present situation.

Mr. Tierney spoke shortly, and the House becoming most clamorous for the question, strangers were ordered to withdraw.

[While the division was taking place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the members in the lobby, and stated to them that the first division went only to determine the form of their proceedings. The next question would determine the fate of Colonel Wardle's motion, and if it was negatived, he would then propose the second of his resolutions, having waved the first. The manner in which that second resolution was carried would decide whether the Duke of York was guilty or not. He would afterwards propose, if his second resolution was carried, to adjourn the consideration of the others to another day. In every case it was highly desirable that they should come to a conclusion on the main question before they parted; it was probable several divisions would take place, he trusted no member would go away until they were all decided.]

The first division was on the question, whether the House should proceed by address or resolution. [This decided the fate of Mr. Bankes's amendment.]

For proceeding by address

For proceeding by resolution

199

294

Majority against Mr. Bankes's amended address 95

A second division then took place on Colonel Wardle's

motion :

For it

Against it

Majority against Colonel Wardle's motion

123

864

241

Friday, March 17, 1809.

Lord Folkestone moved the order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the conduct of the Commander-in-chief.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after a few words had passed between him and Mr. Tierney, announced his intention to withdraw his resolution, and omit from it the word "charges," and otherwise to alter it to the following effect:

"That this House having appointed a committee to investigate the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, as Commander-in-chief, and having carefully considered the evidence which came before the said Committee, and finding that personal corruption, and connivance at corruption, having been imputed to his said Royal Highness, find it expedient to pronounce a distinct opinion upon the said imputation, and are accordingly of opinion that it is wholly without foundation."

Mr. Tierney said, that the character of the Duke of York was public property, the public having an interest to see that no person should sit on the throne whose cha racter was tainted. If, therefore, the charge of corruption should be proved against his Royal Highness, a bill of exclusion from the throne must necessarily follow. The House, knowing that he was corrupt, would degrade themselves if they did not pass such a bill. The right honourable member was solemnly of opinion, that the charge of corruption had not been proved against the Duke of York, and had no objection to comply with the right honourable gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exche quer's) resolution, that it had not been proved. He was desirous too of some such resolution, to assure the public

that the present case was not disposed of: the general impression upon the public mind seemed to be that the Duke of York had received a full acquittal. At this gentlemen acquainted with the forms of the House would wonder; but he could assure them it was pretty universally believed so. But the right honourable gentleman's resolution stopped too soon. The charge of corruption not being proved, the Duke of York came before them as a public functionary, and was to be treated as such; and the right honourable Speaker wanted some pledge from the right honourable gentleman, that this resolution, denying the Duke's corruption, was not all that was to be done.

The right honourable member was sorry the right honourable gentleman's resolution required so distinct and positive an answer. "You force me," said he, "to say what I had rather not say: I feel for the Duke of York's rank, and I cannot but acknowledge his kindness and goodnature; and I agree with the noble lord who spoke a night or two ago, that nobody was ever more pleasant to have to do with." But the House had another duty to perform; they had to take care that a public office was not filled by any person liable to suspicion. All this was done away by the amendment. The right honourable member knew that the right honourable gentleman meant to propose no other resolution; and, he in candour acknowledged he did not. If he carried this resolution, he meant to incorporate it into the address, and carry the whole to the king. So that while every mind in the kingdom had been heated and torn with this subject, this House would be the only place where no opinion was to be found about the matter. They were to embody this resolution into the address, and then to conceive they had done their duty. The address not only did not go far enough, but it went too far the other way not only did it not propose to remove the Duke of York, but it suggested the propriety of retaining him. The right honourable member hoped the House would bear in mind the intention of the right ho nourable gentleman as to this address, in the event of his carrying his present resolution, and not go too hastily with him. (Hear, hear, hear!)

The right honourable member then proceeded to com. ment upon the Duke of York's letter to the House, which, he said, was evidently the production of the cabinet. The right honourable gentleman had stated, that the ho

nourable gentleman (Mr. Wardle) had consulted cooler heads than his own. He thought the Duke of York had, in this letter, consulted cooler heads than his own; for, from what the right honourable member knew of the character of the Duke of York, he did not think he would have put his hand to such a proceeding. The right honourable member could comprehend the meaning of the Duke's asserting his innocence; but could not understand why he did not do this at first. He was innocent “ upon his honour as a prince!" The honour of a peer was intelligible; but this phrase had no meaning at all. The letter was certainly the production of one of the cabinet; he did not know who had the controul of the flourishing department. The letter went on to regret the connection which had exposed the Duke's character to animadversion: as much as to say, "I have fallen into bad company; but let me off this once, and I'll never do so any more." There was no "honour of a prince" in this! The Duke of York was decoyed into this letter, it now appeared, for the sake of grounding an address upon it. He could never have expected that the repentance of this letter should be made the terms upon which his office should be continued to him. The latter part of the letter must have come from the special pleader's office.

The House had been told that they could do nothing with a man in public office but impeach or acquit him. These words must have given great pain to any one who valued the privileges of the House. In many cases it would be madness to impeach, however they might be convinced of guilt. In the present case, there were many reasons against impeachment. Was there no alternative between inconvenience and injustice? It was difficult to produce an instance, where the deficiency in power of examining upon oath was productive of much inconve nience. Their's were called inquisitorial powers: true; but inquisitorial powers must be lodged somewhere; and where could they be lodged better than in the House of Commons? It was true the House were bound by no rule; but then they had the sound discretion of the representatives of the people, and that, though no rule, was a sufficient guide to honest men. If the House were bound by rules, they would be in even a more unpleasant situation than they at present were. The right honourable member was not bound to say aye or no to the right ho