cited, and then they came forward.-(Loud cries of order!) I tell you it is a fact. Why, one man to whom I at first said it was a bad case, very near knocked me down. (Loud laughter.) Zounds, Sir, said he, what! do you think I have any thing to do with it? I am of opinion we ought to acquit the Duke of York. He is a great military character: he has carried our arms into all the rest of the world, and under him the army has flourished. Will you then hunt him into the world with an harpoon stuck in his back? (Much laughter.) An honourable baronet opposite has talked of "dissolution."-I hope he did not mean a dissolution of Parliament. Indeed I'm inclined to think he meant another kind of dissolution, from an honourable member whom he seemed to have in his eye. But, Sir, if he did mean a dissolution even of parliament, I trust in God I shall be returned (loud laughing) for doing my duty-[Hear, hear!] I have said, sir, I have been annoyed by letters-it ought to be made a misdemeanour. He who does not like England, d—n him, let him die. [On this last expression much confusion took place in the House, and it was followed by loud cries of Order, order! Chair, chair!""]

Mr. Fuller said he had heard the expression given as a toast, and did not think it was disorderly; at all events, he did not mean it to be so.-[Hear, hear, hear!] He voted against the amendment.

Lord A. Hamilton spoke, but we could not ascertain his sentiments, from the noise in the gallery.

Lord Morpeth gave a decided negative to the amendment, as he was of opinion that the charge of corruption had not been made out.

Mr. Portman expressed his opinion, that after the maturest and most diligent examination of the evidence produced to the House against bis Royal Highness the Duke of York, he must give his decided negative to the motion of the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And that, however deeply he regretted the unfavourable issue of this painful investigation, he could safely lay his hand upon his heart, and say, that he gave his vote from the most absolute conviction of his mind. The honourable member concluded with these words, I conjure the House to present a firm, dignified, and temperate address to his majesty, convinced in my own mind, that the injured feelings of the House and the

country can only be satisfied by the removal of the Duke of York from his situation of Commander-in-chief.

Mr. Tracey expressed his regret that any misrepresen tation had gone abroad, that this inquiry was not levelled against the Duke of York, but the family on the throne. He thought the honourable mover of it deserved the thanks both of the House and the country. (Hear, hear!) From the letters which had appeared, and from the information which Colonel Gordon had given to the Duke of York, he must have known that Mrs. Clarke did not act as she did gratuitously. He would, therefore, vote the Duke guilty of these corrupt practices, as alledged in the amendment.

Mr. Bankes assured the House, that he would trespass but shortly upon its patience, and if he had not felt that the proposition of the honourable baronet had placed the House in a situation of great embarrassment, he should have foreborne to offer himself on the present occasion to its attention. The worthy baronet, instead of proceeding to give a direct negative to the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consistently with the tenor of his arguments, had, on the contrary, pursued a course which precluded those who agreed in a part of the original resolution, and differed from a part of it, from voting according to their conviction. He had to complain, therefore, that the amendment of the worthy baronet had placed gentlemen who thought as he did, in situations of such difficulty and distress, that they knew not how to vote. (A laugh.) There was nothing ridiculous in the observation. The hon. baronet disapproving of the resolution which stated that there was no ground to charge corruption upon the Duke of York, ought, to be consistent with himself, to have given it a negative; but instead of that, he proposed as an amendment the direct contrary resolution. Let the House but reflect in what a situation it would be placed by this proceeding. If they should ne gative the amendment of the worthy baronet, they would be necessarily obliged to affirm the original motion. (No, no, no!) He insisted that such would be the case; and to shew that he had not made the assertion lightly, appealed to the chair, whether on mentioning his doubt to the Speaker, he had not his authority for the statement he had made. The amendment of the worthy baronet went to fix the Duke of York with both corruption and

connivance; and considering the different opinions which were entertained on this subject, he must say the incon venience of such an amendment was extreme. He had clearly understood his right honourable friend to mean by his statement this night, but still more clearly by what he had said on a former night, that nothing further was to be done judicially or criminally by the House. But though the House was not to adopt any further judicial measures, nor to follow up the business criminally, by bringing the party to a trial, did it follow that no other proceeding was to be adopted? For himself, he could not go the length of voting, that some sort of connivance, or at least a violent suspicion of the practices which were going on, was not chargeable on the Duke of York. The main objection which had been urged against this pro position on a former night was, that it was complex and ambiguous, at a time when it was argued by his right honourable friend, that the House was bound to come to a simple decision. His right honourable friend, however, had in his resolution that night transgressed his own rule, and offered to the House a complex proposition. In the first part of that proposition he concurred, but he differed as to the second. He had heard his right honourable friend state, that he considered the smallest degree of connivance at corrupt practices and corruption to be the same. If so, then why had he made use of two words, which, in his apprehension, meant the same thing? Hear, hear, hear!) Of corruption, and corrupt participation, he was ready to acquit the Duke of York; and it had been his intention, if not precluded by the course pursued by the honourable baronet, to move an amend ment to his right honourable friend's resolution, to omit the word connivance, for the purpose of proposing afterwards another resolution, stating that his Royal Highness was guilty of that sort of connivance which the evidence established. It was necessary that the House should know what vote it was to come to. There were two distinct parts in the resolution of his right honourable friend, according to common sense and sound logic. It must be obvious that there was a great difference between connivance and a participation in corruption. Connivance was defined by a great authority to be concealed or dissembled knowledge, which could not be the same as corruption, and consequently both were confounded in the

resolution. He believed his right honourable friend to have been sincere, when he declared that the lowest species of connivance was as high an offence as any degree of personal corruption; but he must observe how dangerous such a confusion of moral distinctions, such an undistin guishing estimate of the degrees of moral turpitude, would be to the interests of the community. Was not,

he would ask, personal corruption a much more heinous and dangerous offence than that species of connivance, which amounted only to a dissembled knowledge of a corrupt practice that was going on? It was material for gentlemen, particularly his hon. friend (Mr. Bathurst) who could not admit that corruption, and that species of connivance were the same-it was material for them to consider whether, by their adopting large, comprehensive and covering words, if they should afterwards wish to carry up some vote of censure to the throne, they were not sapping their own foundation, and taking away the very ground upon which they stood? If they should acquit the Duke of York of all corruption and connivance at corruption, they would be procluded from following up that acquittal by any resolution of censure. (Loud cries of Question, question! Withdraw, withdraw!) It had been imputed to him on a former night, that he practised a parliamentary manœuvre; but that charge would, with more propriety, be applied to the proposition of his right honourable friend. It appeared that his right honourable friend persevered in the conclusion of the proceeding which he had stated in his first able speech upon the subject, and that he was disposed not to follow up the proceeding by any measure upon what he called the moral part of the question. That part of the subject he had taken care to have introduced in the manner in which alone it ought to have been mentioned, in the amended address which he had submitted to the House.-(Cries of Question, question!) The bare immorality of the case was not a ground for Parliament to proceed upon. They possessed, in his opinion, considerable censorial powers; but notwithstanding that powers of that particular description belonged to Parliament, it was not bound to act upon them, unless some political consequence was to have resulted from the immorality to which such powers might be applied. It did not appear that any inconvenience in the discharge of the official duties of the Duke of York's department

had resulted from the immoral connection which he had formed, though some of the appointments which had been solicited by his mistress had unquestionably been obtained. (A general cry of Question, question! Withdraw, withdraw!) If the resolution should be agreed to, there would remain no case upon which to address the throne; and in order that gentlemen who approved of one part of it and could not vote for the other, might have an opportunity of moving their separation by an amendment, he put it to the worthy baronet, whether it would not be desirable for him to withdraw his amendment; but if the honourable baronet should still press his amendment, he should certainly vote against it. (Loud cries of Question,

question!)

Sir Thomas Turton observed, that it was impossible for the House to hear him at all (he was extremely hoarse), unless it should be perfectly silent. The arguments of the honourable gentleman who put it to him to withdraw his amendment, had been directed against the complex nature of the original proposition. Not one of his observations applied to his motion, and, therefore, he could not consent to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Hibbert (amidst loud and general calls for the question), expressed his concurrence in the opinion that bare connivance was not equally blameable with actual corruption (here the uproar for the question was so general and loud, as to drown the voice of the honourable mem ber, who sat down in consequence.)

Lord H. Petty rose, in consequence of the manner in which the last speaker had been treated, to call the House of Commons to order. From the palpable indisposition which the House manifested to discharge its duty that night, he thought it would be useless to continue the discussion, and therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.

Upon the question being put that the House do adjourn,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his hope that the House would not concur in the motion of the noble lord, though at the same time, after the protracted debates that had taken place, it was not surprising if some degree of impatience had been shewn to come to a decision.

The Speaker observed, that it would become the House