Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

the land. If, indeed, it tended to offend public decorum, or was inconsistent with the situation filled by his Royal Highness or any other servant of the state, there the law had a right to lay hold of him. He would admit that the Duke of York was culpable to a certain degree in not having stedfastly prohibited Mrs. Clarke ever to open her mouth, or communicate in any way to him on the subject of army or any other promotions. But it was only in two instances that the House had before it undoubted testimony that it had deen done; namely, the cases of O'Meara and Clavering. The former did not regard military promotion; and the latter did not succeed. These were not of that flagrant nature for which his Royal Highness was to be stigmatized by a vote of that House, and deprived of the command of the army. He had laid before the House the evidence as it existed, and made those comments upon it which he thought it justified. He was confident that the House would weigh all the cir cumstances of the case maturely and conscientiously, and he was persuaded they would come to that decision which would satisfy the country.

Sir Samuel Romilly, in rising to address the House, declared that it was not his intention to follow his right honourable friend into many of the observations which he had introduced into the speech he had just finished. The subject under consideration he saw in a different point of view, from every person of the profession to which he belonged, who had expressed his sentiments upon it. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him not to give a silent vote upon the question, but to state to the House the rea sons which in his mind justified the vote he meant to give. He trusted the House would allow him not to go into all the cases or to comment upon the whole of the evidence, or even to endeavour to add much to the forcible observations which had already been submitted to the House, an endeavour to which he felt himself unequal, but to point out those parts of the evidence which had most weight with him in deciding his opinion. It was impos sible for him, upon comparing these parts of the evidence -upon calling to mind the character, conduct, and de meanour of the witnesses who had been examined at the bar in the progress of this business-upon weighing all the circumstances both of their testimonies and their bear ing upon the question under investigation upon such a VOL. II.-1809.

3 N

general view of the subject, it was impossible for him to assent to the proposition of his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). That proposition went to call upon the House to vote, what in his conscience he could not assent to, namely, that there was no ground of charge against his Royal Highness the Duke of York, on the score of coruption, or connivance at cor ruption. But before he made any observations upon that proposition, or stated the reasons why he could not con cur in it, he begged to say a few words upon the subject of the original address, which had been moved by the honourable member (Mr. Wardle) who had instituted the proceeding in that House. That address contained a prayer to his majesty that he would be graciously pleased to remove the Duke of York from the command of the army. To that an amendment had been moved by his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), substituting two resolutions for the address, the first of which called upon the House to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the Duke of York, and the next resolution affirmed, that there was no ground of charge of corruption or connivance against his Royal Highness. To this amendment another amendment had since been moved, to leave out the whole of his right honourable friend's amendment, in order to substitute for it another address, having the same objects as the former one, though not proceeding upon the same grounds, but praying for the removal of the Duke of York from the command of the army. That was the state of the question, and upon all the consideration which he could give the subject, his opinion was, that the amendments ought to be negatived, and the original ad dress adopted. As to the question whether they ought to address his Majesty to remove the Duke of York from his command, he should say that he could not conceive a case in which the House of Commons could address for the removal of a public servant from his situation, if not upon the evidence which they had then before them. He was not able to collect from the speech of his right honourable and learned friend wao had just spoken, in what way he meant to vote upon the amendment of his right honourable friend; but from the tendency of his argument, he should apprehend that he meant to negative it. As the evidence had not been fortified by those sanctions which his Acarned friend deemed so necessary for a just decision,

he suppo ed he would be inclined to a middle course, between the alternative of guilty or not guilty, and the resolution which went to acquit the Duke altoge ther. For himself, he wished to state shortly the ground on which his vote was founded. The question then before the House was not, whether his Royal Highness was or was not guilty. No such question had been submitted to their decision. No choice had been given to the House. The amendment of his right honourable friend gave the opportunity only of pronouncing that his Royal Highness was not guilty. Here it would be necessary for him to say a few words upon the preliminary question, whether the House was bound in this instance to deeide whether his Royal Highness be guilty or not? It had been said that, as they had entertained the charges, they were bound to decide upon the guilt or innocence of his Royal Highness, in order that posterity may know, when they should see the charges of the journals, whether his Royal Highness had been acquitted or no.. But he must remind the House, that no charges had been formally preferred against his Royal Highness in writing. The honourable member with whom this investigation ori. ginated, had, in his opening speech, not brought forward charges, but stated facts; and, upon such facts being stated, as were highly disadvantageous to his Royal Highness, the House had appointed a committee, not to consider specific charges, but to investigate the conduct of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief, as to the facts alleged. Upon this subject, the argument of the noble lord (Folkestone) under the gallery on a former night, was unanswerable. If charges there were, where was the record of them? It was no where to be found, and posterity would in vain look for a trace of their existence, if the question were to rest where it then was. But it was argued that, as the facts had been stated to the House, they were bound in justice to his Royal Highness to decide upon them. Yet in the letter of his Royal Highness, so far from calling for a decision, he deprecates a decision, and desires that they may refer the matter to another tribunal. (Hear, hear, hear?) In that unfortunate letter, which proceeded from the very worst advice, that had ever yet been given to a person in the situation of his Royal Highness, there were several passages highly objectionable, to which he should not then more par

ticularly allude, but there was one part to which he was anxious to direct the House, in confirmation of what he had just stated. The letter itself, he wished he had the power to expunge from the journals of the House, and to blot out from the memory of all its members. (Hear, hear, hear!) The part to which he alluded was this ;"My consciousness of innocence leads me confidently to hope that the House of Commons will not, upon such evidence as they have heard, adopt any proceedings pre"judicial to my honour and character; but if, upon such "testimony as has been adduced against me, the House of "Commons can think my innocence questionable, I claim "of their justice, that I shall not be condemned without "trial, nor be deprived of the benefit and protection "which is afforded to every British subject by those sanc❝tions, under which alone evidence is received in the "ordinary administration of the law."(Hear, hear, hear!) Did the honourable gentlemen mean to insinuate by their cheering that his Royal Highness deprecated that decision which they were called upon to make? A decision must mean a determination or declaration of Guilty or Not Guilty. But the only alternative afforded to the House was the alternative of acquittal. If gentlemen meant by decision to determine whether or not his Royal Highness should be sent to trial, he should concur with them, though he must observe that it was a new meaning for deciding in a judicial House, to say we shall decide whether the case should go to another tribunal to decide. If they were to pursue the course pointed out in the letter, the first proposition for them to consider would be, whether or not, upon all the evidence which they had before them, they could take upon themselves to say, that there was no ground of charge of corruption, or criminal connis vauce, against his Royal Highness? He could not see why the words "criminal connivance," had been intro duced at all, unless it was with a view to the particular impressions, which exist on the minds of some few members of that House. But the real question was, whether the House could say that there was no ground of charge against the Duke of York. It was a painful duty to de clare his opinion; but, painful as it was, he could not but add, that he could not say there was no ground of charge, or that he disbelieved all the evidence which had been produced, lie knew that strong objections had been

urged against the credibility of the testimony; but he had considered it all diligently; he had endeavoured to take into view all the arguments on both sides; and ho was then prepared to state to the House the strongest points as they struck him upon the most attentive exami, nation of the evidence. He was ready to admit that Mrs. Clarke, the principal witness, had been influenced by resentment; that she came to the bar of that House still entertaining that resentment; that she had been contradicted by witnesses of credit, and contradicted by herself; and yet he would state some reasons why he thought her testimony to be, in the main, believed. He would also allow that her testimony was not to be credited, except when confirmed by other testimony, and, in order to shew how far that was the case, he should state the true estimate of Mrs. Clarke's testimony. An objection had been taken, and too much insisted on by his learned friend (Mr. Burton) on a former night, against her evidence, as that of an accomplice. But what was the true weight of an objection, founded upon the consideration of her hav ing been an accomplice, or how had she been an accom plice? It was alleged that she had influence with the Commander-in-chief; that she exercised this influence by recommending persons for military promotions; and that she was guilty of the immoral act of taking money for such exercise of her influence. What was there in the immorality of such conduct that could go to render her testimony invalid in a case of the highest public import ance, and concerning a person of the very highest rank in the state? He for one believed that there were many men, who might incur a similar degree of immorality, and yet would suffer any extremity rather than bear false testi mony. There was nothing in the act, however it was to be condemned, to vitiate the credibility of the evidence of the guilty party. Here he should beg the indulgenee of the House, whilst he briefly stated the rule of evidence upon this head. The truth was, that the evidence of aut accomplice would be received against a prisoner in a capi tal case; the evidence would be left to the jury to deter mine upon the credit due to it, and the prisoner might be convicted. This was evidence, however, which ought seldom to be resorted to, and should always be left to a jury, with a strong direction and observation against its credit. The case which had been quoted by the noble

« AnteriorContinuar »