moval, though not for any act done in his office as lord of the admiralty, but in an office which he had held many years before. He would admit, however, that the pro ceedings against that noble person had been founded upon depositions taken upon oath before parliamentary com missioners. But if the House could not proceed to address his majesty for the removal of a public servant, against whom such proofs could be brought, without the power of examining witnesses upon oath-if their inquisitorial powers, in pursuance of which they had the authority to inquire into abuses in all the departments of the state, and used to appoint committees for that purpose, though that is now become a form, should thus be rendered nugatory, for want of power to examine witnesses upon oath, it was time to amend the law of parliament, and apply to the other House to agreee in passing an act to render the powers of the Commons efficient to their object.

It had been said that the Duke of York was to be considered as the meanest individual in the country; but had he been treated as the highest peer? Suppose the case to have happened to any peer of the land, who might have been Commander-in-chief, and that the same facts had been proved against him, would not that House have addressed that he should be removed from his command ? A right honourable gentleman had said that we could not punish a prince of the blood, if not determined to alter the succession. Why that circumstance of the connection between the illustrious Sovereign on the throne and the object of this proceeding rendered it impossible for them to pursue the same course as in the case of any other subject. He would be the last man to admit that that House should bend to publie opinion without its walls. But high as their attachments were to the throne, he thought, that nothing should be dearer to them than to maintain the character of that House. If once the opinion should prevail that the House of Commons had heard of corruptions existing in the state, and heard of it with indif ference-if ever such an impression should go forth, and they should lose the confidence of the people-if they should on any occasion appear to be inattentive to the interests of their constituents, and the minds of the public should be alienated from parliament-if ever that fatal time should arrive, no man could tell the consequences. Never had be given a vote with more reluctance than he

should that night; and it would afford him the highest satisfaction, if he could conscientiously say that no grounds. of charge existed against the Duke of York. His honourable and learned friend (Mr. Burton) had attested the sincerity of his vote, by an affecting allusion to his in.. firmities and age, and the consequent impossibility that his vote should be influenced by any considerations of interest, or any views of ambition. For his own part he could say, that, though he was not labouring under the same affliction with his honourable and learned friend, yet he looked forward both for himself and those connections to whom he was strongly and tenderly attached, for future prosperity, and whatever might be the result of the present question, he would ever have the heartfelt satisfaction to know, that he had no advantages to expect from the vote which he should give that night. [Sir Samuel Romilly's speech concluded amidst the loudest cheerings.]

The Solicitor-General rose at about one o'clock. He conceived it his bounden duty to state to the House the reasons upon which his opinion was founded. He con sidered that the first question was, whether the House should decide upon the guilt or innocence of his Royal Highness; secondly, whether the Duke was guilty or not; and next, whether an address ought to be presented to his majesty. It appeared to him, that the House should come to a distinct determination respecting his guilt or innocence, and also as to the degree of guilt or innocence. He considered, that such an address as was proposed to be carried up to the throne, would have been an irreversible sentence of condemnation against his Royal Highness for moral and political guilt. ihe words of the address were vague and equivocal in the highest degree. He could not see, that in morality or in law there was any difference between connivance and participation in corruption. If the Duke had given commissions and military appoint ments at the request of Mrs. Clarke, with a suspicion that she received money for her influence, he would have been as corrupt as if it was within his knowledge. He therefore saw very little difference between the two ad dresses, and should infinitely prefer a distinct resolution being proposed to the House. The voting for either of these addresses would be passing a judgment from which there would be no appeal, which would be recorded for eyer, which would attach infamy to the Duke, and be a

severer punishment than stabbing him to the heart. (Hear, hear!) If the charge of foul corruption was thus fixed upon him, how could he appear in the army, or hold-up. his head in society? He thought that the address for removal would be too little if the Duke was guilty, and too much if he was innocent. He did not deny that the House would be justified in calling for removal in many cases, but in this cas, what was to be considered were the direct charges of corruption. He then defended the let er of the Duke of York to the House, which he considered as perfectly constitutional. He considered that no British subject ought to be criminally punished either in life, limb, or character, without being furnished with the charge against him in writing, and without having been heard in his defence, and condemned by his peers. He then went at some length into the examination of the evidence; and the sole question appeared to him to be, whether the Duke was privy to those abuses commit.ed by Mrs. Clarke ? He thought there was not a tittle of evidence to shew that he knew of her receiving money. The reason that he had discredited Mrs. Clarke, was not merely from her character and, her demeanour, but from her own account of herself, -She was an army-broker, and the trade of army-brokers was lying and cheating. (A laugh )-With respect to the privity of the Duke, all the other witnesses had contradicted her. Neither D novan, nor Sandon, nor Corri, or any other of her agents, believed that the Duke knew any thing about the money. Mr. R. Knight, also contradicted her. Mrs. Hovenden gave evidence, that Mrs. Clarke had talked to her of working upon the Duke's good nature." The documentary evidence did not appear to him to corroborate Mrs. Clarke with respect to what only was material, the privity of the Duke. He then commented on Mrs. Clarke's letter to Donovan, which appeared to him to prove fully that Mrs. Clarke was not an unwilling witness as she had represented herself. This would also appear from her last letter to Mr. Adam, when she stated, "that if her request were not attended to, she would put the letters into the hands of gentlenien as obstinate, but more independent, than the Duke, and who, from pique, would do what he would not." The learned gentleman than argued at great length on the improbability of an illustrious prince, of such high rank, associating with such miscreants as the witnesses. If he had entered into so foul a plot, he would

have chosen some supple, bending, complying agent for his military secretary, and not such a man as Colonel Gordon, who had set himself against army-brokers. Very severe orders had been issued by his Royal Highness against army-brokers about this very time, and this was a pretty strong proof that he did not then connive at those foul practices which were transacted through the medium of army-brokers. Would he, in case his transactions were dishonourable, have chosen one of the most honourable men in the profession (Mr. Adam), to have instituted inquiries about the conduct of Mrs. Clarke? If the Duke had been conscious of privity in those corrupt practices, he would not have ventured to have set her at defiance. If the Duke of York bad not a high sense of the value of honour and character, he would not have parted from Mrs. Clarke, when he found her character would not bear investigation; and it was not natural to suppose that a man who at one time had so high a sense of the value of character in a woman living under his protection, should at another time think so slightly of character as to run the risk of exposure, if he had not been conscious of his innocence.

In answer to the observation of Mr. W. Smith, as to the great length and severity of cross-examination of wit nesses, and particularly Miss Taylor, it was done from ne cessity, to screw out the truth from persons who would otherwise have concealed it. Did not Sandon pertinaci ously stick to a close story? And had it not been that they were in possession of the secret about the note, it would have been impossible to have detected his falsehood, and it was by cro s-examination chiefly they were enabled to effect it. Besides, the cross-examination of witnesses who were against Mrs. Clarke, was conducted with much more: harshness, particularly Nicholls, who, at the especial instance of Mrs. Clarke, was asked whether he had not forged a will, and whether he was not parted from his wife on that. account. But it seemed the cross-examination of some witnesses was deemed harsh, whilst one, still much more strict and more offensive to others, was not taken the smallest notice of. He then contended, that Miss Taylor was by no means so clear an evidence as she had been represented by Sir S. Romilly and others, for she had said that she never knew Mr. Clarke was in business, when it.. was proved he was a stone-mason; and that she never knew her father went by any other naine. than Taylor, when it

was proved positively that he went constantly at the Stockexchange by the name of Chance. He would not detain the House further than to say, that the House could not then be prepared to enter upon the question of the ad. dress, in either case, till they had first determined the question of guilty or not guilty of the corruption or connivance with which the Duke of York had been charged. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

THUESDAY, MARCH 14.

Lord Liverpool laid on the table some additional papers relative to the campaign in Spain and Portugal.

In answer to a question from Lord Darnley, his lordship said that the letter from Mr. Frere to General Moore was not among the papers on the table, and he should resist any motion for its production, for the reasons already given on a former day, and which he should state more at large when such a motion should come under discussion.

In answer to a question from the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Liverpool said, that the treaty with Spain had arrived, ✓ but that the exchange of the ratifications had not yet taken. place; the moment it did, he should, no doubt, receive his majesty's commands to lay the copy of the treaty on the table.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, MARCH 14. .

Lord Temple, alluding to a question put last night to the right honourable Secretary of State, whether the letter of Mr. Frere to the British Commander in Spain, had ever been laid on the table of the House (to which the answer was "No") wished now to know from the right honourable Secretary, whether that letter made part of the public dispatch?

Mr. Canning answered "No."

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

The order of the day being moved for the resumption of the adjourned debate, on the conduct of the Duke of York