Mr. Long entered into an explanation of Kennet's introduction to the Duke of York. It appeared that he was recommended by Sir H. Mann to Mr. Pitt. He had occasion to see the worthy baronet on the subject; and he never knew a more importunate claimant than he was in this man's favour. In Dowler's evidence, he contended, there was something which, if it did not amount to absolute prevarication, was certainly a most culpable conceal ment of the truth. When asked how often he had seen Mrs. Clarke atter his return from Portugal, he answered twice; once on that night, and once the preceding Sunday, when having learnt her address from a newspaper, he waited on her to request that she might not be the oc casion of his being brought as an evidence to the bar. Now it came out from Mrs. Clarke's evidence, that she had passed the night with him on the Thursday preceding this very Sunday when he gave it to the House to understand, that he saw her for the first time. The honourable member adverted to the evidence he gave before with respect to Dowler's appointment, and said that he had no recollection of his Royal Highness ever making any application to him on the subject. He would decline any examination of the evidence respecting Samuel Carter, as that case seemed to be disclaimed by the friends of the honourable gentleman who brought forward the charges. He applauded the honourable manner in which a gentleman on the opposite bench (Mr. Whitbread) had spoken on that subject. He trusted his manly sentiments would counteract the mischief that was likely to arise from bringing forward a subject calculated to sow dissension in the army, to weaken the tie between the officer and the sol dier. He could not accede to the amendment last proposed. The effect of it would be to acquit the Duke of corruption or connivance, and yet to fix upon him a most degrading and dishonourable suspicion. He lamented the manner in which the press was misused on this occa sion, for the purpose of prejudicing the country against the Duke of York. If the House acted upon a feeling so excited, they would not act upon the principles of justice. He trusted they would submit to no influence, not arising from the honest conviction of their minds. Ábove all, he thought it incumbent on them to come to a distinct resolution of guilty or not guilty.

Mr. Coke observed, that there was no doubt upon his mind that the Duke of York had been guilty both of criminal connivance and corruption; and he was ready to meet the alternative of the honourable general opposite, and to say, that his Royal Highness was guilty of corrup tion in the extreme. Many men had been convicted, and led to the gallows upon less conclusive evidence than that which appeared against his Royal Highness. He believed that the Duke of York, from the first to the last, had been aware of the corruption which had been proved to exist. The speech of his honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread), had in his opinion fully and clearly proved that point. For his own part, he was an enemy to corruption in every shape, and was convinced, that if the country was to be saved, it must be by meeting and overthrowing corruption that the salvation of the country was to be effected. He had listened with attention to the right honourable gentleman who had just spoken, but was not convinced by any argument that had been used by him. Entertaining the opinion, therefore, which he did on the subject before the House, he could not assent to any proposition, which would have the effect of deciding that the Duke of York was not guilty of corruption or connivance at corruption.

Mr. Windham had abstained from delivering his sen. timents hitherto to the House, upon the very important subject then under its consideration, because he had been desirous of profiting by the opinions, the judgment, and the abilities of those whose authority was of most value in that House. He felt that it was desirable for him to col lect, in the course of the discussion, the varying opinions of the different members upon this important, delicate, and difficult question, before he should venture to offer any view of his own upon it. If he ventured to state any opi nion upon the subject, it was because of the crisis of the proceeding at which the House had arrived; because of the mode of proceeding which was next proposed to be adopted; and because very erroneous opinions had been formed upon that mode of proceeding. But before he should enter into this consideration, it would first be necessary to consider what was the actual state of the ques tion. Statements had been made to that House, rather than charges, which imputed misconduct to the Com

mander-in-chief. An inquiry at the bar of the House had been the consequence, and fair modes of proceeding had subsequently been recommended. An address to his ma jesty had been originally proposed, suggesting what mea sure should be adopted; then came the resolution of the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), acquitting his Royal Highness altogether; the third course was that proposed by the right honourable gentleman upon the floor (Mr. Bathurst); and the last was the address of the honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes), containing an opinion respecting the conduct of the Com mander-in-chief, and differing upon the whole from the original address. With either of these modes of proceeding he was ready to concur, though he could not assent to all, because, though he should not object to any one, it would not follow that one mode may be preferable to all the others. It had been said, that according to the amendment of the right honourable gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in order to a correct judg ment upon the case, they should come to a vote upon the corruption or connivance of the Duke of York, and then adopt some measure of redress; but not to involve the two questions together. It was for the House to consider how far the documents laid down justified that course; but he was confident that they would not deliver any opinion upon the subject, unless they should divide the question into the several heads which it contained, Upon a question of peace or war, it was not possible to decide, unless the various subordinate questions respecting treaties and other lesser considerations should be previously and distinctly decided upon. But it might be said, that the daily practice of all deliberate assemblies was against this opinion, Yet in judicial proceedings this ought to be the practice. If the House were to be called upon to decide upon the question of corruption or connivance if to agree to an address for the removal of the Commander-in-chief, why should it not go into the consideration of Sandon's case, of Colonel French's levy, and of all the other transactions upon which it was in the aggregate to decide? Thinking therefore differently upon this subject from his honourable friend (Mr. C, Wynne), who had spoken that night, that the Duke of York was not to be condemned, thinking also, that, as a judicial question there would be

an end of it, if that opinion should be entertained by the House; he could not, however, consider himself barred from giving his opinion upon the question upon any future occasion. He was glad in that part of the case to give expression to his judgment. It was his intention to ob serve only in a cursory manner upon the evidence upon which the case rested; and here he must notice the objections that had been made to various particular parts of that evidence; but it was not from any particular part, but, from the whole, that the value of the evidence was to be estimated. As the discases of the human frame, which surpassed medical skill to remove, were the "opprobria medicorum," so these imperfections of evidence, which no human wisdom could prevent, were the " opprobria juris consultorum." The learned judge opposite (Mr. Burton) had said, that the evidence of an accomplice was of no value, unless all the parts of it bore immediately upon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. In this he could not take upon him to say, that the statement was not correct, though he was of opinion, that the evidence should not be in all cases partially considered. It had then been laid down as sound doctrine, that the evidence of an accomplice ought not to be received, unless corroborated by unimpeached testimony. Was it meant by this, that the evidence of such a witness was to be proved by other means? Upon this head, his honourable friend did not appear to him to have been altogether correct, when he said that evidence was to be judged of by its internal credibility. But the result of all the doctrine upon the subject was, that though the testimony of an accomplice was impaired by that circumstance, his credibility would not be destroyed. His learned friend (Sir Samuel Romilly) had asserted, that persons had been condemned and suffer ed upon such testimony, but these men had not been Commanders in Chief. The present case, rested upon a cer tain fraction of evidence; but an honourable member had said, that it was impossible to submit evidence to a gra duation, as a thermometer, or to any exact rule. Though a person may not give testimony under the sanction of an oath, there was nearly the same reason to expect the truth, as if the testimony were given on oath; because a person, who would falsify in one case, would be likely not to tell the truth in the other. As to the imputation cast on the

evidence of Mrs. Clorke, that she was actuated by a vindictive motive, she was in that respect to be judged of by her demeanour, and the inherent qualities of her manner and her testimony. Her evidence had been given with a levity and a flippancy, which he admitted to have been highly unbecoming. She appeared to have lost that, the loss of which almost implied every thing-she had lost the sense of shame. With the loss of shame, she must necessarily have lost a great part of her good qualities, though it did not necessarily follow that she should have lost all sense of virtue. The dexterity which she had displayed in giving her testimony was a dangerous quality. But he was afraid that the spirit of fibbing, which she had manifested, had spread widely, and was generally felt. But the carelessness with which she had given her testimony was such as to make him receive her evidence with extreme distrust. Having thus stated what he had to object to the witness on one hand, he must agree with his learned friend (Sir S. Romilly), that though Mrs. Clarke was capable of telling a story, yet her evidence was not wholly to be discredited. By the promptness and unpremedi tated character of her testimony, she appeared to have given a true evidence--to have delivered it in a sort of Tunning hand-to have paid it in bullion. She left it completely open to investigation, and left the House to consider how far it was overcome by facts, and the opfnion that was entertained of her character. And here it might be necessary to guard against the facility of her evidence assuming the air of truth, because she had only. to walk fearlessly over her course, where she had only to detail conversations which had taken place between her and the Duke of York. She told all she knew, and, there fore, he contended, that in the whole of her evidence she was open to examination; and the inaccuracies of her testimony, instead of being circumstances to impeach her credit, went to confirm it. When she had hardly time to premeditate, there had arisen, as it were out of the grave, circumstances to corroborate her evidence. As to the contradiction between her testimony and that of Mr. Knight, respecting the date of the transaction about the exchange, he was not surprized that such a difference should exist. Either party might be wrong, but without positive proof he could not admit that the statement of