stop to notice them. They are, as Mr. Bankes well observed, a mere echo of the Duke's Letter to the House. Any thing much more adulatory was never tendered to any of the Tudors. in my opinion, no medium to be adopted, consistent with the ends of justice, or with the character of the House.- -If the latter had been rejected, and such a motion as that of Mr. Bankes, which is only one degree removed from that of Mr. Perceval, had been adopted, the original motion would have only shared the fate, which, in all probability, Mr. Wardle's motion will now share; while he would have avoided the possibility of an imputation of having shrunk from the question. I am convinced, that he was actuated solely by the motive of sparing the feelings of the king, and this, indeed, is, by lord Folkestone, stated to have been his motive; but, experience will teach Mr. Wardle, that, however well forbearance may be calculated to operate on the mind of the king, and there to produce a reciprocity of feeling, forbearance is not the way to obtain the concurrence of his servants, in the House of Commons, who are sure to advance upon you two steps for every one that you recoil. If Mr. Wardle was convinced, that the Duke of York had, knowingly, participated in the profits of the corruption, carried on under his name, he should have made that a distinct question; and, having brought the House to decide that, yea, or nay, he might, then, very consistently, have supported the next best proposition that should have been made, leaving the country to judge for itself between him and those who opposed him. This, or what I should still have, in this case, preferred, simply laying the evidence before the king, was, in my humble opinion, the path to MR. WARDLE'S proposition does, in my opinion, either not go far enough, or it goes too far. It is true, as lord Folkestone observed, that the Charge upon the Journals does not contain an allegation of personal corruption, or of corruption of any sort or degree; but, I think, the Address should have contained an explicit opinion upon that point; or, that it should have contained no opinion at all. If the person accused had been any other than a near relation of the king, I should have been decidedly for a decision upon that point; but, he being a son of the king, I should have been for merely laying the evidence before the king; for, as to "throwing the odium" upon the king, by such a step, what do those mean, who talk of that? The "odium" of what do they talk of? The odium of dismissing his son from his office? The odium of doing that of himself, whatever it may be, which the House of Commons will, or would, advise him to do? The inquiry has taken place; the whole of the evidence is before the public; the people understand the whole matter. Every man in the kingdom understands it as well as it is possible for him to understand it. The king has the same means of judging laid before him. And, why should it be called "throwing the odium upon him," to leave the decision to his sole breast? In short, to give any rational interpretation of these words, you must suppose, you must conclude before hand, that the king's decision With regard to Mr. Bankes's proposiwould be unjust, or, at least, that so it would tion, much need not be said. appear to the nation; and that, therefore, it though not quite so much of adulation as is, for the sake of the king, necessary to the proposition of Mr. Perceval, a great keep from him the office of deciding. And deal of the smooth and the sweet in it. It here again is a dilemma; for, if you talk is a mixture of oil and vinegar and moof "odium," as the Nabob's Gazette does, lasses; it is a compound certainly, but it must fall somewhere; and, where will it the pleasant ingredients are not only two fall? where can it fall? Indeed, it is non- to one in number, they predominate also sense to talk of the odium attached to the in the quantity of each. There is, indeed, decision, unless you pre-suppose, that the an expression relative to the dismission of decision will be unjust, to justify which sup- the Duke, which, by-the-bye, appears, af position I shall leave as a pleasing task for ter all, to be the thing most dreaded by his the trading, the regular trading, Anti-friends, and against which all their efforts Jacobins, in town and country.--For have been bent; but, this expression has these reasons, I would have simply moved in it so little of the positive, that, to disreto submit the evidence to the king, without gard it could not well be looked upon, by being at all afraid, that his decision would those who use the expression, as a subject have exposed him to public reproach. But, of very serious complaint. To me, I will at any rate, if I had not done that, I would frankly confess, that the dismission of the have brought before the Rouse the direct Duke appears to be an object of no very question as to the corruption. There was, great importance. In fact, and to speak pursue. It has, out plain, I do not care a straw about the matter, unless the dismission were accompanied with measures, which should effectually prevent similar corruptions in future; and, as no such measure appears to be in agitation, I think it of no consequence whatever to the nation, whether the Duke be dismissed or whether he remain. I cannot, however, agree in the opinion, now expressed by Mr. Bankes, and before expressed by several of the ministers, or their friends, "that this Inquiry will do "no good." On the contrary, I think, and I am convinced, that it already has done a great deal of good; and that it will continue, with other things, "to work together for good," until the day of perfect purification shall arrive; until the whole of the system of corruption shall be rooted out; until all the vermin, who prey and who fatten upon the vitals of the nation, shall have been caught and made to regorge; and until the throne as well as the people shall have been secured from the consequences of their widespreading depredations. What! has this inquiry done" no good?" This inquiry, which has discovered to the East India Directors such an extensive traffic in their offices; and, since the commencement of which by Mr. Wardle, Mr. Perceval has set to work to prosecute the regular traders in offices and livings? Good God! not done any good?- -While, however, this is contended for, on the one hand, in order to lessen, or to deny altogether, the merit of Mr.Wardle, it is as strenuously contended, on the other hand, that the Inquiry will do a wonderful deal of good, as to the future conduct of the Duke of York. The Attorney General, on the 9th of the month, after stating, that he was for a decision that should fall short of making his royal highness retire, or be removed, concluded thus" Could any man, after this Inquiry, believe that things would grow "worse? Did any man believe that the "Duke of York was insensible to the pe"rils and dangers with which he was sur"rounded, and that he would not profit by "the lesson he had received? Did any man "think he would not be sensible of his ac"quittal, and of the reproof accompanying "it? Did any man beli ve that he would "not be sensible of all these things, and careful to avoid a similar situation?"Well, then, whatever may be our opinion upon these points; whatever we may think of the disposition of the Duke, taking into view his letter to the House, and not forgetting the company he has been proved 66 to delight in; whatever may be our opinion, your opinion is, that he will "proft from this lesson;" that he will be sensible of" the reproof," which, it appears that even you would now give him; and, that he will be in future, "careful to avoid "such a situation." Indeed! But, to whom, then, will he be indebted for this profitable lesson? Whom will he have to thank for this affecting reproof? Not you, nor any of those, who are to be numbered amongst his defenders and friends. No, for you, from the first, flattered him with complete acquittal; you scouted the charges against him; and, one of you, in the apparent confident reliance that those charges could not be supported; that the means would be found of hooting them down, asserted, that infamy would alight somewhere, upon the accuser or the accused. No, it is not by you, or any of you, or all of you together, that this great good, as you appear to esteem it, would have been done; but, by Mr. Wardle, and solely by Mr. Wardle; it is he (supposing your proposition to take effect) that will have produced all the good, which you anticipate from it; it is he, and he alone, that will have produced the lesson and the reproof. Let it be repeated by nobody, then, and particularly by you, that this inquiry has done no good, and that the author of it is not entitled to the highest marks of honour that the people can bestow upon him. Upon the quality of the evidence, or any part of it, I shall not here offer any remark; but, there are two or three presumptions, which have been set up by the defenders of the Duke of York, and which I think it proper to point out to the attention of my readers; first observing, what, I dare say, they will all have observed before, that, though it is common enough for a judge to set aside presumptions when opposed to positive testimony, there never was a judge, an English judge, at least, who ventured to set aside positive testimony upon the ground of opposing presumptions. The first of these presumptions is, that the Duke would not have given into these transactions for the sake of so paltry sum as £.2,500, which, it is asserted, was all that Mrs. Clarke gained and brought into the firm at Gloucester Place, by the corruptions in which she had a hand. But, as to the sum, is it not more likely to have been £.50,000 than £.2,500? Look at her Letters to Sandon; hear the evidence of Sandon and Donovan and Hovenden and Cowrie and others, and you find usual course of justice, admitted to have weight, no man would be hanged for sheep-stealing, till he had got half the flock. Poor sheep! They would, under such law, stand but a bad chance in a hard winter. The Crown Lawyers have, in this case, as in many others, completely inverted the usual and settled course of arguing. That course is, to presume, that, when a man has one fact proved against him, there are others behind, which are not proved. Mr. Whitbread very finely observed here, that it was, with common culprits, always " the first time;" but, the Crown Lawyers, in place of arguing thus, would have us believe, that, because there have been only four instances, relating to which positive testimony respecting corruption has been produced, while there has been 15 or 16 thousand promotions in the army, there has been no corruption at all. To continue my old illustration of the sheep-stealers, what would a Judge, sitting at Dorchester, say, if a lawyer were to argue, that because the testimony against his client related to. only four sheep, stolen from a down where there were fifty thousand feeding every night, it therefore was to be presumed that he had stolen nome at all? What would the Judge say? Why, he would say nothing; he would smile, and be looking over his notes; and, in his charge to the jury, would certainly think it unnecessary to allude to such an argument. the trade of jobs and loans and bills continually going on. You hear of many transactions, which have not been at all explained. She forgets scores of people that she has had dealings with. After all that could be done, it remained unproved, that the Duke paid to Gloucester Place more than from 12 to 15 hundred a year. Lord Folkestone, in a speech which he made on the 10th, and which makes good all the expectations of his greatest admirers, has said, that he kept house at the same time, and that he is clearly of opinion, that he, without any waste or extravagance, could not have maintained such an establishment for £. 10,000 a year.But, be the sum what it might, why, in the face of positive testimony, are we to presume, that the Duke would not, for a paltry sum, do what was wrong, when we find him, for the paltry sum of £.400 a year, breaking his promise, to the woman to whom he had written the two letters, but a few months before, the existence of which promise Mr. Adam has proved, and the condition upon which it was made, has not been proved to have been broken by her? After this proof has been laid before us, why are we to presume, that the smallness of any sum should be considered as an objection to his using means to obtain or withhold it.If the Duke had gone as far as the evidence states him to have gone, it is said, why had he not gone farther? If he participated in, or connived at, the sale of some commissions, we are The second presumption that I shall asked, why he did not do so with respect notice is this: that the Duke, when into more? Why did he not raise hundreds formed of the charges, expressed his deof thousands of pounds in this way?sire that the Inquiry should be public; that A very good answer might be given; an answer quite sufficient for such a question, that we do not, and, as yet, cannot, know to what extent the traffic may have been carried; for, as MR. WHITBREAD observed, the wonder is, not that so little, but that so much, has come to light, through that mass of obstructions, which every word of evidence against him, except the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, has had to work its way. But, is not this the first time, that it ever has been attempted to prove, that a man has not done one thing, because he has not done another, the two being in no wise dependent upon, or connected with one another? Were your servant, upon positive testimony, accused of stealing your spoons, should you expect to hear a presumption urged against the testimony, upon the ground of his not having stolen your mugs and the rest of your plate? Why, if such presumptions were, in the he would not have done this, and that he would not have before set Mrs. Clarke at defiance, unless he had been conscious of innocence.As to the mode of inquiry, the choice was certainly a bad one; it was not favourable to him; but, it gave him much of support, which he could not have had elsewhere; much of legal and oratorical talent; and he had had opportunities of witnessing the result of such inquiries, as in the case of the ill-fated Mr. Paull against Mr. Sheridan. He was acquainted with the person of Mrs. Clarke, but he might be no judge of her character, or of how she would act in such a perilous case; a case so perilous, that lord Folkestone tells us, that rumours of expulsion were, at one time, afloat with respect to Mr. Wardle himself.As to the setting of Mrs. Clarke at defiance, he had so long been in the enjoyment of so much power; he must have presumed that nothing was to be done without the testimony of officers in the army; he could not reasonably have supposed, that she would be assisted so ably by the Lawyers; how was he to imagine, that they would goad her on to go and hunt out his letters, absolutely goad her till she did it; that Mr. Lowten, his own attorney, would be set to work to force Nicholls to bring a whole package of proofs in support of her, which she had ordered to be burnt; that accident had placed in her careless hands, and what is more, kept there, the letter of the Archbishop of Tuam; and that, at last, as it were for a grand coup de theatre, just before the curtain dropped, his friends, with the manifest expectation of proving a forgery upon her, should force from Sandon, should draw from him, as if it had been the last drop of his heart's blood, that NOTE, which, of all things in the whole world, she must have wished to see produced against him, and, at the sight of which, according to the description of Mr. Whitbread, her eyes might well beam with joy? -How was the Duke to have expected all, or any part of this? Nobody could expect it. Mr. Wardle; nay, Mrs. Clarke herself, could not possibly have expected any such thing; and, does not the reader clearly perceive, that, if there had been none of these unexpected discoveries, her evidence, that very evidence which these discoveries have so fully corroborated, would have been set down as a tissue of falshoods?How long would her word have stood against Clavering's, if Mr. Lowten had not kindly forced Nicholls to bring the General's own letters, to give the lie direct to what he had said with a view of blasting the credit of her, who had so long and so disinterestedly been his benefactress?Besides, it was, after Mr. Wardle brought forward his charges, a little too late to attempt to silence Mrs. Clarke. Any overture to her, at this period, for that purpose, ran the manifest risk of failing; and, if it failed, there was the proof of guilt at once. It was too late to recoil, though it was not too late to forbear goading her on to search for proofs of her veracity.- -When a man is asked: "Is such a thing true, that they say of " you,' ," he is very apt to say no, if he sees that yes would be injurious to him; and, when he has said no, it is not very easy to say yes to the same question. It is an old saying, that "one lie makes many." When once a man gets into falshood, he generally goes on. It is so difficult to retrace his steps; indeed it is impossible, without confessing that he has told a falshood; and this is what few men are found able to bring their minds to. When they make the first denial, they do not see all, nor scarcely any part of the consequences, which are likely to follow; and hence it is, that we invariably see the guilty contribute, in this way, towards their own conviction and condemnation.There appears, therefore, to be nothing solid in this presumption, founded on the Duke's setting Mrs. Clarke at defiance. The third presumption is of a nature still more strange than either of the others. It is this: that, if the Duke had had any knowledge of these corruptions, it is not to be believed, that he would, in so solemn a manner, have denied the fact.This is, in the tone of the Duke's famous Letter, setting "the honour of a prince" in opposition to the evidence taken at the bar, and giving it the preference to all that body of evidence; and, as I observed before, in speaking of that letter, the short way of going to work, if this reasoning be ailowed, would have been, to shew Mr. Wardle's charges to the Duke, and to pronounce an acquittal immediately upon his simple declaration that the charges were false. We are asked, with great emphasis: Can any man believe, that a prince of the "illustrious House of Brunswick would "have denied these allegations, in so so"lemn a manner, if he had not been cer"tain of their falshood?"--Yes: many men, and I am one of the number. I can believe it, and thoroughly believe it too; and, my reasons for so believing are these. 1. Because the allegations are supported by a great body of evidence as good and much fuller than what the law requires for the taking away the life of a common malefactor; 2. Because it has been stated by Mr. Adam, that the Duke of York declared to him, that he never corresponded with Mrs. Clarke upon military matters, while, by a letter in the Duke's own handwriting, it is proved, that he did correspond with her on military matters; and 3. Because Mr. Adam has stated, that the Duke of York declared, that he never wrote to Mrs. Clarke the note touching Tonyn's promotion; while, by indubitable testimony, it is proved, that the note extracted from Sandon, was in the Duke's hand-writing, which note was sent to Mrs. Clarke, and which note related to Tonyn's promotion.For these reasons, if there were no other, I should scout such a presumption as the one above described; which presumption, indeed, if it were, for he mean that the honour of a prince is of superior quality to that of a man in private life, and entitled to the same degree of precedency, as he himself would be in a public procession? If he would impress us with an idea, that his honour is of quality superior to that of an earl, or a gentleman, we must ask him where it was, what was its influence, when his declarations were made to Mr. Adam, relative to the not corresponding upon military matters, and to the writing of the note about Tonyn; that note; that note, which was thought to be destroyed, and which, good God! Mr. Perceval, in his speech, presumed to be a forgery by Mrs. Clarke; a crime, affecting the life of the woman, to whom the Duke had vowed everlasting love? I have noticed these presumptions a little more fully (though not so well, perhaps) than I find them noticed in the reports of the speeches, not because there was any danger of their producing effect upon the public mind; but because they are all, absolutely all that has, by the combined ingenuity of so many ingenious men, been found out to weigh against the evidence taken at the bar. Upon that evidence the public is well able to judge; and I have now laid before my readers all that I can discover, which has, taking it as a whole, been opposed to it. As to the nature of the evidence, and the characters and credibility of the witnesses, the public is in possession of all the means of judging; and, when they have attended to the presumptions, above noticed, they see all, aye all, that has been opposed to the great mass of evidence taken at the bar. one moment, admitted to have any weight, would go to establish a precedent the most dangerous in the world, namely, that the words, and, of course, the evidence of persons are to be estimated according to rank, birth, or wealth. Upon this subject Sir Francis Burdett asked: -" What had been the Duke of York's conduct "with regard to Mrs. Clarke ? He se"parated from her, not certainly for hav"ing taken money for commissions. His "excessive love for her was the only cir"cumstance that could at all have exte"nuated his offence, and yet it appeared "that she was shaken off like an old shoe, "and threatened with infamy. This she had asserted, and her testimony stood "unrebutted, although the means existed "by calling the messenger. She begged "for money to pay her debts, and on con"dition of receiving this she had offered to give up the claim to her annuity; but " even this was refused. Where was "the "honour of a Prince" then? This was, "surely, no great settlement, considering "the terms on which she had lived with "the Duke of York, and all the circum"' stances. He said "you have no bond, «no legal demand," and there was "the ho"nour of a Prince." If this was honour, it was a sort of honour which scarcely in*cluded the ingredients of honesty and "fair dealing, and which could not weigh "a feather in opposition to the evidence "before the House."—Mr. Whitbread, upon the same subject, was still more impressive; and, indeed, the whole of his speech was one of the best that ever was heard from any man. Why," said he, "has the Duke of York written such a let- To those, who have read the speeches "ter to the House? I speak not now of its of Lord Folkestone and Sir Francis Bur"trenching upon our privileges; but, why dett, not a word need be said upon the "did he reduce us to the melancholy si- treatment which Mr. Wardle and his wit"tuation of believing the evidence we nesses have received, nor upon the gene"have heard, even against "the honour of a ral and uniform conduct, through the "prince?" The honour of a prince! Alas! whole of this affair, of the king's servants. "we must all come to that fatal period, in the House of Commons. Indeed, no « when death, which knows no distinction, man of common observation could stand "will class the prince with the peasant; in need of the remarks made, as to these "and yet, if we turn our eyes to that aw-matters, in' those speeches; and, if there "ful spectacle, shall we not find the wretch, "with a rope about his neck, protesting "that innocence which he knows he is "not possessed of? Protestations, then, "I never will heed: in this case I hear of "them with horror."Of that Letter, that intolerable Letter, enough will be to be said hereafter; but, in what it relates to the subject before us, it must be asked, what the Duke means by the distinction, which his words clearly convey. Does be any part of the conduct of Mr. Wardle, at which I feel regret, it is his having stated, that he had received indulgence and assistance at the hands of the ministers and their friends; in which statement, if meant ironically, the irony is imperceptible to common discernment; and, if not so, does not well square with that character of sincerity and plain dealing, which has distinguished Mr. Wardle from the outset, which, at once, gained him the hearts of |