enemy would find out if any body had influence over him.

"There was one consideration more," he added, " which it was his duty to state. That House had al ways been considered peculiarly as the guardian and steward of the public purse. The luxurious and profuse expenditure of the establishment at Gloucester Place would be read with pain by the heavily-burthened cottagers in all parts of the country. Whatever now takes place in higher life is soon known in every corner of society, but these particular transactions had acquired an extraordinary degree of publicity, and the public could not avoid feeling that this profusion was supplied from their money, which had been granted for different purposes. As to the public opinion guiding the determination of the House, it is a principle," said Mr Wilberforce, "which I shall not contend for; but I must remind the House, that their strength is in the strength of the people, and that it is from the force of public opinion that governments, which are somewhat popular in their form, derive their greatest energy and vigour."

The Duke of York's defence was concluded by Mr Canning, who em. ployed himself in replying to particular parts of Mr Wilberforce's speech, rather than to his main reasoning. The last of these topics which he touched upon was an assertion, that it was matter of notoriety that the duke was living in the state of disgrace ful concubinage with Mrs Clarke. "I do assure the House in the most solemn manner," said he, "that I did not know it, and it was this utter ignorance, coupled with the utter disbelief which I felt of the Duke of York's submitting to the sort of traffic imputed to him, that extorted

from me, on the night when Colonel Wardle opened his charges, those expressions of indignation which I have so often, in the course of this debate, been called upon to retract or to explain. I have nothing to retract on that score; nothing to explain; but I have something to deny. I did say that infamy must rest somewhere,' but I did not say that it must rest either on the accuser or on the

accused.' Suppose there were daily to be published accounts of what passes in this House, and I were to find my words stated, according to my own recollection of them, in ten or eleven of those accounts, and stated, as the noble lord and those opposite recollect them, by only one of those reporters, and that one notoriously a decided enemy to me and to those with whom I act, should I not be warranted in considering the many which agreed in confirming my own recollection, as better authority than the one which contradicted it? Should I not be warranted in doing so, more especially if I should find another part of the same speech cautiously omitted in that one, and accurately detailed in almost all the others? I said, in the same speech, that the libels on the Duke of York had been so frequent and so flagrant, as almost to make good men hesitate whether the licentiousness of the press was not more mischievous than its liberty was beneficial.' I said this, it is true; but in the same breath I added, The hesitation, however, can be but for a moment; the blessings of the liberty of the press are so clear and so acknowledged, as far to outweigh the mischiefs of its abuse. The evil is transitory, but the good is immortal.' Now, if I were to find the sentiment omitted which qualifies the expression of doubt, but the doubt

itself carefully recorded; if I should find this omission in one record only, and that one the same in which the other part of my speech was misrepresented; and if I were to find both the omission and misrepresentation made in that same record the ground of invective and invidious comment, could I fail to be confirmed in my own recollection of my own words and meaning? Or could I doubt for what purpose both had been intentionally disfigured?

"Lord Folkestone, who has so loudly called upon me for retraction and apology, spoke, no doubt, on the supposition of what he conceived to be true; he will now, I hope, believe me, and correct the impression under which he spoke. The infamy' which I anticipated, was to light, where light it will, whatever be the issue of the present question, on that accursed combination, whose practices we have seen developed at our bar; a combination, of which the honourable gentlemen has been, I hope, the unwilling and innocent instrument; and of which his Royal Highness the Duke of York has been, unhappily, both the dupe and the victim.

"But it is said that I gave to the honourable gentleman the odious title of accuser. And if I have so styled him, where is the blame? Is the title false in fact, or dishonouring in its application? The fact is clear. The merit depends upon the motive. The noble lord, however, complains of this title, as given to his honourable friend, only, perhaps, because he thought it given to him exclusively. The noble lord is jealous of his share of the merit he wishes to come into a society and partnership of the glory earned by his honourable friend. The noble lord is welcome to his full share.

But yet, whatever be the result of this inquiry, I confess I cannot offer the honourable gentleman my congratulations. I cannot concur in the opinion that he has done a great national good. Mucl: rather do I agree with Mr Bankes, that whatever the issue may be, much irreparable mischief will have been done; more at least than we can hope to see remedied. But whether the consequences of such an investigation may not be to produce public evils of a far greater magnitude than those which you punish, is a consideration to which I wish the honourable gentleman had given its due weight before he embarked in this undertaking. Now it is too late. The House has no option.

"These opinions may expose me to much misrepresentation. I shall hear myself reported to have said, perhaps, that the trangressions of princes are to be overlooked, defended, or rewarded. I care not for such misrepresentation. I am conscious of the integrity of the motives which dictate my opinions; and looking to the consequences of this inquiry, which may be such as to shake this great empire to its foundation; and comparing that possible danger with the degree of good which any the most sanguine moralist can conceive to arise from the abstract consideration of punishment inflicted, and misconduct exposed, to no visible practical purpose, I cannot help declaring, that while I am willing to give the honourable gentleman due credit for the sincerity and goodness of his intentions, I cannot consider him as a great public benefactor. I must add, that if thanks shall be proposed to him, as I understand is in the contemplation of some persons, I shall stand forward, and I trust I shall stand

forward not alone (though alone I would do it) to endeavour to induce this House to reject such a proposition."

Mr Canning then proceeded to argue that the proper mode of proceeding was by resolution, not by address; that the House was bound by precedent to follow this course, and by justice to pronounce a verdict of acquittal. "But," he pursued, "according to some documents of this day, you must shut your ears to every thing that I, or any one in my situation, can say to you. For we have heard from an honourable baTonet, (Sir Francis Burdett,) whose usual practice it is to impute to persons in office all sorts of corruption and incapacity; but we have not heard it from him only; he has been followed by one of the greatest landed grandees among us, (Mr Coke,) a gentleman who seems to think that he derives from his landed property a degree of authority which other property, however great, cannot confer, that what comes from any man in office, on this or any other subject, is not to be attended to; that it is worth nothing. From whatever quarter such sentiments proceed, I hear them with scorn. They disgrace only those who utter them; and show only what they who are capable of imputing base motives to others would themselves be, if they were in official situations.

"But however I may despise such sentiments, I cannot hear them without regret; because I know that property, in times like those in which we live, has need of all the protection which good order and good government can give it; and I think it but ill pleads its own cause, and but ill provides for its own security, when its possessors endeavour to instil in

to the minds of the people a distrust, not of this or that individual, but of the whole class and description of public men. The honourable gen. tleman who uttered this sentiment may fancy himself safe, in the extent of his possessions, from all the inconveniences attending popular commotion; but let him not think that the destruction of the authority of government, and the degradation (if his opinion or his exertions could effect that degradation) of all those who, by their habits and their education, are qualified for public life, or by an honourable ambition are led to engage in it, however it might conduce to the aggrandisement of his individual importance for a time, would in the end secure the stability of that property on which he founds his pretensions to pre-eminence.

"I have now nearly done. I hope I have done my duty. I am the last man who will contend, that any preference ought to be shown to the illustrious person upon whom we are sitting in judgement, on account of the rank to which he is born. But as we deal with him, posterity will deal with us. They will judge us fairly and favourably, as we deal towards him with scrupulous justice. But justice, be it remembered, excludes intimidation and popular clamour on the one hand, as much as it excludes favour and prejudice on the

other.

"I will add but one word more. Sir S. Romilly spoke of revolution and civil war as possible events to arise from (I know not precisely what) causes which exist in the present state of this country. I do not conceive that the question now be fore us has, in the most exaggerated view that can be taken of it, any thing to do with apprehensions

revolution. The House of Commons has exercised its undoubted authority over a case and a personage of the highest importance and interest to the public. In that I see nothing that leads to revolution. If, indeed, it were attempted to be argued that every man of high station, once accused, must be sacrificed, because a revolution would be the consequence of his acquittal; if such a doctrine can be maintained and adopted here, then indeed we are farther gone, than I had apprehended, in the road to that very evil which the honourable and learned gentleman professes to wish to avoid. But I trust his fears (for menaces I will not call them) are visionary."

In one part of his speech, Mr Canning suffered himself to be so far led away by party animosity, as to aim a most unwarrantable and illiberal sarcasm at Lord Folkestone. "The officers of the army," he said, "would no more feel themselves degraded by Samuel Carter's commis sion, than the noble Lord who wore a coronet, earned by public service, would feel his rank degraded because persons had, in former times, been admitted into the peerage by favour or corruption, through the intrigues of a court, or the venality of a mistress." When he had concluded, Lord Folkestone rose to reply to this. "It would be affectation in any one," he said, "to pretend that I do not understand the force and tendency of this allusion; the House showed, by the general laugh which followed, that it was generally understood. If the motion be to attach blame to me for transactions which took place before those to whom I am indebted for my existence were born, I will only say, that we are told the Almighty visits the sins of the fathers

upon the children to the third and fourth generation; but that I did not expect that even that right honourable gentleman would have arrogated to himself such a power. I leave it to the House to judge of the fairness, the candour, and the liberality of the honourable gentleman, and of the decency of such personal allusions."

wascar

By this time it was six in the morning, and this was the sixth day's. debate upon the evidence. The question was now loudly called for, and two divisions took place; first, on Mr Bankes's amendment, which was negatived by 294 against 199; then on Mr Perceval's, which ried by 364 against 123, that number voting in the minority with Colonel Wardle. The original question had thus been disposed of, and it had been determined that the House should proceed by resolution, not by address, but that resolution was yet to be decided; and on a subsequent evening, March 17. Mr Perceval moved, that there was no foundation for imputing personal corruption or criminal connivance to his royal highness. Sir T. Turton moved as an amendment, that there were grounds for charging him with having knowledge of the corruption which had been disclosed by the evidence:' and this gave rise to another debate that continued till day-light. In the course of the night three speeches were made which excited considerable attention; the first in consequence of the high character of General Fer guson, who led that charge at Vimiera, where the first line of the French fell before the British bayonet like grass before the scythes of the mow

"bear testimony to the many wise and salutary regulations which have been introduced into the army under the auspices of the commander-inchief. I shall at all times have great pleasure in joining in all encomiums paid to that royal person, as far as I believe such encomiums to be just and merited. This is as much my duty as it is my inclination, for I am among the many who have reason to be thankful to his royal highness for personal favours, and far more than a merited portion of his consideration. But all such considerations must necessarily yield to that imperious sense of public duty, which in this place is our first duty. The impression which, after anxious and ma ture attention, the evidence has made upon my mind is, that the Duke of York isextremely culpable. Throughout the country a cloud of suspicion has been collecting, and it has settled upon his character; while that cloud remains, my opinion is, that it is not for the honour of the army, that the chief command should remain in the hands of the Duke of York."-Both Mr Croker and Mr Canning had spoke with great force of eloquence and of argument against the suspicion which Sir Francis Burdett and his party cast upon all men in office, or in power; but the ap probation which General Ferguson's conduct obtained almost universally among the people, proved that it was considered as a very unusual act of merit, if a member gave a vote which might prejudice his own inte

rest.

The Honourable Mr Lyttleton's speech excited nearly as much satis faction, though from very different motives. In delivering his opinion against the Duke of York, he alluded to Mr Canning's attack upon

the family of Lord Folkestone. "He should not be deterred," he said, "from freely uttering his sentiments by any dread of that right honourable gentleman's eloquence, even though he should exercise himself in raking up some obscure and scandalous anecdotes respecting his grandfather or great-grandfather. But, indeed, he thought it unworthy of that right honourable secretary's talents and generosity to attack gentlemen in that manner, and to engage in a species of warfare in which he must be conscious they should meet him on unequal terms; since they had no weapons with which to retort upon him, in the utter deficiency, as far as his researches into English history had gone, either of authentic facts, or even of traditionary rumours, respecting his ancestors." Personal satire is but too readily listened to in this age, when the art of criticism consists in flattering the conceit of the ignorant, and pandering for envy and malice; but in this instance, there was an appearance of retributive justice, and the illiberal sarcasm by which it was provoked sharpened the sting of the retort.

These things were trifling in themselves, as deriving all their importance from temporary and personal considerations. A far more momentous interest was excited by Mr Whitbread. "Is it true," said he, "that there has been a meeting of general officers at which the secretary at war was present, and at which an address was proposed to be presented to the commander-in-chief, couched in terms of affection and approbation? Is it, I demand of the secretary at war, (who can correct me if I am misinformed) true, that such a meeting was held, at which it was intended to address the Duke