Star.
London, England, 1809-03-15 00:00:00

;IT to the Partition 'Fleury, Whin documents ao
evidence were heard at the Bar, and the House to
ted an Address to his Majesty to remove Lord fi;
meg and two other Lords from his presence ;al
councils. The House did what was their duty
censuring public functionaries who had disgr:oa
themselves—they went farther and voted itn iinoe,o
rent—(Hear, /rear, from the Ministerial Benche,,),_.
A Leatned Gentleman had toted, that they nriol;
as well stab the Duke of York to the heart as pass
vote to remove his Royal flightless horn the co a
mind of the army. But .that was there to distil
guish the case of the Duke from any other person,
convicted of similar misconduct? Had Lord Somo
no feelings upon that occasion ? Was not that gre;
man entitled to as much deference and
indulgence
his Royal Highness ? lie recognized no distinctii
between the Duke of York and any other sub:l,:
whose conduct might fall under their investigaria
It was not only the right, but the bounden duty of i'
Howse to act as they had done. They were net
sacrifice their privileges out of respect to this or tb
person. But it was said, if the Duke of \riot:
guilty, why not impeach him at once? 'Where tl;
punishment was commensurable to the offence Oh
he could not consider it in this in-stance as a patio.
ment, but a precaution) he did not think it nc:tc
'sary to have recourse to the severer punishment.
With respect to the.inconsistencies imputed to M;
Clarke, in her evidence, he could discover no great
improbabilities in her statement respecting the Du,
of York than what her letters proved. It was upoi
her testimony, corroborated by that of two other pr
sons, that induced him to give the vote he should..
These two persons were Miss Taylor and Mr. Doi
ler. The evidence of the former was so unimpem
able, that he should not take up the time of the Hot
in making any comments upon it. The evidence
Dowlcr also appeared to him to be uncon:rovertibi
It was objected to him, that he had not spoke
fairly on the subject' of his interviews with M!
Clarke ; that he had concealed the fact of his havi
passed the night with her. But was the question e'
asked him ? And if not, was it to be expected that
would be so lost to all sense of decency, as to cm
to that Bar and make a voluntary avowal that ,
came there reeking from the arms of a harlot? ft
the case ';f this Gentleman was one of the stronger
which had been brought fcirward against the 1):
of York. It afforded irrefragable proofs of the ini
ence which Mrs. Clarke exercised over. him. It pi
vett that that influence not only extended to
particular patronage, but that it was strong met
to send him foraging to other offices. A great di
had been said of a popular cry. It was strange'
objections should be taken by Gentlemen at
moment to an instrument of which they had lad
made so dexterous, and he feared fatal use.
last popular cry originated within these walls.
the persons (who reasoned thus mean to assert that
was only under that roof that the voice of the per
was to be heard, and that no attention was to
paid to any cry that was raised out of _doors ! A!
the charges of industrious misrepresentation, and
• pular delusion, he knew of none. They. were cons
verted by the fact. It was only as the examinat
proceeded that circumstances came out which turn;
(the current of public opinion 'against the. Duke.
evidence that was produced was sufficient to supi
the charges( brought forward by his Hon. Fri(
and thetefore he would vote for the Address pro!
sed by him. .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in explana
stated, that he never did say that they might as
• stab the Duke of York to the heart as remove
from the command of the army ; but he did say
to fit upon him a charge of gross corruption,
upon such evidence, would be tantamount to stab/
him to the heart.
Mr. ROSE ohs:treed in answer to a Learned Mt
bee (Mr. Martin) that the precedent upon which
seemed to (rely so much occurred in the reign
Charles the Second. But ssithat was the result of '
proceeding ? Why, after the Commons had vi
that certain persons should be removed from his
i jesty's councils and presence, the Lords took up
subject, passed a quite contrary vote, and dec'
that they should not be non wed. • • Looking to
usage of Parliament and to the laws of the Lou
would be seen that it was against both to pimilt
person before trial. In every case on their too
previous to a motion or censure, there had al,
been some examination taken under the sanctio
an oath. This was the practice in the case of la
Somers, the Duke of Marlborough, Lord What''
and in an instance which had lately occurred:
Right Honourable Member explained the natun
recommendations to dikes in the gift of the To
ry. \Vhen the recommendation was political, it
entered in a book ; when otherwise, it
was not.
was within his own'knowledge at the time Do.
was appointed,. there was a great want of proper
sons to till the Deputy-Commissariats ; and as ni
commendation appeared in his favour, he coach
that he had been recommended by the Gonaniso
General. .
Mr. SUTTON was aware that considerable im-
pressions had gone forth to the Public from the. .7arbt
ledoiceteutts. of the proceedings of the House, tabicit
were published from time to time ; pending the ir.r
(patio and believed the generalitytof the people "of
lingland felt a conviction of the guilt or his •Royat
' Highness founded on those accounts. lie truster..
however,- the House would not be guided Oath.-
, verdict by popular clamour, but would weigh v i.::
impartiality the evidence brought forward, from
which it appeared to film, that the Duke of Ycrk wo
not only not. guilty, but totally innocent of any know-
ledge of, or connivance at the guilt. The Honouet-
i bte Gentleman then entered intcoodetoil of the eva
deuce, more especially
of that part relatiai to the
case of Colonel Shaw. from whiclo,lre. inferred that
the ecidonce was not to be depended on, and of- so.
-
futile and contradictory anature as' not to admit el.
an argument in support of the. Duke. of York's goiit.
and, concluded by expressing his intention to support
the Motion of the Chancellor (tithe Exchequer.
Sir FRANCIS BURI)ETT denied that he ever
stated that Mrs. Chu ke's evidence alone was suiFcicnt
to condemn any man ; but, being corroborated by
two other witnesses, and not inconsistent initsell, it
was sufficent to satisfy him.
i Mr. LONG supported the Amendment pro" posed
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and adverted to
several pairts of the evidence, in which he:
stated cce:
l'".bk groende•existed for the acquittal ofilis RcYa

.nts auisl
ince v,,..
ord 8;).
nce
duty j
mpe;ucli-
s pass a
(.:(;
o distin.
person's
i Someab
lat great
;gence
istinctit,l
r uitubj,!ct
sty of le
C mut t‘;
s or that
Y(Al: he
'here the
Ice (thc'
t punish.
itnr...ces-
i to Mrs.
io great:l-
- Duke
vas upon
aher per-
thould.—
ilr. Dow.
;impeach-
;he House
idence of
overtible.
;poke out
vith Mr,.
us having
scion ever
ed that he
to come
Il that he
lot? But
strongest
:he Duke
F the infln.
It po-
led to his
ig enough
great deal
range that
en at th.o
had lately
use. The
;ails. Did
uert that it
the people
was to be
rs As to
in, and po-
ere contr..-
taminaticit
Lich turne,l
)uke. The
to support
nu. Friend.
ess propo-
cplanatin,
glut as well
!move him
lid say teat
ption, and
to stabbing
Trued Mon-
a which Le
le reign of
suit of that
had voted
um his; no
ook up tl.;;
11 decided
ing to C..:
he land, it
pimi,ll any
cir recorifi
had always
sanction of
se of Lori
Whartm,
rred: The
e nature et
the Treasu-
ical, it was
.as not. It
rne Dowler
propr rel-
ict as no re-
! concluded
onanissary.
lerable
rn the .taril•
muse, wbich
Ling tlte.'
people -of
his ;Royal
Eie trust..
led in. a
weigh
yard, from
of Ycrk wss
f any know-
IC Honoura-
. of the ev.