140 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



House of Commons, March 14. 

 The debate on the conduct of the 

 Duke of York was resumed. The 

 principal speakers in this day's 

 debate were, in support of the 

 charges, Mr. Charles William 

 Wynne, M. H. Martin, and Mr. 

 Coke; in refutation of them, Mr. 

 Croker, Mr. Wortley Stewart, 

 Mr. Windham, and Lord Castle- 

 reagh. The house adjourned at 

 half past three o'clock on Wed- 

 nesday morning; on the evening 

 of which day the debate was re- 

 sumed. In support of the charges, 

 appeared Lord Milton, Mr. Wilber- 

 force, the Earl of Temple, Mr, 

 Ponsonby, and to a certain extent. 

 Sir T. Turton, who thought there 

 was ground for charging his royal 

 highness the Duke of York with 

 the knowledge of the corrupt 

 practices, that had been proved 

 at thgbar; in vindication of his 

 royal highness, the lord advocate 

 for Scotland, the honourable Mr. 

 Ryder, and Mr. Canning. The 

 question being loudly called for, 

 the house divided: For Mr. 

 Bankes's amendment, 199; Against 

 it, 29i. A second division 

 afterwards took place on the 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer's 

 amendment on Mr. Wardle's ad- 

 dress : For the amendment, 364? ; 

 Against it, V23. The house ad- 

 journed at half past six o'clock on 

 Thursday morning. 



House of Commons, March 17. 

 The Chancellor of the Exchequer 

 announced his intention to with- 

 draw his resolution, to strike out 

 the word «' charges," and other- 

 wise to alter it to tiie following 

 effect : " That this house having 

 appointed a committee to inves- 

 tigate the conduct of his royal 



highness the Duke of York, as 

 commander-in-chief, and having 

 carefully considered the evidence 

 which came before the said com- 

 mittee, and finding that personal 

 corruption and connivance at cor- 

 ruption have been imputed to his 

 said royal highness, find it expe- 

 dient to pronounce a distinct opi- 

 nion upon the said imputation, 

 and are accordingly of opinion 

 that it is wholly without founda- 

 tion.'' A long debate ensued, in 

 which so great a number of mem- 

 bers rose (amidst reiterated cries 

 from all parts of the house to pass 

 immediately to a vote) to declare 

 the grounds on which they should 

 give their votes on the question 

 now to come to a final decision, 

 that to give even a list of their 

 numes would run into a degree of 

 prolixity that may be avoided. 

 Mr. Lyttleton hoped that the 

 house would not add their own 

 humiliation to the disgrace of his 

 roj'al highness. If this should be 

 the case, he trembled at the result. 

 The people would sink into sullen 

 despondency, and say, " These 

 are men not to be trusted.'' He 

 hoped that a British House of 

 Commons would prove itself wor- 

 thy of the epithet applied to tiie 

 celestial fount of justice — that it 

 " was not a respecter of persons." 

 Sir Thomas Turton moved as an 

 amendment to the motion of the 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer. 

 " That this house has grounds 

 for believing that his royal highness, 

 the commander-in-chief, had know- 

 ledge of the corrupt transactions 

 of which evidence had been given 

 at the bar." On a division of 

 the house, sir T. Turton's amend- 

 ment was negatived : Ayes, 135; 



Noes 



