<509 LON 
fpeakers manifeftecl their oppofite fentiments on the fub- 
jedt : but, on the 13th of the fame month, the Secretary 
at War, the Matter of the Rolls,'and the Solicitor-general, 
oppofed the addrefs as propofed by Mr. Bankes ; which 
was defended by fir F. Burden, fir Samuel Roniilly, and 
Mr. H. Smith. On the 14th, the quettion being loudly 
called for, the houfe divided : for Mr. Bankes’s amend¬ 
ment, 1993 againtt it, 294.. A fecond divifion afterwards 
took place on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s amend¬ 
ment on Mr. Wardle’s addrefs ; for the amendment, 364 ; 
againtt it, 123. And, on the 17th, after feveral obferva- 
tions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his in¬ 
tention to withdraw his own refolution, and to alter it to 
the following effeft ; “That this houfe, having appointed 
a committee to inveftigate the conduit of his royal high- 
nefs the duke of York, as commander-in-chief, and hav¬ 
ing carefully confidered the evidence which came before 
the faid committee, and finding that perfonal corruption 
and connivance at corruption have been imputed to his 
laid royal highnefs, find it expedient to pronounce a dif- 
tindt opinion upon the faid imputation ; and are accord¬ 
ingly of opinion, that it is wholly without foundation. —A long 
debate enfued; after which the houfe divided: for this 
amended amendment, 278 ; againtt it, 196. 
Three days after this decifion, (March 20.) the Chan¬ 
cellor of the Exchequer ftated a fadt which, h.e hoped, 
might induce Mr. Bathurtt to forego the motion which 
lie had promifed to bring forward that evening. His royal 
highnefs the duke of York, on Saturday morning, of his 
own accord, had waited on his majefty, and tendered to 
him his refignation of the chief command of the army, 
which his majefty had been gracioufly plea fed to accept. 
The communication made by his royal highnefs to his 
majefty upon tendering his refignation, was read to the 
houfe by Mr. Perceval at full : of this communication it 
is fufHcient for our purpofe to extradt the firft fentence. 
“ The houfe of commons having, aftera long and full in- 
■veltigation of the merits of ceAaiu allegations againtt 
him, patted a refolution of his innocence, he might now 
approach his majefty, and venture to tender to him his 
refignation of the chief command of his majefty’s army, 
as lie could no longer be fufpeiSted of ailing from any ap- 
prehenfion of the refult, nor be accufed of having ftirunk 
from the extent of an inquiry which, painful as it had 
been, he trufted he fliould appear, even to thole who had 
been difpoled to condemn his conduct, to have met with 
the patience and nrmnefs which could arife only from a 
«onfcious feeling of innocence.” 
After a few words from Mr. Bathurtt, lord Althorpe 
moved the following refolution : “ That his royal highnefs 
the duke of York, having refigned the command of the 
army, this houfe does not now think it necettary to pro¬ 
ceed any farther in the confideration of the evidence be¬ 
fore the committee appointed to inquire into the conduct 
©f his royal highnefs, as far as relates to his royal high¬ 
nefs.” The inlertion of the word now was intended to 
exprefs the opinion of the houfe, that the duke of York 
fliould not, at any time hereafter, be reftored to his late 
fituation, as commander-in-chief; and confequently, that, 
if he fliould, the houfe would relume their proceedings 
©11 the charges againtt him. On a motion by the chan¬ 
cellor of the exchequer, that the word “now” lhould be 
left out of lord Althorpe’s amendment, the houfe divided : 
Ayes, 235; noes, 112. 
Though the inquiry into the conduct of the duke of 
York was confined to his official acts, refpedting commif- 
fions, exchanges, and promotions in the army, and did 
not extend to mere recommendations to offices or emolu¬ 
ments not in the army , otherwife than as they might throw 
light on the qneftion before the houfe; it may be proper 
to take notice of a few of tliol'e curious fails, which were 
difclofed in the courle of the examination, and which, 
though not of a nature to fix the imputation of any cor¬ 
rupt practices on the duke of York, ferve to fliow the ex¬ 
tent to which corrupt practices did prevail 5 and tjj.g ftiU 
D O N. 
wider extent of the opinion, that there was nothing fc im¬ 
portant in the ftate, or f.icred in the church, that was not 
to he procured by bribery. The inquiry exhibits a thou¬ 
sand circumftances tending to illuttrate, in an accurate and 
impreflive manner, a view of the ways of the world in 
London, anil of the ftate of public morals and religion in 
England, at the commencement of the nineteenth cen¬ 
tury. It will be recollected that Mr. Wardle had ftated, 
that the two members of the cabinet to whom he al¬ 
luded, as concerned in a corrupt traffic in patronage, 
were the lord-chancellor and the duke of Portland. Some 
of our readers, no doubt, may have entertained a greater 
curiofity to know on what this charge could be founded, 
and how it would terminate, than any of the other alle¬ 
gations in the whole courfe of the examination. Mrs. 
Clarke, on her examination February 10, being alked 
through what perfon fhe held herfelf out as having influence 
enough to procure a certain fituation, faid, “ I do not think 
any one was held out. I fancy they gueffed the duke of 
York, but no one was held out; and I think it is very 
likely that Mr. Donovan fuppofed the duke of Portland. 
But I mean here to fay, that the duke is not at all con- 
nedted with the office for difpoling of government-patron¬ 
age. Of the office that Mr. Wardle mentioned in the city, 
I know nothing. I was very forry that Mr. Wardle had 
mentioned fuch a thing; becaufe every one who knows 
the lord-chancellor, mutt know that, befides being one of 
highett, he is one of the n.oft honourable, men 111 Eng¬ 
land ; and, if there are any infinuations about the duke 
of Portland, Mr. Maltby is the duke of Portland. He is 
my duke of Portland. I mean entirely to clear myfelf 
of holding out any infinuation againtt the duke’s cha- 
tadler.” 
Mr. Wardle was not the only perfon who believed, at 
one time, that Mrs. Clarke had influence with the duke 
of Portland. The marquis of Tichfield, (the duke of 
Portland’s fon,) a member of the houfe of commons, being 
called upon to ftate every thing he was acquainted with, 
as to an application from the reverend Mr. Bafely to the 
duke of Portland, ftated, that Mr. Bafely called upon the 
duke on the 3d of January, and, not being able to fee him, 
left the following letter for him. “My lord duke; I 
vviflied particularly to fee your grace on the moft private 
bufinefs. I cannot be fully ©pen by letter. The objedt is, 
to folicit your grace’s recommendation to the deanery of 
Saliibury or fome other deanery, for the moft ample pecu¬ 
niary remuneration for which I will inttantly give a draft 
to your grace. For Saliibury three thoufand pounds. I 
hope your grace will pardon this, and inftantly commit 
thefe lines to the flames. I anr now writing, for the be¬ 
nefit ofadminillration, a moft interefting pamphlet. Excufe 
this opennel's; and I remain, your grace’s moft obedient 
and obliged fervant, J. Basely.” 
This note the duke of Portland tranfmitted to the hi¬ 
lltop of London,,in whofe diocefe he underftood that Mr. 
Bafely poflefled one or two chapels. (He was, in fact, one 
of the hilltop’s chaplains.) The hilltop, in a letter in an- 
fwer to the duke, dated Fulham-houfe, January 5, 1809, 
faid ; “ It is too true that this wretched creature, Bafely, 
has one if not two chapels in my diocele. I have long 
known hint to be a very weak man ; but, till this in- 
fuft’erable infult upon your grace, I did not know he 
was fo completely wicked, and fo totally void of all prin¬ 
ciple; and, as your grace is in pofieffion of the moft in— 
conteftable proofs of his guilt, you will, I truft, inflidi 
upon him the difgrace and punilhment he fo richly de- 
ferves.” 
Mrs. Clarke, in her evidence of the 9th of February, 
ftated that a Dr. O’Meara applied to her in 1805 to get 
hint made a bitttop. He made an otter of pecuniary re¬ 
muneration ; and he brought a teftimonial in his favour, 
under the hand of the archbilhop of Tuarn, Hating that 
the writer had received the moft fatisfadtory alfurances 
that the dodtor was “a gentleman of molt unexceptiona¬ 
ble eluLictet 14 every relpedt, of a good family and inde- 
psndetti 
