such principles as a great majority of us entertain, but such as very few of us indeed have the courage to avow. There was no hypocrisy in the speech; no affected solicitude that the charges might prove false. The persuasion in the mind of the speaker evidently was, that he was stating truths; and, accordingly, he appeared to be afraid of nobody. The Morning Post newspaper calls it “a curious speech.” If by “curious,” he, the editor, means rare, I must confess that it was “curious” in the highest degree.
As to the reported and published speeches of the other speakers, the first thing that struck me was, that they should have contained any thing at all, except what might relate to the mode of inquiry. The charges were so clearly stated, that there seemed to be nothing to do but, at once, to fix upon the mode of inquiring into them. However, it appeared to be an occasion for many persons to express their opinions relating to the person accused, and, therefore, we will notice what they said, it being desirable that nothing should escape publicity that belongs to this important subject.
A direct denial of the facts does not appear to have been made by any one; but, the Secretary at War (General Sir James Pulteney, who marched against Ferrol, as the reader will remember) said, that, as a proof that the army had not been badly managed, as a proof that the Duke of York had not abused his powers, the excellent discipline of our army might be cited, and for the proof of the goodness of that discipline, he referred to Sir Arthur Wellesley. Sir Arthur, who appears to have been seated near Sir James, bore testimony to the excellence of this discipline; imputed, in part, to the Duke, that valour the consequence of which had recently been a subject of the thanks of the House; and concluded by saying, that, whatever enthusiasm the army had felt was the result of the example and discipline afforded by the illustrious person at the head of the army. Mr. Yorke said, that, at the time when the Duke took the army in hand, it was in such a state as scarcely to deserve the name of an army.
Now, whatever others may think of the matter, I do not believe, that any, even the smallest portion, of the strength or the bravery of my countrymen is to be ascribed to the Duke of York, to any branch of the government, or to any other cause than that which proceeds from nature. I look upon steady courage; upon a temper to resist or attack without trepidation; to bear up when they come to the pinch; I look upon these as qualities natural to the people of this kingdom; nor will I, upon any account, give my assent, express or tacit, to any assertion leading to a contrary conclusion. But, the ascribing of the enthusiasm of the English soldiers at Vimiera to discipline is what I cannot understand. Discipline consists of restraints, at least; generally it implies checks, pains and penalties. Discipline may, and does, produce prompt obedience, submission, and, of course, order and regularity; but, that it should fill the soul with enthusiasm is, to say the least of it, something wonderful. “Example,” indeed, may inspire an army with enthusiasm; and as to the probable effect of the Duke of York’s example; the example afforded by his battles; as to this, I am sure, it is quite unnecessary for me to say one word to any living creature in this kingdom.
After all, however, what has this to do with the main subject; the great subject now before the parliament and the public? Suppose we were to admit, that the men of the 50th regiment, when they were making that gallant charge at Vimiera, before which the French instantly ran like a flock of sheep; suppose we were to admit, that the brave private dragoon, who took General Lefebvre; suppose we were to admit, that our regiments before Corunna, who, when engaged against triple their force, in point of numbers, and who, at the end of a march that had left even the officers barefooted, stood like a wall before the enemy, and when they saw fresh numbers pouring down, gave three huzzas, rushed forward upon the gathering host, drove them up the hill, and by that act of almost unexampled bravery secured the safety of the embarkation: suppose we were to admit, that all these men were inspired solely by the “example” of the Duke of York. Nay, suppose we were to admit, to its full extent, the idea of Mr. Yorke; suppose we were to admit, that it was the Duke who alone had rendered the English soldiery worthy the name of an army; that he, and he alone, had poured courage into the breasts of Britons, and had given them strength of bone and of sinew. Suppose we were to admit all this, and, I think, it is hard if a broader admission could be demanded, or wished for, even by the most zealous Anti-jacobin in the country; suppose we were to admit all this, what would the admission make; of what weight would it be: how would it at all alter the case, when set against facts such as those stated by Mr. Wardle? The skill and the courage of the Duke of York are things which appear to me to have nothing at all to do with his mode of distributing promotion. Nothing at all to do with those bargains and sales mentioned by Mr. Wardle. Mr. Wardle plainly stated, that Mrs. Clarke, with the connivance of the Duke of York, had received so much a head upon a new levy. Is this to be answered by citing the military renown of the Duke of York? Mr. Wardle states, that a man was going through a long course of military promotion and pay, while he was actually a clerk in the agent, Greenwood’s, office. Is this to be answered by telling us, that our army fought well at Vimiera? No, no. Such facts are to be efficiently met by nothing short of flat denial; and, unless they can be so met, at once, it were much better to wait the want of proof on the part of those, from whom the accusation has proceeded.
There was another argument, made use of by Mr. Adam, which does not seem to me to be much more conclusive as to the main point. It was this: that he had, for 20 years past, had an intimate knowledge of the pecuniary concerns of the Duke of York; that he had been acquainted with all his embarrassments (of the cause of which, however, he did not speak); that, in all his transactions with the Duke, he had found him extremely unreserved, fair, and correct; that he never heard of any concerns with Mrs. Clarke, and the like; that he thought he must have heard something of them, if they had had any existence; and that, therefore, the accusation must be false. The report of Mr. Adam’s speech must, certainly, be incorrect; for, it is incredible, that a gentleman, who is so well able to reason, and who has so long been accustomed to weigh arguments with such nicety, should have drawn, either expressly or by inference, so illogical a conclusion; a conclusion destroyed, at once, if we perceive, that it proceeds solely upon premises, which are matter of opinion. All that Mr. Adam asserts positively, I, for my part, who have good reason to know and be grateful for his wisdom and integrity, implicitly believe; but, there may, without any impeachment of any of the excellent qualities of his head or heart, be great doubts with respect to the fact, whether, if an illicit commerce in commissions existed, he would necessarily hear of it; nay, it may be thought, that he would be amongst the last men in the world who would be made acquainted therewith.
The next point that presents itself is that of the “heavy responsibility,” to which it was said, that Mr. Wardle had subjected himself. Almost all the honourable members, who spoke in praise of the Duke of York, used some phrase or other expressive of their pleasure at what Mr. Wardle had done. The Secretary at War declared his great satisfaction at it; Sir Arthur Wellesley rejoiced three times and was glad once; Mr. Yorke was glad twice and once happy; and Mr. Canning congratulated the Duke of York upon the matter being brought forward. This cannot fail to give the country a high opinion of the independence and love of impartial justice in these gentlemen. Yet, somehow or other, they did, most of them, seem to be deeply impressed with a risk, of some sort, that Mr. Wardle ran, from having performed this pleasure-giving task. Mr. Yorke called it a “heavy responsibility;” and Mr. Canning said, that “infamy must attach, either upon the accused or the accuser.” If Mr. Canning meant, by the accuser, the informer, I agree with him; but, not so, if he meant Mr. Wardle; for, if that were to be admitted, what would become of the characters of Attorneys and Solicitors, high as well as low, who prefer accusations against men, who are acquitted? Will Mr. Canning say, that “infamy” attached to Sir John Scott (now Lord Eldon), because Mr. Horne Tooke was, upon a charge of treason preferred by Sir John, proved to be innocent of the charge, being acquitted by a jury, which acquittal corresponded with the charge of a most learned and upright judge? No. Mr. Canning will not say this. It must, however, not only be said, but proved, before it will be admitted, that “infamy” will attach to Mr. Wardle, though his charges against the Duke should, like those against Mr. Horne Tooke, finally appear, from the best possible evidence, to be false; except, indeed, it should be made appear, that the charges originated with Mr. Wardle; that he hatched the facts; that he has hired and bribed spies and informers; that, in short, he has
