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 formed a conspiracy to injure, by base means, the reputation of the accused person. Mr. Yorke qualified his phrase of “heavy responsibility” by afterwards saying, that he hoped Mr. Wardle had, at least, “probable grounds” for what he had done. This was right; and, giving to Mr. Canning’s words the application above pointed out, I agree with them; but, if “infamy” were to attach to a member, who failed to prove a case put into his hands, the House of Commons would be in a pretty situation. “The freedom of debate” would soon be reduced to a level with another sort of freedom, of which we shall speak by-and-by. Suppose a case of a different nature. Suppose a good, honest, well-meaning member of parliament to be informed, that there is, even at this late day, a plot against the life of the King, and for the purpose of overturning “the monarchy,” upsetting “regular government,” overthrowing “social order,” and blowing up “our holy religion,” and that the conspirators (names this and that) with all their books and papers, all their bloody and anti-christian implements, were at that moment hard at work in some garret in St. Giles’s. Suppose this; suppose the good man to inform the House of it; suppose the King’s messengers, the police magistrates, the horse-guards, dispatched to the scene of brooding destruction, with an order to bring to the bar every creature there found; and, suppose the conspirators to consist of a poor old woman and her cat. Would it be fair, would it be just, to say that infamy attached to the good hoaxed gentleman? No. He might be reasonably enough laughed at for his credulity; but, even the parties accused could not justly charge him with infamy. In this case of Mr. Wardle, as in all other cases of a similar nature, the blame, if any, must be in proportion to the want of grounds, not for the charges themselves, but for his belief of them; and, therefore, however the proof may turn out, if it appear, that Mr. Wardle did receive information of the facts, which he has stated; that the informants are persons whose oath would be taken in a court of justice, and be sufficient for the hanging of any one of their neighbours in common life; and especially if it should be proved, that, amongst these informants, there be one, or more, of character so respectable as to have lived in habits of intimacy with the person accused; if this should be made appear, the public will, I am of opinion, agree with me, that, so far from any blame attaching to Mr. Wardle, he would have been guilty of a scandalous neglect of his duty, if he had refused, or delayed, to do what he has done.
I now come to a part of the debate, to which I must beg leave earnestly to crave the reader’s most serious attention; after which allusion, he will readily conclude that I mean that part which relates to an existing CONSPIRACY in this country. Not an imaginary thing like the one above supposed; but a real conspiracy, for the purpose, as Mr. Yorke described it, of talking and writing down the Duke of York, and, through him, and the Generals of the army, the army itself; of talking and writing down all the establishments of the country; which description, with somewhat of limitation, appears to have been repeated by Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh.
Coming from such high and grave authority, the statement demands our attention. We have, indeed, seen publications in some of the newspapers, stating something about an existing design, in certain persons, to overthrow “social order;” to undermine, at the instigation of the devil, our happy constitution in church and state; and, we have lately seen, a stupid author, in a dirty pamphlet about Jacobinism, addressed