Читать книгу Essential Writings Volume 3 - William 1763-1835 Cobbett - Страница 8

DID the witness, in the month of July 1805, reside in Gloucester-place? I did.—Under whose protection was she at that time living? Under that of his royal highness the Duke of York.—Did Dr. Thynne at that time attend the witness in his professional capacity? He did, and was for some years in the habit of doing so.—Was there any application made by Dr. Thynne to the witness, relative to an exchange between Lieut.-Col. Knight and Lieut.-Col. Brooke? There was, and Dr. Thynne urged strongly the necessity of great dispatch.—Was there any pecuniary compliment held out as an inducement to the witness to use her interest to promote the exchange? He promised on the part of Mr. Knight, that a compliment should be made me.—Was not the witness promised a consideration in money when the change would be effected; was she not promised a sum of 200l.? I was.—After Dr. Thynne’s application to the witness, did she speak to the Commander-in-Chief upon the subject of that application? I told him of it that day at dinner, and handed over to him the slip of paper Dr. Thynne had given to me, containing the names of the parties. I told him I did not know them, but had reason to believe they would make me a compliment. I did not then state to his royal highness the amount of the sum; but when the exchange was effected, and that appeared in the Gazette, I sent the Gazette with a note to Dr. Thynne.—Did the witness, after she had sent the Gazette to Dr. Thynne, receive any pecuniary consideration, from any person, on account of the exchange having been effected? I received afterwards 200l. in two Bank notes, under cover, with Dr. Thynne’s compliments.—Were the compliments sent verbally by the messenger, or written in the cover? I rather think written, but am not certain.—Did the witness make known to the Commander-in-Chief the having received this money upon this account? I mentioned it to his royal highness on that day.—Is the witness sure his royal highness must have been apprized of the amount of the notes? He must have been; because I showed him the note, and sent one of the servants to get it changed for me.—(Sir T. Turton.) Does the witness know Mr. Robert Knight? Yes: I met him in company with Mr. Biddulph.—Can the witness state, as near as possible, what conversation passed at this meeting? I cannot recollect. I had certainly a conversation with Mr. R. Knight relative to his brother’s exchange. That affair gave rise to our intimacy.—Did the witness ever desire Mr. Robert Knight to keep the transaction about which they were then conferring, a secret? I don’t recollect that I did; but it is likely that in such a case I might have given such a caution; perhaps I did; but I don’t recollect it.—Did the witness charge Mr. R. Knight to keep that transaction a secret from the Commander-in-Chief? Oh! no, no, never; certainly not; I’m quite sure of that.—(Mr. Lyttleton.) At the time the witness communicated to the Duke of York, the application made to her by Dr. Thynne on the part of Lieut.-Col. Knight to expedite his exchange, did his royal highness make any remark, and what? His royal highness said he knew the business very well; that there had been much application about it, but that he suspected that one of them was rather a bad subject. However, he would do it; it should be done.—When the witness showed to the Commander-in-Chief the bank-note she had received for her using her interest in this business, did his royal highness make any observation, and what? I don’t recollect that he made any.—(The Attorney-General.) What time was the application of Dr. Thynne made to the witness? I can’t say.—Was it more than three days before the exchange appeared in the Gazette? I don’t think it was more.—When did the witness first mention this business to Col. Wardle? I don’t know; it must have been very lately.—Why does the witness say that it must have been very lately? Because I speak from the fact.—Let the witness mention what fact? It was within the last month.—What, within the last month, did the witness communicate to Mr. Wardle? He asked me was it true? I told him it was; it was he attacked me upon the subject; for he had heard it from other quarters, and had asked me only if it was true.—What led the witness to a knowledge of Col. Wardle? Himself.—Was it within the last month that the witness came to know Col. Wardle? I knew him six months before he attacked me on this subject.—Did the witness mention it first to Col. Wardle, or in consequence of being first questioned by him? In consequence of his first questioning me: he had heard it from other quarters; upon his asking me was it true, I said it was. I did not then think I should have been brought here in consequence of having said so, or I would have concealed it.—Would the witness have willingly concealed it? I concealed it from the beginning: it was not my wish to make it public. I have sense enough to keep private that which ought to be kept private.—When the witness gave Col. Wardle an account of this transaction, did she give the same account she has now given? No, I did not.—Which was the true account? Both.—In what do both the true accounts differ? I don’t think they differ at all. I mean, I did not then go into the detail I have now; my account to Mr. Wardle was a much shorter one than I have given here.—Can the witness name the day either of the week or month on which Dr. Thynne applied to her? Neither.—The witness has said, that it was not more than three days before the Gazette; now the Gazette days were either Tuesdays or Saturdays; was it upon either of those days? I can’t be particular in so trifling a matter. I am not conversant in days or dates.—Has the witness told the House all she told Col. Wardle in her account to him of this transaction? Much more than I told Mr. Wardle.—What has the witness told the House she did not tell Col. Wardle? I did not, as I have said already, go so much into detail as I have done now. I did not tell Mr. Wardle about the showing the bank-note to his royal highness, nor the getting it changed, and other matters of detail which I have mentioned now.—If Col. Wardle had not questioned the witness upon this subject, would she have made any communication to him upon it? Perhaps I might, and perhaps I might not.—Had the witness no end to accomplish in making this transaction known? None whatever.—Did the witness never state any grounds of complaint against the Duke of York? All my friends knew that I complained of the conduct of his royal highness.—The witness was not asked as to the knowledge of her friends. Did she herself complain of the Duke of York, and threaten in certain circumstances to expose him? I never did. All I did was, I sent a letter to Mr. William Adam (he is present), and I said in that letter that if his royal highness did not pay me the annuity, which he, and Mr. Adam for him, promised should be paid punctually, I would publish his royal highness’s letters.—Was this the only letter in which the witness made use of those threats? Not threats; I solicited. I wrote two letters. Mr. Adam has them both.—Did the witness never state that she would expose the Duke of York if he did not agree to her terms? Never; the worst I did or said against his royal highness was in those letters, and I wrote them in anger. I did not then expect to be here, nor is it willing in me that I am here. I know of nothing more in the letters; but satisfy yourself; ask for the letters; read them; they can be produced, I suppose, as Mr. Adam is present. He has them.—Did the witness never state to any person whatever, that if the Duke of York did not satisfy her, she would expose him? Never.—Or to that effect? I never said any thing to that effect.—She was quite sure of that? Positive.—Did not she tell Mr. R. Knight something to a similar effect? No, I told him that I was a going to publish the Duke’s letters, in order to raise money to pay the creditors, whom his royal highness had refused to pay. His royal highness had insisted I should plead my marriage to avoid the debts; and if I did not, I must go to prison; there was nothing else for it. My lawyer sent me this communication.—Who is your lawyer? The gentleman who is now my lawyer was not then.—Who was at that time your lawyer? Mr. Stokes, of Golden-square. He made the communication to me.—And who made it to him? Somebody from Mr. Wm. Adam, who is himself a sort of a lawyer.—Did not the witness lately send for Mr. R. Knight to come to her? Since our acquaintance began, I have asked him often to call and see me.—Did not the witness write Mr. R. Knight a note, requesting him to call upon her, and was it not in consequence of that summons that he did call upon her? It was nothing more than a common note, such as I am in the habit of sending to many more gentlemen of my acquaintance.—Is the witness a married woman? You have no reason to doubt it.—Are you a married woman or not? I am married: Mr. William Adam there has my certificate.—When was the witness married, where, and to whom? I was married about 14 or 15 years ago at Pancras, to a Mr. Joseph Clark.—Is your husband now living? I don’t know.—Did not the witness swear herself a widow? No, I did not swear it; I’ll explain that: I had applied to the Duke of York for 1 or 200l.; he sent me back for answer, that if I dared to say or write any thing against him, he would put me in the pillory or the Bastile. His royal highness was alarmed at my having (as he thought) sworn myself a widow-woman, as then the debts could not be avoided; but I had not sworn myself a widow-woman; but as I was called upon at the Court-martial, I told the Advocate-General (who certainly treated my distressing situation with more delicacy than the gentleman who has been now examining me), that I thought it would be wrong for me, who was so well known to be living with the Duke of York, to call myself a married woman, and I did say to him, after I had left the Court (not while I was in the Court), that I was a widow. I said I was, but I did not swear I was, though it was erroneous entered in the minutes of the Court-martial.—Who brought this message from the Duke of York to the witness? One of his royal highness’s most particular and intimate friends.—Who is he? One Taylor, a shoemaker in Bond-street, very well known to Mr. Adam.—How did the witness make her application for this one or two hundred pounds to his royal highness? By my pen.—By whom did she send her letter? By this same ambassador of Morocco—Whom does the witness mean by the ambassador of Morocco? The shoemaker.—Was it Taylor, the shoemaker, who brought back the answer from his royal highness? Yes. He gave it as the Duke’s words. I have mentioned Taylor’s own language.—Mrs. Clarke was then asked whether she had not said that she was born at Berkhampstead, to which she answered, that if she had said so, it was in a laughing and jocular way.—Did you not make Mr. Adam believe that you was born there? I don’t know whether Mr. Adam believed it, or not.—Did the witness represent her husband as the nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke? He told me that he was so.—Did the witness believe that he was the nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke? Yes.—Did you ever see Mr. Alderman Clarke? I never saw any of my husband’s relations, except a brother and sister.—Do you now believe that he was the nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke? I never asked him any thing concerning his connection. He is nothing at all to me, nor I to him. I have not seen him these three years, nor heard of him since he brought the action against the Duke.—What is your husband? I don’t know.—What is his business? He is in no business; his father was, he was a millwright.—Did you ever live in Tavistock place? Yes.—When? I don’t recollect the time exactly. I lived there under the protection of my brother.—How many years ago? I do not recollect.—When did you go to Park-lane? I do not recollect.—How long before you went to Park-lane did you live in Tavistock-place? I do not recollect.—Was you in any other place between the two periods? I might have been in another place.—How long did you live in Tavistock-place? I do not recollect.—Where did you live when you first knew the Duke of York? I beg to be excused answering that question.—Chairman. The witness must answer the question. I do not recollect.—Why then did you desire to be excused answering the question? Because I did not recollect.—Is that the only reason for the wish to be excused? Yes.—I desire positively to know whether the witness did not live in Tavistock-place before she knew the Duke of York? I do not think that is a fair question. I am a married woman with several children, and one daughter grown up.—I wish to know whether the witness lived in Tavistock-place, before she was under the protection of the Duke of York? I was then under his protection.—Was she under his protection when she first lived at Tavistock-place? No, under that of my brother.—Has not the witness said, that she was a widow? No, never, except on the occasion of the court-martial which she had mentioned. She then thought it was saving her family, and also the Duke of York, as he too was married.—Does she say she never lived in Tavistock-place, till under the protection of the Duke of York? I knew him previous to that, but did not live with him.—Did she not represent herself to the tradespeople there as a widow? Never, to any one.—I would ask, whether she has not threatened, that unless the Duke would come into her terms, and pay her what money she wanted, she would put his letters into the hands of persons who would pay her? No.—Did she not state, that she either had or would put on paper all the transactions of the last 14 or 15 years, and put the memorial into the hands of persons who would publish it, unless the Duke of York would pay her? No, she could not recollect that she ever said so, but she referred to the letter or letters she had written to Mr. Adam.—The witness had said that she had mentioned this business to others besides Mr. Wardle. Who were they? She did not recollect all her acquaintances with whom she might have conversed on the subject, but at any rate it must have been in a slight sort of way, and was of no consequence.—How long was it before she mentioned the business to Mr. Wardle? She did not exactly recollect, but it was since she wrote to Mr. Adam. She did not know Mr. Wardle at that time.—Who was present besides Mr. Wardle when she first mentioned this business? Some ladies, perhaps of her acquaintance, but nobody of any consequence.—To what man besides Mr. Wardle had she mentioned it? There were many acquaintances of hers to whom it might have been mentioned, but she could not recollect any particular persons.—Did the witness know Major Hogan? No, never. She had never seen him in her life. Mr. Greenwood had written to her to say that he was sorry to find she was acquainted with a Mr. Finnerty. She had about nine years ago seen a man of that name, at Margate, who was said to be connected with a newspaper, but had never seen him since.—(Examined by Mr. Croker.) Did the witness recollect any particulars of the conversation she had with Mr. R. Knight, lately, on this subject? Yes. He asked on what terms she was with the Duke of York? whether she had been paid her annuity? She said, no: that the tradespeople were clamorous for their money, and that she would publish the letters to pay them. Upon which he said, that he hoped she would spare his brother.—Whether any other notice had been taken of this business by Mr. Knight, except that she would spare his brother? No; certainly not.—Whether she had made any inquiries of Mr. Knight with regard to the business under discussion? She asked Mr. Knight what sort of a man the other was who had exchanged with his brother; and he said he was an Irishman.—Whether the witness said any thing more to Mr. Wardle on this subject than at the particular time she had before mentioned, and whether she still would abide by that answer? Yes, she did abide by it.—Whether she had any more than one conversation with Mr. Wardle upon this subject? No; and she hoped she would never hear of it any more.—Whether she was in the habit of seeing Mr. Wardle more frequently than when making inquiries relative to this business? Yes; she had seen him on other occasions.—Could the witness recollect when the conversation on this subject took place? She had answered that question before.—Had any conversation taken place on this subject within these three days? No.—Had any taken place since Friday last? No.—Did the witness see Mr. Wardle on Saturday last? She saw him at the Opera House.—Whether she saw him any where else than at the Opera House, on Saturday last; whether Mr. Wardle had intimated that he meant to call her as a witness, and when? Soon after she saw the newspaper which gave an account of the business having been brought forward in the House, he called, and she was angry, as he had made very free with the name of a friend of hers, a Mr. Donovan. Mr. Wardle had one morning taken away a parcel of letters of hers without her sanction, and she could never get them back again.—Whether it was not on Saturday that she saw the newspaper which gave the information? She did not recollect.—Whether she did not see Mr. Wardle on Sunday? She was in the habit of seeing him every other day. She could not exactly recollect.—Did she see him yesterday? She did not.—Whether she was certain of that? She believed she might speak positively.—Had she any conversation with him on the subject this day? Yes.—Whether she now still adhered to her former assertion, that she had no conversation with him on this subject since Friday last? This day something had passed between them about appearing to the summons; and about a week ago he had said that the House would commit her if she did not appear, and send her where they had sent some sheriffs before.—(Examined by Mr. Lyttleton.) The witness had stated that she had shown the note to the Commander-in-Chief; he wished to know whether she had shown it at any time except when she mentioned the business of exchange? No.—By whom had the message about Finnerty been sent? By Taylor. He told her that Mr. Greenwood had been reading Mr. Hogan’s pamphlet and others; and that he had been informed that she was intimate with Mr. Finnerty, which she then denied, as she did now.—(Examined by Sir A. Pigot.) The witness had stated, that Mr. Knight and Mr. Biddulph had paid her a visit together. Did Mr. R. Knight soon after call upon her alone? Many times.—Did she at any time say to him that she was desirous the business should be concealed from the Duke of York? Never in her life.—If any one had said so, then, it was false? Certainly; and she hoped before she left that place, that whoever had said so should be called in.—(Examined by Lord Folkestone.) The witness had said that she sent the Gazette with a note to Dr. Thynne. He wished to know whether she recollected what was in that note; what were the contents? She did not recollect exactly; but she believed it contained very little.—She had said that the 200l. had been sent her in a note with Dr. Thynne’s compliments. Was she quite certain of that? Yes, she was; as she recollected at the time having sent her maid to give the man a guinea.—Were the compliments written in the note, or verbally sent? She was certain that the 200l. came enclosed, but as to the compliments, she could not exactly recollect. She had paid very little attention to the matter, as she never expected to be called upon to give an account of the matter.—Did she recollect who brought the note to her house? No; but she understood it to be Dr. Thynne’s servant.—Did she recollect the time of the day? It was about the middle of the day.—The witness had said that the exchange took place two days after the application; he wished to know whether she alluded to the application of Dr. Thynne to her, or her application to the Duke of York? She spoke to the Duke of York about it the same day at dinner.—How soon after that did the exchange appear in the Gazette? Only a few days after.—Whether she had any reason to desire Mr. Knight to conceal his visits from the Duke of York, and did she desire him to conceal them? She never received his visits in a way that she wished to be concealed.—(Examined by Mr. Perceval.) The witness has said that Mr. Wardle had got her letters without her sanction or consent. He wished to know when that happened? She could not tell precisely; but he laughed the matter off, saying, that he would get possession of all her love-letters.—Was it before this inquiry was set ou foot? Yes.—How long before? She could not recollect.—Had she any conversation on the subject of the letters with Mr. Wardle before he took them? No.—How happened they to be lying in the way? Because she was leaving her house, and removing to her mother’s.—Did the witness mean seriously to say that Mr. Wardle took her letters without her authority? Yes; as he had got many other nonsensical little notes, which induced him to take these.—Were these the letters of his royal highness the Duke of York to the witness? There might be one or two of the letters of his royal highness intermixed with them.—Did the witness mean to say, that these were for the most part, letters of his royal highness? No.—Why then was it said, that these were the letters that led to this inquiry? Because Mr. Wardle had read them.—Did she recollect ever having been offered any money for delivering up the letters of his royal highness. Never.—Did she put them into the hands of any person, in order to forward any negotiation of her own? No; except to Mr. Adam, who was the confidential friend of his royal highness.—Had the witness never said, that she put the letters into the hands of any one, to facilitate a negotiation of her own? No; except to Mr. Adam. She had never written a note on the subject of the letters to any but Mr. Adam.—(By Lord Stanley.) Whether the Duke of York was in the room when the 200l. was brought her? No, he was not.—How soon after was it that she stated that Mr. Knight had fulfilled his promise? The same day.—Was it on the same day that she desired the note to be changed? Yes.—What was the name of the servant by whom the note had been changed?—She did not know; it was a very irregular thing to ask servants their names.

Now, before we proceed any further, let us take a view of the Evidence as it stands. First, it is proved, that Dr. Thynne, who had, for several years, attended in the house of Mrs. Clarke, pointed out to Mr. Knight an application to her as the effectual and speedy way of obtaining the Duke of York’s approbation of an exchange between two field officers of the army, which exchange had already been applied for in the regular way, and had, as yet, at least, not been obtained: Second, it is proved, that Dr. Thynne did make the application to Mrs. Clarke, and that he promised her 200l., in case the exchange should take place: Third, it is proved, that the exchange did, in a few days afterwards, take place: Fourth, it is proved, that Mrs. Clarke, in consequence of the exchange having taken place, did receive, from Mr. Knight, the said sum of 200l. All this is proved without any of the testimony of Mrs. Clarke. Mrs. Clarke, if the Duke had a knowledge of the bargain, must be looked upon as an accomplice; and, accomplices are not usually allowed to be sufficient witnesses to produce legal conviction; but, when their evidence is corroborated by strong circumstances, and especially, when, as in this case, they are in no danger themselves, such evidence is invariably taken to be good. She states, that she immediately applied to the Duke; that he said one of the parties was a bad subject, but that the thing should be done; and she further states, that when she had received the 200l., she told the Duke of it, and, in his presence, sent the note to be changed by one of his own servants, whose name she does not recollect. If we believe her here, the case is complete. But, as weighing against her evidence, the statement of Mr. Knight has been much dwelt upon. He, who, after the exchange, got acquainted with her, says, that she desired him to keep the matter a secret, and that she expressly gave as a reason for this, her fear of the consequences, if it should reach the Duke of York’s ears. This statement Mrs. Clarke positively denies. Which are we to believe? Mrs. Clarke, who took the bribe, or Mr. Knight, who gave the bribe, and who first tendered the bribe? Character, here, is quite out of the question. People may say what they will about Mr. Knight’s having been a member of the honourable House. So have many others that I could name. We here see Mr. Robert Knight as a briber; and, the parties being, in this respect, upon a level, we must decide between their opposite assertions upon the internal probabilities of the case.

Mr. Knight was asked, what part of the transaction Mrs. Clarke wished to have kept a secret; and, whether it was solely the money part of it; he answered, that the whole transaction might be concealed from the Duke. This question was put so often, and the reports in all the newspapers so exactly correspond with respect to the answer, that there is very little probability of its being incorrect.

Now, then, let it be remarked, that Mr. Knight went to thank Mrs. Clarke for the use of her influence in the case of his brother’s exchange, having before paid her 200l. for that influence; and, was it probable, that Mrs. Clarke should express to Mr. Knight a wish, calculated to make him believe, that she had not at all interfered in the matter with the Duke of York? Nay, Mr. Knight himself says, that he looked upon the thing as having been done by her influence, and further, that she took credit to herself for it; but, how could she, if she pretended that she had induced the Duke to do it; how could she, at that same time, have the folly to express a wish, that her having had any hand in the business might be kept from the knowledge of the Duke; kept from the knowledge of that very person, who, if her claim to Mr. Knight’s 200l. was not fraudulent as well as corrupt, must have known, that she was the cause of the exchange Will any one believe, that Mrs. Clarke would say, “It was I who prevailed upon the Duke to permit of your brother’s exchange; but, for God’s sake, don’t let the Duke know of it”? Why, there is a manifest absurdity in the supposition. It is a thing too preposterous to be believed. That she might, indeed, desire Knight not to blab; not to talk of the transaction for it to reach the Duke’s ears through third parties; this is likely enough, and this she herself admits may have been the case; but, to suppose, that she expressed a fear of the Duke’s knowing of her having been the instrument in the business: to suppose, that she expressed such a fear to the very man, with whom she was taking credit to herself for having obtained the grant from the Duke, is an absurdity too gross to be for one moment entertained by any man in his senses.

It appears, however, that Mrs. Clarke did tell Mr. Knight, that she would expose the Duke, unless she could bring him to terms; and, it is fair to presume, that she did so, because, not only does she admit something of this sort herself, but it appears, that, in two letters to Mr. Adam, she pushed the threat much further, or, at least, expressed herself more fully. To an enraged woman, fallen from her high estate, and left to be worried by creditors, who had crawled to her in the days of her affluence, a pretty large portion of vindictiveness is fairly imputable: and, this state of her mind the impartial reader of her evidence will not fail to keep constantly in view. Unsupported by strong corroborating circumstances I have no hesitation in saying, that her evidence against the Duke of York would not be worth much; and if the fact of the offer of 200l., the subsequent taking place of the exchange, and the actual payment of the 200l. immediately afterwards: if all these facts had not been proved, I should have paid very little attention to her testimony, relating to this transaction.

Still, however, the Duke’s actually knowing of her pocketting money on account of the exchange rests solely upon her evidence; and, we must now hear what was said by Mr. Adam, Col. Gordon, and the Duke’s Servant, which, apparently, has been regarded as throwing discredit, not only upon this part of her statement, but upon her general veracity.

We will take the whole of Mr. Adam’s statement of the 1st of February as given in the Morning Chronicle of the 2nd.

Mr. Adam said:—A great part of the evidence which I have now to state, I communicated upon a former night to the House. About the year 1789 I was requested by his royal highness the Duke of York to look into some of his concerns, and from that period to the present I have continued to examine those concerns with all the attention and accuracy in my power, without acting, as I before mentioned, professionally—without receiving any emolument, but giving my services quite gratuitously. In the year 1805 it came to my knowledge, that the husband of the person who has just gone from your bar, had threatened to bring an action for crim. con. against the Duke of York, and, in consequence of this information, it became necessary to inquire into the general conduct of that lady, which was found to be very incorrect. But in my intercourse with his royal highness, I observed, that he was exceedingly unwilling to believe the reports made to him, and he continued so indeed to the last. These reports, however, were of such a nature as to suggest the propriety of a further investigation, and the result was a confirmation of Mrs. Clarke’s incorrectness, which was such as tended much to prejudice the interests of the Duke of York, not upon military business, for nothing at all appeared of the description of that now before the Committee; but, with regard to money obtained by an improper use of the Duke of York’s name; this, I felt it my duty to state fully to his royal highness. For the purpose of having the investigation made, I applied to Mr. Lowton, of the Temple, and he employed Mr. Wilkinson to conduct it, who is generally engaged by that eminent solicitor to make preliminary arrangements upon business committed to his direction. The investigation was completed about the 8th of May, 1805, and I had the details of it laid before the Duke of York; the consequence was, that his royal highness came to the resolution of putting an end to his connection with Mrs. Clarke, and he requested me to communicate his resolution to her. The separation was a measure which I so much approved—which I felt to be so material to the interest and credit of the duke, that I was induced to overlook any consideration of unpleasantness, and to accede to his royal highness’s request. I saw such a disclosure of her character in the report, that I thought it totally inconsistent with his royal highness’s honour any longer to continue the connection.—It appeared, indeed, in this Report, that she pleaded her coverture, in defence to an action for goods which she had obtained by representing herself as a widow. Upon my interview with her, I discovered still further proofs of her incorrectness. Although it turned out that she was married at Pancras, she said that she had been married at Berkhampstead. At Berkhampstead also she stated that she had been born, that her mother’s name was Mackenzie, and her father’s name Parker. But although I had the register of Berkhampstead examined, for forty years back, no such name was to be found. I took occasion to put many questions to Mrs. Clarke in the course of this interview, and I came away from her with the impression that the facts mentioned in the Report I have alluded to were correct. She had stated that her husband was nephew to Mr. Alderman Clarke, the Chamberlain of London, which statement proved to be unfounded. In announcing to Mrs. Clarke the Duke of York’s resolution to separate from her altogether, I informed her, by his royal highness’s authority, that if her conduct should be correct, she would be allowed 400l. a year; but for this there was no bond or written obligation whatever. It was merely an annuity, which his royal highness should be at liberty to withdraw, if the conduct of this lady should not be correct. From the time of that communication I have not seen Mrs. Clarke until she appeared at the bar this night. I have stated, I think, all that relates to the transactions in which my name has been used. Upon recollection there are some other points—I received a letter in June 1808 from Mrs. Clarke, which is, no doubt, that to which she has alluded this night. That letter, I believe, still is in the custody of the gentleman who conducted the examination. Indeed, I endorsed the date and transmitted it to Mr. Wilkinson immediately after I received it. The knowledge I have of Mr. Wilkinson I have stated to the Committee; of the other person, Taylor, mentioned by Mrs. Clarke as an acquaintance of the Duke of York’s, I have no knowledge whatever. I hope I have explained myself satisfactorily to the Committee. If I have not spoken quite intelligibly, I shall be ready to give any further explanation in my power by answering any question that may be put to me. I think it proper to add that the threat of an action for crim. con. was made in 1805, that the inquiry immediately followed, and that the separation took place in 1806.—He did not know whether the annuity promised Mrs. Clarke had been paid her or not, as pensions or matters of that sort formed no part of the financial concerns of the Duke of York which were under his administration. Those concerns to which he had to attend elated to certain claims, for the discharge of which his royal highness had appropriated a proportion of his annual revenue, to manage which Mr. Coutts and he were appointed trustees. This proportion was originally but 12,000l., but it was now raised to between 26 and 30,000l. a year, out of which 4000l. were annually applied to the liquidation of debt due by his royal highness to the public, on account of the loan advanced to him under Mr. Pitt’s administration. To discharge this and other claims, his royal highness had, highly to his honour, set apart as much of his income as, consistently with necessary expenditure, could be possibly spared.

Colonel Gordon, who is the public military Secretary of the Duke of York, says in substance, this: that it is his duty to make to the Duke a report upon all applications for promotions, or exchanges; that he has no doubt that he made an inquiry upon the case of Knight and Brooke; that he fully believes, that the grant of the exchange was made in consequence of his report; that he kept no minute of the inquiry or report, and was not in the habit of doing so; that the delay in question took place on account of some doubts of the eligibility of Col. Brooke, and not on account of any objection to Col. Knight’s request; that he has not the smallest reason to suspect that any influence other than that of the general rules of the service produced the grant of leave to exchange; that the Duke’s approbation was given on the 23rd of July 1805, that the King’s signature was affixed to it on the 24th, and that the exchange was gazetted on the 30th.

Ludovick Armor, a footman of the Duke of York, said that he was a foreigner; that he had lived eighteen years with the Duke; that no other of the Duke’s servants ever went to Mrs. Clarke’s; that he used to go there at eight o’clock in the morning to take the Duke’s clothes; that he never saw Mrs. Clarke at her house but once, when he went to take a favourite dog for her to see; that the Duke was not then there; that he is quite certain that he never was sent by any one, from her house, to get any note changed. In his cross-examination, he repeated these assertions; he said, that no other servant of the Duke was permitted to go to Mrs. Clarke’s; he asserted of his own knowledge, that no other of the Duke’s servants ever went there. He said he had been asked (previous to his coming to the House of Commons) the same question about the note, by the Duke, by Mr. Adam, by Mr. Lowton, and by Mr. Wilkinson, and that he had given them the same answer.

I leave the evidence of Mr. Adam and Col. Gordon, as I find it. The character which Mr. Adam gives of the lady is very bad indeed; but one cannot help regretting that he should have been the instrument of offering to such a person an annuity of 400l. a year, on the part of the Duke, while the latter was accommodated with so large a loan out of the public money.

If what Ludovick Armor says be true; namely, that no other servant of the Duke ever went to Mrs. Clarke’s, and that he never took a note to change from that house, what Mrs. Clarke says about sending the note to change must be false. That is quite clear. But, bare justice to the fair annuitant compels us to observe, that this falsehood, if we set it down for one, must have been a mere freak of fancy; for, it would, I think, be impossible to assign, or conceive, any reason for her stating it. Of itself there was nothing in it, either good or bad. To have said, that she merely showed the Duke the money would have answered full as well for all the purposes of accusation and of crimination. It is quite impossible to guess at any end she could have in view by telling such a falsehood, except that of bringing forth Ludovick Armor; or of affording a chance of being exposed as a false witness. If, therefore, she be a false witness, a fabricator of false accusations, we must, I think, allow her to be as awkward an one as ever appeared at any bar in the world.

After the examination of Ludovick Armor, Mr. Wardle examined Mr. Adam, which examination led to a very novel scene, namely, the reading of an anonymous letter in the House.

Mr. Wardle asked Mr. Adam whether he had a son, and was answered in the affirmative, adding, that he was Lieut.-Colonel of the 21st regt. of foot. Being asked at what age he was made a Lieut.-Colonel,

Mr. Adam said, that he would answer that question; but the House, he hoped, would allow him to make some previous observations. General Sir Charles Stuart, the friend of his early life, asked him, whether any of his five sons had an inclination for the army. There was one of them fourteen or fifteen years of age, who he thought had a strong tendency that way. The general said, that by the rules of the service he was permitted to appoint him to an ensigncy. He was accordingly made ensign. His regiment was in Canada, and as he was so young he did not join immediately, but was first sent to Woolwich for education. As this question had been asked him, he hoped it would not be considered as unbecoming in him to say of so near a relation, that he distinguished himself extremely. A second commission was given him by Gen. Stuart, in a manner equally gratuitous. When the great Abercomby, likewise the friend of my early life, was sent to the Helder, he went under him at the age of sixteen, as a volunteer. The House would pardon him, as it was impossible for him not to feel strongly, he must state his merits. He landed in a hot fire, and conducted himself so as to command the applause and thanks of all who surrounded him. He was present in every active engagement during that expedition. He commanded a body of men of the number generally committed to a lieutenant. They were from the Supplemental Militia, and required a great deal of management, and it was universally allowed that he conducted them well. When he returned, he was, without any solicitation of his (Mr. Adam), so help him God, appointed to the Coldstream Guards. There he remained till he went to Egypt again under Abercromby, accompanied by his friend, who had made the same progress as himself (the son of Sir John Warren) who was killed by his side. He landed at the head of the guards, at the famous landing in Egypt, and distinguished himself equally well on that occasion. On his return, the Duke again appointed him to the rank of major, and at the age of twenty-one he rose to the situation of lieutenant-colonel of the second battalion of the 21st, and afterwards of the first battalion, he (Mr. Adam) having merely stated a circumstance in his favour, which he left entirely to the Duke’s consideration; and this regiment was as well commanded as any in the service; he might call upon the officers who were acquainted with the service to confirm his words; and Sir John Moore, if he had been alive, would have spoken of him.—Mr. Adam said, that he now would read a letter which he had received, and which appeared to have some reference to this question.

He then read a letter which he had received, and of which the following is the report, as given in the Courier newspaper of the 4th of February:—

“Sir: Your character was once respected; that is now over. Your shifting in the House of Commons, and your interference in the Duke of York’s lechery concerns, would have dubbed any other man a pimp. This subserviency to royalty has made your son a Colonel at twenty years, and given your other boy a ship.”—(I wish, exclaimed, the hon gentleman, turning to Mr. Wardle, you would ask me a question respecting this son too, that I might have an opportunity of telling by what means he got his ship.)—“Bravo! Go on! Try if you can say you act for no profit when you get your sons thus provided for. Decide as you please, that the man who is paid for his services out of the public purse, because he is the second man in the kingdom, as you say, and a prince, forsooth, should not show a good example. Let the Commons decide as they will, the public will judge for themselves; and it is not a decision of the Bear Garden that will convince burdened millions that black is white. This rubric” (it was written in red ink) “is typical of my feelings. I blush for you, and wish you would change your principles to correspond with the colour of your hair, and live the latter part of your time in honour. Though the decision of the House will not go far with the public, yet all eyes are upon it, and the damnation or salvation of the Commons depends upon this decision.”

There will be much for observation upon these matters hereafter; but, I cannot refrain from observing, that this audacious letter appeared to kindle somewhat of wrath in the breasts of the honourable House. Mr. Ellison said it was unworthy of the character of any individual to pay attention to anonymous letters. Mr. Adam said, that the letter was written to deter him from doing his duty, and to libel the House of Commons, both of which were beyond the power of any such attempts; that he had to protect his own and his family’s honour, and that he would do it without minding the opinion of any one.

Mr. Fuller defended the reading of the letter, and said the House ought to be whipped, if they did not offer 500l. or 1000l. for discovering the author. “If you are such poor creatures,” said he; but was stopped by a loud and general cry of order.

The public are much obliged to Mr. Adam for reading this letter, and to Mr. Wardle for taking care to have it inserted in the evidence. Yet, strange to say, the Morning Chronicle has suppressed it. That print states, that there was a very abusive and vulgar letter read; but, it does not insert it. This is not dealing fairly either with Mr. Adam, the honourable House, or the public.

Now, in the account which I have given of the evidence, as well as of the debates, or that I shall give of either, I am, of course, to be understood merely as re-stating what has been before stated in the newspapers, which original statements may, for aught I know, be incorrect; but, as I said before, if I find them to have been so, I will lose no time in correcting them, and communicating the correction to the public.

Publicity, and even speedy publicity, is what Mr. Canning stated to be desirable, and for that reason he preferred an examination at the bar of the House, in preference to an examination before a committee, upon oath. To assist, as far as my little sheet is capable, in this work of publicity, is my object, and shall be my constant endeavour, until the whole of the business is closed. My wish is, that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should be known to, and believed by, every soul in the kingdom; and, if this be the case, great good must arise from this inquiry, while it is impossible that any harm can arise from it.

If there be any one, who from report, has imbibed prejudices against the Duke of York, this is the time for him to dismiss those prejudices from his mind. He should resolve upon doing that; and by no means give way to the very prevalent and dangerous propensity of hailing open accusation as proof of guilt, merely because such accusations correspond with his pre-conceived opinions. Nothing is more common than to hear men exclaim, when an open accusation takes place, “Ah! I always said so, or I always thought so.” In this state of their minds, the accused stands but a poor chance. They wish him to be guilty; and it is but too true, that, what we wish, we frequently believe, with or without sufficient reason. Against the whisperings of this spirit of injustice I wish to guard the reader. I hope that all prejudices will be dismissed from the mind of the public; that we shall all look upon the Duke of York as being now accused for the first time; that we shall consider him as a person exposed to much ill-will and obloquy from the nature of his situation; and that we shall not condemn him without such proof as would be sufficient to produce the condemnation of any one of ourselves.

But, on the other hand justice to ourselves, justice to our country, and to the army, requires that we should not be carried away from rational and fair conclusions by any assertions, or insinuations, against the authors of the accusation or against any of the witnesses; by any outcry about a Jacobin Conspiracy, and the licentiousness of the press, and a design against the House of Brunswick. These, I trust, we shall regard as empty sounds. The utmost extent to which the press has gone, upon this subject, is, to have published, that Major Hogan told the Duke of York, that promotions were to be purchased of women at reduced prices; that the Major offered to prove this to the Duke, and that the Duke made no answer, and never called for the proof. This is the utmost extent of the “licentiousness of the press.” The statement may be false; Major Hogan did, perhaps, never say this to the Duke; but, observe, the Major does not accuse the Duke of receiving, either directly or indirectly, any part of the money; nor does he accuse him of knowing that any other person got money in such a way. Well, then, how has the press sinned? What has it done, in this case, to be so severely censured? What has it done to excite “a doubt whether the benefits of its freedom be not overbalanced by its licentiousness?” It has now been proved before the parliament itself, that, at the recommendation of the physician of Mrs. Clarke, money was offered to her to obtain from the Duke of York the grant of an exchange in the army; it has been proved, that the exchange soon afterwards took place; and it has been proved, that the money was paid to her according to the terms of the bargain. Must not the parties to this transaction have believed that Mrs. Clarke was the cause of the exchange? Must not they have believed this? Were they not liable to talk of it? If such like transactions were frequent, must not the knowledge of them have spread? And, if any public writer came to the knowledge of them, was it not his bounden duty to state them to the public? If not for such purposes, I should be glad to know for what purpose there is, or ever was, any thing, called “the freedom of the press.”

Mr. Sheridan told the House, that he had besought Mr. Wardle not to proceed with this business, a fact of which I have not the smallest doubt; but he added, that his “honourable friend” (for so he called him) had lent himself to the designs of “a foul conspiracy.” Foul conspiracy as long as he pleases; but that will not remove the effect of the evidence of Dr. Thynne, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Adam; the word conspiracy will have no weight against the proofs of the 200l. bargain with, and of the annuity to, Mrs. Clarke; nor will it have any weight at all against the evidence of Mrs. Clarke herself. Conspiracy, indeed! Who should conspire? Where is the conspiracy? Much has been said about the cowardice of general insinuations against the Duke, and about the advantage of, at last, getting at the accusations in a tangible shape. Why do we hear nothing specific about this conspiracy? A conspiracy generally implies conspirators. Where are they? At present, all the persons that have appeared are Dr. Thynne, Mr. Robert Knight, and Mrs. Clarke. Are these some of the conspirators? Is Mr. Adam one, who has told us all about the connection and the annuity? Who the devil are these conspirators then? Where is the place of their meeting? Why not place this conspiracy before us, in a “tangible shape?” These loose assertions about a conspiracy must operate to the injury of the Duke of York; for the people of this country are too much in the habit of deciding upon the merits of the case; of deciding upon actual evidence, not to suspect to be bad that cause, which has recourse to recrimination. It is so constantly the case to hear the guilty revile his accusers, that if the Duke had a real friend, that friend would not fail to avoid all such revilings, not fully justified by the proved turpitude or malice of the party reviled.

“Jacobinism!” Is it, then, to be a jacobin to complain, that bargains such as that between Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Knight were going on? Is it to be a jacobin to complain, that while the Duke of York was borrowing public money from the minister, he was, as his counsellor has informed us, settling an annuity of 400l. a year upon a person such as her whom this counsellor has described to us, and who has now, in the parliament, been called “an infamous woman?” Is this jacobinism? Is this to conspire against the illustrious House of Brunswick? Oh! no. It is not the House of Brunswick, but the house in Gloucester Place, and other such scenes of corruption and profligacy, if any exist, that the conspiracy is formed against; and, say the revilers of the press what they will, this is a conspiracy of which all the virtuous part of the nation approves, and in which it most cordially partakes. Is the man, who sees thus squandered part, at least, of the means which his incessant industry has collected, and which his paternal affection would fain devote to the comfort of his one-day fatherless family; is such a man, because he feels sore, because he expresses his indignation at seeing his earnings squandered in this way; is such a man for such a cause to be reviled as a jacobin and a conspirator, and to be held forth as worthy of the gibbet? If this be the case, away with all the talk about the sacrifices necessary for our defence against a conqueror; for if the devil himself were to become our master, he could not make our situation worse. But, I hope and trust, this is not to be the case; I trust we shall still have a country to fight for, and courage to defend it; that we shall still be truly free and truly loyal in spite of all the endeavours of all our enemies foreign and domestic; in spite of all their efforts to enslave us, or to goad us into disloyalty.

To Mr. Wardle, for his public spirit, his frankness, his candid and bold manner of bringing the matter forward, his steady perseverance, and all the admirable qualities he has displayed upon this occasion, the unanimous thanks of all the worthy part of the nation are due, and I will add, are justly rendered. I have not conversed with a single person upon the subject, who has not expressed admiration at this gentleman’s conduct. No, he did not consult with you, Mr. Sheridan, nor with any of the party; but, this, Sir, is that part of his conduct which we most approve of. He wanted no counsel but that of a sound head and an honest heart; no support from any thing but truth and justice. He wanted no “parliamentary experience.” None of what has been called “the tactic of the House.” He had a complaint to make in the name of the people, and he made it, without discovering fear either for himself or for his cause. He has neither obtained, nor asked for, any indulgence. In his arduous and most laborious task, he has received assistance from Sir Francis Burdett and Lord Folkestone; but, whether by declaimers or any thing else, he appears never to have been disconcerted; his own resources appear never to have failed him; and at every stage of the proceeding, he has risen in the esteem of the nation, the trading “anti-jacobins” excepted.

Botley,

Wednesday,

8th Feb. 1809