r, wj"nvjji i'nr i)M:|\! i.lllllJlMll, MR. WARDLE AND THE DUKE OF YORK. THE CORRECTED SPEECHES Bin. WARDLE , THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EX- CHEQLER, MR. WHITBREAD, THE ATTORNEY GENERALi, LORD FOLKSTONE, MR. ADAM, SECRETARY AT WAR, SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY, MR. CROKER, MR. WILBERFORCE, MR. CANNING, MR. PONSONBY, 4c, lf.c. HON. HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THE CHARGES AGAINST HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK, AS COMUAyBER /2V CHIEF OF TEE BRITISH ARMY. ACCURATELY REPORTED BY A BARRISTER, AND REVISED BY MOST OF THE SPEAKERS ON THAT IMPORTANT QUESTION. WITH A PORTRAIT OF MR. WARDLE. LOS DON: PRINTED FOR J. ELACKL|;)CK, 92, ROYAL EXCHANGE, AND C. CJIAI'PhE, PALL-MALL. i. 0. B.Tniai\l, Piiiiiei, Skinncr-Sticc:. DA SoG TO THE READER. THE Editor of this Volume of Debates on the important Enquiry into the conduct of the late Commander in Chief, has spared no pains to make the Work complete, by giving the Speeches as accurate as possible, acting with equal im- partiality to the Speakers on both sides of the question. The publication has been delayed for more than three weeks, in order to give the Mem- bers an opportunity of revising their speeches, so as to prevent any complaint against the Pub- lishers. At the end of the Work the reader will find a List of the ^Minorities of ]\Ir. Wardle, and Sir Thomas Turton's motions, together with the ^linority on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution; the Editor is, however, very sorry he cannot gratify the Public with the names of the Members who Noted in favour of His Royal Highness the Dukeof York. He has tried eve- ry means that were in his power to accomplish this desirable object, but to no purpose, as every source of information was shut against his en- quiries. CONTENTS. Page Mn.WARDLE 1 Mr. Burton 31 Mr, Curwen 45 Chancellor of Exchequer. (Mr. Perceval). 51, 449, 460, 472, 476, 478, 497, 508, 529. Mr. Bathurst 193, 454, 499 Mr. Whitbread 195, 479, 516 Sir Vicary Gibbs 215 Mr, Bankes 219, 471 Mr. Yorke 230 Mr. Leach 239 Lord Folkstone 213, 447, 509 Mr. W. Adam 255 Mr, W. Smith 305 Secretary at War. (Sir James Pulteney) 310, 528 Sir F, Burdett 313, 381, 394 Master of the Rolls (Sir. W. Grant) 327 Sir Samuel Roinilly 334 Solicitor General. (Sir T. Plummer 341 Mr. C. W. Wynne 345 Mr. Crokcr 351 Mr. Henry Martm 384 Mr. Ruse 338 Mr. Woriley Stewart 390 Mr. Loii- 394 CONTENTS. Pag Mr. Coke 398 Mr. Windham 399 Lord Castlereagh 405 Mr. Calcraft 409 Lord Milton 411 Lord Stanley ' 415 Mr. Leycester 419 Sir Thomas Turton 420, 465, 472 Mr. Richard Ryder 433 Lord Temple 425, 510 Mr. Wiiberforce 430 Mr, Canning 444, 528 Mr. Ponsonby 447 Mr. Tierney 448, 450 Mr. Barbara 455 Mr. Cartwright 456, 506 Lord W. Russell 456 Sir James Hall 457 Mr. C. Adams 457 Mr. Lockhart 457, 506 Sir W. Curtis 457, 503 Sir M. Wood 457 Mr. M. Fitzgeiald 457 General Ferguson 458 Lord H. Petty 459, 473, 477 Mr. Cripps 459 Mr. Lyttleton 463 Mr. H. Browne ' 466 Mr. Herbert 166 Mr. Brand - 467 Mr. Sutton 468 Mr. Fuller 469 CONTENTS. Pag* Lord Morpeth 4f Mr. Tracey 470 Mr. Hibbert 472, 473 Mr. Ellison 473 Mr. Home Sumner 477 Lord Althorpe 504 Mr. O'Hara 507 Mr. H. Addington 514 Mr. H. Thornton 515 General Loftus 529 Mr. Lcgh Keck 529 Minority on Mr. Wardle's Motion 531 Sir Thomas Turton's ditto 532 I the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ditto 55^ HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1808. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK. Ml R. Wardle moved the Order of the Day for taking into further consideration the Report of the Committee Appointed to enquire into the Conduct of his Royal High- ness the Commander in Chief. This being agreed to, Mr. Wardle then rose and spoke to the following effect. Mr. Speaker. I am fully aware of the difficulty of the situation in which I am placed ; but I shall not trouble the House with many words before I proceed to examine the evidence which has been taken at the Bar, as well as the written documents on the table ; and to comment upon those parts to which 1 shall have particularly to refer. My leading object from the opening of this important business to the present moment, has been to obtain a fair and cool investigation of the charges I thought it my duty to bring forward against his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief. I have endeavoured to avoid every thing likely to cause irritation in the progress of the en- quiry, and in that course I shall most rigidly persevere. However I may feel hart, that motives highly injurious to my character, and not more injurious than false, Imvu been indirectly attributed to me as the ground of my pro-, ceeding, and though 1 may also have thought that in the early stage of the euc^uiry I was harshly treated^ still, f>ir, B 2 3fr. Wardle. on these points I shall make no comment, but at once proceed to a more pleasant task, that of offering my thanks where 1 feel them due. To the House for all the indulgence I met with during the arduous investigation. To his Majesty's ministers for the attention which they paid to my request, when exhausted by fatigue both of mind and body, in an early stage of the enquiry, I applied for one day's respite from my labors. To my honourable friend below me (Mr. Whitbread) for the manly support he afforded me at a moment when I did indeed stand much in want of it ; 1 know not how to express my obligation ! under such a shield I set at naught the various shafts that were levelled at me, and proceeded in conscious security. Indisposition unfortunately deprived me of the able as- sistance of an honourable and worthy Baronet (Sif Francis Burdett) M'ho early took up the cause. I feel equally obliged to him, though I lament the loss of his great abilities. Of my noble friend (Lord Folkstone) I know not how to speak. In the early stage of this important enquiry, he not only rendered me every as- sistance his zeal and great talents could command, but voluntarily committed himself with me as a direct party in the proceedings, and this too at a time when the danger and difficulty of the undertaking was the only theme on both sides of the House, and when public odium was held out as likely to fall on me. Vain would it be for me to say how much I feel indebted for his powerful exertions ; the country, I trust, will do ample justice to his manly con- duct, and appreciate the merits of his true patriotism. To many other friends 1 feel also much indebted. That his Royal Highness the Duke of York has been most ably defended, I rejoice. If his Majesty's ministers and the crown Lawyers thought it their duty to do so, they have acted most openly, which does them honour, at least it will rnnviuce the public that nothing has been left undone in Mr. Wardle. 8 the defence to render it effectual. But the Representatives of the People, ought as religiously to maintain the Rights of the people, as the servants of the King do that of th^ Crown. There is one consideration which I trust the House will not be insensible to, namslvj that whatever nvxj be due to the superior rank of his Royal Highness, still tnuch is due from the Representatives of the People t6 their constituents and the country. This, I trust, the event of this important investigation will fully justify. Oa the strength, the truth and justice of my cause, I rely as I hitherto have done throughout the whole of the pro- ceedings, and without detaining the House any longer with preliminary observations, 1 shall proceed to offer what I have to say on those parts of the evidence, to which I beg leave particularly to call the attention of the House. The 1st Case is the Exchange between LIEUTENANT COLONF.LS KNIGHT AND BROGKE. Dr. Thynne stated that he was authorised by Mr. Robert Knight to tell Mrs. Clarke, that she should receive 2001. if she would use her influence to expedite the Exchange, and remove some delays and impediments which had taken place, and that he gave their names to Mrs. Clarke on a slip of paper. Mr. Robert Knight declared that he had authorised Dr. Thynne to make this offer to Mrs. Clarke ; and Mrs. Clarke has likewise stated that Dr. Thynne made the application to her to effect the Exchange between Lieu* tenant Colonels Knight and Brooke ; that he gave her the names of both ^on a slip of paper, neither of whom she knew : she gave the same slip of paper to his Royal High- ness, and when the Exchange was effected she sent the gazette, with a note to Dr. Thynne, informing him that she was going out of town in a day or two, and that the 2001. would b',' very convenient. In consequence of this ehe received the 2001. Dr. Thynne believs the Exchaftge M 2. % Mr. Wardlt. M'as a good deal expedited by Mrs. Clarke, but a fortnight or three weeks elapsed between the application and the time the gazette was sent. Mr. Robert Knight thinks he went tliree times to the Gazette office after the application was made by Dr. Thynne to Mrs. Clarke, and did not be- come acquainted with her till the Exchange was effected, when she begged of him to keep the matter secret from the Duke of York*. Mrs. Clarke further statedf, that she informed his Royal Highness, that she did not know the parties, but that they would make her a compliment : upon her receiving the 2001. Bank note, she shewed it to him and thinks she got one of his servants to get it changed for her. It is very likely she might desire Mr. Knight to keep the matter secret, but not from the Duke of York. When she mentioned the business first to his Royal High- ness, he told her they had been trying at it some time, and that he thought one of them was rather a bad subject^ but he would do it. from the foregoing testimony of Dr. Thynne, Mr. R. Knight, and Mrs. Clarke, it must be admitted beyond a doubt that 2001. had been offered to her to use her in- fluence to expedite the Exchange, which sum was ulti- mately paid to her under the impression that she had ex- erted her influence for that purpose. The next point to be ascertained is, whether she did exert her influence, and whether the Duke of York was a party to the business. Mrs. Clark says she applied to his Royal Highness, and gave him the slip of paper she received from Dr. Thynne, containing the names of the pajties, adding at the same time they would make her a compliment, and that she did not know them. Surely there could not be a stronger * Vide the evidence of Dr. Thjnue. H. Kuig'nt, Esq. and Mrs, Clarke, IMinutes, page 1 to f. % Vide pag 7 and 8. Mr. Wardk. 5 corroboration of all this tlmn what has been given in evi- dence by Dr. Thynne, and Mr. Robert Knight. Dr. Thynne stated he gave her such slip of paper, and Mr. Knight proved that she did not then know the parties. 1 must say, that in this evidence it was not necessary for the parties to have been so minute, unless they had a strong ifiipression upon their minds as to the transaction on which they were giving testimony ; for, in proportion to the minutcnei:s with which they detailed the circum- stances, the danger of contradiction is certainly greater. A general assertion was less liable to contradiction, and consequently the minuteness of the evidence is a strong proof of its correctness. Mrs. Clarke further stated, that when she recommended the application of the parties for the Kxchange to the Commander in Chief, he said he knew the business very well, that they had been tryiVig at it for some lime ; and it appeared from the docu- ments upon the table that they had beeil^some time en- deavouring to effect the Exchange themselves, before the applicatiim had been made to Mrs. Clarke. Tliis was actually the case, and how was she to come to the knowledge of that circuni'^taiioe, except through the Commander in Chief ? His Royal Highness had said that one of them was a bad sub- ject, and it actually appeared from the papers on the table that Colonel Brooke had only served as a Cornet in a re- giment of Cavalry for four months, and out of the twelve years he had been in the army, he had been for seven years upon half pay. Unless, therefore, there were particidarly >:tr<)ng rea>ons for giving Colonel Brooke this advantage, it ought not to have been done, especially when it was considered tliat he would thus be placed in a situation vherc ho might have to command a cavalry regiment a duty of ;.',reat difficulty, and one that in ordinary cases could not have been expected to be very well performed by y person ulio harl only served in the cavalry as Cornet for 6 Mr. Wardk. the space of four months, and who had been for seven years out of twelve on half pay. Mrs. Clarke said that she shewed the notes to the Commander in Chief on the ^ay she received them, that he was going to Weymouth that night. Mr. Knight stated that he sent her the notes ^arly on the 31st July, and Colonel Gordon has given testimony that the Duke of York did go to Weymouth on the 3 1st July; and he added that he generally travelled by night, so that on both these points Mrs. Clarke is in a peculiar manner corroborated in what she has advanced. Mrs, Clarke has also stated that she thinks she got the notes changed by one of the Duke's servants through his Royal Highness. Peirson, the builer, said, that on the night that the Duke of York went to Weymouth, about 1 1 o'clock at night, he was sent out to get a bill changed ; that the Duke of York was present at the time; that the witness believed it was a bill of lOOl.; that he tried to get the bill cljapged at Stevens's in Bond-street; that he liad not succeeded ; and that he succeeded at Byfield and Bridgeman's, the confectioners, in Vere-street. I ad- mit that the evidence of Peirson was somewhat con- fused. He seemed to have been mistaken when he said that it was at Bridgeman's, and not at Stevens's, that he got the note changed. But at the same time, he certainly appeared to have spoken what was true to the best of his judgment, and with the exception of this mistake, there was every reason to give credit to his testimony, particu- larly as Mrs. Bridgeraan recollects his applying to her to have a large note changed. Mrs. Clarke had said, that fche believed that there were only two or three days be- tween the date of the exchange and the application. Dr. Th3-nne and Mr. Knight spoke positively to a fortnight or three weeks, and Mr. Knight had said that he went three times for the Gazette. That they diifered so far was clear, but ou a point such as this, it was not at all sur- Mr. fVardU. 7 prising that there should be such a variation. It was obvious that they had stated it as a case that required dispatch, and no doubt she exerted herself to eiFect the exchange as speedily as possible, for if their object was dispatch, her's was to get the money which she might lose if the affair was not hastened ; and the slip of paper to insure this point would be given to the Commander in Chief as soon as received from Dr. Thynne ; and there- fore between her application to his Royal Highness, and the parties being gazetted, there is the strongest ground to believe that at least a fortnight elapsed. There was also a variation as to the point of keeping the matter secret ; Mr. Knight, however, must have been persuaded when he gave Mrs. Clarke the 200l. that the exchange had been expedited through her influence with the Duke of York, and consequently that the Duke of York must have known it. If Mrs. Clarke therefore had desired him to keep the matter secret from the Duke of York, it was telling him that she had swindled him out of the 200l.; for if she had not used her influence with the Duke of York she had no claim to it, and if she had, the Duke must know it, and therefore Mr. Knight must have believed that the Duke of York was acquainted with the transaction. Was it credible upon any other supposition that he would have given her 2001. ? That Mrs. Clarke required secrecy in these transactions was indeed true, as appeared from tlie evidence of Mr. Corri and others. The reasons for this were obvious but it was impossible from their nature, that she could have desired secrecy, as far as con- cerned the knowledge of the Commander in Chief. Tiie letter of the Duke of York to Mrs. Clarke, respecting the application of General Clavering for a regiment a letter written with a great deal of caution, proved that he was accustomed to communicate with her on these subjects. And it further provecen only live upon full pay, should be selected for a field officer of a cavalry regiment, h'j having only served in .JO Mr. Wardle. the cavalry for four months ? This militated against the rule, for here was an officer with the full knowledge of the Commander in Chief appointed upon five years service to a situation which, according to the rule, he could not have held till he had served six years. It might be argued, that the event had proved that Colonel Brooke was well worthy of the situation ; that might be ; 1 do not know Colonel JBrooke, but probably he may have proved a meritorious Officer. That, however, was nothing at all to the question, for Colonel Gordon could have had no strong ground for the recommendation, if ever he did recommend him, about which he appeared somewhat doubtful. Taking into consideration the whole of this case, I do contend, that BO reason >vhatever has been shewn to satisfy the House that the Exchange was carried into effect through any other medium than the influence of Mrs. Clarke over the Commander in Chief. The next case to which I shall have to call the attention of the House is that of CAPTAIN MALING. With regard to this case, although in compliance with sentiments expressed, when it was first offered to the con- sideration of the Committee, 1 consented to withdraw it, I sincerely rejoice that the Committee did not think pro- per to accede to that proposition, for I now conceive it to be a case as interestingr to the Officers of the Army as any other whatever. It was admitted, that at the time of his promotion there were a great number of Officers who wished to purchase, and many, his seniors, distinguished for long and meritorious services who wished to be promoted. This was admitted by Colonel Gordon ; and it appeared that the only reason for the preference given to Captain Mahng, was his unexceptionable charac- ter and assiduity. But the question was, why had he been Mr. Wardh. 11 put over the heads of so many other officers of acknow- ledged service as well as abihty ? This gentleman, though assiduous and of an unexceptionable character, had never been out of England ; and I would ask, whether it was not improper, not to say corrupt, to raise him over th heads of sc many officers of long and distinguished ser- vice? On the 28th November 1803, Captain Maling was appointed to an Ensigucy in the 87th Regt. and made a captain in the Royal African Corps on the 15th September 1808 ; so that in less than three years he was put over the heads of many very meritorious subalterns. This was ad- mitted by Col. Gordon and that there were several su- balterns in the army senior to Captain Maling anxious at the time of his promotion to a company {without pur- chase) to purchase ; and all he states in favour of Captaia Maling's promotion, is that he was a very unexceptionable gentleman : still, however, I am at a loss for the military services of Captam Mali.g, that gave him a claim of su- perseding so many old officers. I am ready to admit that every Commander in Chief should have the power of re- warding brilliant services by irregular and rapid promo- tion, but if officers are so promoted, without having dis- tinguished themselves by military exploit or highly me- ritorious services, I maintain such promotions are acts of corruption ! In the progress of this investigation, it came out that there was another Maling in the office with Col. Gor- don, who, it seems, was made a Captain without any mili- tary service whatever, who never joined any regiment, and whose only recommendation was his assiduity under Col, Gordon. It is preposterous and not to be tolerated that a gentleman, for services at Col. Gordon's desk should be rewarded with military rank and honours, to the prejudice of officers of brilliant Jtid distinguished character, who have encouutercd toil and peril in all parts of the globe, whilst it Mr. Wardle. Captain Mailing hr.s basked in the sunshine of Horse guards favor, wielding no other weapon than his pen. I do then, Sir, maintain that Captain Maling, who Colonel Gordon states never to have rendered any military services', ought not to be a Ciptain in the Army. I must be allowed to go fitrthcr, and say that he ought not to be put on the half pay, which Col. Gordon said was in agita- tion, for if he is, it is a direct violation of an Act of Parlia- ment which provides that no officer who had never joined any Regiment should be put on half pay. I trust the House will now see the necessity of limiting the power of the Commander in Chief in such cases as this, other- wise corrupt practices will be continued. Col. Gordon's own case is rather singular, I am dis- posed to give bini full and implicit credit for his gallant services in his military profession, but I contend his mili- tary services are not of that brilliant nature to entitle him to a Regiment, to the prejudice of a long list of old and meritorious officers!* However lightly this subject may have been treated by the House, I hope I have clearly shewn the great abuse that has resulted, and is likely to result, from giving an unlimited power of this nature to any Commander in Chief. COLONEL French's levy. This case is extremely important, and clearly shews Mrs. Clarke's decided influence with the Commander in Chief. It must be admitted, from the evidence of Captitin Sandon, Mr. Corri, Mr. Dowler, Mr. Grant, and Mrs. Clarke, that pecuniary reward was offered to her for her in- * By this appointment, 29 Lt. Generals, 84 Major Generals, 150 Colonels, and IGO Lt. Colonels were passed over. h\ addition to this, lie is, I bojicrc the only Lt, Coionci in t'lf British Army nho has a Rctrltxicut. Pen, Mr. Wardh. IS Jtiience, and that she received considerable sums uniler that impression. The next point to be considered is, >vhether she possessed such influence, and whether she used it ou this occasion. Mr. Grant proves that Colonel Prench told him a Mrs. Clarke had procured his letter of nervice. Mr. Dowler proves that Colonel French applied to Mrs. Clarke for alterations in the Levy Captain San- don proves that he was tifty times with her on the buiiness, and Mrs. Clarke says she was teased to death, and gave their notes unopened to the Duke. This traliic continued for months, and the parties continue from time to time to pay Mrs Clarke money. Is it not then clear that she must have proved again and again by the use of her influence, that she possessed it. Captain Huxley Sandon stated that he applied to Mrs. Clarke to procure her influence for himself and Colonel French in this Levy that they were to pay her oOOl. upon receiving the letter of service, and that she was to have 20001. if the Levy succeeded that she had been paid several sums in the progress of the bu- siness. Mr. Corri stated, that he was to receive 2001. for introducing them to Mrs. Clarke j that -she said she could, recommend none but persons of character ; and that it would be necessary for them to go through the regular forms at the War Office ; that in the month of J uly 'j 804, she had desired him to destroy her letters. Mr. Dowler spoke to the alteration in the terms, by which the number of boys was to be increased, and by which M rs. Clarke for her good offices was to receive a guinea per man. Mr. Dowler had also stated, that he had advised her not to trouble her- self with matters of this sort, and that she alleged as the reason, that she was forced to do it, bccaujse the Duke of York did not supply her with money for her establishment,' ^Ir. Grant, the agent for the levy said, he understood that it was to be obtained through the influence of Mrs. Clarke, y(\i^ "ii^ to b paid 500L immediately. He also i^)ok 14 Mr. JVardle. to the alteration to be procured through Mrs. Clarke's in- fluence, and to the loan to be advanced to the Duke of York upon payment of the arrears. Mrs. Clarke also said, that she received the 500l.and had paid them to Bur- kitt, the silversmith, for plate, and the remainder of the price of the plate she believed to have been paid by the Commander in Chief, for he, as she imagined, had told her so. Miss Taylor stated, that the Duke of York said to Mrs. Clarke in her presence, " 1 am continually worried by Colonel French he worries me continually about the levy business, and is always wanting something more in his own favour how does he behave to you darling ?" To which Mrs. Clarke replied " middling, not very well ;" upon which the Duke of York said, ^' master French must mind what he is about, or I shall cut up him and his levy too ;" bills were also drawn on the Duke of York relative to this business, and liquidated by his checks upon Couts's Louse. It is manifest, from this evidence, that Mrs. Clarke had received from these parties, a pecuniary reward for her influence with the Duke of York ; and thatsurns had been advanced her from the impression that she had exerted that influence with effect. The next point was, whether she actually had that influence to which she pretended. Cap- tain Saudon said, that he had been fifty times with her upon this business ; and she said that she was teazed to death by him and Colonel French upon this subject, and that she gave their notes unopened to the Duke of York. It appeared that they had paid her 1700l. in small sums in the course of the transaction, which they would never have done had they not been fully con- vinced that she actually possessed the influence over the Duke of York's mind, to which she pretended. The letters of Mrs. Clarke to Captain Sandon, I contend, af- ford positive proofs of her influence with his Royal IJigh- Mr. War die, 15 ness. She said, in No. 28*, " I gave the papers to his Royal Highness; he read them while with me, said, he still thought men high, but that an answer would be left at his office in the way of business. 1 told him, if any was appointed, to give the Colonel the preference burn this as soon as read I don't comprehend exactly what you mean by five other things, 1 don't think it possible.** In this letter, Mrs. Clarke stated what she had done with the papers, the Duke's remark upon them, and she pointed out where Capt. Sandon would receive an answer ; and it is here worthy of remark, that it appears from this letter, that official regulariti/ formed part of her system, as well as of that of Colonel Gordon's ; and that she attended to the proceeding* at the Horse-Guards, as well as to those in Gloucester-place. It was impossible Mrs. Clarke could have made such com- munications to Capt. Sandon, unless she actually possessed the influence over the Duke of York which the parties believed her to enjoy. In No. 31, she said, " I hope you will attend the Duke to day, as Clinton leaves him on Thursday, and he has all the writings for you in hand ; he will not leave his office till six. I shall be glad of 100 guineas, if possible, this week." Here she said that Clinton was to leave the Duke on a particular day, that he had all the papers in hand, and that the Duke would not leave the office till six. She wished to send Captain Sandon to the office to attend the Duke. How could she have known these circumstances about Clinton, and the several other matters, unless she had a direct communication with the office and the Commander in Chief; and must not Capt. Sandon have had positive proof of the part she took iu his concerns, when he waited upon tlie Commander in Chief, by her appointment, to talk over the very communicatiom Vide Mrs. Clarke's Letters. 16 Mr. Wardk. made to him hy Mrs. Clarke herself. h\ No. 39, she said, ^* I am told an answer is left out for Colonel French, at the office, and that now he has dropped three guineas per man." This was another proof of the fact which he had stated ; that unless she had been in the constant habit of communicating with the Commander iiT Qiief, she must have betrayed herself to Captain Sandon, at every turn ; in one instance she speaks of a fact, the tmth or fallacy of which was perfectly known to Captain Sandon. In No. 1 1 , she said, " You ar to have the bounty that Pitt is to give to the line, so that every thing goes on well. I told him that I should see you at Vauxhali on Monday." Here is a di- rect and official report ; had it been false the event must have ruined her credit. In No. 8, she said, '* The Duke told me this morning you must get on faster with your men he has written to town for that purpose you had belter send me the exact number of all you have sent, and I will show it him." Here she called for documents as an agent to transmit them to the Commander iu Chief. Could any one, after attending to the state- ments in these letters, really persuade himself that she could possibly have done all this without a commuuicatiott on the subject with tlie Commander in Chief f h\ No. 10, she said, ^' she thought it best that Sandon should not come to her box that evening, as Greenwood was to be at the theatre with the Duke, and if he saw her and Sandon together he might say something about the levy business, and hurt their future interests." In her evidence she stated, that if she and Sandon were seen together it might occasion a suspicion about tiieir connection in the levy business, that might be injurious to tliem. This ap- prehension was very reasonable; because if any such sus- picion should arise in Greenwood's mind, he might state it to the Duke of York, who might Had himself obliged Mr, Wardk. 17 to put an end to the levy; or place liiraself in a very un- pleasant predicament. In No. 6, she said, *' He will do it, so let the proposals be sent in by when he gets to town, Tchich will be as soon as you get this, for one thousand at first. The Duke of Cambridge has already four thousand. You have not any occasion to be very particular as to their being Protestants, for I don't think it of any consequence to hira : I think you had better attend him on Tuesday to ask his opinion of the papers sent in on Saturday^ as I told him I had seen the proposals which you intendetl to alter and leave that evening." This letter related to the German levy, and it is rather extraordinary, that of the documents on the table, none eould be found that referred to that transaction. Yet Colonel French sent parties to Germany, and this letter alone was sufficient to prove that he did so, through the influence of Mrs. Clarke. There were other letters that confirmed this, and from the whole of them> there could be no doubt whatever of the in- fluence which Mrs. Clarke possessed over the Duke's mind ; and as little doubt of his being in the constant habit of using it. From this letter it appears that she had been acting the part of Commander in Chief herself. She said .she had seen the proposals, and directs Captain Sandon to attend at the Horse-Guards for the final decisionupon them ! The next letter I shall refer to is No. 15. The Duke is very angry with you, for when he last saw you, you promised him 300 foreigners, and you have not produced one. ' O yes .? Master Sandon is a pretty fellow to depend upon." Now in this letter she communicates a direct pronns^ made by Captain Sandon to the Duke of Yoik ? If no such promise had been made, would she not have stood self- convicted to Captain Sandon, and ulio but the Duke him- self could have told her of this proniise ? but Sir, I am aware I have proved, incontroverlibly proved, that Mrs. Clark did possess* and exercise her influence over the c 18 ' Mr, JVardle. Commander in Chief, through the whole progress of this levy, and it is mmecessary to dwell longer on this point. But here I beg to remark, that the evidence arising from these letters, written at a moment when she had the full confidence and protection of the Commander in Chief, confirms in every point, that evidence she has now given, when she enjoys neither his confidence or protection. The next point teas, ^ihetker he knew that Mrs. Clarke took mone\f for the exercise of that injiuence. It was natural, certainly, for the Commander in Chief had he not himself been a party to have asked her why she took such interest in these transactions he must have known that there could be no reason for any strong disin- terested friendship for tiie parties, and the only answer she could give, was^ the true one, that they supplied her with jnoney. He said, that she told this to the Commander in Chief, and every circumstance connected with the case corroborated her assertion. Mrs. Clarke even stipulated for accommodation for the Duke himself. Another cir- cumstance speaks strongly to Mrs. Clarke's having no fear of the Commander in Chief knowing of her various money transactions with Captain Sandon ; for frequent as her ap- plications in her letters to him were for money, still not the smallest caution as to the time or mode of payment ! No hint even in these letters that his Royal Highness must not know of the monei) negotiation. Could she then have been afraid of exposure to him? and does not this prove him a party ? Another point was the expence of the estabiishment in Gloucester-place, which I hope will be kept in view through every part of the dis- cussion. Witiiout some such method as this for pro- curing money, his Royal Highness mu^-t l;ave known that Mrs. C'larke could not have supported their establishment. Then there was the evidence of Miss Taylor, as to his knowledge that Mrs. Clarke derived pecuniary advantage from this lew. '' How does French behave to vou Darl- Mr. Wardle. 10- ing," were his words; and when Mrs. Clarke said, " mid- dling not very well ;" he observed, " Master French had better mind what he is about, Sec. Sic." how could there be testimony more natural more conclusive than all this? If there had been nothing else but this to prove the know- letlge of the Duke of York, as to the taking money by Mrs. Clarke, still with this alone, the proof ought to be considered as incontrovertible. In corroboration of his Royal Highness's possessing a knowledge of the pecuniary emoluments derived by Mrs. Clarke from the Levy, Mr. Wardle adduced the case of Major Tonyn, where it was in evidence by Captain Sandon and Mr. Grant, that 5001. were, on ac- count of that promotion, to be paid to Mrs, Clarke. Mr. Dowler saw the money paid ; the person belonging to the House of Mr. Birkett proved, that about the same period 6001. part of the amount of a service of plate, had been paid by Mrs. Clarke, and the balaiKC by the Duke of York's own notes. Tiiis circutnstance, I conceive, is conclusive as to the Duke of York's knowledge of the trans- action. His Uoyal Highness must,' from his granting bills only for the balance, have known that the 500l. had been paid by her; he must also have known that he Inmsclf had not given her money to enable her to pay tiiis 5001. What was more natural, therefore, or did it not rather fol- low as a necessary consequence, that he should have asked her, had he been ignorant of the transaction, wiicre, and in what manner she piocured the money to pay this oOOl. to account of a service of plate, for the balance of which ho granted his own notes. I confess, that, with the full exercise of all due chaiity on the occasion, ] cannot conceive his Koyal Highness to be ignorant either of the one tr;u)saction or of tlie other. That a particular ne months, at >vhich period Government had said, if 4000 men were not raised, the levy would b discontinued ; whereas there were not then ^QO men ac tuallv raised when this was communicated to the Com- mander in Ciiief, accompanied by particular charges of a most infamous and detestable kind when it was shewn that the country, overloaded as it was with taxes_, was paying for this levy 1501. a man with such a document before the Commander in Chief, was it not matter of sur- prise that the influence of Mrs. Clarke, or of any other person, should have been so sti'ong as to induce him to allow that peniieious system to continue for a moment ? If h was not the influence of Mrs. Clarke, what could it be that could actuate him to continue this vile, abominable levy, when only 200 had been raised, instead of 4000, and at such an exorbitant expence ? This, ho^vcver, was not the course of his Royal Highness. He did not stop the levy, even after this document was before him, but al- lowed it to go on, with this gentle hint, that " unless a very considerable increase should take place in the num- bers recruited, prior to the 1st of April next, he would feel himself under the necessity of recommending to his Majesty to discontinue a levy so unproductive." The an- fiwev, however, communicated by General Taylor was, that he had formed a premature judgment on the probable suc- cess of the exertions of Colonel French, and that the terms of that officer's letter of service were not allowed him. What ! Colonel French's levy had existed for nine months; within that period he had not raised 200 men, although, by his letter of service, he ought to have raised four thou- sand ; and yet, when the Brigadier-General of the district re- prestnted tlie case to tlie Conmiander in Chi<>f, he was to be told that he had formeil a premature judgment in the case! W hat is the House to think, if such things as thc^e arc lo c 3 <22 Mr. Tfardk. be tolerated ? The next document on the subject, was the letter of General Whitelocke to the Office of the Comman- der in Chief, dated 14th of April, 1805, recommending that on account of the great expence, as well as the dis-r graceful conduct of the Non-Commissioned Officers, the propriety of discontinuing the Levy so burdensome and un- productive. This letter also conveyed a Noia bene, re- minding his Royal Highness of his resolution, unless a very considerable increase should take place by the 1st of April, that the Levy should be discontinued. There was another letter accompanying this, from the inspecting Field Officer, stating a variety of crimes and irregularities committed by the Non-commissioned Officers, who were even said to be busily employed in crimping for other corps. Then fol- lows a letter from the Commander in Chief to the Secre- tary at War, of the l6lh of April, stating, that as it ap- pears by the returns of the joint Levy, that it is not so pro-? ductive as might have been expected, it was to be discon- tinued. This was the mild sentence of the Commander in Chief passed on tlie Officers and Non-commissioned Offi- cers, who had been engaged in the abominable practices complained of. This was his mild conduct when he was called on to do justice between the Public and a man pro- tected by his own Mistress. Is there any man v ho hears me that can believe that such a Levy would be allowed for a single moment longer, after these representations, to dis- grace the service? On the 20th of April following, Colonel French and Captain Sandon submitted to the consideration of the Commander in Chief, the continuance of the Levy under certain modifications ; and the ansv>er given to thq proposition was, that his Royal Highness cannot give any farther encouragement to the prosecution of a Levy, u hich has turned oiit so unprofitable to the public service. Tliis ^vas the nature of the answer given by the Commander ia Chief J but I venture to affirm, that under any 'other in-' Mr. Wardlc, S8 fluence than that of Mrs. Clarke, such an insult as proposing on any terms to continue such a Levy, would never have been suffered to pass over. Those official documents aloue, I think are sufficient to convince any impartial man of the undue influence by which the Levy in question was sup- ported. Those documents afforded satisfactory proof, that the Levy was continued after there was evidence of incal- culable injury havmg been produced by its existence to the country. For every guinea Mrs. Clarke received in conse- quence of this Levy, the people paid upwards of 140l. and a more destructive system in other respects was never car- ried on uuder any Govermnent. If after all this there was any man who would say that the Duke of York did not stand convicted of being a party to this transaction, I am of opinion that there is no evidence on earth which, in the judgment of such persons, could make him privy to it, MAJOR TONYN's case. I shall now proceed to the case of Major Tonyn. Capt. Sandon slated the agreement to pay Mrs. Clarke 5001. on Capt. Tonyn's promotion to a Majority being gazetted, and Oonovau produced a memorandum of that sum having been lodged m the hands of a Banker. Captain Sandon also stated that Captain Tonyn began to be out of humour on account of the delay, and to threaten to take back his money. fie communicated his dissatisfaction to Mrs. Clarke, who called him a shabby fellow, and that he had better wait. That he consented to wait for a week or two longer. Captain Sandon reported this to Mrs. Clarke, and INlajor Tonyn was gazetted on the Saturday or Tuesday following. Mrs. Clarke's evidence went to this, that she reconunended Major Tonyn to the Commander in Chief ; that he was promoted through her means; and that she received oOOl. on that account. In this she was corrobo- rated by Sandon, who proved that the money was paid, c 4 <|4 Mr. Wardh. ^nd Major Tonyn promoted. Also that he had shewn to Major Tonyn a note from the Duke of York, by which he was induced to wait. Written evidence on this point, consists principally of letters from Mrs. Clarke to Sandop. In one she slated, that she had mentioned Tonyn to the Puke, and that he was perfectly agreeable- In another, that the Duke told her, he was so busy with the reviews on the Coast, that Major Tonyn could not be mad.e for a month. He actually was not made for upwards of three week*, and the reviews of the Coast were going on at that time. In another, she tells Captain Sandon that neither General Tonyn nor his son have any influence with the, Duke. That his Royal Highness had ordered the Major to be gazetted, but that it was entirely owing to her (Mrs. Clarke). The Duke also told her of other applications which were making at the same time, which she related, and which shewed that she had daily communications on military subjects with the Commander in Chief. From another letter it appeared that there Nvas some objection to Tonyn's appointment. There Nvas no doubt of a regular official recommendation, but this was a circumstance, of which, at all limes, Mrs. Clarke was perfectly a>vare. She gaid she told the Commander in Chief she was to have a pecuniary consideration. Sandon states, thqt Tonyn wtS gazetted on tlie Tuesday following, and it was hardly pos- sible to figure that it was not through her means. There was not to my mind a more convincing proof than the few words contained in the note addressed to Geo. Farquhar, Jlsq. of the privity of the Duke of York to the whole trans- action It had been strongly urged that Mrs. Clarke had forged this note ; but, if this had been the case, she could never have thought of unnecessarily involving herself by directing to George Farquhar a note to be shewn to MaJQr To^iyn. He could know nothhig of the name of George J'arquiiar, It would have been more natuicd, when vyrit- Mr. Wardh: ten for the express purpose of convincing Major Tonyn, that she had some power over the Duke of York, that the card should have been addressed to herself. The circum- stance, however, of its being addressed to George Far- quhar, must convince any man tliat it was the Commander in Chief's own writing. It was to be observed, if Captain ^ndon was, if not liostile to tlie present enquiry, at least not friendly to it : but Mrs. Clarke did not seem to have been at all cautious as to the entrusting this note to Cap- ^n Sandon, vyhich sjhe would assuredly not have done had it been a tbrgeiy. How then could she have induced tlic jCoiumander in Chief to write such a note as this, but by tlie very statement, that his not doing so would occasion ta Jier a loss of 500l ; as without such a note she could not deter Major Tonyn from withdrawing, out of his bankers, the 50()l. which he had placed there, to be paid pver to her, on being gazetted. COLONEL SHAw''s CASE. The next is that of Colonel Shaw, in whose behalf aa application had been made to Mrs. Clarke to procure liira au appointment on the staff. Mrs. Clarke's evidence went to this, tliat she did recommend Colonel Shaw to the Com- mander in Chief for this staff appointment, and procured it fur him. That the sqm to be paid her was 5001. but that 2001. only were paid ; and that not having received jhe remaining 200l. she complained to the Commander in Chief, who stated that he would put him on half-pay. JSir. (Charles Shaw corroborated the fact as to the payment of ilie 3OOI. but denied that it had been made in consequence ay. The very interest, on the idea that these recommen- dations are all on the subject, which had repeatedly failed hi procnring promotion or exchange, proves, all at once, equal to raise him to the rank of Colonel, aivd to place him on the staff, and that in the space of three days, I ask if it is probable, that a person who had formerly and repeatedly failed in all his applications of inferior importance, should, all at once, be able for the same person to procure a lu- crative situation, and the rank of Colonel ? Was it possi- ble, I ask, to doubt, that this was rather done through the influence of Mrs. Clarke ? I hope the House will bear ii> mind the probabilities and possibilities of her influence. That they w ould bear in mind her letters to Clavering on mi- itary, and to Di. O'Meara on church preferments, and then Mr. WanJte. 7 say if her influence over the Commander in Chief did not allow her to shew it on far greater occasions than that of the appoiutnient. of Colonel Shaw. There was only one other point in this case, and that is his being put on half pay. The letter on the Minutes of the Committee from Colonel Shaw to Mrs. Claike on this subject, shew, that he regarded himself as an injured uud h^hly oppressed man ; and tliat he attributes his reduction to half pay to Mrs. Clarke, in consequence of his having failed in pay- Uient to her of the whole of the lOOOl. stipulated to be paid to her. CASE OF MR. DOWLER. Tliis gentleman stated, that ^Irs. Clarke first suggested to h;ni that she could procure him a situation in the Com- missary Department, Afterwards she told him that in consequence of an application made by Mr. Long, Mr. Maiiby nmst first be gazetted. He (Mr. Dowler) never tuoK any step iocTtpedite the business, nor applied to any other .channel but that of Mrs. Clarke ; that he paid lier lOOOl. for the appointment ; and that she told 4iim tke DuKc knew of liis doing so. I submit that the mention of what passed as to Mr. Long and Mr. !Manby was cor- roborative, of tliis testimony, and put it beyond a doubt, by shewing that Mrs. Clarke had such communications with the Duke of York. Mr, Long, too, confirmed it so far as he was concerned, and. there being no vestige of any other recommendation; it must be taken that it proceeded l^olely from the influence of Mrs. Clarke. CASE OF SAMUEL CAKTER. !Mrs. Clarke stated, that Sanuicl Carter was Ler foot boy ; waited on iiis Iloyyl {I'ghness, who knew him per- fectly well ; ihut he went behiiul the can iai^e, &.c. she ob- taiiu-d for him a coiumifcwon from the Commander in Chief* fi Mr. Wardle, lie went into the army direct from her service. In this statement she was corroborated by several witnesses. A Tcommendationof this Samuel Carter, in December 1801, had been produced from the office. To March 1 804, the pplicalion had never been renewed. It was apparent, therefore, it could not be on the recommendation in the year 1801, that the commission had been granted ; for kowever well disposed the Office might have been towards liis application, to have given effect to it, they must have inown that he was alive, and the place of his residence, which could not be the case without a fresh Memorialt It was obvious therefore, that this was through the influ- ence of Mrs. Clarke. The cases of General Clavering and of Dr. O'Meara, shew to what extent Mrs. Clarke's influ- ence went, and made it difficult to say where it might stop. It was no great stretch, therefore, to say, that this appoint- jBCDt had taken place through her means. MAJOR TURNEH^S CASK. On this case I shall only observe,that this gallant officer, who had seen a great deal of service, was impeded in his desire to sell out, in consequence of a letter from Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland, notwithstandmg the recommenda- fion of the General of the Regiment, Colonel Gordon had said attention would have been paid to an anonymous letter. In a case of this kind, an anonymous letter was better than Mrs. Sinclair's, for in it there might have begn something ; but that in consequence of a letter from such a source as this, a stop should have been put to the course of public business, that a stigma should be supposed for a moment to attach to the character of an officer former- ly without staiuj was unbecoming indeed. It was an honour to Major Turner to have his character cleared, but dishonour just in the same ratio attached to the f iher party, and if the Commander iu Chief will attach Mr, Wardle. 9Q himself to sucli a \roman a^ that; a&d make liirtiself a pafty with her^ part of the di^race must attach to him too There was only one other case to which I wish to allude, and that is the case of Robert Kennett. But I have al- ready detained the House too long. I have lexerted my- self to the best of my ability to do my duty. I have stated my sentiments distinctly and without disguise ; and at the same time iiave endeavoured to abstain from any thing which the evidence did not warrant. It would be the last action of my life unnecessarily to hurt the feelings of the illustrious person who is the object of the present in- quiry ; but on the present occasion I had no choice. The country look to this House to decide on the conduct of the Commander iu Chief* This House, I am satisfied, will do its duty ; and with whatever decision it comes to I shall be content. I therefore conclude by moving That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, Inimbly stating to his Majesty, that information has beea communicated to this House, and evidence produced to support it, of various corrupt practices and otlier abusei having prevailed for some years past, in the disposal of Commissions and Promotions in his Majestv's Land Forces that his Majesty's faithful Commons, according to the duty by which tliey are bound to his Majesty and to their Constituents, have carefully examined into the trulh of sundry transactions which have been brought before them, ID proof of such corrupt practices and abuses ; and that it is with the utmost concern and astonishment his Majes- ty's faithful Commons fmd themselves obliged, most hum- bly, to inform his Majesty, that the result of their diligent inquiries into the facts, by the examination of persons concerned, together with other witnesses, and a variety of documents, has been such as to satisfy his faithful Com- mons, that the existence of suth cornn^t practices and abuses i itub^tautjially true. dn Mr. Wardle. That his Majesty's faithful Commons are restrained \rf motives of personal respect and attachment to his Majesty^ from entering into a detail of these transactions, being convinced that they could not be stated without exciting- the most painful sensations of grief and indignation in the breast of his Majesty : That the proceedings of his Ma- jesty *s faithful Commons upon this important subject have ibeen public, and the evidence brought before them is re- corded in the proceedings of Parliament ; and that they trust his Majesty will give them credit, when they assure his Majesty, that in the execution of this painful duty they have proceeded with all due deliberation. That without entering into any other of tiie many obvious consequences "which may be expected to follow, from the belief once generally established, of the prevalence of such abuses in the Military Department, there is one great and essential consideration inseparable from the present subject, which they humbly beg leave, in a more particular manner, to submit to his Majesty's gracious con^sideration, namely, that if an opinion should prevail amongst his ^Majesty's Land Forces, that promotion may be obtained by other means than by merit and service by means at once unjust to the Army and disgraceful to the authority placed over it, the effect of such an opijiion must necessarily be, to wound the feelings and abate the zeal of all ranks and de- scriptions of his Majesty's army. That it is the opinion of this House, that the abuses >vhich they have thus most humbly represented to his Majesty, could not have prevailed to the extent in which (hey had been proved to exist, witiiout the knowledge of the Com- mander in Chief; and that even if, upon any principle of reason or probability, it could be presumed that abuses so various and so long continued could, in fact, have pre- vailed without his kuovvledge, such a presumption in his favour would not warrant the conclusion, that the com* Mr, Burton^ 3i VMtnd of die Army could, with safety, or ought, in pra^ kce, to be continued in his hands. 19iat on these grounds and principles his Majesty's faith- ful Commons most humbly submit their opinion to lii Majesty's gracious consideration, that his Royal Higlwiess the Duke of York ought to be dq)rivdof the Comwiuid f the Army. The motion being seconded, Mr. Bu RTON declared he had felt it his duty to bestow on the piesent case all that attention to which its iip(M't> ance entitled it. He had had the pleasure for thirty yeiws of knowing the Honourable Gcntiemini v;ho lind brought forward this business, and had occasion to admire his eal, skill, and bravery, in his command in Irelatid. When ho came to the present investigation, therefere, he felt a bias for rather than against it ; he should therefore be acquitted of any partiality in having now brought his mind to a very different conclusion. He should state to the House the way in which he had made up his judgment. First he had attended during the examination of the witnesses, for the purpose of judging, as far as a peison in his state could do, of the mode in which they severally gave their testi- mony. He had since had tlie whole read over to him once; part of it twice; aud the greater part three times* He had then thrown out of consideration that sinful par^ of the connection which unfortunately too clearly attached to the Royal Person who was the object of the luquiiy, for that was not the subject of consideration. His next bject was to disencumber the proceedings of all that was not strictly evidence in a Court of Law. It niiglit be ob- jected, v^hy did he not do this in liie Committee.' His answer was, the business of the Conmiittee was one thing ; Ills duty now was another. In its inquisitorial capacity the Committee could not be limited ; it wu:i not only to hear evidence; hut to vudeavour to rift it ciut, ;a)d to trace it to Sa Mr. Burton* dte fountain head. But when the House came to decide^ it was their duty to throw aside all hearsay evidence ; evefy thing that did not arise from the knowledge of the parties. The next thing was to disencumber it of the evidence of such witnesses as would not be heard, at least would not be credited, in a court of justice. Of this kind were accomplices, whose testimony was not corroborated by other unimpeachable witnesses, and that, too, in points which connect the crime with the party accused. If the law were otherwise, the life, liberty, and property of every person in this country would be at the mercy of the foulest of Mien. The Learned Gentleman said, that the statements before ihe House upon this subject^ as they bore upon the accus- ed, came from persons who were either so contradicted by themselves, or by others, that they could not claim credit in any court of justice whatever. In this situation stood many, if not all the material witnesses. Of this descrip- tion he particularly instanced the case of Captain Huxley Sandon and Mrs. Favery. The House must recollect that Mrs. Favery not only contradicted herself, but was contradicted by others who were unimpeachable in their character. She stated upon her first examination, that Mr. Ellis, in whose service she had lived, was a carpenter, that he had no settled residence ^that he took lodgings from place to place that she believed him to be dead. She indeed could not name the street in which she lived with him, although she was in his service for two years and a half. She did not go into the country with his children. He was flying from one place to another in order to avoid his creditors. But how did this fact turn out, and why that Mr. Ellis was a respectable clergyman, that he was master of the Merchant Taylor's School, that far from seeking to screen himself from his creditors, he had resided for several years in the same house, that Mis. Faveiv had Mr. Burton. S3 gone to the country with his children, and that he had never gone to any other place from his usual residence but Brighton. It also api)eared in the testimony of Mr. I^Uis, that Mrs. Tavery and Mrs. Clarke were so familiar tiiat he conceived them to be relations. Upon this evi- dence, indeed, he should be ashamed to dwell, as there were so many material points (between 10 and 15) in which she was decidedly contradicted, and which rendered it impossible for any just man to attach credit to any thmg she alleged, or any corroboration she affected to afford to others. Her testimony, therefore, he should entirely 1;^ out of consideration, as a Judge must such a witness ad- duced in any case affecting even the meanest prisoner. To die testimony of Huxley Sandon, he did not think it ne- cessary to allude, as the misconduct of that person was so glaring as to incur the immediate and signal chastisement of the House. And, with regard to Mrs. Clarke, he w ould britily say, that he did not consider her as entitled to any degree of attention, he meant as " coiuiecting the offence widi the offender." Having had the allegations of that woman read to him; also having heard her before the Committee ; and having closely attended to her through- out, he had hi his recollection and the notes to which re- collection reft Tied were in his pocket, that there were no less than C8 instances in which she had contradicted her- self, in all of which, with the exception of one or two, she was also contradicted by other persons, who could set the world at defiance w ith respect to any impeachment of their character and en dibility. All these instances he could not pretend to tnunicrate from memory, but he could refer to them if requisite, and the rc&ult of his consideration of her tcstitnony was a comi)lete conviction that it deserved no credit. L})on her examination or cross-examination, no- Oiing could be obtained that was likely to make against her. iShc had no knowl'-d^'e of any such things, or she could not o S4 Mr. Burton. recollect. Her memory was peculiarly accommodating. When interrogated, whether she had generally represented herself as single or married for particular purposes ; she did not recollect that she ever did state that she was a wi- dow, but once at a Court-Martial, and at another time for a joke; yet proof was afterwards offered directly contra- dicting her. It was proved, upon the evidence of Few, that she gained credit from him, describing herself as a widow, stating also that her husband had been but a short time dead. But if there were gentlemen indisposed to pay any attention to Few, would they not give credit to Ni- cholls, (hear, hear, on the opposition bench), to whom she stated, that she had been a widow only three months. (Upon a cry of hear, hear, the learned Gentleman cor- rected himself, and stated three years). Was it not known, in fact, that notwithstanding this woman's representation, that she had only twice said she was a widow, and that she went by no other name but Clarke, the reverse was the case, and particularly in the instance of Dowler; and any person so disposed to trifle with evidence as to reject the allegation of four persons upon this point? Did she not go by the name of Dowler at Hampstcad ? Nay, did it not appear that she described herself, although living separate, as actually married to that man? Did she not, in fact, assume different characters and capacities, but, above all, the name of her particular Dowler ? The assumption of this name, indeed, was quite manifest from the deposition of Mr. Reid, of Slaughter's Coffee-house. This man could not be supposed one of the conspiracy insinuated to exist for the purpose of defaming the evidence brought be- fore the Conmiittee ; and what did he state? Why, that Mrs. Clarke came to his house as Mrs. Dowler; that, in- deed, he would not have received her in any other charac- ter ; that he would have been ashamed to do so. The testimony of lieid, the House would rememberj was sup- Mr. Burton.' 9$ ported by that of his waiter and porter (a laugh). The learned Gentleman deprecated the attempt to laugh away the character of a poor honest man. This porter alleged, not only that Mrs. Clarke was considered as Mrs. Dowler at his master's house, but that he took wine to two places to Mrs. Dowler, to Bedford-place and Westbournc- place and was he told at either of these places that there wag no Mrs. Dowler there ? No, the wine was received and the name thus acknowledged. But he Would not rack his memory by looking for the various instances which oc- curred in this woman's evidencej to prove that his descfipK tion of her was just. He would repeat his averment, that there were no less than twenty-eight such instances, and the impression upon his mind regarding her was conse- quently this, that were he sitting as Judge in any Court Nvhere such a witness was presented, he should feel it his bounden duty to stale to the Jury that her testimony should be entirely excluded from the consideration of the Jury, so far as it affected the party accused he would deem it quite extraneous. There were two questions for the House to consider upon this woman's evidence, which in their nature were quite distinct First, as it related to cor- rupt acts ; and next, as it connected the party accused with that corruption. He would not detain the House upon the first, for it was undeniable that many corrupt and foul proceedings had taken place in which this woman was im- plicated; but the evidence connecting such conduct with the party acctised was very scanty indeed. An inquiry into the minutes of this evidence, and reference to papers, he must leave to others who were, from the possession o{ the blessing of which he was deprived, more competent to the business. [The Learned Gentleman has to deplore the loss of sight.] But there were some points to which, from memory, he was enabled to call the attention of the House. First, theti; as to the case of Knight and Brooke, i> 2 36 Mr. Burton. and the payment of 200l. to Mrs. Clarke for lier affected interest in promoting the exchange of those officers, any iniphcation of the Duke of York in that transaction rested wholly upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, If her evidence was left out of view, there was nothing, he averred, " to connect the offence with the offender." Her evidence, indeed, was completely contradicted by the testimony of Colonel Gordon, who was so fully competent to speak to the whole of the proceedings, and who, from the intelli- gence, consistency and correctness which he manifested throughout his examination was eminently entitled to at- tention. But what was the statement of Mrs. Clarke ? It was clear that she received 200l. for a corrupt transaction. Well then, she asserts that it was with the privity of the Duke of York ; but what is the proof? First, who paid the money, and what circumstances occurred to prove the Duke's privity.^ Mrs. Favery stated that she took the note . down stairs from her mistress to have it exchanged when the Duke was gone into the country. (No! No ! from the Opposition Benches !) Going then, said the Learned Gentleman Mrs. Favery, however, did not pretend to tell that she knew the amount of this note Lodowick, the Dnke's servant, and the only servant who went to Mrs, Clarke, who was said to have exchanged it, deposed that he never exchanged any bqt a lol. note upon any occasion of his visits to Gloucester-place Pcarce, the butler, upon his first examination, did not remember the exchange of any note whatever ; but upon his second examination his memory was more accurate, he was, however, *< subject to a terrible hoad-ach, which affected him in the first in- stance, and which affected his memory j" but it did seem on his last appearance as if something elsp had occurred to .improve the witneiss's memory he did recollect to have exchanged a note for Mrs. Clarke at q confectioner's, but what of that ? Whjt had that to do with the question undej Mr. Burton, 57 the consideration of the House, supposing Mrs. Clarke to have sent a note of lOOl. to be exchanged, did it follow that this was a note obtained by her from Mr. Knight, with the privity of the Duke of York ? Was this the only note Mrs. Clarke had in her possession ? Was it not known that she had many notes from the Duke of York ? Was it not known that Lodowick had repeatedly taken her notes from the banker, aiid what reason appeared to justify the conclusion tli,at the note exchanged by Pearce was not one of those notes, and not the fruit of a corrupt bargain with Mr. Knight? Let it be recollected that ^^rs. Clarke had been enabled to fix a time fur the first application upon the subject of tliis exchange to the Duke of York, and that time appeared not from her own evidence, but that of the Honourable Mover of the accusation, to be the 25th of July. Yet from the documents in the Office of the Horse Guards, it appeared that the Duke of York's approbation of the exchange was signed upon the 23d of July, and the Royal fiat obtained upon the 24th. This, therefore, waS a case not only repugnant to direct evidence, but coafra- dicted by the testimony of Mrs. Clarke herself. This, however, was but one of the many contradictions which that witness presented with regard to this and other cases adduced by the Honourable Mover. Knight, who was an accomplice in this transaction, ivho gave her a bribe, di- rectly contradicted her assertion, by stating, that she ex- pressly said she was anxious to conceal the business from the Duke of York. This was a point which she appeared quite resolute in denying; nay, she repeatedly insisted upon it, and yet she is flatly contradicted by Mr. Knight. When: asked whether her desire of concealment did not appear to refer to the public, he answered decidedly, no ; but that she said, the business would be fatal to her if mentioned to the Duke of York. W hat then was the natural inference from such solicitude on her part!* W the Duk vf York D ^ 38 Mr. S^urton. were capable of conniving at her corruptions, why should she be so anxious to conceal this transaction from his knowledge? But the nature of her motive was obvious. She pretended to possess an influence through which she was enabled to impose upon ignorant persons, and obtain mo- ney ; but she apprehended tliat the source of her impos- ture would be removed, her scandalous traffic disconcerted, if such conduct as this case involved were made known to the Duke of York. Hence her desire for secrecy, and hence a natural presumption against the connivances im- puted to that illustrious personage. The second case adduced by tlie Honourable Mover was that of Captain Maling. From this, as at first slated, ii was hoped to infer some charge of corruption, by prov- ing that a yomjg man was, through the corrupt influence of a person with whom the Duke of York is supposed to have an intimate connection, promoted to a Captaincy, without any merit r service. But it turned out, that the young man alluded to had been in actual service, was highly de- serving of the promotion he obtained, and was recom- mended by no less a person than Geueral Frazer. In this case there was not the slightest ground for imputing cor- ruption; and there was obviously none in the promotion of Captain Maling, at the Horse-guards. It might be argued, tl>at this oflacer did not possess the requisite quali- fications for such advancement. But if there was ground for the charge of corruption, it formed no part of the pro- vince of that House to enter into argument as to the right or claims of military officers for promotion. Tlie asser- tion of such a principle would, indeed, be an infringement upon the prerogative of the Crown, far exceeding any he had ever heard recommended by the most strenuous advo- cates for the rights of the people. Ko one popular- advo- cate bad ever yet maintained, that military promotions sl^ould be disposed of according to tho will of the House: Mr, Bmton. 39 of Conimons, or that the House should interfere in such disposition. On the contrary, indeed, he recollected to have heard the great 1-ord Chatham say, that to deprive the Sovereign of the privilege of military promotion. Would be to pluck the master-feather from the eagle's wing. Now sa to the case of French's levy, although at first view attracting much attention, it turned out upon exami- nation that the Honoiu'able Mover had merely made an ffort at proof, at which his failure was soon obvious* Colonel French was in fact an officer whose claims for preference upon such an appointment were well known. This was not the first levy he had been appointed to raise this was not the first instance in which he had been afforded the opportunity of rendering himself useful to his country. He had, in fact, many and important services to plead in his behalf. As the evidence of Sandon was of course deserving of no attention, and as the allegation of Mrs. Clarke was in his opinion of no weight, unless corro- borated, there was in this case only one material witness to consider, namely, that of Miss Taylor. But who, he would ask, was this Miss Taylor, and what were the grounds upon which her claim to credit rested ? She was the associate, the intimate friend of Mrs. Clarke; and yet, if she is to be credited, this affair of French's levy was the solitary instance in w hich the subject of military promotions was touched upon in her presence. If this wtness were to be credited, she was admitted to dine with the Duke of York ; nay, his Royal Higne*fs was so fond of her, that she was quite familiar, and frequently present at conversations between his Royal Highness and Mrs. Clarke. Yet this about I'Vencli's levy was the only ii>stance in which any allusion was made to military pro- motions. Let this rest upon the mind of the House. But w})at was the nature of this allusion ! Why the Duke of D 4 40 Mr. Burton. York, as Miss Taylor said, addressed Mis. Clarke h\ soirc- thing to this effect " Fjench is very teazing to ine how does he behave to you, darling?" To v.hich she answered, " middling not very well." Upon which rejoined the Duke, " Let Master French take care, or I'll cut up him and his levy too." Now wal it probable, that any thing like this would have been said if there had been any cor- rupt bargain, and that too in the presence of a girl who had never heard the subject of ^lilitary Promotions touch- ed upon before ? The Duke's complaint of French's levy, implied no connivance upon his Royal Ilighness's part at any corrupt transactions of Mrs. Clarke's. It might rather be conceived to mean an appeal to the opinion of that wo- man, whether French was not generally a teazing or trou- blesome character. Certainly the meaning imputed was not to be inferred upon any principle of liberality or jus- tice. It was stated by jSIrs. Clarke, that she was to re- ceive 20001. from Colonel French ; and some of that mo- ney was said to have been paid by Saiidon. She was to receive more as the levy went on. Now considering pro- babilities, and coniparing Mrs. Clarke's contingent interoit in the continuance of the levy with Mr. Grant's testimony, could it be credited that if there was a corrupt contract in which the Duke of York was to participate, or had con- nived. Colonel French's levy would have been put an end to, so very soon too after Miss Taylor had heard the alleged menace r But good causes were easily discoverable for the dissolution as well as for the commencement of tliis levy. It would be recollected, that several men were wanted at the time of its commencement for ge- neral service, and particularly for the East Indies. It would be recollected also, that the spirit of recruiting for that description of service was considerably damped, by the combined influence of the Additional Force and Army of Reserve Acts. Out of these causes in fact such diffi* Mr. Burton, 41 ciiltj arose of obtaiDing recruits, that the levy was put aa end to. This lew, therefore, originated in Hie necessity that existed for men, which there was a hope of producing through the activit)? of Colonel French, and when the hope was found vain it was termiuuted. The next case calling for consideration was that of Tonyn, and here he maintained that nothing occurred iu the evidence to implicate the Duke of York. Mrs. Clarke, it appeared, resorted to her usual pretence of influence ip military promotions, in order to obtain money from Tonyn. But it was obvious, that the promotion of that officer took place in a manner not in the slightest de- gree owing to her iuterpositiou, and according to the evi- dence of Colonel Gordon, Captain Tonyn was recom- mended by his father General Tonyn, and advanced to hi.* majority in a general promotion which took place upon iJie general recommendation of the Commander in Chief, including no less than 53 officers, 13 of whom were junior two or three years to Captain Tonyn, and therefore n^ probability warranted the slightest sui^picion of Captain Tonyn, owing his promotion to undue uiflucnce. Tliis case, it was attempted to bolster up by the niystcriiMts note ; but sure he was that no Jury would have found a verdict upon the genuineness of that note. If it referred to Tonyn 's promotion, was it probable that the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke would have forgotten itr This note Uierely stated that *' Tonyn's shall remain as it is," and in all probability that referred to some other business than that imputed. Certainly that imputation could not be fixed upon any principles of humane, just, or legal interpreta- tion. The learned Member pursued his observations upon this note by reciting the evidence of Sandon and Colonel Hamilton respecting its supposed destruction, its subse- quent discovery, the envelope, and the poit mark, which ibore date five days subsequeat t the actual gazetting of 49 Mr. Burton, Tonyn. This lie considered as an irrefragable proof that although the case was corrupt in itself, having in view ex- tortion from Tonyn, the Duke of York had no connection with such corruption. In the appointment of Shaw, the Learned Gentleman expressed his conviction, from a full review of the evidence, that Mrs. Clarke had no influence, although, as usual, sh extorted money; but that it was attributable to the actii^ and earnest application of Sir Harry Burrard. Upon the only remaining part of the matter, properly subject to the consideration of the House, as the Learned Gentleman conceived, namely, that of Carter, he express* ed a wish that the Honourable Mover had yielded to thd voice of liberality, to the declared request of Mrs. Clarke herself, by omitting any illusion to such a case by not attemptuig to bolster up a falling cause, by the introduction of a case which any one possessed of the common feelings of humanity should decline to mention. It appeared that this young man, Carter, was an orphan, and not one of common class, but the orphan of a meritorious officer, who bad bled in the service of his country. (^A cry of Ao / no ! no evidence of that.) The fact was, that no corruption was at all ascribable to the case of this lad. Did it not appear that he was recommended in 1801 by Capt. Sutton, of the artillery, and that he was not brought up after the manner of a servant? His letters, indeed, manifested a superior degree of education. Let it be recollected that: lie Was recommended and promised promotion in 1801. As to his connection with the family of Mrs. Clarke aji to his assisting other servants cleaning knives, or his going behind the coach only twice, as the coachman stated, and whether by night or day, was not mentioned ; the Duke of York was not proved to know any thing of tliat. The principal employment of Carter was to go to school, and was tiiat the usu?d occupation of a servant .'was it proved 1 Mr. Burton. 43 tfiat the Dule knew any ihiog of Carter's acting at all as a servant, except in waiting upon himiielf at dinner. {A loud QTif of hear ! hear !) Were gentlemen who cried hear, hear, be would ask, so ignorant of the world as not to know that many of their superiors wailed at table on Princes of the Blood Royal? He would ask also, why servants, with the education of Samuel Carter, were un- worthy of military promotion ? Were gentlemen so unac- quainted with the army as not to know that many persons originally inferior in rank to servants, now held commis- sions, and formed some of the highest and most respected ornaments of tlie military profession ? Why then reflect upon such a young man as Samuel Carter ? God forbid tliat the House should be so forgetful of the duty which it owed to humanity, and to its own character, as to fiiul fault witli the Duke of York for such a promotion as ac- tually entitled him to praise. Having gone through the several charges advanced agaiiist the Duke of York, the Learned Gentleman subuiitted aome general observations. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman proceeded to advert to lliat part of the case that related to the extravagant ^ixpenditure of the Duke of York. He (Mr. B.) had many years ago conversed with the gentleman who had charge of th tuition of two Royal Personages, he meant the Prince of Wales aiKl Duke of York. That Gentleman, in com- menting on the capacities and dispositions of his illustriou^i pupils, liad declared in substance, that he could teacli them Greek, X^tin, Arithmetic; any thing but the know- ledge of the valine of money, {A laugh) the use of a giiintia ; it was liot their natures to learn the real value of money, nor could he be led to beheve that the Duke of York could be templetl to be guilty of cojTuption lur such paltry considerations as had been mentioned in the evidence, es- pecially Nvhjen he had 'juch an)|>le meaus within his power. 4i Mr. Burton. no less tlian the disposal of upwards of eleven thoUsaticJ commissions ; this to a corrupt man, would be a never failing source, it would be a sort of mill that would grind money when and how he pleased. It had not been so em- ployed, and this was in itself a much stronger presumption llian that on which the charge itself was made to rest ; was it to go for nothing, the way in which it had been proved that the Duke of York had instituted an inquiry into the money transactions of Mrs. Clarke? Did this look like a eonsciousuess of participating in the emoluments of her traific r For this hiquiry he had appointed a person of the name of Lowton one who must have discovered any pro- ceedings of that nature if they had been going on. Cor- rupt men were generally surrounded by corrupt agents. Who were those hi the immediate confidence of the Duke ? Generals Ix)rralne and Brownrigg, and Colonel Gordon, a gentleman possessed of every quality that can invite and maintain friendship. Thus had he gone through the ma- terial points of this case, as far as his memory served him; and were he sitting in his own Court, as a Judge, he would feel himself warranted in declaring, were the same evidence before him in that place, that there was no ground what- ever for any of the charges brought against the Duke of Vork. There might be, perhaps, some imputations thrown out against him, that his opinion on this subject might be in- fluenced by either a devotion to\var fur him ? That though 46 Mr. Curwen. tuch transactions might have taken place, he was Ignorant of them, so that his defence admitted his incapacity ; for surely it was his duty to have detected those abuses, to have ex- tirpated them from the army. He would say, then, that defence resorted to, proved that the Duke of York (even admitting his innocence on the score of corruption) was so remiss in the discharge of his duty, that in justice to the army, in justice to the public, he ought to be dismissed from it. But the Learned Gentleman who spoke last had said a good deal upon the nature of that evidence coming from an accomplice ; why, no doubt it was not so unques- tionable as that of witnesses not implicated, but where, he would ask, were they to find witnesses, or how come at the proof of corruption but from accomplices ? how, but from those who were themselves engaged in corrupt prac- tices ? But, was there nothing corroborating that sort of evidence ? He did confess he was astonished at the very partial and circumscribed view the Honourable Gentle- man had taken of the evidence. When the charges were first brought before them, he did believe that there was not a man in that House who did not wish fiom his soul that they would not be proved, {hear!) But now, after the evidence has been gone through, how few were there present who could from their conscience say, with the Learned and Honourable Gentleman, that in that evidence there were not grounds for those charges, (hear! hear!) The first case was Colonel French's Levy. Here he \vould ask but one question : Why, after Colonel Taylor's re- port, was Colonel French permitted to continue r Why not dismissed ? Why so totally overlooked ? Two hmidred men in nine months! Could His Royal Highness have been deceived upon this point ? Was it all a mistake on his part, owing to a deficiency of education, to his not having been tauglit to count, as the Learned Gentleman seemed so greatly to deplore .' But taking tlie question Mr. Curzpen, 4tl in aiibtlier point of view, for hidierto he supposed the Duke innocent of corruption, and argued that his avowed remissness was such as imperiously called for his dismissal but in the other view of the question whether or not the Duke gave his sanction to corrupt practices, this was a part of the case on which the House was called upon fbr its most solemn judgment. Look then to Major To^ nyn's case ; the letter that had excited so much interesl had been denominated by the Honourable Gentleman a mysterious letter. Could that Honourable Gentlemaa have seen that letter, he (Mr. C.) was sure he would not have applied to it such an epithet. He never saw a paper more destitute of mystery. The evidence to the autlienti^ city of that letter was in the recoUction of the Hoiise They saw Colonel Gordon when it was handed to him ; they could not but have been affected with his emotions, and have felt for his situation. The answers which, as a man of honour, he felt himself bound to give, were givea in a manner as if they drew drops of blood from his heart. The House too would remember how Colonel Gordon's evidence was borne out by that of General Hope, givea with a candour truly characteristic of that gallant officer ; and how both were confirmed by the subsequent testimony of the Learned and Honourable Gentleman who followed tiiem. There was too a circumstance which did not ap- pear to him immaterial : the paper on which this not was written was office-paper, a commodity not likely to. occur to any one n\ ho would forge such a note. In short, he did believe in his conscience that that note was in the genuine hand-writing of the Duke of York ; that it was his letter ; and that the letter was written for the sole pur- pose of preventing the money being returned. Here thea was one instance that went to prove the Duke's sanction- ing corrupt practices; and if the House believed that^ or- 4S Mr. Curwen. any single instance of such conduct, could they hesitate iot agreeing to the Resolutions ? Was a man capable of coun- tenancing or conniving at corruption, fit at any time to hold any, the humblest post under the Government,, but at such times as the present, was the second subject in th6 realm to be allowed to fill the most important office under the Cromn, after he had given, with impunity, such an example to the People of England ? It would be a vain, a dangerous attempt to try to narrow their great judicial inquiry within the petty limits of legal nicety; were ihey to be driven from the grand object of national investiga- tion; to detect, trace, follow up, and hunt out corruption, appear where and when, and how it may, however quali- fied, however disguised, or however sanctioned ; this was their object ; this was what tlieir constituents would ex- pect, and had a right to expect from them ; they were not to be driven from it to search for legal distinctions, or lose themselves in desultory discussions upon forms. It was not an Old Bailey case, (hear !) They, as Represen- tatives of the People, were not to be deterred frotxi con- demning what was criminal, by being told that they were travelling out of the record ; where there was criminality, where there was corruption, he would not stop to examine the intricacies of the laws of evidence, or to square opinion with opinion, or charge with proof, but expose it at once, without waiting to ascertain from Learned Gentlemen whe- ther it lay within the record or not. He would therefore open his ears to every charge of corruption, and he could not here sut^ciently express his astonishment that the Learned Gentleman who had preceded him, long, and no doubt ably as he had gone into tlie charges, should have wholly overlooked the evidence of General Ciavering and his letters, (^ea;-/ /K'r/) Did those letters tend to prove po long and habitiial intercourse upon the subject of the Mr. Cumen. 49 corrupt bartering of promotion ? and as to this point, did Miss Taylor's testimony wholly go for nothing ? The Honourable and learned Gentleman had, at great length, gone into an exposure of the gross prevarications of Cap- tain Sandon ; perhaps the House thought that unne- cessary ; but what must they have thought, or, at leasf, how much must they have been at a loss to discover the object of the Honourable Gentleman, when, after hav- ing resorted to every means to shew, and succeeded in shewing, which certainly was not very difficult to do, he then proceeds (o argue from that evidence which he had just overturned ? The next case he should .advert to, was that of Colonel Shaw. Was there, or was there not, a corrupt motive operating somewhere as to the appoint- ment of this officer, the many prior refusals and subse- quent sudden reduction to half-pay ? But why was he reduced ? The influence which had raised him, deserted Jiira as soon as he failed to make good his bargain ; the fact evidently was, that they had not kept their word, they had not made good their contract, and he was re- duced accordingly; so that this rather tended to confirm the very charge it was supposed by some to do away. Upon tlic article of expenditure a great deal had been said. He had heard the Duke defended on the score of that disposition to generosity that was to be consider- ed as rather an amiable weakness. He must be glad to hear any thing commendatory of the royal disposi- tion of the illustrious person, but was there not some stubborn facts as to tiie pawning of jewels ? Were there not diamonds in pawn ? And was it in consequence of this amiable Aveakness that they had been pawned ? But he put it to any one man who heard him, Avould he, in tlie case of such a connection, have suffered that person to have encountered expenccs, so fur beyond her means, K 50 l^Ir. CtirWen. without providing some sort of re-imbursemeiil ? The Learned Gentleman had told them of the means io which the Duke, if corrupt, might have resorted. The Honourable Gentleman had compared it to a mill, that could grind an inexhaustible supply. Why, perhaps, such a source of corruption might be so illustrated ; but then it would be more just to call it a wind-mill it would not go at all times ; nor, perhaps, could it be safe to set it a going at all times (a laugh). He, how- . ever, agreed with the Honourable Gentleman, that there was ample power, and he feared too much opportunity, to abuse, and grossly abuse, the high trust dedicated to His Royal Highness ; and therefore was he of opinion, that it was impossible for that House to be too cautious, to look with too jealous an eye to the manner in which the great means and duties connected with that high oflicc are disposed and administered. When the charges were brought forward he felt deep regret ; but he felt much more in seeing how those charges have been supported, how fully they have been established. It was, indeed, a most painful reflection, that such charges could have been brought up home to such a personage. He strongly felt for him. His situation must be infinitely more afflict- ing to him than the severest penalty of the law could be to an ordinary offender. The loss of life cannot to him Ije for a moment compnrable to the loss of cha- racter. He lamented it he deplored the conduct that led to it. He must again say, he felt for him most sincerely; but he, and every member in that House must, upon this solemn occasion, do their duty ; tliere was no alter- native ; it was in vain for them to shut (Iieir eyes ; tlie country would not shut theirs: but rather let iiicm rouse themselves firmly and manfully to the t'ii^charge of The Chancellor of the Exchrquer. 31 a painful, but a paramount duty. These were not times to screen corruption ; meeting and overthrowing it was what thej were now called upon to do ; and if the House did their duty, it wouUl be a more splendid, and at the sarae time a more useful victory, than tiie most glorious they could gain over Bonaparte. Before he sat down, he would say one word on Carter's case. He thought it a strong charge, and he thought that charge had been proved. The precedent of transferring a foot-boy, from behind a carriage, to the situation of an officer in his Majesty's army, went to sensibly affect that nice sense' of honour, Avhich wiis indispensable to such a situation, and which might be said to be the principle of the army. This was a serious charge, and he thought that the Honourable Gentleman (Colonel Wardle) would not have discharged his duty to the public, if, being apprised of itj he had not brought it forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Speaker; The attention which I have felt it my duty to give to this most important case, during the whole pro- gress of the enquiry, made me anxiously desire to seize the earliest opportunity of submitting my opinion upon it to the consideration of the House; and I should, Sir, unquestionably have presented myself to your notice, as 8000 as the Honouralile Gentleman, who opened the de- bate, sat down, if I had not seen my learned frirnd (Mr. Burton) prepared to add res-s himself to the House, un- der circumstances whic!i could not but make rac as de- sirous to give way to him, as they must have made the House anxious to hear him. 1 ftlt, Sir, that his situa- tion, so perfectly unconnected with party, his judicial character, his exiierience, his yeara, tlo ? Would he not have to do this ; Not to enquire hiinseli whether the allcdged alwjses and corruptionse;xisted; not to say wiiether the removal of the Duke oi York from CO The Chancellor of the Exchequer. liis high office, would be sufficient af oneinent forhisofFence ; but, to direct his Attorney-General to institute a public prosecution against him. But, Sir, is there any man in this House whowould consent to impose upon His Majestysuch a duty as that of directing the Attorney-Gen. to prosecute the Duke of York at the Old Bailey or at the King's Bench ? Is there a man in the House who would wish to impose on His Majesty so painful a sacrifice of his parental feelings? And are we to adopt an address which might lead to such a course, *' out of delicacy ayid respect,^^ as the Honourable Gentleman expresses himself, to His Ma- jesty ? But, independent of considerations so delicate, would it be justifiable, would it be consistent with the dignity of this House, to impose upon the King that duty which, from whatever motives, we are afraid, or decline to perform ourselves ? Shall we leave to His Majesty to say that which we ourselves have not the courage to pro- nounce? Clearly not. On the contrary, if the conclu- sion to which this House shall come upon these charges, is, that the proof is sufficient for this House to entertain them, the result ought to be, and must be, to send them ourselves, to the bar of the House of Lords ; and, by the constitutional and appropriate proceeding of impeach- ment, to put the Duke of York upon his defence, and upon his trial. In ray judgement, sir, the Duke of York is not guilty of corruption or connivance. This is the opinion which, in my judgement, we are imperatively called on by the justice of the case, to pronounce. If tliat judgement is correct, we ought to say so ; wc ought to declare unequi- vocally, that this House sees no ground for charging His Royal Highness with corruption, or with connivance at the practices which have been disclosal at our bar. Such, ^ir, is the opinion which, after the most deliberate and mo&t The Chancellor of the Exchequer. W anxious consideration of all'lhe evidence, and all the cir- cumstances of this important case, 1 have conscienti- ously formed in my own mind. I will now proceed to explain to the House, the grounds upon which that opi- nion is founded : I ought, however, before I proceed farther, to state, as a justification of some early expressions of my own on this case, that I certainly did, (I do not hesitate, Sir, to confess iX,) I certainly did come to the exa- mination of the conduct of the illustrious person, now under accusation, strons^ly influenced by that desire, which the Honourable Mover of the address -himself expressed, and which he now says he believes to have been universal in this House, that His Royal Highness should be exculpated and cleared from every imputation of blame. But, I must say further, that I came to it with every prejudice against the truth of the accusation. 1 have certainly long cherished the opinion, and still cherish it, that whatever may be the opinion of persons out of doors whatever may be the language of pam- phlets and libels, published and circulated with malicious industry, for the infamous purpose, not merely of de- stroying the character of His Royal Highness, but, through him, of.exciting sentiments hostile to the family on the Throne ; (the effects and prejudices of which libels, are now oix?rating strongly against His Royal Highness, bolit within this House, and out of it), 1 say I had formed the opinion, notwithstanding these attempts to poison the public mind, that there never was a period in wliicii there was less ground for the suspicion of personal cor- ruption in persons, either illustrious by birth, or exalted by rank, oflice, and station, than t!ic present moment. The age has its vices, no doubt, and persons in high rani^ arc not exempt from them. But the vice of ^Hjcuniary 62 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, corruption in the higher ranks of society, is not (on my conscience I state it) the vice of the present day. [^Hear, hear!~\ I am glad to find that there appears to be a ge- neral concurrence in that sentiment ; but, Sir, let me ask, if gentlemen concur in this opinion, and do think that such is no more than the fair testimony due to public cha- racters ; that such is the honest result of their observation on the conduct of public men at this day, is it fair deal- ing towards public men, or towards the public itself, for any object of popularity, or any purpose of party, to give countenance to the idea, that the abuses falsely chargc^l against public men in these vile publications, do actually exist ? Sir, I do contend, that nothing can be more mischievous, than to give to the false, slanderous, Jacobinical publications, so profusely and malignantly disseminated, that sort of encouragement which the Ho- nourable Gentleman who spoke third in this debate has done by his speech. I am confident that the Ho- nourable Gentleman has no other ground of evidence for his assertions, than what is contained in those libellous pamphlets and publications themselves, the malice and venom of which, such assertions as his must necessarily inflame and extend. These prejudices, which I have thus avowed, were undoubtedly strong in my mind; and as they were strong generally in favour of any public men, so docs it appear more particularly improbable to my feelings, that such charges could apply to one in so pecu- liarly elevated a station as that of jthe illustrious Person now the subject of our enquiry. I never could bring my mind to believe, that for so mean and despicable a consi- deration (for the whole amount of Mrs. Clarke'^ iniquitous gains, according to her evidence, does not much exceed two or three thousand pounds), His Royal Highness should liuve lent himself to this base conspiracy against the public The ChanceUor of the Exchequer* =fe5 interest, and the interest of tlie army ; that he should have assisted Mrs. Clarke with the power of his official situa- tion ; that he should have become a partner in her infa- mous schemes ; that he should have so humbled and de- graded himself, as to have rendered his rank, and influ- ence, and authority, subservient to her designs ; and that he should so far have forgot what was due to his birth, his family, his own character, and to the public, as to have told this abandoned woman, (for such is her evi- dence,) pointing out to her these corrupt practices as the sources of pecuniary supply, that " if she was clever, she could never want money ;" and that he should have done this for the purpose of feeding and supporting the er- pence of their adulterous connexion ! [ Reiterctfed acda- 'motions of Hear, hear /] Sir, I hardly understand thai cry Is it that any Honourable Gentleman iraagiiiM that, in using an epithet to characterize the unfortunate connexion between His Royal Highness and Mrs. Clarke, in appropriate language, I have inadvertently slipped into a censure which I should wish to retract ? Does any Honourable Gentleman, who hears me defending his Royal Highness from a charge which I feel to be false, imagine, that I am therefore here to defend vice, or to palliate it with epithets that may disguise its cha- racter ? Nothing, Sir, can be farther from ray intention ! I lament, I deplore as deeply as any man can do, the errors, the moral guilt into which, in an evil hour, His Roj^al 'Highness suffered himself to he plunged, by his infatuated attachment to this most profligate W('j.nan. I will not, out of dcliracy to him, wilhhold ^ny censure which it may be due, and becoming for an individnnl in this house to proiioniice upon it. But surely^ Sir, it i^ not incon- ' sistcnt Avith that sentiment, and wil!i tint determination^ to suppose that he cannot have been guilty of such a dc- 64 The Chancellor of the Exchequer* parture from the duties of Lis public station; tliatli* cannot so far have forgotten the consideration of every thing dear and vahiablc (o a person of his exalted birthj (for the higher a man rises in society, the more must her feel the value of character, and the importance of public opinion,) as to have so degraded, so debased himself, as to have become the willing instrument of Mrs. Clarke and her associates. Under this impression, I confess, that every prejudice in my mind was against the idea that His Royal Highness could be personally implicated in the practices pointed out by these charges. I certainly had the means of knowing that corrupt practices did exist, with regard to the sale of offices, though not by persons in office, or ia government, but under the assumed and pretended autho- rity of government. I had recently directed my endea- vours to detect and to pursue them in one instance, in which I had been furnished with a clue to them. I knew there were low and mean persons, who, pretending to pos- sess an influence in disposing of public employments, civil and military, carried on a lucrative traffic by means of the delusions they held forth to the public. But I knew at the same time, that, at least as far as respected those civil offices and places under government, with which I had any means of being particularly acquainted, their pretensions were w holly false ; and I did consequently believe that such would, eventuatly, and in proof, turn out to be the fact in the case of the Duke of York ; I thought that His Royal Highness, whatever might be dis- closed in the course of the enquiry, would be proved t(y be as far from having been personally concerned in any of the transactions relating to such corrupt practices, as I am myself. To return however to the charges. There are two very distinct questions, upon which the opinion of this House must be pronounced. The first; The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 65 %>\\esi\or\ respects ^ of the public, consider what ought to be the decree of c< u- sure with which it should mark its disple;i>iir<', at i.'ie transactions which have been exposed, aiil what practi- cal measure it shall in conseqMP'ice adopt. Trusting that the House will ket p in mind th .^^^ t^vo questions, and tlu* plain distinclion whi- 'i exiis hciv.cia them, 1 think it will be useful, with a view io "-iiiii ' ry and disembarrass our enquiry, distinctly to adnul I'lose parts of the case which I conceive to be indispulalily proved. That His Royal Highness had formed a most intimate and urdbrtunate comuxion with Mrs. Clark'^, cannot be denied, and must ever be lanxentcd ; that Mrs. Clarke was, duriii clear, and on<;ht never to be forgotten; the question in dispute, is, i 66 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether His Royal Highness was privy to these transac- tions ? did he authorise them ? did he countenance them ? did he connive at them ? These are the questions which we must determine. It must be further admitted, that if Mrs. Clarke's evi- dence be believedj there is nothing wanting to the com- plete conviction of the Royal Duke the case, as against His Royal Highness, is indisputably established in all its deepest aggravation, if her evidence be credited, it is not a case of neglect of duty, it is not a case of any mi* nor fault, it is not a case even of connivance on the part of the Duke of York ; but it is a case of the basest cor- ruption in his own person, corruption of the foulest na- ture, originating in himself. If she can be believed, it must be admitted as a matter of direct proof, established by her evidence beyond the possibility of doubt, that the Duke of York, and not Mrs. Clarke, was the first advi- ser of these most criminal and disgraceful transactions : it must be taken as proved, that this Royal Person, the son of our virtuous and beloved Monarch, was so aban- doned and lost to every sense of what his duty and hi station prescribed to hira, that when his mistress repre- sented to him her pecuniary distresses, he pointed out these practices as the means of relieving them ; he told her that, " if she was clever, she could never want " money;" that "her influence was greater than that *' of the Queen ;" and that by the judicious employ- ment of that interest, she would preclude the necessity of recurring to him. It is evident, therefore, that the examination of the guilt or innocence of the Duke of York, must open with the examination of the credit which is due to Mrs. Clarke. There may possibly be doubt in some minds, although I hesitate not to declare that there is none in mine, cf The ChanceUor of the Exchequer. 67 the innocence of His Royal Highness, tliongli the evidence of Mi-s. Olarke be not credible ; but there can be no doubt of his guilt, if she is believed. An attentive con- sideration, therefore, of all the various circumstances which affect the credit of this very suspicious witness, is our primary and indispensable duty. In the first place, the House will not fail to observe, that Mrs. Clarke presents herself at the bar in the ques- tionable character of an accomplice, or rather as a prin- cipal in the guilt which she is called to detect. Upon this point, Sir, I need do no more than refer to what has been so well and ably statl, by my Honourable and Learned friend (Mr. Burton) behind me. You have been told by him, that, as an accomplice, you ought not to confide in her testimony, or to give the least credit to any thing she said, unless so far as she may be confirm- ed by the evidence of other witnesses, whose characters are not open to that suspicion of falsehood, which neces- sarily must attach upon her. Upon the point of confir- mation, though a point of infinite importance to Ije well understood in such a case as this, it cannot be necessary for me, after the manner in which the subject has been treated by my Honourable and Learned Friend, to go into any length of observation to guard the House against being misled to suppose, that they find Mrs. Clarke's evidence confirmed, so as to give credit to it against the Duke of York, because parts of her story are substantiated by other evidence. That her story may be, and is, tnic, in respect of the corrupt practices, as far as Rhe is concerneosing him to the infamy that belongs to their disclosure ? Yet, Sir, all this improbability wemust believe, and we must believe it upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, or we cannot be of opinion that His Royal Hight ness is guilty. An accomplice sometimes i--, or appears to be, ac* tuated by a sense of remorse for the crime which he has committed,' ard disposed to make what atonement he can by his evidence for the crime which he confesses and detects : but Mrs. Clarke comes here as no penitent ; she is not inspired by any public feelings which might justifiably have actuated her to disclose to public justice, scenes such as those she has described ; on the contrary, urged by sentiments of rancour, hatred, resentment, and malice ; with no other object tlian to disgrace His Rojal Highness ; at the expence even of iierself, slie discloses a scene of corrupt practices, which it evidently appearg The Chancellar oflhe Exchequer. 73 she lias continual to carry on to the present day) and for this part of her evidence we have the words of the Honourable Mover of this enquiry himself) : she is, up to the time of this very enquiry, carrying o^ the same traffic ! If she is to be believed, it appears that she put into the hands of that Honourable Gentleman, within these few weeks, letters of recommendation to be sijjned by other Honourable Gentlemen, with a view to obtain military pR'ferracnt ; that he jrave her promises of assist- ance, thoua^h he said his influence would not be of any avail, as he was in the opposition. Within a short time she put into the hands of General Clavering-, for the pur{>ose of procurinj^ military promotion, a letter pur- porting to he signed by a Mr. Sumner, of the Temple, when, as far as we have any proof, there is no such person in existence. This is the sort of witness on whose evidence we are called upon to give up the character of the illustrious Person accused, and to consign him io public infamy and execration ! But this is not all : you have in tliis, an abundant caution against surrendering up your judgment upon the evidence of a witness, whom you see iniix'lled by such motives, and to such an object : But have you nothing else? You have the presumption in favour of the jx^rson accused ; not merely the pre- sumption of general innocence in favour of the party under accusation, till conviction, i)ut you have the presumption of iiuux:ence arising out of the conduct of His Royal Highness; out of conduct which may, per- haps, not be entirely approved. I lament extremely, that His Royal Highness did not provide a larger an- nuity for Mrs. Clarke, and I think, that what he diil ijive her, should have bi.'cn unconditional. But although I lament these circumstances, yet I nmst be allowed on ihis occasion; and in Ibis part of my argumeut, to take 74 TJie Chanctllor of the Exchequer, advantage of them ; for there arises out of these circum- stances, a great and insurmountable presumption in fevour of the Duke of York. 1 ask whetlier any thing can be more inconsistent with common sense, than that His Royal Highness, in parting with a woman who had been a participater with him in such deep guilt, should dismiss her in a manner which must have sent her forth with every sentiment of resentment and indignation against him ? No man having any particle of common sense could have done so; and out of this conduct, therefore, there does grow a most irresistible presumption in his ftivour. I repeat that I lament that a better ar- rangement was not made for Mrs. Clarke when this un- fortunate connection was broken off; but I am confident the House will agree with me, that His Royal Highness having, from whatever circumstance, thought himself called upon to stop tlie armuily, and Mrs. Clarke having threatened to expose him if he did not comply with her requisition of renewing it, it was impossible, after such a threat, for His Royal Highness to recede from liis detef- mination : to have done so would have been most hazard- ous to his honour. After the letter addressed to Mr. Adam by !Mrs. Ciarke, it was quite impossible for His Royal Highness, having any consideration for his cha- jracter, to yield to her demands, if he felt innocent : on the other hand, it is equally impossible that he should not have yielded to tliera, if guilty. Had His Royal Highness been conscious that this woman really was pos- sessed of these secrets, the exposure of which musi neces- sarily involve his ruin, can it be for one moment imagined that he could have discarded her without first making some attempt, at least, to secure her silence? But perhaps it may be said, that His Royal Higlmess relied upon her good nature, or upon her honour, as his security, that she The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 75 would not divulge them. Did he so ? she tells him plainly tliat she will divulge them. SIio says in her letter to Mr. Adam, that if His Royal Highness does not give her the annuity of 400/. a year, and pay her the arrears, she will publish every circumstance that was ever communicated to her by him, and every thing that has come under her knowledge during their intimacy. Surely then, if the Duke of York is endowed with the smallest possible share of common sense, he must have yielded to her demands, unless, as the fact was, he felt secure in the consciousness of his own innocence. He braves the charge, he defies the exposure which she threatens ; although he must have known, that many of the circumstances attending his unfortunate connection must come before the public, he is content that the whole history of their private intimacy shall meet the public eye, rather than suffer his character to be compromised by yielding to such threat: He braves the utmost effects of her resentment and malice, rather than do that by which, if he had done it, he would indeed have put himself completely into her power. Had he been so weak as to have regarded her menaces, (and many an in- nocent man under similar circumstances, might have done so,) how would her story then havf' told ? how strongly would the payment of her annuity have confirmed it ? It would then have been said, that after discarding her for some reason which he deemed suffi- cient, and which, for the purpose of the argument of his accusers, would then probably have been assumed to be sufficient ; he had, for some reason, which wouhl have then been deemed also equally sufficient, refused to pay her the stipulated annuify ; that he had declined to do her justice, upon the mere merits of lier claim: but, that when she threatened the exposure, which 76 Tlie Chancellor of the Exchequer. he must know whether it was in her power or not to make, then he began to be alarmed, then he thought it conve- nient to purchase her silence, then, from the fear of having his guilt disclosed, he acquiesced in demands which, as his former refusal had demonstrated, no sense of justice had impelled him to regard. Such would have been the inference drawn from the conduct of the Duke of York, had that conduct been the reverse of what it was. I put it then to House, whether candour and jus- tice do not require that the direct contrary inference should be drawn from the conduct which His Royal Highness did pursue ? To pass now, Sir, to another point. It is impossible, in estimating tlie weight which belongs to Mrs. Clarke's evi- dence, not to notice that total want of a proper sense of the situation in which she was placed, which was so strongly marked by the whole of her behaviour at our bar: Her sarcastic insolence, her playful pleasantry as if there was nothing in her evidence that weighed heavy upon herself; her general cleverness and versati- lity ; the art and wit she displayed in answering those questions which she thought proper to answer ; the most unblushing effrontery with which she disclosed things which would have abashed the boldest witness ; the mode in which she was continually evading the questions which she wished to avoid ; presenting new topics to the examiner; misleading him ; turning him beside his ob- ject ; and at last, when pressed and driven to extremity, sheltering herself in a total forget fulness. All this, Sir, must be present to the memory of the House ; the House cannot forget it ; for they cannot for- get the impression which it made upon them at the time : Perhaps, Sir, they might wish to forget, but they cannot but remember how indulgently they tolerated her jokes ; The Chancelbr of the Exchequer. 77 Low they seemed to forget lier rice in lier wit ; and be almost reconcilal to her infamy, by her manner of dis- playing it. 1 dwell upon these circumstances as a cau- tion to ourselves against being misled, to give c^:edit to such a witness. But, Sir, beyond this, let the house in candour and in justice, well consider, if this cleverness was able io impose upon us in public so successfully, what must have been its effects in private? This art and ability which we have witnessed so successful amongst ourselves, how must they have enabled her to practise on the credulity of a person, not yet apprized, as we all arc> of her worthlessncss ; and biassed and prejuced in her fa- vour by the affection which he unfortunately indulged for her ? How easy must it have l>een for such a woman as Mrs. Clarke, without any principle of Iionour or vir- tue to guide or to restrain her, to impose upon the unsus- pecting generosity of His Royal Highness ? Can we imagine any thing of deception which such a woman as this, under such cijrcumstances, was not equal to accom- plish ? How many, how frequent must have been the opportunities of wliich slie might have availed herself, (and liow few would she suffer to escape her ?) of looking into his letters, and suggesting topicsof conversation : Can any one suppose, that if at any time it was her object to obtain a knowledge of any military matter, Avhich tlierc was no public reason to cojiceal, that she would not, with all tiie facilities afforded by the confidence reposed in lier, aided by her own art and dexterity, easily obtain the in- formation which she wanted ? The Honourable Gentle- man asked, liOW was she to liave had her infonnation, but from the Duke of York ? I^et me ask in return, w hen we see belure us t!ie nature and extent of the intbrmation which she procured, why sliould the Duke of York, un- less he suspected her o!)jcct, have the l absolulelj prove Iiei- anxiwiy oa this poiut* 77te Chancellor of the Exchequtf, ^ ^ovf Tf hat says Mrs. Clarke? She is asked this question, ** Do you recollect expressing a wish lest it should come " to the ears of His Royal Highness the Duke of York ?'* she immediately answers, " Oh no ! never." " Or any " thing to thit eflbct?"'' Nothing like it." There are such a number of witnesses who positively contra* diet Mrs. Clarke on this part of the case, that I am sure there is no person, who hears me, who would venture to pay, that their testimony does not outweigh that of Mrs. Clarke. But, upon this evidence, I admit, the Honourable Gentleman has made a very fair remark. He observed, that it was impossible that Mrs. Clarke should require secrecy iti the sense here suffered, and with the professed object of keeping the transaction from the Duke of York. Her undertaking to these people being to use bet interference and influence with tlie Duke of York : 'it wonld mar her own plot; it would be inconsistent with her own story. She wished these persons to be- lieve that she would immediately apply to the Duke of York ; could she then be so absurd as to betray aa anxiety that her interference should be kept a secret from the Duke of York ? This, Sir, would indeed be true, if it were believed, t!iat she let those persons kno^f that she told His Royal Highness what money she was to procure for the influence which she engaged to exer- cise ; but if the fact was, as 1 believe it, that she had no such influence, that she used no such influence; she would necessarily be anxious to avoid any part of the transaction transpiring, lest it should reach the cars of His Royal Highness: but what she pretended to these witnesses was, that it was the j)rcuniHry interest which, she hud in if, which she wished to keep concealed from him. In that sense, it was entirely consistent 8 ^4 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. with her story, and essentially necessary for the security of herself. The next point in which slic is contradicted, respects her threat to expose the Duke of York, and to this I re- quest the special attention of tlie House, because here it is, that we are enabled to trace her motives, and dis- cover the resentment and malice, which prompt the whole of her conduct. Mr. Knight says, that when he called on her some time after tlie exchange had been effected, she told him that unless she could bring His Royal Highness to terras, she would expose him in the manner she was endeavouring to do by her evidence. When Mrs. Clarke was asked the question, she said she never told any body so, except Mr. Adam. She recol- lects something respecting her letters to Mr. Adam ; but he distinctly and positively states, that she never did ay to Mr. Robert Knight, that if His Royal Highnesi did not come into her terms she would expose him. Now I ask the House, whether the credit of Mrs. Clarke is to be set up against the credit of Mr. Knight? He has no motive whatever which can possibly influence him to invent a falsehood ; while on the other hand, she ha* every motive to induce her to do so. The fact stated by Mr. Knight, cuts up and destroys her testimony^ and therefore she denies it. Upon this part of the case, then, there is a distinct contradiction, by a witness Avhose testimony it is impossible any candid or impartial mind, can fail to prefer to the ((.-.timony of Mrs. Clarke. There are a variety of other contnulictions in the evi- dence of Mrs. Clarke, with regard to minor circum- .stances ; but I do not think it necessary to go into them. 1 will merely refer to the circumstance of her denying that her husband was of any trade, in which fact she Is^^intcdly and distinctly contradicted. (Mr. ^V^hit Tlie Chancellor of the Exchequer, 85 bread intimated across the House, that this was mis- slated.) If I am guilty of an over-statement, Sir, it is, 1 can assure the House, unintentional. I am sure that over-statements never can do good in any cause, which is heanl before iatelligenf judges ; they not only do not impose where they are introduced, but they cast suspi- cion over the whole case. The correctness of this state* ment therefore being called in question, 1 must, for my own vindication, go into it, with a par< icularity and at a length which [ did not intend: this contradiction stands thus in the evidence. Mrs. Clarke is asked, "What is your husband Po- ller pert reply is, " He is nothing but a man." *' What *' business.' '* No business." * Was he never in any ** business?" " No, his father was a builder; he lives ** at Kettering, in Northamptonshire." " AVas not he " a stone-mason?" " No, he was not he lives at *' Kettering with his younger brother that is all I " know of him." Now, surely this House, must be aware what wastiie evidence of Mr. Stowers, in opposition to this testimony of Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Thomas Stowers's evidence is as follows : " Did you know Mrs. Clarke be- " fore she wa;; married to Mr. Clarke?" " 1 did not." *' Did you know her afler she was married ?" " J did." " Do you rem('ml)cr the time wlien Mr. Clarke was mar- <' ried to her?"" I never knew the time." " What *' business did Mr. Clarke carry on?" " When I firs-t " knew Mrs. Cinrke by bring wife to Mr. Clarke, he " was not in business jusi at thai time; he was a young " man." " What business did he afterwards carry on ?" *' That of a stone-mason." " Was that soon after " his marriage ?" " I cammt speak to tliat. I did ima- " gine he was married so soon as he had an acquain- " tancc with this lady." " Did he carry on the busi- " ncss of a stone-mason, while she was living with dd The Chancellor of the Exchequer. him ?*' " He certainly did." " For how long ?" Not less than three or foiir years." ' Was slie living with him all that time?" " As I never visited them, I cannot undertake to sny she lived with him all that time, but I conceive she lived with him a principal part of the time." " Had they any children ?"~" Notlesg, th'.m three." " Were those children born during the time he was carrying on the business of a stone-mason?" " Some of them were." " Where did Mr. Clarke live at the time you are speaking of?" " The first part of the time he lived in chambers at Hoxton then he was not in business as a stone-mason." " Was Mrs. Clarke with him at that period?" " She certainly was." *' How long did they live there ?" " As I did not visit them, 1 cannot speak positively I know it was not less than one year, and I should imagine not " more than two." " Where did they live afterwards ?'* -^" I don't know of their living any where else, till they went to live in Golden-Lane, where he carried on the business of a mason." " When was this ?" ^' He commenced there somewhere about 1791, and he lived there about three or four years." " Had Mr. Clarke a stone-mason's yard there?" " He had." " At the first place he lived at?" " In Charles-Square, Hox- ton, he lived on his fortune; lie had no business?" Did you visii at his house?" " I neve.- did visit him at any time whcr'^ver he livevl." " Did 3'ou know Mrs. Clarice by si-lit ?" " Yes I did." " Did you know when Mrs. Clarke parted froin her husband?" No, indeed, 1 did not." " \(m hive no guess when she parted from her hubbruid ?" "No further than it was after they quitted Golden-Lane, 1 understood. ' Do you recollect who told you so?" " No; public report." " You know nothing about the matter, o^ The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 8^ ** yonr own knowledge ?" " I do not." " Where do " jou yourself live?" *' In Charter-House-Square." Now, does the Honourable Gentleman mean to say, that is not a positive and direct contradiction of Mrs. Clarke? The witness knows that she had two or three children. It matters not whose children they were: Tliey wepe hOrno/ her to Mr. Clarke, while they were living in- Golden-Lane, where he was at the time carrying on the business of a stone-mason. And yet she positively states, that he never carried on any business. Now, Sir, is not this a most palpable contradiction of evidence ? It may be said, perhaps, that the fact was not ma- teria], and that the witness did not consider herself bound to be very exact in her evidence upon such a point. The witness probably Avas taken by surprise, by a ques- tion to this fact, which in her own judgment was not material ; she had therefore probably not framed her mind to these question* ; but, suspecting that they were put to elicit something from her evidence, of the effect of wliich she was not aware, and which she did not wish to have disclosed, she met it by a denial of the fact. But, if upon a point on which a witness has not pre- pared herself, thougli it may perhaps be thought of no great importance, you perceive tlie witness answering contrary to the trjith, what reliance can you have that slie will be more scrupulous, in her answers upon points which are important ; or, that you will have a better security of hearing the truth from her, in matters on which she must come prepared for the questions, and determined as to the story she is to tell ? Another occasion on which Mrs. (!!larke is positively contradicted, is, in that part of her evidence whore she denies ever having gone by the name of Mrs. Dowler. V'pon this point she ic contiudiclcd by her llampsteud 88 The Chcincelhr of the Exchequer* Landlord, Mr. Nicholls, and more particularly by Mr. Reid. All the circumstances of her evidence upon this part of the case, must be in tlie recollection of the House; but this, Sir, is a contradiction in which not only Mrs. Clarke, but Mr. Dowler also, is most materially involved, and, therefore, I feel it necessary to bring it particularly under the consideration of the House. It must not be understood, that I am not ready to admit that there might be fair excuse, both on her part and that of Mr. Dowler, for their wishing to conceal some of the circunv stances which the questions, if truly answered, would have discloBcd. That they should have answered them, therefore, with great reluctance, was natural :^ but it is not the withholding of the truth of which I complain, but the falsification of it, and that for the purpose of giving a different character to Mr. Dowlcr's evidence. The House cannot but recollect the manner in which Mr. Dowler was introduced, and particularly that part of his evidence which relates to his appointment in the commis- sariat- The fact came out as if by accident, as if to the surprize of tlie examiner. The Honourable Gentleman, the mover of tliis enquiry, had closed his examination of Mr. Dowler; the witness appeared to be rctirijig from the bar, when up gets the Noble Lord (Lord Folkestone) and apparently anxious to knov/ something of the history of the witness, as possibly his credit might depend upon it, he asks what situation he is in ; and finding tliat he is in the commissariat, pursues his question, to learn by wliat means he oil ained his situation : lie ausuers, he bought it for -.1.000 of Mrs. Clarke, wlio procured it for him, through tlie Duke of York. This witness, it must be remembered, is the gentleman who the moment be- fore had told us, how strongly lie had remonstrated with Mrs. Clarke upon the impropriety and danger of I'.ei The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 8S conduct, in procuring money by such menns ! And all this examination was so managed, that it miglit appear as if it was undesigned ; as if the Noble Lord had not heard every syllable of the story from Mrs. Clarke or Mr. Dowlcr, before ; as if the mere dint of his ha ppy questions had extracted this fact from an unwilling witness, who would fain have retired from the bar without having dis- closed any thing upon this subject. Atk'r this, Mr.Dowler H cross-examined, and great ])artof Ills cross-examination would be most material to be atttnided to, if what I am about to observe was not fully suHiciont to destroy his credit, and Avilh his, llie cnxlil of Mrs. Clarke at the ^me time. It became material, when he had stated the fact respect- ing the purchase of his olRce, to learn what commufiica- tionhe had had with Mrs. Clarke. Let me entreat the at- tention of the House to this part of JMr. Dowler's exami- nation. *' You arrived from Portugal on Sunday last ?" " Yes." ** When did you see Mrs. Clarke since your return from ** Portugal?" " On Sunday last." " Have you seen her " since ?" " I saw her justnow in the witness-room." To stop here for a moment, what would the House understand from these answers ? Undoubtedly tliat the witness had seen Mrs. Clarke only once, since his return from Portu- gal, until he met her in the witness-room. But this is not all ; his examination goes on. " Was any body *' with Mrs. Clarke wlien yousaw her?" " 1 waited upon ** her lo request that J 7)iigfil not be called upon as a *' tcitnrss, 'j<;ciiig the circumstiuice of Colonel French\^ levy *' in tiic newspaper; I saw her address in the newspaper.^^ " \Vlrat conversation p.assed between Mrs. C>lark(; and " yon, wlieu you called upon her?" " 1 lumcjited the ^' situation in which I found her placed, as to tiic noto* 90 The Chancellor of the Exckequ^. ** riety of this; (hat I had alwaj's told her, I Was ftaifnl *' it would become known ; and slie said, the Duke of ** York, to the best of my recollection, liad driven her to ^' it, by not paying her debts, and not being punctual irt *' the annuity, as she termed it, that she was to receive " from him." ^' She told you that the Duke of York had '* driven her to this proceeding by not paying her debts^ ** and not being punctual in the annuity that she was to *' receive from him ?" " Ido not know that she said he had *' driven her to it ; my conversation was as short as pos- " sible; merely to request that I might not be called upon.*^ Tlie House will now bear in memory, that it is incon* testably proved, that the very night of Mr. DowlerV arrival in town, Mrs. Clarke found him out, came to his hotel, and passed the night with him; and with this fact in their minds, they will have to determine what credit is due to Mr. Dowler's testimony, when he gives us to un- derstand that he had only seen her on the Sunday ; that his only anxiety was to find out where Mrs. Clarke lived, to request that he might not be called as a witness, and that he only knew where to find her, by seeing her direc- tion in a newspaper; and that his conversation, when he did see her, was as short as possible, only to request thaf he might not be called upon. Is it not manifest, that the story, and all the parti- culars respecth)g the purchase of the commissariafj might have been framed between Mr. Dowler and Mrs. Clarke, at the midnight scene at Reid's hotel? W perceive how much it was the object of the witness, to disguise the truth, to have it supposed that he had seen her but once for a moment, since his return from Por* tugal, and then for the express purpose of preventing his being called as a witness; and is it possible to conceive a greater falsification of the truth ? aud can you look at The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 91 there circumstances and say, that you would wliip a dog upon the evidence of such ti witness? Let him stand as fair as he can from the character of the Honoarabh; Gen- tleman who gave him so good a character just after, ho had convicted him of a falsehood ; let him, after having quitted the Stock Exchange in a way whidi it is generally understotxi throws a blemish on a man's character, yet be considered as coming to our bar as immaculate as he may choose to represent hims<^lf ; still, if we find him thus false in his testimony', acting or assuming a false cha- (acter, before us; if we find him representing himself as a person dragged to yoiir bar, as an unwilling witness, Ti'isliiog you to believe, that those facts are reluctanily extorted from him, which he unquestionably comes forward, most willingly to divulge ; if you find him at- tempting to impose upon you, by stating, that he went to Mrs. Clarke to request she would not bring him forward, when if he had not wished to be brought for-* ward, he had nothing to do but to keep out of her way ; when 3'ou find him so conducting himself, is there any man amongst us, who can say, or who can think, that hi evidence ought to be relied on ? or, that all these misre- presentations can have been made for the purpose of sup- porting the truth ? No, Sir, it is not of (he character of truth to require, or to admit of such support. Besides this, Sir, the falshood in question, bears most im- portantly on tlie fact itself. It was fal)ric.'i(e(l to disguise from the House the opportunity that existed for tliat pre- vious concert between Mr. Dowler and M!rs. Clarke, by which they might agree upon the facts which they were to relate, and upon the manner of relafhig tiu'm. Tlie importance of this concealment <'an best he judged of.by supposing that this concert bet^\een Mrs. f 'larke and Mr, Donlcr had not been detected. Ho.v thould we then 92 Ihe Chancellor of the Exchequer, have had this part of the evidence pressed upon is ? Should we not have heard it said, that Mr. Dowler's ar- rival from Portugal just at this time, was something almost providential, an almost supernatural interference to confirm the testimony of Mrs. Clarke ? It might, indeed, have been considered as confirmatory evidence of no small weight, if it had passed as i}\ey wished to re- present it ; but defected and exposed as it has been, I feel confident, that it must produce the direct contrary effect. So far applies to Mr. Dowler : the House will now attend to Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Dowler having been exami- ned at much length, the House was anxious to proceed to the immediate examination of IMrs. Clarke before she could have the opportunity of knowing wliat Mr. Dowler had stated : but no; Mrs. Clarke was too much exhausted to bear the fatigue of examination, that night. The next day she tells us, " that she had seen the papers, that it was therefore useless to ask iier, how long she had known Mr. Dowler, as she might agree with him." And she does agree with him in that, in which I liave shewn that he spoke folse, on being asked, " How often have *' you seen Mr. Dowler since he arnvccl in England ?" ** Once, and the other night, till lie was caller! in here; *' I have not seen him simce." " Then you have seen Mr. ** Dowler iz conririuotl by other eviilence; then, Sir, ny deliberate, my conscientious judgment assures me, that there is nut a sa)'i,le circuui^li^nce which will be found to alibrd the sliuntcst ground for charging His lioya! Highacis either with corruption or corrupt con- nivance, iu v::y ot ti;ese transactions. Wiih regHici io the c;ise first in order, I mean that of Colonel Knight an't wuiouciLiib-jkv-, the Honourable Gen- tleman who spoke last, did wisely, in passing over this ciii,e without fouiKiiiig upon it any oljserv:itioiis against His Royallli^lineis; because it is a tasevvliieli i^ not only not made out a-aJiist the Duke of Yoik, bat wliicli is most 91 The Chancellor of the Exckequef^ ifronglj and conclusively made out against Mr*s. Ciarkc. I must request the particular attention of the house to the many important observations which this case affords, be- cause, if I do not most grossly deceive myself, an ac- curate examination of it will do more to detect the infa- mous falsehoods of Mrs. Clarke's invention against the Duke of York, and to place the course of her fraudulent fransactions in its true light, than any one of the charges which have been brought before us. In the case of Colonel Brooke and Colonel Knight, it appears tliat the application for their exchange had been made in iha usual course of office; that Mr. Knight applied through Dr. Tliynne to Mrs. Clarke to expedite ii\ that, on the promise of her assistance, it was agreed that she should receive s.200 when the cxchanije should be efTcctcd ; and that she did in fact, upon its appearance in the gazette, receive ^.200 from Mr. Knight. Notv, Sir, OS to the service which Mrs. Clarke rendered for this gratuity, it is quite clear, that t'le exchange for the fur- therance of which she received that gratuity, was com- pleted before she made any application on the subject. Her own evidence (page 10) states tlie application to hava been made to her " two or tl)rec days before it took place, ** or a couple of days." She denies, indeed, (in p. 11)' that she tuld {\\c Honoiirablc Gentleman, Mr. Wardle, t\\TA slie applied on the Tliursday, and that it was gazetted on the Saf urd?<3' ; but in thLs she is distinctly contradicted by the Honourable Gentleman himself, who both in p. 22 and p. 24, states his distinct recollection of the state- ment to him, (hat it was ]>ctitioncd or applied for on tha Thursday, and gazetted on the Saturday. Now Thurs- day was4|je 25th of July. It did appear in the gazette on Tuesdfiy tlie .^Oih, and it is proved by Colonel Gor- doi), p. oO and 48, that tifC Comraauder in Chief ap' Th Chancdlor of Uic ExcJieqiter, '95 proved of the exchange, and that it was submitted to Hit Majesty, who approved of it at Weymouth, on the 2Gtli ; that it was therefore actually determined upon before Mrs. Clarke pretends to have made any application on tJis Tay- lor, I will venture to assert, is not only the strongest, but the only confirmatory evidence, which the whole case aflbrds to Mrs. Clarke's assertions of the Duke of 108 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. York being acquainted with her corrupt practices. Wc Bhall presently see what weight belongs to it. That Colonel French's levy went through all the re- gular forms of office, and was submitted to General Hewitt, tiie inspector general of recruits, is admitted to be true, and, therefore, I need not trouble the House by referring more particularly to the official documents; but we hare it unquestionably in proof, that Mrs. Clarke received considerable suras of money, both from Colonel French and Captain Sandon, on account of her supposed interference with the Duke, in favour of the levy ; and Mrs. Clarke, as usual, gives us to understand, that the Duke of York was informed that she did so. The im- portant part of the case is the conversation at which Miss Taylor is supposed to have been present, and which is urged as the confirmatory proof of the Duke's knowledge of Mrs. Clorkc's corrupt advantage from this levy. It appears to me, Sir, I confess, that, unless there is some- what of a previous prejudice in our minds, such as the Ho^ nourable Gentlemaji alludes to, preparing them to believe the evidence of Miss Taylor, there is a good deal in that evidence itself, which should induce us to withhold our belief. I will not dwell upon the circumstance, that her father went by the name of Chance, and carried on his business, as a broker, in Change-alley, under that name ; and yet she, though living with him, at a few miles distance from thence, at the time, says slie never knew that he went by that name: this is indeed, not very probable, and I confess I cannot believe it ; others perhaps, may believe it, because there seems to be some- thing in this case, which makes gentlemen disposed to believe what, I am confident, they would not believe in any other case : but putting that out of the question ; Tvho is Miss Taylor ? how is it that she represents her- The Chancellor of the Exchequer* 109 self? She represents herself as having been for <^e last ten years, a naost intimate friend of Mrs. Clarke. Docs that intimacy gire this House any high opinion of her character? does it make her a more unsuspected, a more credible witness ? Further, she has been relieved by Mrs. Clarke in her distress ; she has been recently dependent on her charity. But then it is asked, because she is acquainted with Mrs. Clarke, and because she has been relieved in her distresses by her, does it follow, that she is not to be believed as a witness ? I do not say or contend that it does ; but I do contend, that it furnishes the oc- casion of some suspicion, of some hesitation, before we surrender up our belief to her testimony, as an unsus- pected witness. We have, it must be recollected, one contaminated witness before us, whose evidence is im- peached, and requires to be supported and confirmed. Is it then, let me ask, from an old intimate friend and companion of that witness, and in a state of depcndancc upon her bounty, and therefore most likely to be under her influence, that such support can very satisflictorily be obtained ? Is not the evidence of Miss Taylor under such circumstances, rather in want of support and confirma- tion itself, than capable of givinij support and confirma- tion to Mrs. Clarke? She has, for years, lived, and is still living, in habits of strictest intirnacy with Mrs. Clarke, a person of notoriously vicious principles, of depraved character, and loose habits of life ; but what is most deeply to be lamented and condemnwl is, that so connected and so associating with one of the worst of her sex, she has set up a boarding-school ; professing; to educate young ladies in virtue ; the guardian, the pattern, the instructress of their morals ! Is not this. Sir, suificient of itself to impeach her credit? Is not such a profession, iusumed by such a person, a standing fraud practised no The Chancellor of the Exchequer* upon the community ? To judge of the quality of such conduct, let any gentleman imagine what his feelings would be, if, having been led to intrust his own daughters to her care, to receive their education, to be instructed in tliose principles of duty which he would wish to be in- stilled into their minds, he had discovered that the school-mistress to whom he had intrusted them, was the companion, the visitor, the friend, the dependant, of Mrs. Clarke ? Gentlemen'seem to be noting down my words, as if they conceived me to be saying something that was harsh and unfeeling ; and we are told, that the cross-exa- mination of Miss Taylor has been most unbecoming ; that proving herself to be illegitimate, and her parents to be in poverty, has ruined her school, removed her scholars from her, and brought upon her her creditors. Sir, Miss Taylor ^vas brought here as a witness, whose testimony was to confirm Mrs. Clarke, and to establish, falsely esta- blish, as from my conscience I believe, the charge of in- famous corruption, upon the Duke of York ; it was ne- cessary to know who Miss Taylor was ; what were her connections, what her habits of life. In tracing these particulars, it turned out, that her parents were not married, that they had for some time been going from place to place, changing their habitations ; and though undoubtedly nobody would contend, that a Avitness was not to be believed because she was not legitimate, or be- cause her parents were in distressed circumstances, yet I would ask any man, if the examination had turned out otherwise, and if she had appeared to be, as she would have done but for this cross-examination, the daughter of respectable parents, in circumstances of credit, wo should not have heard her credit enhanced, from being so respectably connected. But this cross-examination has ruined her school, and involved her witli her ere- The Chancellor of the Exchequer* 1 1 1 ditors ! I am sorry, and I feel as mucli as any man, for the distress of any fellow-creature, Miss Taylor, as well as any one else ; but I cannot believe, that her cross-exa- mination ruined her school ; it was enough to ruin her school that she appeared as the friend and companion of Mrs. Clarke, and I confess, I cannot bring my mind io lament tliat Miss Taylor's business as a school-mistress to young ladies is put an end io. I have some feeling for the parents, I have some feeling for the children; my feelings are not wholly absorbed by Miss Taylor. But supposing this event to be more to be deplored than I think it is, and that it had been occasioned by this cross- examination ; what then ? is that examination, therefore, to be condemned ? What, Sir, are we io be sitting in judgement in a case like this, and to reserve all our feeling for the witnesses, and to have none for the accused ? Is the Honourable Gentleman to be at liberty, in pursuit of, what he thinks, justice, to found the charge of corruption against His Royal Highness upon the evidence of this witness ; is he to be applauded for so doing, and am not I to have equal liberty to repel the charge ? Am I to be condemned, if, in the pursuit of what I, with equal since- rity, think and feel to be, tlie cause of justice ; I shew who that witness is, what her connections are, and why we ought to pause, at least, before we implicitly believe lier ? Sir, I should feel that I was disgracing myself in the eyes of this House and of my country, if, from any principle of false delicacy, of morbid sen&ibility, as 1 should consider it, I were to abstain from that conduct, as well as from that language, which the justice of the case recjuires ; 1 should be relinquishing, 1 should be be- traying the cause of the Illustrious Person whom I think totally innocent of the offences attempted to be charged upon him, by a conspiracy of malicious wickedness and 112 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. falsehood, if I did not express myself in terras, which I consider applicable id the conduct and character of those whom I can view in no other light,- than as infamous conspirators against his honour and his character. 1 am sure there is no rational and unprejudiced mind, that will think 1 am guilty of any impropriety in making these observations. But supposing the character of this witness to be as un- exceptionable as 1 conceive it the reverse, what is the sort of evidence she gives ? Precisely that which we expect to hear from a witness, who comes to speak to a particu- lar fact, with respect to which she has been tutored and prepared. She states the dry fact to which she is par- ticularly interrogated, and knows nothing more. Her memory is quite accurate as to what she wishes to remem- ber ^it is a blank as to every thing else. She tells you that about four years ago (p. 472) she was present at a conversation, in the course of which, the Duke of York made use of the words he is supposed to have used re- specting Colonel French's levy : she recollects nothing else of their conversation, which passed in her presence : she never mentioned the conversation to any one, from that time 'till within three weeks or a mouth before she was examined, when she was asked about it by Mrs. Clarke : she forgets how Mrs. Clarke introduced the sub- ject ; she forgets whether any one was present, though it was but the other day ; she does not recollect any one circumstance that has occurred lately, though she has so distinct a recollection of this scrap of a conversation which passed four years ago. Is it possible, that any thing can be more suspicious than such testimony ? nay, Sir, is it possible that there can be any thing less credible ? Would it not render suspected, the most unblemished witness ? Can the House feel justified in fixing the The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 113 tliar^re of corruption on the Duke of York, upon sucTi evidence, from a witness connected with Mrs- Clarke, and dependent upon her, as Miss Taylor is ? Consider, Sir, how extremely improbable it is, that the Duke of York should have used these words, at least in the sense in which he is made to use them, in the presence of this woman : how unlikely it is, that he should be so in- discreet as to have put himself so far in the power of Miss Taylor, in whose presence, as appears from her own evidence (Mrs. Clarke's,) His Royal Hii,dmess does not appear to Imve conversed before upon any subject relative to military transactions. I know some gentlemen think Miss Taylor ought to be believed, because it is imagined that if the conversation had been invented, it would have been more pointed, and it would have more distinctly re- ferred to the pecuniary profit which Mrs. Clarke was deriving from Colonel French. But, Sir, this only shews that Mrs. Clarke knows better bow to instruct a witness, than the gentlemen who so criticize the evidence. The difficulty of believing that tlic Duke said these words in her presence, remotely as Ihey refer to the corrupt trans- actions of Mrs. Clarke, is very great: but it would have iK^en wliolly incredible, if they had more directly alluded to them. No one could have been imposed upon to believe His Royal Highness so unguarded, as plainly to allude to such transactions in the presence of a person who admits, that he never before mentioned sucli subjects in her presence, and wiio, Peirson the butler says, never was admitted into His Royal Highness 's presence at all. But what was the conversation ? (p. 12LJ) ' " I am con- " tinually worried by Colonel French ; he worries me " continually about the levy business, and is always *' wanting something mon.' in his own business." ' Turn- ing to Mrs. Clarkf, I tliink he said,' " How docs he be- I 1 14 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. '* have to you, darling J" ' or some such kind words as he used to use ; that was all that was said. Mrs. Clarke replied,' '* Middling, not very well." ' The Duke said, " Mister French must mind what he is about, or I shall *' cut up hiinand his levy too." ' Now, Sir, is this probable, is it possible ? If the Duke asked the question in ihe sense in which it is understood, would Mrs. Clarke have answered, <* Middling, not ver^^ well." Would that have been her answer, if the question related to money ? The whole en- gageineiit with her, was, that she was to have received 2000/. if the levy went on and succeeded ; and, much as it had failed, she had at that time received 1300/. She would naturally liave been desirous of preserving, not of cuttmg down the levy ; she would have cherished the iQcans of future emolument, and not foolishly have bro- ken this golden Qgg. Colonel French had given her more money in proportion to the men he had raised, than he had engaged to give her ; and of course, if she had un- derstood the question of His Royal Highness, as referring to money transactions, she would have said, *' He be- " haves very well to mc, whatever he may do with re- *' gard to you ; to mc, at least, he keeps his faith." From the observations which I have made on Miss Taylor's evidence, it may well be doubted, whetlier any conversation passed upon the subject of Colonel French's levy in h.er presence, but it never can be believed upon such testimony, that she could have been present at a conversation so unguarded, and so improbable, as she desGiibe*; if any passed at all, how easily might words be introduced, or suppressed, which may have altered the whole efibct of it ; and that Mrs. Clarke's friend, Miss Taylor, is capable of having so altered it, and that it is more probable that she 5.!ioiild h:xve done so, and concerted that alteration wilh Mrs. Ciaike, than that the The Chancellor of the Exchequet. 1 15 Duke should, in her presence, hare used such langunge with such meaning, I certainly do, myself, bdicve. * But this case is supposed not merely to furnish proof of corruption against the Duke of York : the Honour- able Gentleman contend:?, that it manifests that gross neglect of duty, which incapacitates His Royal High- ness from any longer filling his high office. It is impu- ted io him as a high offence, that after it had come to his knowledge, that every man raised by Colonel French cost the country 150/., he should still have pcrmitfcd that levy to go on. Now, Sir, it should be recollected, that the wliolc of this enquiry originated out of a complaint made, not against Colonel French, but hy him. Jn his letter of the 15th January, 1805, (p. 195) he complains of General Taylor's persevering hostility to his levy : on the 19th January, this complaint is referred to Lord Cathcart, by a letter from Colonel Gordon ; this brought from Ireland General Taylor's defence of his conduct, in a letter of the 8th February, from Colonel Kirkraan, (p. 196), in which, undoubtedly, many great complaints are made against Colonel French, and in which, tho amount of the expcncc per man is stated at 150/. But, it does appear, whatever may have lx>en Colonel French's conduct, and the ill success of his levy, in other respects, that he was so far well founded in his complaint, that he had not had the benefit which he was entitled to, under his letter of service. Oa the 20th February, Colonel Gordon returns the Duke's answer to the report, io which answer full credit is given to the motives of General Tay- lor ; but Colonel Gordon adds, " It certainly appears, ' ^_ " ' ' * Mr. Perceval recurred to tliis case in his speech of the fol!o\r- ing day, making some adiiitiotial obsenrations, wliich w have ia> corporateU aod brought together in this pUce. 1 2 116 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, " that a premature jiidj^mcnt had been formed on tlic *' probable success of the exertions of Colonel French, " and that the terms of his official letter of service " were not allowed him. I am further commanded to *' transmit to you, a copy of n letter which the Com- '* niander in Chief has instructed ihf Inspector-General f to write to Colonel French ; arid should it hereafter ap- '' pear, that with every reasonable facility, Colonel *' French should fail in the engagement he has under- ** taken, it is the intention of His Royal Highness to '^ communicate to that officer, that his levy should be ** discontinued." The letter inclosed was dated the 2d February, in which General Whitclocke acquainted Colonel French, that, *' Unless a very considerable increase shall take place in " the number recruited prior to the 1st April next, His '* Royal Highness will feel h imself under the necessity " of recommending to His Majesty, to discontinue a " levy so unproductive." Although some more men were recruited, as appears by the return frm Ireland (p. 211), yet that number was hot sufficient to justify its continuance. On the Iltli April, (p. 211) a complaint was made to the Inspector-General of the recruiting ser- vice, of the misconduct of the temporary Serjeants be- lon^-ing to the levy in the London district; and on the 16th April, (p. 212) His Royal Higliness writes to the Secretary at War to discontinue this levy. These, Sir, are the facts and the dates of this transaction. The fact which the Honourable Gentleman principally adverted to, as that whicli should have occasioned the immediate discontinuance of llielcvy; namely, the cost of 150/. per man ; that fact. Sir, would, in my opinion, justly hiduce a prudent person rairier to try the levy a !if tic longer, than to .give it up jubt at that time. Why? Tie Chancellor of the Exchequer. 117 because the whole, or at least a great part of all the ex- pence of the machinery, li I may so express myself, fdr earning thii levy into effect, had already been in- curred. The appointment of the Serjeants and non- commissioned officers had taiscn place ; the expence of these appointments occurred at the commencement of the Igvs, and before it could proceed. Now, suppose that the levy, instead pf being stopped at the end of twelve moDfiis, had been closed at the end of one month, there can Ue uo doubt that the ratio of expence to the public, in propoiUon to the men raised, would have been infinitely greater. '] here is nothing therefore, ia this case, which shews the Duke of York to have neg- lected the public interest, in continuing the levy after he had been informed of the expence with which, up to that period, it had been attended. It is supposed, that the Duke of York shewed a con- siderable degree of tenderness to Colonel French, and that he must have done so tlirough the influence of Mrs. Clarke. Now, let us see how this stands. On the 2d of lebniary, notice is given through General Whitelocke, of His Royal Highness having taken the subject into consideration ; and let any man refer to the language of General Whiielocke's letter, and then let him say, wlicthcr tiiere \^ any thing in that letter which shews any improper disposition to indulge Colonel French ? It will always be recollected, that it was owing to the expence of the recruiting Serjeants, and so i^w men having at the tmie bce/i raised, that this levy appeared to be so disadvanf;igf ous to the pubhc. His Royal Highness d( termiiii-s, on the '2t\ of lu-bniary, to discontinue it, if -a very considerable incrcabC should not take place within a Hniited period. On tiie J Ith of April, a formal comphiint i< mide bv the* Inspector- il8 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. general of the recruiting service for the London dis- trict, and within a very short time afterwards, General Whitelocke communicates to Colonel Gordon, that he had been disappointed in his expectation with respect to the levy, and he desires it should be given up. But what is the language of the letter of His Royat Highness on the subject? It seems the Duke of York is to be presumed to be guilty, because he did not express himself in terms of more violence. Is there any thing which the Duke of York could have said, that could have given a stronger complexion to bis disapproba- tion ? Or, was there any thing that called upon h.\m. to have recourse to more violent measures, or to adopt a different character of expression, from that which is to he found in his letter to the Secretaiy at Wai- ? It is dated on the l6th of April, 1805, and is in these woi-ds: * Sir, as it c^ppears by the return of Colonel French ** and Captain Sandon's joint-levy, that it is not by ** any means so productive as might have been expected, '^ and as the Inspector-general of the recruiting service " has represented, that the conduct of the whole of the " temporary serjeants of that levy, now in the London " district is highly improper and detrimental to the ser- " vice, I bnve recommended to His Majesty, and Hi " Majest}' has been graciously pleased to approve of ** this levy, being forthwith discontinued, agreeable to " a clause of the Letter of Service to that effect ; and I " kave therefore to request, that the necessary informa- *' tion may be given to Colonel French and Captara " Sandon accordinslv. I have ordered a communica- " tion to be made to the Commnnder of the forces in *' Ireland, and to the Inspector-general of the recruit- " ing service on the subject." These are the expres- sions in my opinion the appropriate expressions in The Chancellor of the Exchequer* 11 w]iich the Duke of York announces his determination to discontinue the levy. Is there any thing in this language, that should induce the least suspicion of the Duke of York intending to favour Colonel French ? Ought not the suspicion rather to be the other way ? If the Duke of York was conscious that Colonel French and Captain Sandon, knew that he had been corruptly pocketing 1300/. of their money, would he have turn- ed them adrift in this manner? Would he not have given thera some compensation for being deprived of the profits of this levy, which profits were to furnish 2000 /. to the Duke of York and his mistress ? It may, perhaps be thought, that aft^r the complaints which were made against this levy, the scandal of continuing it would have been too notorious ; ihat it was necessary therefore on account of the public opinion, and the feeling of the army, that it should be discontinued. But still some promotion, some advantage in another shape, might have been afforded to those concerned in it; and 1 do put it to the candour and good understand- ing of every man who hears me, whether, if the l>uke of York had been sensible, that he was participating in the corruption of Mrs. Clarke, and that those persons must have known of it, he would not iiave done some- thing for Colonel French and Captain Sandon, with a view to the alleviation of their disapointment? whether, in short, he would have cut down their hopes at once, and have turned them forth, in a manner to provoke them by the natural impulse of their irritated feelings, to aflbrd the means of his detection, and to expose his corruption ? Yet it is true, that after this levy was dis- continued, there was an applicalion on the part of Co- lonel I'rench and Captain Sandon, for a modification nd rene>val of the levy. They wished for an oppor- 120 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, tunity of making the trial again ; but the Duke of Yorlfr positively refused his consent; and f must leave the House to determine, whether this was the conduct of a man who had any cause to fear the displeasure of the persons whose applications he refused? With respect to the report of General Taylor, it is fair to observe, that the officers of the army dislike this mode of recruiting for general service, as contra-distinguished from regimental re- cruiting ; yet it is matarially essential to many part? of the service, especially for the East-India Company's service, that it should go on ; iind the difficulty of procuring men at the time we are alluding to, being considered, no one will be disposed to deny the neces- sity which existed for thus recruiting men for general service. It was natural that Colonel French, who appears to have been successful in a former levy, should have offered, and that his offer should have been accep- ted, to raise a number of men by general \e\y at this particular period ; and the offer having been accepted on given terms, it was necessary and essential to justice, that Colonel French should have the opportunity of making his exertions, with all the advantage which the Letter of Service allowed to him. Upon the whole, then, I feel confident, that as upon a due examination of this case, there is no ground for imputing to His Royal Highness any knowledge of Mrs. Clarke's corrupt prac- tices ; so neither does it furnish any ground whatever foj- imputing to him any criminal neglect of the interests o/ the public. The next case which was brought before us, is the case of MiijorTonyn; and I cannot help observing, that there is no one case, amongst all the charges, in which the whole progress of the transaction appears to The Chancellor of the Exchequer . ISl be more demonstrably uniform, regular, and official ; originating in a most respectable and natural sourcxi of application, and effected under circumstances in which the idea of the influence of Mrs. Clarke, or of any one else, is most clearly and satisfactorily nega- tived and excluded. It arises not only out of the re- commendation of a general officer, but that general officer the Father of Major Tonyn. It was well and fa- vourably received, but for a time was not successful. At length it succeeds, but when ? and iiow ? Does it suc- ceed on Mrs. Clarke's application ? Unquestionably not. Colonel Gordon tells us, (p. 175, &c.) that whea it was in contemplation that there should be a great increase in the army, not less than fifty battalions, " I " received orders," he says, " from the Commander '* in Chief, to prepare a list of the senior officers of " the army, of each rank, iind to take their names from ** the book of recommendations where they had beea " noted." In consequence of this command he did prepare a list: Major Tonyn's name was upon it : there were fifty three appointed to majorities ; among them were twenty-nine captains of the jears 1794, 1793, 1796, 1797, and one of 1799 : {Captain Tonyn was of the year 1795, in which year there were only six captains tenior to him in the service. The only delay which occurred after this list was made out, was, a delay which arose out of the nature of the case. iMajor Tonyn's appointment went on with all the rest ; it was part of the general arrangement. Any measure which should have had for its object either to forward or retard the promotion of Major Tonyn, would have affected the progress of the whole. It appears indisputably, that any Tipplication to Mrs. Clarke, must hq^vc been quite unnecessary on the p;ut of 122 The Chancellor of the ExcTiequer. Major Tonyn. If he did apply to this intriguing wa man, in consequence of her falsely pretending and in- ducing him to believe that she possessed the means of influencing the Commander in Chief, it only shews that he was weak enough to be grossly imposed upon by her. For it is incontestably proved, and a fact which does not admit of the remotest possibility of doubt, that his pro- auotion would have taken place, and did actually lake place, without any other application than that of his own Father. Can then this House, upon the evidence f such infamous witnesses as have appeared at its bar; can it, upon any evidence it has heard, suppose for one moment, that His Roj'al Highness, having determined upon the promotion of Major Tonyn, upon such clear grounds, could have lent himself to the disgraceful pur- pose of fabricating a note to induce Major Tonyn to believe that he would either retard or accelerate his pro- motion, according as Major Tonyn did or did not leave the sum of 500/., in the hands of his agent, for the benefit of Mrs. Clarke ? Is it within the scope of hu- man imagination to suppose, that if he could have been so base as to have done this, he should have committed himself by a written note, to make himself appear an instrument in such a transaction ? Tiiis note, from the manner in which it was first kept back by Captain Sandon, and at length extorted from him, has naturally excited much attention ; and these circumstances have possibly given it an impor- tance which would not otherwise have belonged to it. It is said to have been written by the Duke of York himself, is directed to Mr. Farquhar, the name by which His Itoyal Highness frequently addressed his letters to Mrs. Clarke, and it is sealed with his seal. The words of it ire, " I have received your note, and Captain Tonyn's The Chancellor of the Exxheqrter> 193 " business shall remain as it is. God bless you." As to the proof of the hand-writing, it does not rest, certainly, on Mrs. Clarke's evidence alone. Those most conver- sant in His Royal Highness's character of hand writing, all think it very like his hand : one nly (General Bfownrigg) says he does not believe it to be his. But still I think we have strong and pregnant evidence to induce us to pause, hefire we do conclude that it is his hand- writing. The House is too well aware that there is such thing as forgery, as successful forgery ; but, in order that the foried from the first draft was not sent at all, or was not distinctly' explained to the Duke, there is nothing whatever in this case, but that the man who had offered to provide a loan for the Duke, did, jn communication with Colonel Taylor, by using Sir H. MaiHi's name, j)iocnre Colonel Taylor to influence the Duke of Yoik to second Sir H. Mann's application for a place for him; that he did so apply ; that that application failed ; that lie renewed it i'or another with equal bad success; and at last, that Colonel Taylor having learnt that he was a man of bad character, communicated that information to the Duke, and that [lis Royal Highness, as soon as he had heard it, told Coionei Taylor to have nothing more to do with him. Now, Sir, not knowing what i^ to be said upon this case, 1 must leave ii here, ai.d 1 iru^t the Honourable Gentleman, who is to take it iq), will deal fairly and can- didly by it, I'ill those observations are made, of course they cannot be re[)l:ed to, and I must therefore leave thein to be observed upon, by tljose who are to follow hnn. With respec t to the case of Eklerlon, the Honour- able Gentleman was equaiiy shori in his observations; and, perhaps, it might be sufficient for me merely to ob- serve that this case, not only does not concern any ap- pointment in the g^ft of His Royal Highness, (being for a Paymaslcrship,) but also that there is not the slightest The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 145 trace of any money having been received by Mrs. Claike or any one else, as coiinected with ibe appointment. But amongst Mrs. Clarke's letters which were brought from Hampstead, there is one connected with this case, which it is extremely import. Elderton, that she would procure from His Uuyal i highness this favour; magnihed the 146 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, difficulty of procuring it; and when it was obtained from the commander of the regiment, by his own application alone, assumed the merit of the success, ascribing it to her interference with the Duke : and Elderton, impressed with this opinion, writes this letter of thanks, which of course she could not deliver^ but, suppressing it, left it among her own papers. The next case which seems to have made some im- pression upon the House, is the case of Major Turner. The documents respecting it will be found in p. 282 ; and in p. 294 is the evidence explanatory of them. This is the case of a gentleman who is desirous that he may be permitted to resign. His letter, rfequesting the accep- tance of his resignation, arrives at the same time with a letter from a Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland, which desire* that His Royal Highness will not give him the oppor- tunity of resigning, as ** he has behaved with unkind- " ness towards a lady, who merited different treatment ; *^ and it is of importance to her to know where to find *' him forthesesix months; and if he quits the regiment, " he means to secrete himself from her." She adds, ** The general knows all about it, and can corroborate " wliat I say, if necessary." The Duke, upon the re- ceipt of this letter, suspends the acceptance of the resig- nation, till he receives the result of the enquiry which he ordered to be made of General Gartwright, the co- lonel of the regiment to whom lie supposed Mrs. Sinclair to refer him for the particulars and the confirmation of her complaint. Upon this the Honourable Gentleman says that the Duke is highly to blame ; and he asserts with great in- dignation, that His Roj'al Highness must have known who this Mrs. ^Sutherland vras : that she was a woman of bad reputation, a prostitute, and consequently a per- The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 147 son on whose statement no reliance could be placed, and no step ought to have been taken or suspended, to the pre- judice of the character or interests of anofficerin the army. Sir, I hardly knew how to trust my sense of hearing, when I heard the Honourable Gentleman make this ob- servation. Does the Honourable Gentleman really think that no attention ought to have been paid to such infor- mation? Does he really mean, that because a charge or a statement is made against any man by a [ijostitute, that it ought to be wholly disregarded and disbelieved on account of the character of the person who makes it ? Does the Honourable Gentleman, who has not he- sitated to prefer such serious charges against the son of his sovereign, on the statement and information of Mrs. Clarke does he who ha thought the assertion of such a woman, a sufficient ground for him to rise in his place, and undertake to prove His Royal Highness to be guilty of corruption does he who has thought himself justi- fied to pledge himself and his character, in moving for an enquiry into the conduct of the Commander in Chief upon such a foundation does he say that the commu- nication of Mrs. Sutherland ought not to have been acted upon because she was a prostitute f Is it for him to say that the Duke of York was iuexrusable in paying attention to a suggestion, coming from so corrupt a source ? Is this candid dealing towards the Duke of York, on the part of the Honourable Gentleman at a time when the Honourable Gentleman is a candidate for public favour, and is exalting himself in the public opi- nion, by having done the same thing as thai which he thus censures in His Royal Highness? But what does the Duke of York do upon the information in question ? Nothing that he would not have done upon the receipt of an anonymous letter, contatning the same matter L 9. 148 The ChanctUor of the Exchequer. He directs enquiries into the truth of it. It may rndeeI be said, that an anonymous letter may be a better thing to be relied and acted upon, than a letter signed by a person who is known, and known to be of bad charac- ter. But what in this case, is the conduct of His Royal Highness? He makes an enquiry of the General, to whom he is referred by Mrs. Sutherland. It is not on Mrs. Sutherland's authority that he is disposed to act, but he :)plies for information to the colonel of the regi- ment. The Honourable Gentleman says, the resignation of MajorTurner was still delayed ! no such thing, Sir ! the Honourable Gentleman could not have read the letter of General Cartwright to the end what does the Ge- neral say in that letter, addressed to Colonel Gordon ? He says, '' In reply to your enquiries respecting the *' scrape in which it appears that Captain Turner has *' got with some woman of moderate repute, I have to " sny that I am entirely ignorant of every thing which " relates to this matter ; but for your satisfaction, icill " endcavovr to inform mifself of particulars, nhich Ziehen " obtaintd, shall be transmitted to you^ I am afraid of trustins; to my own memory, as the Honourable Gen- tleman has already thought proper to doubt the accuracy of it ; but as far as I can recollect, he did not read this concliiding passage of General Cartwright's letter ; but reading only that part oFit which contains the statement of his ignorance of the whole matter, the Honourable Gentleman built liis charge against the Duke of York, li)at he did still delay to accept the resignation of M;iJor Turner. If he had read the next sentence, he would have i'ound there was no room for this observation. It was delayed, iiuKed, till General Cartvvright proc u'ed the further iufuimaiiou which iic promised; the result of The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 149 tVie enquiry was satisfactory; and immediately on the receipt of the answer of General Cartvvright, enclosing the extract of Colonel Mundy's letter, the Duke suh- mitted Major Turner's resignation to His Majesty, which was accepted ; and we find Major Turner writing a let- ter to Colonel Gordon, bearing date the next day to tliat on which General Cartwright's letter, containing that extract, is dated, in which he states, that he has just received information that his resignation is accept- ed. It was not, therefore, delayed an hour after the enquiry had been made. Here is, therefore, a charge brought against an ofH" cer, with respect to which it might have been proper to have retained him in the service, (because such a com- plaint against an officer, might amount to a military of- fence of ungentlemanlike conduct.) It was proper, therefore, not to let him leave the service, till it was en- quired into it is enquired into without delay and as soon as a satisfactory account of the fact is received, his resignation is admitted. The Honourable Gentle- man opposite to mc, seems to doubt the accuracy of what I am stating : let him refer to the minutes, and he will find, that on the 5th September, the letter, contain- ing the proposal to resign, is transmitted to Colonel Gor- don : on the 14th is the answer of General Cartwri^ht to the enquiries made by Colonel Gordon, stating that he should endeavour to inform himself of particulars ; on the 2Sd is tlu; letter of General Cartwright, contain- ing the result of his enquiries; and on the 2ld is the letter of General Turner, stating that he has received the information that his resignation is acce|)ted ; so that it appears that the business of Major Turner's resig- nation was carried into effect within three weeks after he coade iiis first application ! but liere again 1 must ob- 1^6 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. sierve, that upon a question, which is a question of cor- ruption, we are endeavouring to enquire into facts, which can in no degree apply to that charge. The next case to which the Honourable Gentleman referred, is one which was so ably handed by my Ho- nourable and learned Friend behind me, and explained i'n a manner so congenial to my own feelings, that [ shall not think it necessary to occupy much of the at- tention of the House in adverting to it. I mean the case of Samuel Carter : with respect to that case, I am sure it is impossible for the House to have any other feeling, than that it affords an instance of humane con- sideration of those who contributed to the advancement of that unfortunate young man. What is the case of Carter ? There is no part of the conduct of Mrs. Clarke, by which, in my opinion at leastj she so much redeems herself from the infamy, which otherwise attaches upon her, as by lier conduct with respect to Satiiuel Carter. The House may recollect when the case of Carter was introduced, and s!ie was asked whether she had a foot- boy of that name, >heieplied, apparently hurt by the question, " Yes, 1 had ; but Colonel Wardle told me " he would not mention thai," It is the case of a poor boy rccommtiided in tlie year 1801 to His Royal High- ness, by an officer, Captain Sutton, who represented that he was the orphan of a wounded officer, who had lost his life in the service of his country. There seems to be a doubt, whether there might not have been some disguise in this representation, and whether he was Cap- tain Sutton's own son, or the son of a brother-officer. But, at all events, this was the representation made of his case, to His Royal Highness. It appears the lad was well brought up ; that Captain Sutton took a perso- nal care of his education ; that he treated hini in the The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 151 Way, wliich has been stated by a most respectable wit- ness, General Rochfort ; and that he gave him an edu- cation which perfectly qualified him for the situation, to which he was afterwards advanced by the kind inter- position of the Duke of York. It seems that the first application in his favour was made in 1801, just at the time, when the House will recollect, tliere was a con- siderable reduction in the .irmy, and consequently, when a commission could not easily be obtained. His dis- tressed circumstances led to his living under the protec- tion of Mrs. Clarke, and be was in this situation of de- pendence in Mrs. Clarke's family, when His Royal High- ness gave him the commi^^ion. He is described, in- deed, as a fooiboy,a description, uo doubt, below his sta- tion, and given to degrade and disgrace him : he no doubt was living with Mrs. Clarke in a state of depen- dence, he is proved to have waited behind the chair of the Duke of York, at her table ; and once (or twice at most), to hare gone out behind her carriage. But it is likewise proved by Mrs. Favevy, that he wore no livery, and received no wages. The Honourable Gentieman, indaed, has described him not only as a footboy, but that he had lived in that capacity with Mrs. Clarke for twelve months. This is, evidently, a mistake ; it was in May, 1804, that the commission was given him. Mrs. Clarke's establishment in Gloucester-Place did not be- gin till some time at the commencement of the year 1804; so that instead of his having been there twelve months, he could not have lived with her there above four months. Under these circumstances then, what is it that His Royal Highness has done by the grant of this commission to an unfortunate lad, which is hostile and injurious to the honour, and character, or feelings of the army Application had been made in hi. favour at a 15-2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. period considerably prior to His Royal Highness** connexion with Mrs. Clarke ; the Duke of York had probably forgot the recommeudation altogether, but having engaged in this most unfortunate connexioti with Mrs. Clarke, he meets with this young lad, and he is reminded of the former application, and of his own promise ; and he does that, which, instead of offending the army, reflects a lustre, as it appears to me, on the character of His Royal Highness, and exhibits his humanity and generosity in a light which the army must be differently constituted from what it is, if they do not approve and applaud rather than condemn. He rescues this unhappy, unfriended youth, from the humble and degraded station in whifh his poverty had sunk him; he revives those hopes vvhiclj his bnUi and education might jusiiy have led him to cherish, and which his ovvn pro- mise to Capt. Sutton had encouraged; and he removes liim to a situation i'or which he had been lonij before re- commended, and recommendcvi as the son of a brave and meritorious ofiicer, who Jiati bled and died in the cause of his country. Now, Sir, I would appeal confidently to the feelings and justice of that very army, whose feelings are supposed to be offended by this appointment; I would appeal to the feelings of the House and of the country, whether an act like this is to be imputed to the Duke of York as a crime ! If a man is to be punished for his vires, it may be well ! but let him not be punished for liis virtues ! and this act, I feel confident, that every humane feeling tliat can or ought to influence ilie ?nind of an honourable and good man, will dispose us unanimously to approve and applaud as a virtue. J do not wonder indeed, that when tliis case was first mentioned to the House, it should have excited a con- gidtrable sensation, and that there should have been u The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 153 disposition to attach blame to His Royal Highness, for raising unto the honourable rank of an officer, in the British army, a lad of obscure birth and immoral coq nexions, with no other pretensions than the recommen- dation of such a woman as Mrs. Clarke I do not won- der that it should have given rise to sentiments of indig- nation, but satisfactorily explained as it has been, and when all the circumstances attending it (circumstances so honourable to the Duke of York) have been examined, I should indeed be surprised if the House should view it in an unfavourable light, or should fail to set it down, not amongst the crimes, but high amongst the merits and virtues of His Royal Highness, as an act marked bj nothing but the liberality and benevolence which prompted it. That the commission, which was given to this young man, was not disposed of to a person un- worthy of his situation, is manifested by the letters, which, subsequent to his appointment, he wrote to Mrs, Clarke. These letters are in evidence; the House is aware of them, they do him honour. Tiiere is a senti- ment of liberal gratitude, breathing through the whole of them, which prove the qualities of his heart, as well aa the progress of his education. The Duke of York must at least have the satisfaction of believing now, and nothing but a total want of candour would presume, that he had not good reason to expect before, that the youth to whom he had extended his protection, instead of being a disgrace, would be an honour to the army. He is now, as we are given to understand, upon the staff, in the West-Indies, not promoted to that station, by the recommendation of the Duke of York ; but recom- mended hv his own good conduct, which, the General whom he served, had the opportunity of observing, and tlip just discrimination to reward, 1 do sincerely hope. ISi The Chancellor of the. Exchequer. aad trust, that wherever what has passed in this House may be heard or read, it m;iy not make any impressioo on the minds of the brother-officers of this young man, injurious to him in his professional character, or ruin- ous to his future prospects : and 1 am confident the House would deeply himent ; 1 am sure, that all those gentlemen, who in the first instance, before this case was fairly brought under their examination, considered it in the strongest and most prejudiced point of view, would extremely regret, that this case should ever have been introduced, if it should be attended with a result so cruel, so unjust, and so unmerited by the person whose appoint- ment has been the object of our enquiry. The case I am now coming to, is one, which unques- tionably is of the greatest importance; for, it is one' which gentlemen on the other side of the House, suppose to bear the hardest against the Duke of York. I allude to the letter from His Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke, in which the name of General Clavering is introduced. Whether it is a case which merits the observations, that have been made upon it, will be for the House to judge, after 1 have drawn their attention to the circumstandes with which it is connected. To my mind, it certainly does not appear to possess the importance, which others have been disposed to attach to it. The letter of His Royal Highness, is in all our memories. It will be found in page 245 of the minutes of the evidence. I will state the exact terms of the passage, which refers to General Clavering ; they are these, " Clavering is mis- " taken in thinking that any new regiments are to be " raised ; it is not intended, only second battalions, to " the existing corps: you had better, therefore, tell him " so, and that you were sure there would be no use in ap- ** plying for hiin." The Honourable Gentleman made an The Chancellor of the Exchequer. i55 observation upon this letter, which indeed astonished me ; be said, that this letter appeared to have been written with great caution by His Royal Highness: If any gentleman will read this letter, without suffering his mind U) be actuated by a most uncommon degree of prejudice, I am sure he will not think that caution is its true cha- racterisiic. There certainly is no appearance that it was ever intended for the public eye; it is little calculated to be dissected and commented upon in the manner it has been. Who, except the Honourable Gentleman himself, is so biassed by liis views of this case, as to say, that this is a letrer which has b( en written with premeditated caution and circumspection ? that it lias been written so guardedly, as to suggest to tlie Honourable Gentleman, that His Royal Highness anticipated, while he was writing it, the possibility of its coming under the public eye, and that he guarded himself in his expressions accordingly ? I am persuaded. Sir, on the contrary, that every unprejudiced mind will see in the language of it the strongest marks of the most unreserved, and confidential communication. But, Sir, it is necessary to refer to some other letters, which we have in evidence, and which have passed between General Clavering and Mrs. Clarke ; which will afford a useful comment upon the letter under consideration. I much deceive myself, if it will not appear from these letters, compared especially with Gene- ral Clavering's evidence, that she was corresponding with General Clavering and the Duke of York, at a sort of cross-purposes, receiving applications in one sense, and answering them in another. It appears from Gene- ral Clavering's own evidence, that he had offered lOCK)/. to Mrs. Clarke for a regiment. I conceive that we connot give a date to this offer at any other period than just about the date of the Duke's letter. It should 156 Ihe Chancellor of the Exchequer. seem, that, in consequence of this offer, Mrs. Clarke made some application to His Royal Highness, and tha' this letter from the Duke, in which General Clavering's name is mentioned, was the answer to it. It is evident, that no mention was made of the offer of this 1000/. If it had been mentioned, it is impossible that the answer of the Duke of York should not have taken some notice of that circumstaiice ; he must either have been disposed to encourage or resist it, but evidently he does neither; we must conclude therefore, that she did not mention it. Yet how is it, consistently with the supposition of the Duke's knowing of her corrupt prac- tices, that we can account for her omitting to mention it? It is the largest offer which appears at any time to have been made to her ; and would not the DuV.e of York, if he knew, if he approved, if he encouraged these prac- tices, if he profited by them, would he not have received with eagerness an application of this sort? But as the trnth unquestionably is, that His Royal Highness was wholly ignorant of these transactions, and would have discarded Mrs. Clarke the moment he suspected them, her silence is easily accounted for. 1 wish to bring the attention of the House pointedly to the date of the letter : The letter written by the Duke of York, is dated Sand- gate, August 24, 1804 ; and v.e have a letter from Gene- ral Clavering, p. SOS, dated Bishop's Waltham, 5th Sep- tember, 1804. This letter, from its context, is evidently an answer to one which the General had received from Mrs. Clarke; probably the letter which conveyed to him the representation which Mrs. Clarke made of the Duke's answer to that application for a regiment, which she was to make in consequence of the offer of the 1000/ What that answer was, we see in the letter in which General Clavering's name i mentioned, and which probably The Chancellor of tkt Exchequer, 157 l-eached her on the 25th or 2Gth of August. Now, let us see General Clavering's reply to Mrs. Clarke, and from that we shall judge how correctly she must have stated to General Clavering the substance of the Duke's letter. The reply is in these words, " My dear Mrs. " Clarke, you mention that His Royal Highness did not " comprehend my proposal. My idea was this, the De- " fence Act, article 30, states, ' that men to be raised by " that act, are not compellable to serve out of the " United" Kigdom, and Islands immediately attached ;* ** and in 32, * That they shall not remain embodied for " more than six months after the peace :" then he says, *' we have always experienced the fatal effects of disband- *' ing corps at an apparentconclusion of war;"- and thpn he proposes enlistment from the militia. Now, Sir, let me ask any man, whether this has any relation to the letter written by the Duke of York ? General Clavering had aid, that he was desirous of recruiting from the militia, and probably suggested that as the means of procuring ft regiment, for which he was to give Mrs. Clarke 1000/ Then Mrs. Clarke asks the Duke of York, whe- ther any new regiments are to be raised ? he informs her that no new regiments are to be raised : and then her repU' to General Clavering must have been, for there is no possibility of accounting for General Clavering's letter in any other manner, that the Duke of York does nor understand his proposal ; and this answer amuses him into ;he belief, that the Duke of York is really consider- ing ot liis offer lie proceeds to explain his plan, upon the supposition, that the Duke requested the explana- tion. Ai^ain, Sir, let me ask, where is this letter found } If the Duke of York was really desirous of information on any military plan suggested by General Clavering, would 159 'Jthe Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs. Clarke have kept the General's letter which de- tailed that information ? Would she not have forwarded General Clavering's letter to His Royal Highness ? And would it not, therefore, have been with His Royal High- ness ? And yet tWs letter, as well as the letter from Mr. Elderton is found with Mrs. Clarke, who never thought of delivering either of them to the Duke. But she would have us believe, that he left letters, after having read thenj, lying about carelessly, and that she, therefore, put them amongst her own. If that were so, we should have found other letters in her possession, which might more naturally have been expected to be in the Duke's. But except these two, none such are found in the posses- sion of Mrs. Clarke : what the House will think of this, I know not ; but I have convinced myself, at least, that I perceive in it a proof, that Mrs. Clarke was playing her old game with this general, as she had done with others; and that, instead of this being a case which should induce us to believe that there was any corrupt participation of connivance on the part of the Duke of York in the offer of General Clavering, it is one which makes it impossible to believe His Royal Highness had any knowledge whatever of these transactions. It is a case, indeed, which shews that, on a subject upon which his Royal Highness could have no reason, public or private, for withholding the in- formation from any one, he did not refuse to tell Mrs. Clarke, that there were " no new regiments to he raised.'* It does prove that, in the unsuspecting state of communi- cation between them, upon a subject of such perfect in- difference, as, whether new regiments were to be raised, or only second battalions. His Royal Highness did not reject and resent her attempts to obtain this information. But his omitting to do so, is the utmost extent of his offence; it cannot be carried further : and to estimate The Chuncdlor of the Exchequer. 15 J) the degree and nature of that offence, we must keep in mind, that this General Clavering is an officer of high rank, of most respeclahle connexions; and whom the Duke could, consequently, not have suspected of being coocerned in any dishonourable traffic, either with Mrs. Clarke, or any one else. We cannot, indeed, but feel surprised, that such a person should have applied to the Duke through Nf rs. Clarke : but what account this artful woman gave of her acquaintance with General Claver- ing, we do not know, though we have every reason to believe, that Mrs. Clarke's invention -would have fur- nished her with an account sufficiently plausible to im- pose upon his Royal Highness, to think it not un- natural. The expression concerning Dr. O'Meara, which occurs 'n the letter from Weymouth, has certainly made considerable impression ; it will doubtless be recollected, that it has no reference lo any military transaction, nor has it any connexion therefore with the conduct of His Royal Highness in his character of Commander in Chief. That Dr. O'Meara, a person so well recom- mended and thought of by the Bishop of Tuam, should have sought his introduction to the Duke through Mrs. Clarke, is most extraordinary, and it is undoubtedly much to be regretted. The fact that he did' so, cannot bt^ doubted. The Duke's letter to Mrs. Clarke says, that Dr. O'Meara called upon him, and that he delivered to him her letter. It is indeed, much to be wished that His Royal Highness had thought and felt tlntt a clergyman who sought to be introduced through such a channel, from that very circumstance, deserved not to be noticed ; but it certainly does appear, and I regret it as much as any man, though I cannot see in it any public or official offence, that His Royal Highncis ijiibrms Mrs. Clarke 100 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. that Dr. O'Meara wished for an opportunity of preaching; before His Majesty, and that the Duke of York expresses his intention of endeavouring to procure him the means of havino: his wishes gratified. Now, Sir, I shall proceed to make some remarks on the parcel of letters that were found in Captain San- clen's custody : there are several of these, with respect to which, I cannot but be anxious to offer a few observa- tions. We find much in the evidence which has already been examined, to convince us that His Royal Highness was not acquainted with Mrs. Clarke's corrupt dealings, and that she was extremely anxious they should not come to his knowledge; and many of the letters which were found in Sanden's custody, will be found of great importance, as strongly confirmatory of the same fact. In page 378, there is a note from Mrs. Clarke, addressed to Colonel Sanden, in these words : " Mrs. Clarke's compliments " await Colonel Sanden, thinks it best for him not to * come to her box this evening, as Greenwood comes " w ith both the Dukes this evening, and of course will ** watch where their eyes direct now and then ; and *' should he see and know Colonel Sanden, may make * some remark, by saying or talking of the levy business, ** and it may be hurtful to his and Mrs. Clarke's future *' interests." Here is a circumstance which proves that Mrs. Clarke was apprehensive lest her practices should be disco- vered by her being seen at tlie Opera in company with Captain Sanden, and that Mr. Greenwood would have an opportunity of remarking upon the subject of Colo- nel French's levy. It is obvious, therefore, that the connection of Captain Sanden with Mrs. Clarke is to be kept out of the sight of the Duke of York. It will be 'The ChdnceUor of tlie Exchequer. J6l ibtind in page SS2, that there is another letter, in which there are still stronger observations. This letter is as fol- lows, " Dear Sir, ete I leave town, I scratch a few lines, ** begging you to be on your guard in every point ; but of " ray name in particulary for the future never breathe ** it. I am confident you have a number of enemies ; *' yesterday, the " (Duke of course) " was assailed ** from seven or eight different persons, with invective " against you ; he is a little angry at something, yet will " not tell it me. I think this fellow, Kennet, tries his " friends they laid fine complaints against you : Did. " you tell Zemininees, that as soon as Tonyn was " gazetted, you would get him done in the same way, " and that I was the person ? Let mc see you on Mon- " day. Adieu; 1 am interrupted." Here is another occasion in which she cautions Captain Sanden not to mention her name : she apprizes him tliat something has occurred, which makes it a matter of delicacy ; she fears to be implicated, she knows not what it is the Duke has learnt, but she fears that Sanden may have said some- thing about her interference for Zemminees, and for Tonyn ; she requests him to be particularly cautious of mentioning her name in strong earnest terms, " never to breathe it," diat no opportunity ma}' be afforded of giving encouragement to the belief of any thing that may be stated^ concerning them. These are some of the obscrvatious which seem to me to be mate- rial, and to arise fairly out of these letters. There are unquestionably many more. I shall not trouble the House by going through the whole of them : I am o sensible of the extreme length at which I ha^e occu- pied the attention of the House, that 1 do not think I should be justified in doing more than noticing those letters, which appear to me the must important. There M 162 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. are some few, certainly, of that description. One letter, to which I would particularly desire their attention, will be founU (in p. 379) directed to Captain Sanden ; it in in these terms : '' My dear Sir, I am vexed to deatb, ** you well know the state of my finances I hit upon *' Spedding for Tuesday, when, hehold, the regiment he " is in did their exercise so bad, that the Duke swore at *' them very much, and has stopped the promotion of " every one in it." Now, that is not the fact, for Colonel Gordon, in his evidence, says, that their promo- tions were not stopped, and the gazettes are produced which shew that their promotions were actually going on at the time. This then is a false fact communicated by Mrs. Clarke to Captain Sauden, for the purpose of making some impression or other, with a view to her design ; probably, having made some undertaking with Spedding, which she found would not be accomplished, she invented this circumstance to serve as an apology fof her failure. Here then follows, in the same letter, a passage for which I cannot account : " He said *' so much to the Colonel (VV'emyss I think), that " if he had been a gentleman he Would have given up: '' but he intends lou'king over the memorial to-day, as *' S. has not been long in that regiment, and he is an *' old oflicer; so that you see, if he gets his promo- '' tion, how very much he ought to be indebted to my ^' good otiices. I must beg hard for him. The Duke *' is very angry with you, for when he last saw you, you ** promised him .'300 foreigners, and you have not j)ro- '' duced one. O yes. Master Sanden is a pretty fellow *' to depend on. J wish I had hit upon Eustace first, '^ 1 told you, I believe, that they must be done gradually, *' his clerks are so cunning. Get Spedding to write out ** a list of his services, and seiid it to me, as a private " thiuon the ccasi(jn ; which, had it been M 2 iChi Tfic chancellor of the Exchequer. true, as she would have had it behcved, would have lc(f to the disappointment of Captain Spedding in the apw plication which so displeased him. How is the fact ? He does succeed in that application which he made through General Tonyn ; he failed in those which he made through her. There is another letter, in the same parcel, written hy Mrs, Clarke, in which, speaking of Captain Spedding^ she says, "he mast advance 200/. more." It is evident, from all these circumstances, that she was anxious to procure the promotion of Captain Spedding ; that af her application succeeded, she would have had the benefit of putting that 200/. in her pocket; and her want of success is a convincing proof, that she did not possess- the influence she pretended. It is not, that there was any insurmountable objection to Captain Spedding ; he does succeed in one of his objects, but it is only when he applies through another quarter ; and his success, when he succeeded, cannot be referred to Mrs. Clarke ; though his failure, when he failed, would certainly not have occurred, if she could have prevented it. The im- portant result, therefore, of this case of Captain Sped- ding, is this : it exhibits Mrs. Clarke, in the first place, j inventing and representing a false fact, respecting the] stoppage of promotion in his regiment, as the reason | why she could not procure him the promotion, which^j she had given him reason to expect. Whether she ever made any application to the Duke about him, or only pretended to make one, cannot be ascertained ; there i^i no confirmatory evidence upon that point at all : if shei did not make such application, it can only be accounted! for by her knowing, that it would not be received if shel jnade it ; but if she did make the application, as she pre- tends, then the failure proves her want of influence j. The CJiancellor of tltc Exchequer;, 1^5 nd, therefore, on either supposition. Captain Sped* ding's case, when attentively considered, is decisive 4igainst the truth of her story, and in favour of the Dnkc of York. There is anotlier point to which I must now refer, though I will not go into it at any length, because I cannot pretend entirely to understand it. I mean that relating to tlie letters, of which the Honourable Gentle- man (Mr. Wardle) obtained possession from Mrs. Clarke. it is a fact involved in such confusion, that it is very dif- ficult to ascertain the truth of it. It will be found in p. 522, in part of Mrs. Clarke's examination on this sub- ject, that she is desired to look at the letter to Mr. Do- novan, of the 28th January. She is asked, " Did you " give these letters to Mr, Wardle, in order to facilitate *' any negociation ?" she says, " Yes ! not the letters *' that Colonel Wardle ran away with, but letters of ** field-officers to recommend two or three lieutenants to ** companies ; they were to give more than the regula- *' tion ; three or four hundred pounds." Now, the ex- pression in her letter to Donovan, cannot possibly refer to the letters of field-officers; the passage is, (p. 132.) ** 1 must be candid and tell you, that in order to facili- "** tate some negociations, I had given him (meaning ** Mr. Wardle) a few of your letters in one, you speak ** of the queen, in another, of two deaneries." 1 do not, however, refer to this passage now, to trace that contra- diction, but for the purpose of shewing with what unre- iserved facility, Mrs. Clarke states and invents facts, when it is her interest to vilify the character of any person connected with the Duke of York. She adds, in the passage of the evidence to which I last referred, " I un- *' deratood from Mr. Donovan that Greenrvoad was to '* have some part, Froome another, himself a siiare, *' and me: thcsu young men were to pay, I think, fout i 56 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. *' hundred over the regulation, and that it was the last *' job Greenwood was to give Froome ; that it was to * complete a very old promise of the Duke of York. '^ Mr. Donovan told me he must have the recoramenda- " tion of a member of parliament, or a general officer, *' to cover himself." Now this observation of Mrs. Clarke's, introduced for no other purpose but to bring in Mr. Greenwood's name with disrespect, and to represent him as desirous of obtaining a job for Froome, upon an old promise of the Duke of York, the profit of which all these parties were to share amongst them, is not only false, but has really no verisimilitude. It supposes Mr. Greenwood em- ploying Mr. Donovan, to procure Mrs. Clarke to obtain the signatures of some general officers to certain recom- mendations to lieutenancies ; which recommendations the Duke of York was to act upon, to execute an old pro- mise of his own ; as if Mr. Greenwood and the Duke of York together, could not have procured the promotion, vcithout the help of Mrs. Clarke. It is likewise impos- sible,utterly impossible to be believed, that Mr. Donovan could be thus makinguseof Mr. Greenwood's name, to ob- tain meney in partnersliip with Mrs. Clarke, at this time it happened but the other day, in this very year ; it could not be a case in which she was to avail herself of her in- fluence with the Duke of York : it is a striking instance, therefore, of that barefaced disregard of truth which cha- racterizes so many parts of the testimony of tiiis woman.' She affects to say, that she was to get the signatures of some persons through ^Ir. AA''arflle, b}' which her im- positions were to be carried on for the benefit of Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Froome, Mr. Donovan, and herself. J say, Sir, that this is so outrageously incredible, that it is of no use to advert to it, except as it may expose the temerity of her assertions, and her indifference eterj The Chancellor of the Excheqiter, l67 to ihe credibility of what she invents ; or ejccept as ijt may expose the distress which she was put to, to explain the passage in her letter to Donovan, in which she re- presents her having put certain letters of his into Mr. Wardle's hands, to fadlitate some negociations. For tliat, in a job in which Mr. Greenwood was concerned, Donovan would be employed by Greenwood to procure assistance from Mrs. Clarke, is utterly absurd. Whe- ther the Honourable Gentleman (Colonel Wardle) did undertake to procure the signatures which were wanted on this occasion ; or whether these letters were put into his -hands to facilitate any, and what negotiations, I must leave to the House to collect, if it can, from the evidence ; I confess, I can collect no certainty from it myself. fn the course of the observations whicL I hate submit- ted to the House, 1 have taken notice of every thing upon which an unfavourable conclusion against the Duke of York has been grounded, except the circum- stance of the payment made by His Royal Highness for the plate ; and the rate of Mrs. Clarke's expences and establishment: these remain to be considered. The purchase of plate is argued upon thus : plate to a cer tain amount was bought for the use of Mrs. Clarke: she paid, as she says, towards this purchase, 5(J0/. the identical 500/. which she received from Colonel rrcnch, on accotmt of his levy ; and the Duke of York paid for the remainder. Upon these facts, it is presum- ed, ilxat the Duke of York must have known the whole price wliich was to be giveu for the plate ; that he must have undertaken to make her a present of it; that he must have known of Mrs. Clarke's [)art j)ayment of that price ; that he must have known from what source ihe derived the means of making it ; and tipon these 16S The Chancellor of the Exchequer. few facts, aided by these several presumptions, it is con> eluded that, as he was relieved, to the amount of this 500/., from the necessity of paying for the whole, he actually and personally profited to that extent, from the transaction of French's levy. To meet this argument, it is right to see how the cir- cumstances respecting the payment for this plate stancl in the evidence, independent of Mrs. Clarke's state- ment. The evidence will be found in p. 129 and 247. The way in which ihat evidence is there given, by Mr, Biiikitt. is by exhibiting the debtor and creditor accompt of the sale of this plate in his books; and the first arti- cle oi" that accompt is this : " Tiie whole of" the above- mt.nrioncd articles for 1303/. Ms. 0./." Then follows a sitiiCirent of various particulars of chrirge for other arLic;rs of plate, together constituting a total of 1S21/. 1 Is. Ad. ; on the other side oF the accompt, there appears a payment of " 500/. by cash, on account, on *' the ISth May, 1S04 ;" and all the other payments that make up the difference, appear to have been fur- nished by drafts and bills, which are proved to have been payable, and paid by the Duke of York. (p. 247.) It is observable that the first payment, which reduces this accompt to nearly the sum paid by the Duke of York, is 500/. By whom this was paid, or how, does not appear. Mrs. Clarke tells us it was by her, and with the money before alluded to. It no where appears, except from Mrs. Clarke, that the Duke of York was aware of the whole of the demand, and that it amounted to so large a sum as 1821/. AVhat (he Duke of York paid was 1321/. If he had paid 1363/. Ms. it would have appeared that he had paid the whole that was due for the purchase of the Duke of Biiri's service of [>late. He did not pay for it exactly, but he paid with.in 42/. of The ChameUor of the Exchequer, iGgi it. Now at he did actually pay so nearly tho whole of what that service cost, will the House, upon no better evidence than Mrs. Clarke's, conclude th.^t he knew any thing of her payment of 500/. ? Or, if he did, that he knew from what source she obtained it ? This cir- cumstance took place very shoiUy after the setting up of the estabhshment in Gloucester-Place. IVirs. Clarke . says, siie was not in debt at that lime. Is there any proof that the Duke mig-ht not have had reason to sup- pose that Airs. Clarke had some little money of her own ? or, when we recollect ijiat Mrs. Clarke herself admits that 500/. was alout that very time (p. C6l) fur* nished by the Duke of York to her, to purchase articles of niate and linen; might he not suppose, that this payment to the extent of 500/., or part of it at least, was made out of that very sum which he had provided hiiiiselr r In short, Sir, 1 feel confident that these cir- cumstances, when fairly examined, will never be con- sidered as any confirmation of Mrs. Clarke's evidence. I next proceed to advert to the argument founded on the rule of expence UiCurred in Mrs. Clarke's establish- ment, as compared with her means of supportmg it. The House will recoKect, that I was authorized by His Royal Hijihness, to make a statement of his expendi- ture on account of Mrs. Clarke, as far as he now could trace if, with any correctness and precision. But, Sir, 1 do not feel it necessary to refer to that statement, as the fdir result of Mrs. Clarke's several examinations and cross-examinations on this head, together with other fvidcnce before us, brings the expence so near to tiie sum to which I stated, that it will in effect and for the pnrpofie of the argument, be the same ; and It is more regular, no doubt, to found my observations upon the vidcnc.e, than upon that statemcDt. 170 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, Mrs. Clarke states, that nearly all" the furniture in Gloucester-Place was supplied by the Duke of York, and a great part of the wine. Now, the greater part of the expence which was in- cluded in the statement I was authorized to make, con- sisted in the purchase of furniture and wine, and a sum of 5000/., which was incapable of distinct proof, because it had been delivered over by His Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke herself, without any intermediate witness to prove the fact. But her evidence confirms that fact, t!iat all the money which she received was from the Duke of York himself, and not through any agent employed to pay her ; and therefore, actual proof of the payment cannot be had in any other way than from the statement of His Royal Highness. But, though Mrs. Clarke did say in one part of her evidence, that she never received any more money from His Royal Highness, than 1000/. per annum, (and upon that unqualified assertion it was, that the great and unfavourable impression upon this head was made upon the house ;) yet we find, in page 250, Mrs. Clarke admitting, that " once or twice. His ** Koyal Highness gave me small bills for three or *' four hundred pounds^ but they were his own signing *' and drawing up : it was to get my necklace, or some- " thing in that way, from Parker's in Fleet-Street." Here then is an instance of the Duke of York furnish- ing Mrs. Clarke with small bills, as she calls them, for three or four hundred pounds ; for the purpose of doing what .'' to take articles out of pawn. Undoubtedly, the articles were placed in pawn to raise money; The Duke furnishes Mrs. Clarke with money to get thera out of pawn ; and in so doing, he as effectually furni;>hes he? with money for her expences, as if he had advanced it in the first instance. She is asked whether His Royal The Chancellor of the Exchequer. 17 J Highness did not pay 15000/. for her during the three years she was vviili him. Her reply is, ** Do you include ** His Royal Highness paying for the House before I * went into it, or keeping me and the establishment ? ** including every thing, all the advances that were " made? I cannot tell what he paid for the house ; I *' can tell what my lawyer got for it." It seems that her lawyer had a mortgage upon it for twelve or fourteen hundred pounds ; therefore, if the house sold, as she be- lieves it did, for 4,400/., a sum would have remained sufficient for the payment of all her debts, according to the amount at which she stated them herself, namely, SOOO/. (p. 26.) Then here is evidently a supply left in her hands by the Duke of York, sufficient to enable her to discharge all the debts she had incurred : Upon be- ing asked, " Were you paid no more money besides *' the 1000/. a year ? she answers, " No, I was not: *' I certainly complained to His Royal Highness, and " he said he would make some future arrangement." What that future arrangement was to be, does not appear. She admits afterwards (p.SOO), when she has been very much harasfied for any thing, and could not get it from other quarters, and there was nothing in view, " His Royal Highness would then bring me 100/. *' extr.i, or two perhaps, but I do not recollect ever two, " I do one or so, one now and then, but not often." But besides these occasioual payments, it appears that Royal Highness looked forward to the time when he might make a better nrrangement for her. He had in- curred a considerable expence in furniture, and such articles, ii|>on the fust formation of the esl.'il)lishment at Glouceslcr-Place ; but ns this would not be to occur again, he would be more at ease to defray other expences, and to discharge the debt v, hlch whe miLdit ihen be con- traetiiip-. 17 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. In Parker's books, it further appears, that a bill was drawn, which I have before adverted to, by Mr. Dowler on Mrs. Clarke ; and some by herself, on Mr. Farquhar. These bills were not paid when due ; but they were taken up afterwards, by the Duke of York : and putting all these things together, it will appear, that the ex pence for furniture and wine, the regular payments, and these various sums together, make the exj^nditure of the Puke of York, during his connection with Mrs. Clarke, amount to about 20,000/. ; though the actual advances of maney are not accounted for to a greater aitiount than 5000/. in the two years and a half; and this nearly tallies with the authorised statement which 1 made to the House. These, Sir, are the facts ; and what is the infe- rence that the Honourable Gentleman would draw Irom them? That His Royal Highness, knowing the expen- sive nature of the establishment in Gloucester-Place, must have known that it could not be defrayed by what he advanced, and therefore, that it was supported by the corrupt means which Mrs. Clarke mentions ; that he must have been conscious that he was supplying that establishment with means very scanty, and extremely inadequate. Mrs. Clarke tells you, that in one instance, when her necessities obliged her to apply to the Duke, he referred her to her ingenuity, telling her that " if ** she was clever, she need never want money." Does it not itccur to the House, how inconsistent the evidence f Mrs. Clarke herself is upon this very point .^ Does Mrs. Clarke ever insinuate that he answered her subse- quent applications by sncii a reference ? Docs it not on the contrary appear, that she was monthly, weekly, daily, pressing him over and over again for money, and, ac- cording to her statement, pressing him in vain ? If her evidence is entitled to the Icjist credit, what would havo been 'li'- iiM)h of the Duke of Yt-ik to her a})plicalions? The ChancelloT of the Exchequer. t78 " You surely do not come to me for money : you are under no necessity of applying to me for that which I have told you I liave not the means of giving you: yoa have only to come to me for commissions, by the sale of which, you will be enabled to have an ample supply.'* Such, if Mrs.Clarke's evidence were true, would have been the language of the Duke of York ; such would have been the terms in trhich he would have answered any application from her for money. There are no less than 4000 military commissions, of various descriptions, that pass through his office, on an average, in the year. During the time she was with him, there must have passed about 10,000. Could she, if slie had possessed his authority to make money by her cleverness out of *hese commissions, have ever been in want of 100/. or even of 1000/. ? Impossible ! Her distress, her debts, her repeated applications to the Duke for money ; his sup- plying her with one or two hundred pounds only, at a time; his referring her to the prospect of a new arrange- ment, are all, to my mind, and I am confident they must be so to every man who will view them fairly and candidly, decisive proofs, that Mis Royal Highness never sanctioned or authorised, or connived at, these transactions. Afid this inadequacy of His Royal High- ness's allowance to her establishment, coupled with her repeated applications to him for money, so far from affording an inference tigalnst the Duke of York, is strong and conclusive for him. There certainly does appear to have been, on the part of His Royal Higliness, an indifference with regard to his pecuniary concernii. There was a bat kwardness to look into his accounts, "which generally is the case with per-ons whose accounts are in such a state, that it is unpleasant to look at thcni ; -but there is nothing which furiushes the shghtest ground 174: The Chancellor of the Exchequer. for charging the Duke of York with any knowledge or suspicion that Mrs. Clarke was supplying any part of her extravagance from these corrupt sources. I cannot bring my observations to a conclusion, with- out pressing upon the attention of the House the very extraordinary exhibition which Mrs. Favery has made at our bar. She appears, beyond all doubt, to be the half- sister of Mrs. Clarke the daughter of Mr. Farquhar, Mrs. Clarke's father, by a former wife. There is, I ad- mit, no distinct evidence on the subject ; but when Mrs. Favery's eyidence, from page 459 to pag 460, is exa- mined ; when her account of taking the name of Far- quhar, to obtain more respect, as she" says, is considered ; that she married in the name of Farquhar, though sbe declares that her real name was Favery ; Mrs. Farquha/, the mother, paying bills for her ; and if we then attend to her answers to the following questions, there can be no doubt of the fact (p. 4(52) : " You are not Mrs. Farquhar's daughter ?" ''No; I positively am notMrs. Farquhar's daughter." " Are you not Mrs. Farquhar's husband's daughter, by a former wife ?" " 1 cannot an- swer you that question ; but I am not the present Mrs. Farquhar's daugliter, I can assure you." *' Cctnnot yoa answer that question ?" " No, I cannot indeed." ''Why canpot you ?" " Supposing I did not know my father or my mother ; I cannot swear to that ; I cannot tell what ihey did with me when I was young :" and then, after several other questions and answers " But you will not state that you were not the daughter of Mrs. Farquhar's husband, by another wife?" she an- swers, '' f cannot say any thing about it ; but [ can say I am not this Mrs. Farquhar's daughter; that I can an- swer to." it is no unfair inference, that she was related, and I'he Chancellor of the Exchequer, 175 that nearly, to Mrs. Clarke, but that it was an object to Mrs. Clarke's credit and vanity that the relationship should not appear. But what was her story, her most false story, as it came out on the cross-examination of my learned friend ? She told us that she had lived with a Mr. Ellis, who was now dead ; that he was a carpen- ter ; that he kept a house in one place, and a shop ia another, and she could not tell us the situation of either. Yet Mr. Ellis is alive ; he was no carpenter ; she knew him to be alive ; she knew him to be a respectable clergyman : but having lived with him as Mrs. Farquhar, and not as Mrs. Favery ; having been recommended to him by Mrs. Clarke under the name of Farquhar, she thought it necessary to mislead the House from finding Air. Ellis, who would detect her falsehood. It appears afterwards, that she learnt that Mr. Ellis was summoned to this bar to contradict her. She then attempts to make her peace with him ; she knows where he Jives ; she goes to him ; she accounts for her not having given a true account of him, because she thought it would be disagreeable to him to be brought forward : whereas it was her own falsehood which imposed upon the House the necessity of calling him. On Mr. Ellis being pro- duced, Mis. Favery is contradicted, and Mrs. Clarke is contradicted too, who also says, she never knew Mrs, Favery under any other name tlian Favery (p. 448). This gentleman, Mr. J'^llis, a clergyman, a most cre- ditable and respectable witness, against whom there has not been the siigliiest insinuation or suspicion, tells u., thai he received Mrs. Favery into his service under the name of Farquhar, upon a character given of her by Mrs. Clarke, to whom he applied, enquiring after her hy that name ; that u[)on his a[)j)l!calion, she answered fur her ; ami, by the character she gave ofiier, iSlrs. Fa- I7S The Chancellor of itie Exchequer, rery obtained the situation in this gentleman's family,-** not under the name of Favery, I say, but ot Faiquhar t and farther, that while she was there, Mrs. Clarke came to see her, and visited her under circumstances of great apparent familiarity. Yet Mrs. Clarke told us, that she never knew Mrs. Favery by any other name than Fa- Tery, and that she must have assumed the name of Farquhar unknown to her. Now, Sir, let me ask whe-* ther there is any thing that can shew a greater disregai-d to truth, both on the part of Mrs. Favery and Mrs. Clarke, than this evidence.^ However painful it may be supposed to have been to the feelings and vanity of j Mrs. Clarke, to admit the fact of her relationship to Mrs. | 'Favery, yet no one, who was not as depraved in dispo^ sition, and as destitute of every principle of truth, as^she ' is, would so deliberately have sacrificed her veracity to her vanity. This is a strong feature in the case. It shews what sort of people we have to deal with : it shews Mrs. Clarke will not only speak falsely herself, but bring witnesses knowingly and voluntarily to do the same ; that they are not independent witnesses speaking to inde- pendent falsehoods ; but that they both come forward prepared to relate the same story, the falsehood of which has been so fortunately and so satisfactorily detected-r- and yet, Sir, after this detection, we are deliberating whether, resting upon Mrs. Clarke's evidence, we shall convict His Royal Highness of the charge with which she accuses him ! I will not trespass on the time of the House, by re- calling its attention to those presumptions which my Learned Friend has referred to, arising in favor of His Koya! Highness, from the character of the persons whom he has selected to sr.nour,d him in tiie cliscliarge of his hidi ofScia! (Uitie;. li' lib Ivuva] Hisihncss had Tlie Chancellor of the Exchequer, 177 been laying these plans of iniquity and corruption, which have been so falsely imputed to him, would he bve surrounded himself with such honorable persons to overlook and scrutinize his conduct? Would he have made choice, as his advisers, of persons of such high and uncorruptible integrity officers of high rank and distinguished merit, than whom the whole army could not have pi-esented characters more alien from any thing that bears the least resemblance to corruption ? I need only mention the name of General Calvert; every one who knows him, can bear testimony to the estima- tion in which he is held, not only by the army, but by all who have any means of knowing him Colonel Gordon has spoken his own testimony, and in giving evi- dence in this case, has established his own character. With respect to others who have been employed about His Royal Highness, similar observations might be iuslly made; and as far as any general presumptions and general impressions may have arisen in the House from any other circumstances, injurious to the Duke of York, I trust, they may be well and etfectually met by these considcratious to which I have last referred considerations which would of themselves, be sufficient to remove any impressions which could be made by $uch scstimouy as that, which I have at so much length, wid I flatter myself, so satisfactorily, commented upon and exposed. Ihave now. Sir, '.'one through this case with the various observations which I have deemed necessary; and I think, I have aliev, n enough, in the first place, to make it clear, that the I' juse is called upon in the fair dis- charge of its duty, under the particular circumstances of this inip(jrtant case, to give their opinion decidedly, Aye or No, upo!) rhc Question of the guilt or innocenge 178 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of His Royal Highness. After that opinion shall have been pronounced, there will then remain the conside- ration of what it will be proper for the House further to do upon this subject ; and whether the address I have proposed is the most fit to be adopted : That address will then remain to be compared with what has been pro- posed by the Honourable Gentleman. But, whatever the House may think with reference to any ulterior proceed- ing, the}' cannot, 1 am sure, so fur demean themselves, as to shrink from declaring tlicir opinion upon the ques- tion of guilt. Of this also I am convinced, that if the House acts up to its own character and dignity, as I am satisfied it will, it must abandon the Address of the Honourable Gentleman r For, what does that address express, as the result of this serious and most important enquiry ? It states, that the House has discovered the existence of a variety of raal-practices and abuses of ofiice, and that His Royal Highness could not be well ignorant of them ; but whether he is guilty of having had any participation in them, or whether he Is altogether innocent, the substantive address to the King is to remove him from his high situation. Now I say, whether he is guilty or whether he is inno- cent, is a question which is anterior to that which respects his removal, and upon the decision of which must depend what remains to be done. If the Honour- able Gentleman had so framed his address, his speech, and his charge, as to have done away the imputation of corruption, and had suggested any other grounds for the removal of the Duke of yoik, it would have stood yery differently, and would not have been open at least to the objection, which I am now urging ; but even then, if the House should think, that independent of the charge of corruption, there are other grounds for The Chancellor of the Exchequer. l79 his removal, the course which the Honourable Gentleman has pursued, is not that which this House has adopted on any former occasion, or can adopt consistently with its character in the present. Tlie whole speech of the Honourable Gentlemen goes to the charge of corrup- tion ; and then, for fear of wounding the paternal feel- ings of His Majesty, he declines informing him of what has been the result of our deliberations : He declines letting His Majesty know, that his Son is innocent ; and yet he will not state that he is guilty ! But I feel con- vinced, that I need not labour this point any further : I am satisfied the House will manfully and unequivocally pronounce its opinion ; and whatever objections may be taken to our proceedings, there shall not, if my opi- nion shall prevail, be any ground for objecting to them, as disgracing the character of the House of Commons, by shrinking from the decision of the great question of corruption ; a question however, upon which, according to the view which I have taken of this case, I can anti- cipate only a favorable decision. When therefore the House shall have agreed, as I trust it will, to the resolution declaring. That there is no ground for charging His Royal Highness with cor- ruption, or connivance at Mrs. Clarke's corrupt practices ; they will then have to consider, what further notice, by way of address or resolution, they will take of the different matters which have j'ppeared before us; and whether that which will remain, when we have decided against the charge of corruption, and upon which we shall have to mark our dissatisfaction, regret, and dis[)lcasure, is such as to require that we should address His Majesty for the removal of His Royal Highness; or, wlicther it will be sufiicieut to express our regret for the past and T* 2 ISO The Chancellor of the Exchequer. our hope for the future, in such manner as may enable His Majesty, consistently with the honour of His Royal Highness and of the army, to retain him in his present situation. 1 trust the House will adopt the latter ; and I do feel persuaded, that the House cannot be disposed to confound so much, all the faults and dis- tinctions between one offence and another, as to give sanction to the principle on which the address of the Honourable Genileman proceeds. The foundation, and the whole matter of the Honourable Gentleman's address is, that if the Duke of York is guilty of corruption, he ought to be removed ; but that if he is not guilty, it must be the same ; in short, that whether he is guilty of bas remind us, that ;i.-3 [)iiblic characters., we onghl to l;e<|> in view the opunou of the pul^lic ; lluvi it bcctaiu-i us lo take u 184 Th& Chancellor of the Exchequer, proper estimsite of its value, as all our hopes of public usefulness must be founded on the good opinion and con- fidence of the country, I perfectly agree with him; and if his observation is to be carried no further, and itn* plied no more, I have no objction to it ; but if it may be supposed to refer to any existing impression which may have been made out of this House in the public mind, to which the opinion of this House must conform, or that the country will, as the Honourable Gentleman expresses himself, decide against the conduct of the House, I deprecate the doctrine as most unconstitutional, and as most unjust. What, Sir I have we been sitting week after week upon a painful examination of this case, and are we at last to decide, not upon our own view of the evidence which we ourselves have heard, but upon the opinion which has been formed of it by others I An opinion, too, how formed ? Formed, through the most indecent abuse of the liberty of the press, upon those garbled extracts of the evidence which have been circu- lated during the enquiry', and commented upon with an industry as unprecedented as it was malicious. Are we to be threatened with the judgment of the country upon our conduct, if we do not bend our decision to such an opinion ? Against the doctrine that this House is to decide upon any opinion but its own, even when sitting in its Legislative capacity, I beg leave to enter my strongest protest : but that this House can think, that in a case of a judicial nature, on which we are to decide upon the interests and honor of an individual, we ought so to be influenced by an opinion which we must know to have been so mischievously excited, I cannot, and I will not believe. We nuist. Sir, I admit, for the efficiency of our mea- Sires, and for the dignity ot" our character, keep in view The Chancellor of the Exchequer, 185 the public opinion; we should so conduct ourselves, that our conduct ought to be approved by our constituents and our country ; and we may confidently trust, that if we do our duty conscientiously, the enlightened un- derstandings of the people will give us credit for having done it faithfully, however it may be at variance with their present impressions. If there are those, who form- ing a premature judgment have thought differently, they will retract their erroneous opinions, and they will do justice to their representatives, provided their represen- tatives do justice to themselves provided they do not desert the station, and surrender the functions which they hold under the constitution of the country. If these are not the sentiments by which the House of Commons is to regulate itself, the House of Com- mons will not only lose its influence ; but if to flatter the people, or basely to court their favor, we surrender our correcter judgments to their misguided and inflamed impressions, we desert our duty, we abandon our trust ; ur place, our functions in the Constitution are gone. It were better there should be no House of Com- mons at all ; it were better at once to accept as our Constitution a wild unrepresented democracy, without the controul of the House of Commons, or Parliauient, than to degrade ourselves by consenting to become the mere instruments of that democracy, to adopt its opi- nions, and to register its laws. I do hope. Sir, and feel confident, therefore, that ;he House will put out of its consideration, ev'y ihin:^ {!e- xivcd from any other quarter than from the ev deuce and argument heard within the Hou^e Kself. The Honorable Gentleman says, ihat "Thecountiy " will decide upon his conduci :" I also feel, Sir, :lia{ the country will decide u ;uu mi.-.e j uud ia the conduct ISO The Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I pursue, I do look for the judgment which my constituents and ray country will ultimately form upon the propriety of that conduct, and feel that they will estimate my public character accordingly ; and I trust I shall not be considered as arrogating any thing too much for myself, when I say that I have as much to lose as the Honourable Gentleman; thatl haveaninterestin the pub- lic opinion not less deep than the Honourable Gentleman himself. In the course I have p\irsued, whatever I have done has been open, it has been avowed, it has been before the House and the country. I have neither "disguised my first impression and prejudice against the Honourable Gentleman's statement, nor rny opinion as 1 have formed it upon the evidence as it has proceeded. I have no hesitation in saying, that I have thought that in many views of this subject, and on several occasions, it has presented alternatives extremely difficult of choice. In the outset of the business it was extremely difficult to determine whether the most eligible mode to be adopted would be the open and public enquiry which has been chosen nor an enquiry before a select or secret committee; upon the whole, I certainly did think, not without being sensible of much of the inconvenience which might attend it, tliat the most public enquiry, especially as it was anxiously sought for anrl preferred by the Royal Duke himself, would be the most satisfac- torj', and therefore the best The House adv>pied it. And although I certainly do feel much of the inconve- nience which has arisen out of this publicity, yet there has nothing occurred upon the whole that has led me td repent that choice, which in a difficult and distracting case I then thought right to recommend, f think now, that if his Royal Highness is acquitted, as I think h6 ought, and as I trust he will, of these foul charges, that The ChanfceUor ofiht Exchequer. 187 the acquittal will be more satisfactory to ourselves, and to the country, than if the enquiry hiid been less public. That tlie enquiry, if it had been less public, woiild have been attended with some advantages, is obvious; but it is equally obvious, that those advantages would have been coutilerbalanced by accompanying inconvenien- ces. If any impressionr should have arisen in the pub- iic mind, that the true state of the evidence had been suppressed, and that the privacy of the enquiry had been used as the means of screening the object of it from the censure or the punishment that he deserved, we should then have had reason to repent of such privacy. Now"i Sir, the grounds upon which the House of .Commons will come to its determination, will be those which may be as well known to the public as to themselves. But whether this determination was right or not, the choice .being once made, wc could not have the benefits of publicity without its attendant evils. It was necessary that we should be consistent ; and to have withdrawn any part of our proceedings from the public, to have acted on the wi>?h to suppress or conceal any part of the case, would have created more suspicion, than if our enquiry had originally been conducted in a less public manner. Throughout the whole of these proceedings, therefore I have felt, that if we erred at all, we should err more safely by extending the range of enquiry even beyond what might perhaps be deemed Its proper limits, than to contract it. Upon these, and upon all other points which have occurred during the whole course of the proceeding,! have never shrunk from avowing my share in them, and have openly stated and explained the reasons for my con- duct; my conscience tells me I have acted faithfully and justly. Towards the Koyal Duke I confess [ have acted with an earnestness, and an anxiety, equal to what I 192 The Chancellor of the Exchequer* should have felt if it had been the cause of my brothei" ; and in the proposition which I tender to the house, I protest that I feel it to be the same, which under similar circumstances I should be bound to propose, if His Royal Highness were a perfect stranger to me It is in my judgment that which the demands of public justice, and public policy, require at our hands. What the result will be, the house will determine ; and as far as I am concerned, I can assure the Honourable Gentleman, that with respect to my constituents, (who are, I must take leave to tell the Honourable Gentleman, an extremely numerous body, with as extended and popular a right of election, as any in the country,) I am not apprehensive^ if my conduct is rightly understood by them, that there is any part of it, by which I shall incur the risk of for- feiting that confidence, which I have so long enjoyed, which I regard as the best test of my public character, and which I esteem as a posession of the highest value. I shall now trouble the house no further, but conclude with moving the amendment, which I have before ex- plained. (See page 130.) Mr, Bathuhst Mr. Bathurst. 19S Mr. Bathurst said, he thought both the original mo- tion and the amendment were, in his opinion, so objec- tionable, that he could not give either of them his con- currence, lie disapproved of the latter part of the amend- ment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, iu which he attempted to consolidate the two motions into one : for he apprehended tliat unless the House had some- thing to communicate to His Majesty, in which they de- sired him to take some part it was neither usual nor necessary to submit to His Majesty what has been done by that House. His Majesty had the same means of in- formation of what was going on in the House, as the public in general have, through the medium of the pubHc prints, and therefore it amounted to nothing, the stating to him in a formal manner what had passed. He had the same ob- jection to the xVddress itself. He should rather have an amendment proposed, expressive merely of the guilt or innocence of His Royal Highness the Commander-in- Chief, which might be afterwards followed up by some other resolution, either that he should or should not be continued in the command of the army, upon a thorough investigation of all the other matters of inquiry, without the House coming to any final determination upon the pre- sent occasion. There was no occasion for nuiltiplying re- solutions as preparatory ones to the last, when one resolu- tion might answer the purpose sufficiently ; for it was more manly in the House to come to a direct and positive opi- nion upon those charges. Mr. Bathurst then entered into an examination of the various parts of the evidence, but in a manner very inaudible in the gallery. We understood liiin to argue, tli;it llie letters produced might have been written merely for the purposes of deception of persons who applied to Mrs. Clarke fur promotions and appoint- ments. This supposition was strengthened by the circum- stance of solicitations being continued, even after wurningi^' o 194 Mr. Bathunt. had been given and disapprobation had been expressed to Mrs. Clarke by the Duke. It had become so notorious that she had influence with the Commander-in-Chief, that she had found it her interest to follow it up. When it was considered \vha4: sort of a man General Clavering was, it was evident that he could not be one that was dabbling in commissions, as Captain Sandon had been, and therefore that he too had been amongst those who were duped. This being the case, none of tiie letters produced appeared to afford the presumption that His Royal Highness was aware of all the applications made to her. As to the note which had the name of Mujoi Tonyn in it, a considerable degree of the impression crt-atcd by that note must be done away, when it was known that tliai (^(^Irei had various sorts of br.siness at the Horse ^vuards, and that Mrs. Clarke was oflcij applied to, niercK to give information of what progress had been made in iransactions connected with that office, through her connsciion with the Duke. As to the boy that was promoted in tlie army, it had been proved that he vvas the son of General Sutton ; and it should not be a matter of surprise, that he was taken notice of on account of his possessing merit. Disapproving as he did of (he mo- ion and the amendment, both in point of form aid substance, he should think it his duty, unless some other gentleman took the matter up in the light in which he viewed it, to propose other terms for the House, express- ing Its sentiments in a manner more congenial to the feel- ings of the Illustrious Peisoiiage under whom the army had flourished for many years. ^Vithout intruding his proposi- tion at present, however, he should only suggest what he thought would be most proper upon such an occasion ; namely, " That this House has observed with the deepest regret, that in consequence of a connection the most im- proper and unbecoming, communications upon official subjects, and relative to military promotions, have been Mr. fVhitbrea'd. 195 allowed to exist, which could not but tend to the discredit of the official situation of the Comraander-iu-Chief, and give colour and effect as they have done, to transactions the most indiscreet and pernicious." Mr. Whitbread " 1 approve, Sir, of the judicious speech that has been made by the Honourable Gentleman who his just sat down. I think that what he has said is in many points so convincing, and the deductions drawn are so irresistible, that no man can dissent from them. But, Sir, I should have wished rather to have followed the Right Hon. Gentleman over the way, (Mr. Perceval,) as I was prepared to answer many of the arguments he used in the eloquent speech which he has made ; for, to do him justice, 1 must say, that in it he has displayed abilities which have even surpassed himself. Whatever may be the decision of this great and important question, I think His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief cannot have reason to find fault with the defence that has been made for him. I believe the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to be perfectly conscientious in every thing he has stated in that Illustrious Personage's behalf; but I am sure there were many passages in that speech, which it would be impossible not to auimadvert upon, and that J shall do as delicately as possible. The Right Hon. Gentleman began by attacking my Honourable Friend, the original mover, in a manner which, 1 must say, he did not deserve ; and he concluded with asserting doctrines, which I think were founded upon false and erroneous principles. He had complamed that his Fion. Friend had stated, that the coun- try would sit in judgment upon the derision of the House upon thjs occasion, and lliat such an ex[)ression was wholly unconstitutional. How he had a 'ight to suppose that any thing cither unconstitutional or improper was inttjuled by my Hon. Friend, 1 am at a loss to conceive, it was only an appeal to tlie people of the country, which, most as- (> C 196 ^ Mr. JiTiiibnad. suredly, their representatives had a right to make upon this occasion, and in doing so he was only following the example of one of that Right Hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who, soon after the change of administration, held out a threat, that, whatever might be the decision of the House, they would appeal to the sense of the people. I may truly say, with him, that there have gone forth various garbled extracts of evidence ; but if there have been libels worthy of being complained of, I call upon his Learned As- sociate upon his right hand (the Attorney-General) to say why those libels should have so long gone unpunished ? for 110 want of severity can in general be stated to have taken place in their proceedings. I have not been able to read the whole of the newspapers and various publications that are daily going forth, but of this I am certain, that the mis- representations have been quite as gross on the one side of this question as upon the other ; and as the Right Hon. Gentleman himself was anxious to give publicity to these various transactions, it was what might have been naturally expected to arise. Forgetful of all these circumstances, he has seemed to insinuate, that if you were to dismiss His Royal Highness the Duke of York from his official situation, it might be held up, in terrorem, that there was no other individual fit to succeed him. Now, Sir, I grant that the present Connnander-in-Chief may be a person pos- sessed of merit ; but is it from thence to be inferred, that should he commit crimes, they are to be entirely over- looked r ii such an argument is to be supported by the decision of the House, my observation is, that, cater is paribus, it is an objection to our having, upon any occa- sion, or under any circumstances, a royal duke at the head of our army. If these charges come to be verified, they display those immoralities and crimes, which have, in iormer instances, brought nations to ruin. They are such as under ^\ hich we have seen govei nuients sink, and under which the Mr. IVkitbread. 197 people have grievously suffered. I ask that Right Hon, Gentleman and his colleagues, if supposing any other in- dividual but a royal duke had done all this, would he have been allowed to continue Commander-in-Chief at this moment r {Hear! hear! hear !) Estimating the va- rious qualifications of His Royal Highness the present Duke of York as I do, I think that, be the decision what it may, he is not one that ought to be placed in such a re- sponsible situation. I can assure the Right Hon. Gentle- man and the House, that I am not one of those to whom he can allude as wishing to catch at any thing that may tend to criminate His Royal Highness. An Hon. Gentleman (alluding to Mr. Burton) said last light, that he had come down, not with any partiality towards the Duke, but rather with a partiality to the accuser, although he had stated sentiments of exculpation as to the accused ; und, he added, that this had proceeded from his having listened a little too much to the libellers against that illustrious per- sonage. But, Sir, for my part can state, that I came to this question rather with a degree of parliality towards the Duke, while, at the same, 1 entertained the utmost im- partiality for the sentiments of my Hon. Friend. The Right Hon. Gent, has stated, that he believes my Hon. Friend, the mover of this Address, has not produced it of himself, but that there have been cooler heads at work. If by this he meant no more than what the word cooler implies, I think he may at least admit, that great merit attaches to my Hon. Friend, for having coolly submitted it to cool lu!ads ; but if he meant by these expressions to say, that he has lent himself to designing men, I may ven- ture to say, that the imputation is absolutely false. 1 in- tend to vote for the Address of my Hon. Fiiciid,, but I would not \\i',]i to do so, if I iuiagined the mover of it was capable of lending himsell' lo di signing persons, to obtain advice and counsel in such an important question. IF, o .3 iQg Mr. Whithread. therefore, the expression was meant in its proper and jurt acceptation, it ought to be taken as a compliment ; but if ironically, it cannot be taken otherwise than as meaning the very reverse, and implying an unjust and unmerited in- sinuation. If it were intended thereby to shew how far there has been a conspiracy or conspirators, I beg leave upon that point to make a few observations, in order that my friend, as well as myself, may stand upon proper grounds, and that others may not think, with that Right Hon. Gentleman, there are motives of that infamous sort that ought not to attach to any member of Parliament, Soon after the charges were brought forward, it was stated that my Hon. Friend had some secret and hidden ^dvisers,^ and 1 thought that the time chosen for that allegation was the moment least of all others adapted for any one having any connection with him to disclaim him. It was at a mo- ment when it was thought that one of the charges had failed, and that, therefore, the whole of the others would turn out to be nothing. It was then hinted, that there might be people in the back ground, who did not wish to come forward, and it was then I should have most wished to have stated my sentiments. But, Sir, the truth of the matter is, that 1 had no share whatever in advising these measures. At that time there was only one conver- sation had taken place between my Hon. Friend and me, during the space of twenty long years, since I first knew him, and only one letter passed between us upon this bu- siness. The conversation, too, was merely accidental, upon the street. He told me what charges he had to bring forward against His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and what was the sort of evidence he had to substan- tiate them. 1 believe I said 1 thought it incredible that the Duke of York could have so conducted himself; and I told him, too, of all the heart-burnings that would arise in such an instance of accusation in case of failure. He Mr. JVhitbread. I(>9 was firm and determined, and I finding him so, added, that I should be in my place in the Himse, and 1 should vote for a Committee of Inquiry, as I could not think there would be any one that would oppose it. Whether or not I have pursued this conduct publicly, the House may have seen by my diligent attendance here to do my duty and perform my promise. I have promised nothing more to the Honoura!)le Mover of this question, than what I should have done to any other Member of Parliament ; and I meant nothing more than that he should have fair- play in the House. By this I mean to make no imputation upon any of the Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side ; for I trust, that whatever may be their conduct upon this occasion, they are conscientiously endeavouring to do jus- tice to the accused and to the country, and that we on this side will do the same. As to the Address, Sir, which my Hon. Friend (Colonel Wardle) has moved, 1 entirely agree with it; for 1 think it is couched in the most respectful and most delicate terms that could be used in any instance to a father, when stating a complaint relative to his son. If it had been otherwise worded, then it might have been objected, that it had not been done in more mild and tem- perate language. I'll go farther and say, that after hearhig the evidence that has been adduced, my opinion does not differ in any degree from that of the Hon. Mover ; and that, as a Member of Parliament, T must confess it is im- possible the Dake of York could have been ignorant of these transactions. WHicther the Duke of York be guilty or innocent, the House of Commons mu?t discharge its duly, by expressing its sentiments at the foot of the Tlironc. The Kight Hon. Gentlemill, where cotisiderable property was at stake ; and upon that evidence, which was perfectly unimpeached, the ultimate decision of tile question proceeded. The Right linn. Cuntlernan and iIjc Hon. Gcnlleiuan who preceded liiiu on the &ame Side, have stated, that this woni;nii v- a^ actuated by levenge in this case, on account of her bt'liig (li.^^carded l)y tlic Duke of York. This I do not deny ; for i must say, that the wav tlie Duke of ^'ork conduclcd liiin.seif towards that 202 Mr. Whithread. peffon was by no means creditable to him. Mrs. Clarke has said, that what Mr. Adam stated was perfectly true, ilnd has there been any effectual attempt to shew that what she said was in any respect incorrect ? When she made the claim for her annuity, it was not listened to ; and she then had recourse to the only resource left her that of threat- ening to make an exposure, which at the same time she stated would be as unpleasant to herself as to the Duke, Under such circumstances, if the Royal Duke had paid that sum of money she wanted, it would have been no impu- tation upon his conduct. She was actually forced into conversations, which got into print, and by that means the matter became public, and the exposure took place, with- out any apparent anxiety on her pari to put her threat into execution. Had she been very revengeful, she would not have been so careless about her letters, some of which were destroyed by herself, and some by others, at the time she lived at Hampstead. When she appeared at the Bar, she no doubt displayed a considerable deal of etfrontery and impudence, yet this could not be thought very extra- ordinary, when she knew she had to undergo the strict cross-examination of the Attorney-General and the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, with their C9rps de reserve behind them. Endeavours were made to mislead her ; but I think the Right Hon. Gentlemen who defend the Duke so strenuously, have misled the House much more than they did her, by misrepresentations of her evidence. On her cross-examination came out the name of General Clavering, and the next day that of Dr. O'Meara. Up comes Ge- neral Clavering to contradict her testimony, after having voluntarily offered himself, by letter, to the Attorney-Ge- neral. One would have thought, that a General Officer, coming to the Bar of the House, for the purpose of im- peaching a witness, should have come forward with clean bands ; but although an excellent oflicer, hc certainly Mr Whitbread. 20S shewed himself no judge of what was proof, and what was not, as he referred us back to the evidence before adduced, in order to support his own statement. He stated, that he had never had any communications nor conversations with Mrs Clarke upon the subject of promotions. You go on with the examination, and shortly afterwards letters were produced which would not have appeared had not General Clavering been put to the Bar ; and in these letters there is General Clavering, who comes to prove this woman a liar, recorded i*i characters as black as Krebus. It was thought impossible that Doctor O'Meara would bring the Protestant Clergy of Ireland into such disrepute as had been represented ; but every doubt was cleared up, by the production of a letter signed by the Archbishop of Tuam. In respect to the witness Nicholls, I must. Sir, observe, that a gieat degree of dexterity was necessary to attend his examination. But on all occasions I would prefer nature to dexterity ; one ounce of nature, in my opinion, is always worth five hundred pounds of dexterity. Mr. Nicholls says, when she lived at Mampstead, she called herself a widow. But if we revert to our youthful days, when most of us are the victims of frailty, I may venture to say, many of us have called persons our wives for the purpose of accomplishing certain of our purposes. (A laugh.) But in all which has been repeated respecting Mr. and Mrs. Dowler, about whom much has been said, still one instance cannot be adduced where we find that Mr. Dowler was sued for the debt of this supposed wife. On this occasion I am induced to declare, that if it were a case of life and death, I would not believe that this statement could discredit her testimony. I cannot help also noticing how Mr. Few the auctioneer had been brought forward to strengthen this attack upon the voracity of Mrs, Clarke. He tells you he saw a cocktd hat on the sofa, aj^d th maid told him her mistrew was :i gay young wi- 204 Mr. Whithread. dovv. But really. Sir, if this testimony, with Few the auctioneer, supporting it, were adduced to invalidate the credit of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, so help me God, I would not believe it. Again, if we refer to what passed respect- ing the Court- Martial, were it was endeavoured to prove Mrs. Clarke represented herself a widow at that particular period ; yet, how is the fact r It is very certain Mrs. Clarke was named a widow upon the ininules of the proceedings before the Court, but it does not appear she ever did on that occasion say she was a widow. The Hon. Gentle- man informs us, he could call our attention to twenty other cases ; but as he thought proper to omit mentioning their names, it cannot be expected I should apply myself to tlieir investigation. Certainly, not any person absent from this House, either during the whole or part of the inquiry, and who may have taken his account from publications, can be presumed to be so intimately acquainted with the true evidence, as those who have been constantly present ; nor will it be possible, dining the discussion, to impress them with an e(]ual degree of accuracy. For, Sir, 1 tiiink there is a great deal in the manner in which witnesses deliver their testimony ; a great deal in their demeanour at the time ; and upon that woman being examined over and over again, no unfavourable opinion could attach to her veracity. The Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to consider this repeated examination as a compliment to the Witness. I'he Right Hon. Gentleman further proceeds, in a strain of triumph, and acquaints you, Mrs. Clarke is contradicterl by a most respectable witness, Mr. R. Knight ; and he tells you, when produced at the Bar, that she told bin) she would e: pose the Duke of York in the same manner she is doing no.v. How does this contradict her testimoJiy ? Why she i^ again called at the Bar, and she said what she had expres- sed before, ' I told Mr. Knight I would publish the letters of the Duke of York'' 'ihcre i* not the suudlcst ecu- Mr. Whithread. S05 tradlction between the evidence of tlie one and the other ; ond if we examine the evidence of Doctor Thynne, it does not contradict her at all. Greater stress than necessary has been laid on Mrs. Clarke's saying to Knight the transaction ought to be kept secret from the Duke's ear ; but my opinion leads me to think of it as a very indifferent part of the testimony now before ns. Was it likely Mr. Knight would go to the Duke and say, * I thank you for the favour you have conferred upon me and I have, according to my promise, made a present of 6'(X)1. to Mrs. Clarke r' There was no danger to be apprehended by her on that account ; she was only afraid the tale might accidentally be told to a friend, and thus communicated, till, at last, through the medium of third persons, it should reach the ears of the Commander in Chief, who, of course, would be much displeased to have these reports circulated in the world. Neither do I think it extraordinary, she should in the first instance, have denied having gone to Reid's Hotel, as the wife of Donler ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman says, it was there she hatched, in her midnight hour, her malevolent designs against the Dukf. I come now to another part of the case, and shall proceed to offer a few observations on the conduct of his Royal Highness ; and in doing so, I wish to guard myself from misrepresentation. The speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman has been sufficient to shake the mind of most men, who had previously formed a diffe- rent opinion upon the subject, and in some measure had thateff"ect upon myself, uiuil I was induced to examine the foundation upon which I had })lace(l a differeiU construc- tion. With respect to the K oval Duke, wc know well th'i naturo oflhe human mind, that if we once give way to the bent ol inclination, and have got to a certain e\tt:nt, we do not know how far we shall be cairicd by such a dispo- sition ; mer behaviour in this House, fails,in respect to this affair, of attacking the credit of Mrs. Clarke. That note which was afterwards attempted to be proved a forgery, was at first tliought by the Hon, Gentleman to be as dead as Homer. I was once doubt- ful, but I was soon convinced it was not a forgery. To ef- fect proof against ^f rs. Clarke, they called a mean Witness, of the name of Town, who merely told you a cock and a bull story. I am really astonished at the Hon. and learn* ted Gentleman (Mr. Burton) that he should express any doubt on this occasion ; an old and grave judge, used to ad- dress tribunals ot^;justice, that he should say before this tribunal oih6 public, before heaven itself, he entertained a doubt ^ why if yoii doubt this testimony, neither would you believe though one rose from the dead. Even in re- gular promotions you have a damnable proof against the Duke of York, of Mrs. Clarke's influence. But, as 1 said before, when once a man gets trammelled in this manner, there is no calculating upon the extent of her influence. In regard to Colonel French, when we entered upon this subject, the Right Hon. Gentleman began by disproving Miss. Taylor, Indeed, when I consider the conduct of H(.n. Gentlemen on the oilier side, it was not coriect even towards my Hon. iVicnd^ against \\ horn certain insinuations Mr. Whithread. ' 209 were thrown out, and very improper questions were propo- sed to him in that stage of the proceeding. I do think that the testimony of Miss Taylor is to be credited ; the Right Hon. Gentlemaii . appears to wish to induce the House to imbibe the opinion that Miss Taylor was not to be credited because she kept company with Mrs. Clarke, {Hear I hear '.from the Ministerial side.) I heard her tes- timony, I had an opportunity of observing those circum- stances from which the credibility of a witness is easily as- certained, aivi I can pronounce this to my judgment and to my conviction, they were of such a character as to prove her worthy of the utmost reliance. With respect to Mrs. Clarke herself, I beg that the House will not be too hasty iu deciding upon her testimony, or too prompt in attaching that imputation, which, upon the first view of the circum- stances, and without mature deliberation, it may be inclined to attach. I can quote the case of Samuel Carter, wlio was relieved and protected by Mrs. Clarke ; I can appeal to Captain Sutton ; 1 can appeal to a Reverend Doctor of Divinity, who has had her patronage ; and then I will ask whether he who talks of calumny upon one side should not look to the possibility of it upon the other ? (Hear I {Hear ! But allowing the abandonment of Mrs. Clarke, admitting that she was a woman of those vices which the Right. Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were willing to represent, I will ask whether, when she is emerging from vice, the door is to be shut against her return, and the hpe of reform and amendment excluded by our fastidious- ness ? Chastity I will allow is a great virtue, it is an or- nament to the sex, but then it is not their only virtue or their only omament, there is a great Commandment, v\ Inch ays' Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neigh- bour ;' and perhaps many who may not have observed the dictates of chastity in their purity, may yet have bowed down to the great dictates of truth and justice. Th<# Right P 210 Mr. Wkitbrea^. Honourable Gentleman said, that it was impossible Miss Taylor could forget what had happened four years ago, but another forgot it also. 1 can easily think it possible that both had been deficient in. recol* lection ; Mrs. Clarke appealed to the Crown Lawyers in the course of this inquiry; but if she heard the opinion of the Right Honourable Gentleman she would have selected her counsel from another quarter; the testimony of Miss Taylor establishes this important fact, that the Duke of York wa conscious of the transactions between Mrs. Clarke and Colonel French. The Right Honourable Gentleman has talk- ed a great deal about Colonel French and his levy ; but, after all^ his levy was highly objectionable to the Generals of the army. Mrs. Clarke received five hun- dred guineas upon this business. But mark the pro- ceedings in Ireland After the letter of service was granted. Colonel French went to Ireland ; a beating order is given to a man of the name of O'Reilly, and Colonel Fawcett complains that Colonel Taylor calls him a crimp. But if ever I was astonished, it was at what the Right Honourable Gentleman said, about economy, a subject so distinct from the present con- sideration, that it ought not in prudence to have beer* mentioned. The letters produced to Mrs. Clarke were not produced under circumstances that should induce us to believe that she was acquainted with them. When they were shewn to her, she was desired not to read them ; she was desired merely to speak to the hand writing, and pronounce whether it was her own ; and she did speak to it, she did acknowledge it to be her own, under this prohibition, under this ignorance of their contents, which innocence, and only innocence> could induce her to trust to. Again, when Mrs. Clark WAS asked whether she had given any letters of Mr. Whithread, %i\ rfjc Dulce out of her possession ? she denied it; but oa being presented wiih one which was his hand-wiiting, she recognised it, and said that it was his, and must have come from her. Let those who are capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood; let those who are capableof discriminating between those shades of evidence, which attach to, or detract From;, the cha racter of truth ; let those pronounce whether this wo- man has not evinced her veracity in the flianifest caa- dour of acknowledgment, in the fearless asseveration, which, in this instance, she makes, after offering her opinion that she gave none of the Duke's letters ouk of her possession! When letters are produced to her which are his, she does not deny that they are, she confesses that she must have been mistaken ; and, by a generous admission of her error, she proves the extent to which she is to be credited in her evidence on this important case. Mrs. Clarke writes to Captain Saa doa ; she tells him that the Duke is in a passion about the slowness with which his levy proceeds. This is all the reproach for his deficiency; it is the only step that is taken to discountenance a proceeding injurious to the interests of the army and of the state at large. She represents in her letters to Captain Sandon that she spoke of him to the Duke ; that he said he was a d d clever fellow, and she enumerates other circum- staaces, that evince no willingness or disposition to misrepresent. I say. Sir, that a witness desirous of misstating facts, would have been too guarded to de- viate into those circumstantial simple details in which she has indulged. Tlie fact is, that the levy of Col. French was such a notorious job, that an Honourable Friend of mine (Mr. Elliot), moved for a return of that levy, to ascertain and to expose the circumstances under which it was conducted; and here I c^me to P2 2J2 Mr. Whiihrcad, an argument on which much stress has been laid; it was said that the dismissal of this woman was a proof of the innocence of his Royal Highness ; because, if he were guilty, it was supposed that he would not commit himself to her revenge; but I deny it to be ,the case that criminality is always so prudent. 1 can very well imagine that anger may act without thought, and indignation display itself without consideration ; but in the detail of the case, see what is brought be- fore us ? It is proved that she was indebted to the agents 30001. it is also proved that she paid 5001. for plate ; a sum which, m the genial m.onth of May, must soon have been expended by. that lady. The witness Dockery knew nothing about the matter; but that he was paid by the Duke of York; he did not re- member any conversation tliat took place between him and his Royal Highness upon that occasion : yet I must be allowed to conclude, that there is a strange presumption that a conversation relative to the busi- ness must have occurred ; and I cannot help thinking it a singular circumstance that it should have been forgotten. The Right Honourable Gentleman asked how this business comes to be a national concern ? As he mentioned the plate of the Duke de Berri, I cannot help thinking it an awful recollection, and one pecu- liarly applicable to the present case ; it recalls the circumstances of a revolution brought about, not by philosophers, but by corruptions. (Ilearl hcarl) It should have appeared in this light to his Royal High- ness ; he should have derived a melancholy but instruc- tive lesson from the fact, that a Prince of France was thus reduced, that his plate was sold at a pawnbroker's, and it ought to have taught him to avoid those ex- cesses which might lead to the realization of such a consequence. The Right Honourable Gentleman at- Mr. Whithread. 213 tacked the testimony of Mr. Dowler; lie said that he had contradicted himself; that he had been contra- dicted by Alderman Combe ; I deny the fact, no such contradiction appears in the course of the evidence ; it seems uponlhat evidence that Mr. Dowlcr is ap- pointed commissary, but how, or by what means, or by whose recommendation, after every search, they are unable to make out; the result 'of all inquiry is non est inventus. It was said that Mr. Vernon could give material evidence upon this head, but Mr. Ver- non was not produced ; and I feel myself justified in the conclusion, that what Mr. Dowler said was true, {llcar\) 1 do believe from my soul that Mrs. Clarke obtained that appointment for Mr. Dowler; it is said that he slept with her a single night, and that in the course of that night this conspiracy, of which we have heard so much, was projected. There is another case, that of Mr. Elderton, in which Mrs. Clarke acted with feeling ; but while the Duke of York acted thus, -while he was promoting those objects which were grateful to his mistress, and which he did promote nierelv witli that view; while he did thus, he proved himself unwortiiy of the situation which he held, because he shewed himself to be influ- enced by motives that should never be allowed to operate. Mr. Greenwood said, that the Duke of York never applied for a situation for Elder- ton, but then he said he wished him appointed, and made incjuiiies respecting a situation, which ])roduced the same effect. But there is one thing which 1 l)eg leave to impress upon your recollec- tion, as going in a great measure to prove the veracity of Mrs. Clarke ; she was remarkably careless about those letters, by which the case is so materially affected ; she '*'a8 not cautious to preserve them for purposes of veiv* p 3 fil4 Mr. Whithread. geancC; but exhibited a carelessness in her conduct respect- ing them, which proves to my satisfaction, that they were not intended for such a purpose. It appeared, also, from her testimony, that catholics were rising in the army. Happy would I be to see them appointed ! Happy would X be to see them advanced to that state of confidence which they merit, and which I hope they will at one time accom- plish. I would wish to see them placed above the in- fluence of arbitrary opinion ^for even acts of Parliament may be arbitrary ; and there are, perhaps, few acts more liable to the imputation, than those by which their ex- clusion is enforced. Upon the cases of Mr. Kennett and Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland, I will not dwell. It might have been somewhat plausible, at the commencement, to talk of conspiracy ; but, in the present stage, the cant is too absurd to be admitted. IVJy Hon. Friend has brought forward this business as he ought. Infamy, it was said, should attach somewhere ; but I believe I may assert with confidence, that infamy cannot attach to him ; and I leave it to themselves to ascertain the quarter to which it is im- putable, if it must needs light somewhere. Is ipy Hon. Friend engaged in a Jacobin conspiracy ? Am I engaged in a Jacobin conspiracy ? Because he has brought forward a charge, and I am determined to support it. The cry of Jacobinism is one that is much mistaken in its acceptation. Jacobinism is not confined to the cottage, it often dwells in palaces, and among the great. My Honourable Friend behind me, I take to be the true Anti-jacobin : for he en- deavours to destroy that corruption that breeds dissension and disunion. The charge of Jacobinism may, with more propriety, he brought against the Duke of Yoi^, whose conduct was calculated to produce discontent, and conse- quently disunion. His Royal Highness should have con- sidered this : but by an unaccountable infatuation, he has precipitated himself into errors, and even in the very letter Sir Vicari/ Gihbs. 215 wbich he addressed to Parliament, exposed himself to cen- sure and disapprobation ; he pledges the honour of a Prince, but what avails that protestation ? Does not every one protest his innocence ? And is there any thing in the honour of a Prince superior to the honour of the humblest individual ? The Right Hon. Gentleman has talked of the virtue of public men, I join him in the eulogium. I believe that there never vva5 a time when public charac- ters were less impeacliable, but then 1 believe that this is, in a great measure, owing to the apprehension of exposure; I believe that it is owing, in a great measure, to the com- mittee over which he once presided, but from which he is now separated. 1 hope that Gentlemen will liave a suffi- cient regard for the cause of liberty and justice ; 1 hope that they will divest their minds of all prejudice, and decide upon this important question with the temper and the sen- timents that become them. If you decide so, we may yet entertain hopes ; but if you determine otherwise, with other views and other feelings, I must say, that the plague is amongst you, and that this country and constitution will be quickly at end." Sir ViCARY GiBBS observed, that when the Right Hon. Gentleman, wished it to be uiuJerstood, that he did not speak to influence any member in his vote, he went his full length. lie thought he was studious to in- fluence; at least it was tantamount to try to prevail. Tb first question for them to consider was, whether those practices were not carried on with the knowledge of the Commander in Chief? He wished to deal with the Commander in Chief as he would with the lowest individual ; but surely it could not be attributed to the lowest member -of society, that he was more guilty by declaring his innocence. Then why should it be made a cdme, that his Royal Highness haddoueso? Did p 4 21 6 "^ Sir Vicary Gihhs. his high situation put him to that height, that the lawi of his country should not give hini that protection, which was, and he hoped ever would be, the boast of Englishmen that they could attain. The Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, seemed to throw a screen over the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, and also insinuated, that she had foiled those who attempted to cross- examine her. He did not wish to say but her evidence, or at least a part of it, was given with that effrontery that not any thing could have apologized for, but the smirk and smiles of the Honourable Gentleman and his friend ; and he now enjoys the result of his en- couragement. The Honourable Gentleman says, we attempt to contradict Mrs. Clarke's evidence by Mr. Isicholls. He contended, it was not an attempt ; but it was actually proved, by a respectable man, a house- holder, a tradesman, residing in Hampstead, who stated at the Bar, that she represented herself as a widow, and afterwards that she had married Mr. Dow- ler, but she wished it to be kept a secret; for if the Duke knew of it, he would send Mr. Dowler on fo- reign service. It had been said by the Honourable Member, that Major Tonyn's case had been proved by Captain Sandon, and he had asked how it hap- pened that the appointment had taken place in August? We have this explained by a most circum- spect witness. Colonel Gordon, who had stated, that early in July the Duke of York had desired him to make out a list, which he did, and included Captain Sandon's name, without any suggestion from his Royal Highness; and by the same witness we were informed, that on the Qth of August His Majesty's sanction was obtained. Mrs. Clarke even did not suggest, that she had evej had any communication with the Duke oi Sir Vicarij Gills. 217 York upon the subject, but that she had only told him she was to receive 2001. ; and was it to be sup- posed, or could it be believed, that the Duke of York would have committed such an act? As to the letter, supposing it to be genuine, though certainly it was fiaspicious, it had no bearing upon the question. He rould invent 300 circumstQuces, and attach them to thai letter, which would make it appear perfectly inno* cent but-then it would only be his statement; and could ' any one attempt to attach a criminal interpretation to it, when Mrs. Clarke, so great an actor, could not teli how it applied. As to Colonel French's levy, nothing but what Mrs. Clarke said could attach any thing im- proper to his Royal Highness. The regulations for this levy underwent the strictest examination, and with more than ordinary jealousy, by CJol. Loraine. He could not agree with those who said a presumption arose, that the Duke of York knew of this foul trans- action ; he considered such presumption as hard, cruel, and unjust. But it had been said it was confirmed by the conversation which had been heard by Mis Taylor. W such conversation had taken place, it would not bear out the inference; without attempting to in- validate her testimony, it was certainly remarkable that she should recollect this circumstance of the conver- sation and no other; particularly as she had never heard Colonel French's name before, or had ever men- tioned it till three weeks before the present Inquiry be- gan. This reflexion led him to another; it had been ?aid by Mrs. Clarke and Mrs. Favorie, that Miss Tay- lor was a great favourite with the Duke of York, and that she used to be admitted to his dinner party; now this might have been proved, if true, for M'Dowal ;ind Pearson^ who had each waited at table, and con,* ^21$ Sir Vicary Gibbs. sequently ha<3 more opportunities than Mrs. Farorie "to notice such a circumstance, both declared that they never reconnected even to have seen Miss Taylor in the same apartnitnt with his Royal Highness. It had been also arged with respect to the payment for plate to Mr. Birkett, that when the Duke of York gave bills to the amount he did, he knew there was a deficiencj x^f 5001. ^he knew that was paid by Mrs. Clarke, and consequently that she must have paid it with the '5001. received on account of Colonel French's Levy : i>ut,he said, that connoissance must be proved, which it was not; and therefore there was no evidence against the l>uke of York, and the whole of the objections were destroyed. He then proceeded to commient on the contradictions in the evidence of Mr. Dowler, in denying his interviews with Mrs. Clarke ; which, he contended, were partly for the purpose of arranging his testimony. As to the other cases, he should not think of entering into them at that late hour, after they had been so thoroughly ohser\'ed upon before. Upon the i\"hole, then, he concluded, fbeffe was no evidence to fix this foul transaction upon the Duke f York. He admitted the charges proved, provided Mrs. Clarke was believed; but when they recollected her many contradictions, the many fabrications she was convicted of, and the whole of her conduct, there would be but few who would think there was either participation or connoissance of corruption in his Koyal Highness : for these reasons he was induced to agree hi the measures of his Right Honourable Friend, Mr. Pereeval. H-e then considered the necessity f adoptirrg any meastrre that would tend to renrove the Duke of York from the command of the army ; and concluded from the past, the total cessation Mr. 3ankes, 219 priety since the separation from Mrs. Clarke, and the sense he entertained of past indiscretion, th^re wa3 no danger of a repetition of them, and that consequently there v/as no necessity for so strong a measure. Mr. Banks called the attention of the House before they separated, to an amendment lie proposed offering to the original Address, taking it as his foundation. He did not mean to detail, only merely to state generally the nature of it, in order for their consideration. He proposed that many parts of the Address should be altered and taken away ; but he would add one material clause to the body of it that this House negatived all participation or connoissance of corruption in the Duke of York, but that, under all the circumstances, they did not consider it proper he should aily longer coGlitiue a servant of the public. Adjourned. Friday, March lO, On the motion of Lord Folkstone, the House pro- ceeded in the further consideration of the Report of the Committee, to iuvestigate the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. The original Address of Colonel Wardle, and the amendment proposed by the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, were read from the Chair. Mr. Bankes. " Upon this case, which has already occupied so much time, and is likely yet to occupy much time. I shall take the liberty of stating a few words, in consequence of what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman opposite, who proposed the amend- inent to the original motion, 1 should not think that 220 Mr, Bdnkes. what I am about to propose as an addition to those proceed- ings was contrary to any form of Parliamentary practice 3 conceiving, as I do, that the original motion, at first sug- geeted by my honourable Friend, is objectionable in point of form, though not in substance, yet it is certainly the best of two that we could adopt. I think, however, that it would become us to lay before His Majesty the result of what we have deduced from those examinations that have taken place here, in one uniform and general Address, instead of adopting various previous resolu- tions. As to the nature of the Address most proper for this occasion, I do ihink that our minds are not yet very much made up upon that subject, and as every one seems to have some shades of doubt and of certainty, we should take care not to agree to certain Resolutions pro- posed, until we can ascertain what is to be the result of them. For this reason it is, that one uniform general Address would be the preferable mode of procedure in this important and delicate investigation. Should it be otherwise, and supposing the House were to agree to one or both of the first. Resolutions, and not adopt a third one, such as the House ought to adopt, it would place itself in an awkward situation. To obviate that difficulty, I wish to have the whole of the subject at once before the House, in order that we may be sure what we are about, (//ea?-/) With the view, therefore, of preventing any difficulty of that nature from arising in this stage of oyr proceedings, the only proper mode will, in my opinion, be, to amend the amendment that has just been read. This I would propose to do by re- taining the preliminary part of the Address proposed, and to incorporate with it a proposition, upon which it ^'ill be proper and indispcnsibly necessary for the Hous^ Mi\ Bankes. 221 tv) av Ave or No, upon the subject ia question. The point of form in this procedure will be decided by you. Sir J and from the conversation I had the honour of having with yon upon this malicr, it appeared that the precedents of 17.55 and 1783 have not escaped your memory. In the usual course of such proceedings, therefore, the first division of the House in the progress of this great question will be that whicli I intend to sub- rait to you in the form of an amendment upon the amendment of the original Address, and vipon this point I think the sense of the House may be taken this night. Now, Sir, to touch upon the merits of the question ftself, I must observe, that, although I appear as a soit of volunteer in this great cause, yet I can as- sure you there is no individual Member of the House who enters into this inquiry with more reluctance than I do, and that has attended to the progress of it with more real pain to himself. (Hear! hear!) We must give credit to our own Members, for the honourable motives which actuate their conduct: but I cannot help paying, that after all that has passed, it appears to me that the result of this inquiry is much more likely to prove detrimental than beneficial to the country. (Hear! hear ! J Since the question has been brought forward, the House is certainly forced to meet it; and having gone into the consideration of it, by adducing evidence at the Bar, I am now anxious that the Houss ibould do itself honour by its proceeding. Under that conviction I trust I shall not disgrace myself in laying before you what I have to propose, and I uni persuaded many Gentlemen will mark their opinion of it by their vote ii\ its favour. The general subject has been so amply discussed upon the separate charge?, that even had it been my inclination to do so, I feel the necessity of d(-lng ii i-i greatly done awav. I feel no desire t>> 222 Mr. Banker, follow those Bonourable Gentlemen who have entered into the most scrupulous investigation of all the different heads of evidence. Tliat task has been most ably and luminously performed by the right honourable Gentle- man opposite (Mr. Perceval), with an ability surpassing any I have ever seen displayed in almost any great cause J insomuch so, that even if I had not been inte- rested in it, I must necessarily have been induced by his eloquence and perspicuity, to enter into the consi- deration of this qviestion with the utmost attention to his detail of evidence. I shall do him this justice too,, to say, I really think he did^ it with, great fairness and conscientiousness. On the other side, the speech we heard last night from an honourable Gentleman neai* me (Mr. Whi thread) must have struck every one as most forcible, eloquent, and perspicuous. To enter, therefore, into a recapitulation of the tedious evidence, would only tend to confuse and perplex and should never be attempted to be practised, but ought most stu-^ diously to be ju'oidfed. The numerous attendance of the Members, and the great attention they have paid, in order to make themselves masters of the subject, entitle them to the highest credit; and I hope that they will now take care not to disgrace themselves by their deci- sion. Because the right honourable Gentlemen oppo- site seem to think that some of these witnesses have contradicted themselves, a thing which I shall not en- tirely deny, does it follow that their evidence would not be received in Courts of Justice, or that it ought not to be atfcnded to here, or that you arc to be thereby pre- vented from taking out those parts of the evidence which are true from those parts of it which are false? Does my right honourable Friend think, that because some of the witnesses are not worthy of belief, the whole of the evidence of the others oucrht to be blotted out ? Are ^v-c Mr, Ranke^4 223 to imagine thiit persons eminently characterised by good faith and honour are the only ones to be believed, or that those who are known to tell many falsehoods, tclt no truth in. any instance whatever? Are we not bound in such cases, to sift their evidence to the bottom, ex- tract that which is rendered true by corroborative cir- cumstances, and receive with caution, or wholly reject, that which is otherwise? Most undoubtedly we ought to do so. In Courts of Law, the rules of evidence are in a great measure precisely defined, but even there no such constraint is imposed. Here we must act for our- selves, and attach credit to such pans of the evidence as we deem worthy of it, and upon the whole of it form a general opinion. With regard to many of the wit- nesses in this present case, I may say, T hardly ever re- member of having seen any where so much truth and falsehood intermingled; but is it therefore possible to say, that where you suspect falsehood to exist, it is the same thing as if you had heard nothing at all passing fi;om the mouths of such witnesses, or that not a word of truth had been uttered by them ? As to Mrs. Clarke, the principal witness upon this occasion, I think some parts of her testimony appear to be so strong", as to be totally incontrovertible ; and therefore bring the matter home to the knowledge of his Royal Highness. The principal part of the other evidence that appears to do so, is the testimony of Miss Ann Taylor. Attempts have been made to invalidate tJic testimony of this young woman J but I must confess they have not been such as were convincing to me, although some suspicion might attacii to her, from the circumitauce of her de- clining to answer certain queslions. I do not mean those relative to parents, but otlicr questions; for the not answering of which, it was hardly possible she could have any reason. Attending to her evidence strict^ 224 ^^'>'' Bankes, ly, and taking 'into view the internal evidence of con- curring circumstances, it is difficult for me to be- lieve that the conversation she alluded' to did not pass almost in the very words in which she stated it. If that conversation did pass, I certainly think it does carry a degree of suspicion, rather exceeding that which my honourable Friend near me (Mr, Bathurst) was willing to ascribe to it; namely, that a constant unreser- ved intercourse, with regard to military prcjinotions, took place between his Royal Highness and Mrs. Clarke. It has been questioned how far it was probable that this woman should recollect one conversation with such ac- curacy, and not one circumstance that occurred in any other of the conversations at which she v^^as present. But let us see a little how far this bears upon her vera- city and credibility. We are to suppose, as has been alleged, that Miss Taylor comes here as one of a con- spiracy; if so, was it, I would ask, difficult for her to have stated some further conversations, in order to do away such an objection? They went to establish that the notes received by Mrs. Clarke from Lieutenant- Co- lonels Knight, Brooke and Taylor, were shewn to the Commander in Cliicf; was it not competent to have brought forward MisS Ann Taylor, to have stated^ that, she actually was present when they were so shewn to the. Duke, if she had really been a witness disposed to come forward to tell deliberate falsehoods? Would it have been a difficult matter, under such circumstances, tor her to say she was present, and saw the note delivered to' Lndovick to change ? Here, I say, was evidence ex- pedient, and within their own reach, impossible to hav been controverted. Miss Taylor, when examined as to other conversations, stated, that she did not remember any other, than that of whicli she gives the words; and JMr. Bankesi 6^5 1 iliink her testimony on that account is the more credible. ** There is another part of the testimony, not oral, but Written, which, I think, is of great importance, and to it I shall allude. It is called the mysterious note; and I think I never remember of one more so in all my life. I do not think it is difficult to imitate any hand-writing, so that credit might be given to it as c(iming from ano"- ther; but upon this I must recur to the substantial in- ternal evidence of its not being a forgery, as has been alleged. Where is the evidence that this note was writ- ten by Mrs. Clarke to persuade gentlemen that she had influence with the Commander in Chief, when, fro^ the delay in regard to Tonyn's appointment, it gave them reason to think she was deceiving him? It v,as written in a manner that might persuade gentlemen . of any thing they might think proper to construe into it, might make them believe either that Tonyn's business was to rest as it was, to go on, or to stop. In short it amounted to nothing at all, unless those who received it actually believed it came from the Commander in Chief, and was written in his hand-wiiling. If \.]\\^ note v/ere a forgery she must have been Jicniihli; ii. was written in a style that implied nothing, and Ifitrdbrc could not have the efllct it is alleged was intended by it, namely, to induce Colonel Tonyn not to wiLluIraw liii money, which had been lodged for his promotion. This note may not only be understood in (.litrercnt Vs ays, but it is also written without a signature, ii' if. were forged, she had surely no dilFiculty to ii.ivc ^. ivcji it a siiinature equally well as to liave wriitf ii the oll.ur part of it, and the more especially, as it ;ippeared ;Voni her cro-s-cxaminat.ion, that imitating h.uicl-v.riiiMgs v/as hc.r particular talent. Here then i^ a woman v-itli ?)a fiinf nor character to prcfccrvr, and r/jt much cunjtr jn- 22fi Mr^ Bankes, td from committing any crime of this sort, according to the opinion of these right honourable Gentlemen, forging a note, which was evidently not one of the sort which could convey the sentiments which it is alleged she must have meant to convey. 1 really think it wouW have left Colonel Tonyn in as much doubt as before. This note appears to have gne to him by means of Cap- tain Sandon, although evidently never intended by the Duke nor by Mrs. Clarke to have been so delivered. Captain Sandon, who is deserving of no belief, wished to conceal this note, being conscious he had taken it unknown to Mrs. Clarke, who, in her testimony, shews jshe was entirely ignorant of its ever having been in his custody. Did not all this tend to prove, that it was no forgery, but was actually of the Royal Duke's hand- writing; If then, I be asked as to whether or not I have any suspicion of Colonel Tonyn getting his promotion from the Duke, through Mrs. Clarke's influence and in- terference, I answer, that nothing is more probable ; for it is clecir, that his Royal Highness knew of the whole circumstance concerning it. This, however, was one of the questions which the right honourable Gentleman opposite chose to involve in difficulty. I have no reason 10 negativ^e the question as to his having some such knowledge of it; although I might feel some degree of hesitation. The transaction, as to the levy of Colonel French, is one thai is also said to have procured Mrs. Clarke money, tlirougli ilic inlluence of the Duke, and with his knowledge; bui this in some degree I negative, as there is no proof, in my opinion, of any corrupt con- nivance or particip?tion on the }iart of his Royal High- ness. In regard to some of these promotions, it is evi- dent, that circumstances are proved, which shew that iie must have had some general information of them. T/ie letter as to General Clavering's levy of men, cvi- Mr. Ban^-es. f 27 <3ently shewed, that there was a return made by the Duke to the application of Mrs. Clarke, by his stating, that the new regiment's were to be raised from the second battalions, and, although it shewed nothing either poll* lical or judicious, yet it confirmed that general inter- course which subsisted between his Royal Highness and this individual, which has operated so detrimentally to her character. There is another part of the same letter, which relates to Dr. O'Meara; and why does that learn- ed Doctor carry his credentials to Mrs. Clarke ? Is it not because this foolish and ambitious man wished, by preaching before Royalty, to elevate himself into some situation of promotion, through the medium of Mrs. Clarke? These are points which appear to me to form prominent features in this causfe, and such as are suffi- cient to justify the House in founding the result of this inquir)', which I shall submit to their consideration. It is in)possiMe, I think, that the House can adop^any proceeding of a criminal nature upon any of those pro- ceedings that have transpired, and for that reason I think it but justice to his Royal Higlmess, as well as fairness to the country, to state explicitly, and in a con- centrated point of view, what is our opinion of the whole investigation that has taken place as to those great and substantial charges. It will surely be a great consolation to His Majesty to know, that the decision has lost the tjrf itest part of its violence against his royal offspring, bv our slating that it docs not appear proved that there w,as anv corrupt connivance or participation on tiie part of the Commander in CU'iii'. But it is impossible that any one can so clearly exculpate his Royal Highness as my right honourable Friend proposes to do by his amendment, for it absolutely gives a n^'galive to any knowledtr'' of the whole Iransaciions. Even if there were no knowled^' proved, I am convinced that tht; ^26 Mr. Bankes. general notoriety of these transactions, and the constant applications to him in his official capacity as Comman- der in Chief, might have easily created a suspicion in his Royal mind, that Mrs. Clarke must have been partici- pating in pecuniary emoluments arising from corrupt practices as to promotions, and therefore it is impossi- ble he can be entirely exculpated. I think that the cor- respondence produced by Captain Huxley Sandon Is extremely material, and particularly that letter from Mrs. Clarke to him, which mentioned her jealousy as to Greenwood; which jealousy could not have existed, if she had not been conscious every thing had been com- municated to the Duke, and should they meet at the box in the Opera, they might be led to talk of the levy. There is one other main point, which it appears neces- sary for me to include in the amended Address, and that is, with regard to the immorality displayed upon this occasion, which although alluded to in the amendment of my right honourable Friend, is not in sufficiently strong terms. This House, the guardian of the laws, constitution, and liberties of the country, ought also to be regardful of the public morals, and .especially in such times as these. It is impossible not to think that this is a species of immorality which might corrupt the public mind, and operate as an example upon other classes of society. It is peculiarly necessary, for the public ex- ample, to do away such a pu})lic scandal, and it is not sufncisiU ihercfore to say merely that we lament that such a connection should have taken place. The Ad- dress to his Majesty, upon the opening of Parliament, is generally made as an eclio to the speech ; but was it t'ver conceived that such an Address as this was to be an ' rl;o to u letter. fllcar! hear! hear!) A letter, too, ric'.ivtjd under such c:rc:!;ii;biancc5 as those attending '.h; oue ij.n hy the Duke st unfortunately met with an abandoned woman of the name of Clarke, with whom he continued connected for two years and a half, during which period Mrs. Claikc, with the assistance of agents of the vilest character, carried on to a certain extent a system of corruption with reference to promotions in the army and other transactions. Of these facts, as proved by the 232 Mr. Yorke, evidence, there could be no doubt. It remained to be proved, first, whether his Royal Highness had any crimi- nal participation in these occurrences ; or, secondly, if not, whether he had been so negligent in his conduct as to deserve the severe censure that it was proposed to in- flict upon him. What was the nature of the evidence that had been adduced ? The principal witness was Mrs. Clarke ; and he confessed that he could give no credit to that part of her testimony which affected the Duke of York, unless when it was corroborated by other evidence. There was one circumstance relating to Mrs. Clarke, which had not hitherto been adverted to : it had gone to the public, that Mrs. Clarke was a married woman, who having been debauched by the Duke of York, and seduced from the course of virtue, lived with him for a certain time, and that he then abandoned her. What was the fact ? It had been distincdy stated in evidence, that Mrs. Clarke was very intimately ac- quainted with Mr. Ogilvie, an army agent, before she resided in Gloucester-place. She had been examined on Ogilvie's commission of bankruptcy, and her answers shewed, that if she did not live with Mr. Ogilvie, he Jived with her- Considering her subsequent conduct, he had not the least doubt that Mrs. Clarke came to the Duke of York ccmpletely instructed in all the mvstcries of army brokerage. When Mrs. Clarke was asked on her examination, what could induce her to adopt this system of trafBcking in military promotions, she replied, her distresses, occasioned by finding that her allowance was not sufficient to defray the cxpcnces. Let the House consider dates a little. It had been stated by Mrs, Clarke herself, that no proceeding of the sort to which he had alluded took place until some months, he believed half a year^ after she had got to Gloucester-place. The establishment at Glouccsier-place commenced about Mr. Yo}!a\ 33 Januar}' 1804. Now it was to be observed, tliat ihe- first proposal made by Coionel French to raise a levy was dated the 1st of February, 1804. (He was fully satis- fied that Mrs. Clarke was acquainted with Colonel French and Capt. Sandon during her connection with Mr. Ogilvie.) Colonel French's proposals were accepted in April, 1804. It was impossible, therefore, that the statement made by Mrs. Clarke, that her having med- dled with military tnmsactions was attributable to her distresses, could be true ; for it was evident, that she must have been negociating with Colonel French and Captain Sandon in February and March 1804, and it was not in the least credible that her distresses could have commenced at that early period. This appeared to him to be a complete contradiction of one of the most ma- terial points of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, and to shake the superstructure which she had endeavoured to build on her falsehood. The only evidence by w hich INIrs. Clarke had been corroborated on this subject was by tliat of Miss Taylor. To NFiss Taylor's evidence he could not attach any weight. Sh^ had made one statement v.'hich it was clear she must have known to be untrue. It respected Mrs. Favery. ]\iiss Taylor allowed tliat she knew Mrs. Favery when the latter lived v.ith Mr. Ellis but she never reeoUcctcd her go:ng by the name of T'ar- quhar. He put it to the common sense of the House whether she could p(i?sibly !)e ignorant of this circum- stance. When this circ.nn stance was considered when Miss Taylor's intin^r.fy with Mrs. Clarke was con- sidered and when the drfect of her nuijii.ry on e\ery other point wa; ccn-id rc;l, lie contended ilieJ no weioht could -ittach U) M ir-s 1\\l()r".-; tcsiimony. But be that as it niivhi, lie wa< pcrsuad -d that tlie ci^nvcrsation to which M.-s 'r.i;,lo.- bor : V. iliv S-, c(';il;l not with iustice be iiit' liiixied !i:'o auy ni'/if i!;;u M.^ Royal IIiglmcs> 34 Mr. Ycrke. had a criminal knowledge of the transaction to which it related. It was probable that some conversation might have taken place ; and it was probable, considering his Royal Highness's confidence in Mrs. Clarke, and con- sidering that he was not aware that she came out of the hands of an army broker, that that conversation might have a reference to military subjects. The probability, however, was, that the utmost that took place might be a complaint on the part of the Duke of York against Cwlonel French and his levy : and if the House could refer to dates, they would find, that just about that time (April 1805) his Royal Highness was going to put an tnd to it. On some such remark he had little doubt that the other circumstances were ingrafted. He knew that Mrs. C]arkc was perfectly equal to the invention of these circumstances, and lie did not know that Miss Taylor was not equal to declare them when invented. As to the case of Major Tonyn, the only circumstance that connected his Royal Highness with it was the note. On the face of it it was doubtful, whether that note w^as 'A-ritten by the Duke of York or not, and it could not be -f-linitlcd as evidence of his knowledge of the transaction ir> which it referred. No one could doubt, from the abandoned char:u:tcr of Mrs. Ciarke, that she would not hciiiaie to forge a note for the purpose of forwarding her objects. It had been proved that she possessed great facilitv in the imitation of hand writing:. The character of her own hand writing had some resemblance to that of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. One of the witnesses, an individual conversant with hand wri- ting, had declared, thit on a second inspection he was l>y no means satisfied that the note in question was not a forgf-ry. Mrs. Clarke had an interest in forging this note. It was to procure for her the speedy payment of 500i. But whether the note was forged or not, it was Mr. Forxe, 35 of such a vague description that it could not be received as evidence. It was x^ithout a date, and the name of Tonyn a name by no means uncommon, iDJght refer to some other individual of that name. In an inquiry, the tendency of which was to inflict such a severe punishment as that proposed, it was most essential that not any documentan- evidence should be admitted, the authenticity of which was not completely established. Adverting to the case of Carter, he observed, that this subject had been so successfully handled by the right honourable Gentleman near him, that he could say nothing upon it, except that the Duke of York had as high a feeling of what was due to the honour of an army as any man of the country ; nor would he detain the House with any observations on Colonel Shaw's ap- pointment a transaction to which it was impossible that any criminal connivance on the part of his Royal Highness could exist. On the case of Dowler alsQ he should only refer to what had been saiu so ably by that right honourable Gentleman. jNIj. Dowler was evi- dently the favourite paramour of Mrs. Clarke, whom he had known for several years, and on whom, it appeared by his own and Mrs. Clarke's evidence, he had ex- pended considerable sums of money. Was it to be believed, that under such circumstances Dowler could be required by Mrs. Clarke to pay her lOOOl. for the exercise of her influence? He had no doubt but that this had been a scheme for the purpose of getting lOOOl. out of old Mr. Dowler. As to the actual appointment, it was to him pretty clear, that Dowler had obtained it from Sir Brooke Watson ; and indeed he had himself declared that in his subserjucnt conversation with Alderman ('ombe. He v.ould now ))roceed to make gome (ibstrvatifjus on liie general view of the whole case, and en llie course of proceeding \^hich, in hiv -236 Mr. Yorke. opinion, Ae House ought to pursue. The address pro- posed by* the honourable Gentleman opposite contained no distinct opinion on tlie criminality or innocence of his Royal Highness, It insinuated every thing, and as- serted nothing. But yet it concluded by requesting bis Majesty to dismiss his Royal Highness from the coiu- mand of the army. To such a proposition there were insurmountable objections. If his Royal Highness were thought by the House guilty of that which was imputed lo him, they ought to impeach him. If on that im- peachment his Royal Highness w-as found guilty by his Peers, of infamous and criminal participation in corrupt transactions, or of criminal connivance in those transac- tions, did any man think, that merely to remove him from his command would be enough ? No ; under such circumstances, it would be the duty of both Houses of Parliament to carry to the fo&t of the Throne a Bill, to exclude his Royal Highness from the succession. If it were deemed proper in a former period of our history, to pass acts for excluding Princes from the succession, in case they apostated from the religion of their forefathers, or married papists, he would say, that if a Prince in the present day was convicted by his Peers of transac- tions so base and erirainal, as to tarnish the brilliancy of .he crown on the head of his Majesty, and sully the ermine on the robe, the proposition agitated in the time of Charles II. should now be carried into effect, and a Bill to exclude such a Prince from the Throne ought to be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament ; because it would be impossible for such a Prmcc, under such cir- cumstances, to sit upright on his throne, and look his people in the face. But tliat his Royal Highness the Duke of York had been guilty of any such dereliction of duty he absolutely denied. There was not a tittle of cviderice to support such a charge. There was not one. Mr. Yorkp, 23f ot ilic Four cases allalged to be improper appointments, in which it was not shewn that those appointments would have taken place had Mrs, Clarke abstained from any interference. The evidence of Colonel Gordon dis- tinctly established this fact. Colonel Gordon declared, that he never recollected any wish to have been exprcs- feed by the Commander in Chief to depart from the usual course of military promotion. The honourable Geiiilemau opposite had laid great stress on the evil consequences of the correspondence between the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke on military matters ; but the only solitary instance of such a com- munication, was to be found in the letter to Mrs. Clarke, in which his Royal Highness mentioned General Clavc- ring. He was, therefore, astonished to hear the honourable Gentleman go on, and state that his Royal Highness was in the habit of corresponding with Mrs. Clarke on Military subjects. Mrs. Clarke had herself positively denied that there was any thing which related to military promotions in the other letters, that she had received from his Royal Highness. On the whole he was convinced, that the evidence that had been brought forward on these cases was far from bciug such as to in- duce the Hou^e to accede to the proposition made to them, and the tendency of which would be, to displace from the command of the army his Royal Highness tlic Duke of York ; an event v,'hic!i he should extremely de- plore, both witii a view to tiic interests of th.e :un;\", and with a view to the interests of the coniiny, as coiUiCclcd with llic annv. Tlie British army had r.cvcr distin- guished ii-^cH" more than at tho.-i; jXT'ot!-- ulien the chief coir.mand of it was vested in a !Mr,;:j c^i'tli;' lllootl. He iu.' lb" 54 O Mr Leach. Army. First of all he was induced to say, that he coulIend, that It was Mrs. Clarke who came t6 prosecute ; as if my honourable Friend was put forward bv her. T deny that it was riglit to say so ; I assert that it was the vcrv reverse. My honourable Friend was pursuing those inquiries long before he had any know- jedorc of Mrs. Clarke; it was manly patroitism and virtuethat Influenced him to that inquiry, and he pur- .^ued it through every obstruction. ( Hear !j Will Oentlemen, then, upon their own surmise, take upon t.lipin to pronounce that he is Mrs. Clarke's witness, and not tliat Mrs. Clarke is his? fllecr ! hear /J The letters were supposed to have been burned, yet she men- Lord Foikes forte. 24Q tioricd them in-the course of her evidence, arthe'risk of bc'inci- disbelieved ; some things indeed she did forget, but thfert she told you she forgot them ; if she were a donspirator, her tale would have been laboured with more art; she would have recollected those circumstances ros- j)ccting Captain Sandon, of which she had professed her ignorance. As to the letter concerning Major Tonyn, she said, that she did not recollect to have given it to any one; she believed that Captain Sandon stole it from her. I appeal to the obsen'ation which the House must havt. made upon liis conduct, whether he does not appear to be a man who would do so ? I believe in my conscience that she did not give it to him: I believe, also, that it is the Duke of York's writing. This letter is said to be mys- terious. T wonder how, after the evidence that has come before us, it can be the opinion of any one that it is a for- ger\'. I'he evidence was of a most extraordinary nature, "such as I cannot think the rirrht bonounble Gentleman acting in his judicial capacity, wouldauthori.se the produc- tion of. But it i? said that Mrs. Clarke has been guilty of contradictions, I tliink twenty-eiglit in number ; Ictus invest igitc this fact ; in the first place we must observe that the himouraUic GeTUleman who discovered, ncw;- Icrtcd to enumerate them; we must therefore depend upon our own selection, and examine those prominent, inconsistencies that strike nw own reflection. One of these respects her request to Colonel Knight that he v;ould conceal the tran.-;achon from the Duke of \'o;-k, fhe liaving contradictCj;? Iicrsclf by stalioT, tli.it such w.is not the cise, now to th.s contr;'.dietioii theie is a very easy answer, namely, that that trans.ieiioii li.i'.ipci'.iiig foiu* vcars ago mi^ilit have been i'nvrrAtfu ; a \>, I admit, highlv probable that slie might ui^h liiis !);isincss not to reach the Dnke's ears, liirough .i ihutl person, flicar ! fu'ur ' )^ enlightened a body of constituents as any in the kingdom, and chosen on principles of perfect frcc.lom, I cannot but be most anxious to maintain and vindicate that character, to preserve to myself that reputation with this House and with the Public; which I hope I may have acquired by 256 Mr. Adam. a long public life of activity, industry, and indepen- dence. Sir, I am not so weak, and I trust I do not so ill un- derstand the sitviation in which I ha\'e lately been placed, as to take offence at the noble Lord for having observed upon my evidence every person who is a witness is liable to have his testimony discussed with freedom justice, which is no respecter of persons, requires it. But when the noble Lord has stated that I have given inconsistent evidence ; that I have been contradicted by other witnesses ; and that I have varied in my testimony in material parts of this case, it is most natural that, I should not let an instant intervene in calling the atten- tion of the House to the evidence which I gave, and to which the noble Lord refers, and I have no doubt that I shall convince even the noble Lord himself, that he has been completely mistaken in all that he has said re- specting my testimony. Sir, I am sorry to consume the time of the House with what may be supposed to be personal matter, but it is cs?cntial to justice as well as to myself that the matter .should bo Cleared up, that the evidence which I have gi\en should be well understood. The noble Lord first states that my evidence has been incousi:stcnt in the account whicli 1 liave given of my connexion with the financial concerns of the Royal Duke; that I at one time held out that I was acquainted with the V, hole of his Royal Hiolmcss's concerns in thai respect, and ihcn confined it. to my hituation as hl# trustee. If Gentlenicn will look to tliC evidence which I gave on the lirst day of this proceeding, ih.ry will find that on tliat day I stated c'istiiK'lly th:U the only fundi', of his R(>val Highnes:-, the application (^f which l'e!l \\liliin my knowledge, were those wii ch were appropriated in his creditors :, that I knew nothing of the ajipHc^tivMi o; Mr. Adam. 257 that part of his income which he reserved for his own txpenditure; that I could not tell whether a private pension to this or that person was or was not paid* This appears from my testimony in page 25 of the printed evidence. On a future day an honourable Gentleman, now under the gallerv, (Mr. Charles Adams) asked me, (that part of the evidence is in page 265) Whether the annuitv was or was not paid to Mrs. Clarke? To which I answered by referring to my former evidence, by which he would see that I could know nothing respect- ing the pavmcnt or non-pavmcnt of the annuity. The same G( ntieman on a sub.>cquent day examined me again respcctiuir the jiayment of the annuitv, and if the noble Lord will look to that part of the testimony, he will find my evidence to be perfectly conformable to that which I have already stated. On this part, therefore, of my testimony, I hope the House will be satisfied that there is nothing contradictorv. The noble Lord next asserts that I was contradicted by Ml. Comrie, in the evidence which I had given re- specting a loan w hich was proposed to be made by the Duke of York. Here the noble Lord is again in a mis- take. I never gave any testimony whatever relating to that subject ; there is I will venture to say nothing of the kind to be found in my evidence. It is very true that in a speech which I mnde on the dav in which the honourable Gentleman (Mr. W'ardle) opened these charges, I did state to the House that I had uniformly found his Royal Highness to be accurate in his state- nieuls respecting his pecuniary ol)ligations, and that the correctness of his statements in that respect, afibrded a strong presumption in my mind of his correctness in other respects; that I had likewise every reason to be- lieve that in every case where there had been any pro- pf)Sal made to him to raise money that he had rclencJ to s 15 Mr, Adam. me. Now it was professedly to contradict this part of my speech that Mr. Comrie was called by the honour- able Member, (Mr. Wardle) and it will be seen, that instead of contradicting, Mr. Comrie distinctly confirms my statement in my speech on the first day of these prO' ceedings ; for he says in his evidence, page 64, that he h^d been referred by the Duke of York to me, and was asked by the Duke (to whom he went upon the subject of a loan on mortgage of ^10,000) whether he knew Mr. Adam of Bloomsburv Square. Mr. Comrie an- swcrs thus; "I said not persoiiallv, but by reputation I knew him to be a man of very high character. I short- ly afterwards called on Mr. Adam we proceeded to dis' cuss the business Mr. Adam said his Royal Highness had occasion for that sum, I think he said to complete the payment of some tythes in the vicinitv ofOatlands; and that his Royal ' Hjghncss's Solicitors, Messrs. Farrcrs, would send me the abstract, which they did. In the mean time I applied to a ricli client, wl)o agreed to lend the money. The abstracts were referred to a conveyancer by me, who made some queries. In the mean time the money was ready to be advanced; and the abstracts were returned to Messr?. Farrcrs to answer the queries ; but they were never sent back to me, and the loan was afterwards declined, and Messrs. Farrcra desired me to scnc! in my i)!!!."' Here again I tl)ink ti.e Fcuse will be satisfied that I have been confirmed most positivelv by Mr. Comrie; a witness called by the promoters ol ihe^e charges under the cxpresii declaration that he was to cntradict, not what I had given in evivlerice, but v.liat I iK.d stated in ii speech. The next )V,p.t'.er of v.hiich I am accused !;y tlie noble L';rd is for iucoTisistt-ncy in the evidence v. liich I gavo i:; t .'. v"x'.\' a c;ii:e. Novv I niutt submit to ihe Ilouit Mr. Adam. 259 that it is not quite correct in the noble Lord, to charge that evidence with inconsistency which is characterized pniy by want of recollection ; there was nothing that should have fixed my recollection particularly to that case, I had very little share in it, and had left town immediately on its commencement, and did not return, till its conclusion. I stated to the House in my evidence that until the first witness to it, Mr. Duff, by something he said, and by the description he gave of Kennett, re- called it to my memory, that it had totally escaped me that such a person or such a transaction had ever existed". Mr. Dual's testimony had revived my memory, and when two short notes of mine were put Into my hand by the noble Lord, and a short letter written from mv residence in Scotland, my njemory became more clear; but I cannot say that even now after all that has been said on the subject, that I have any distinct memory respecting it; a circumstance which will not fci^Ki strange to those who are accustomed to go tlirouoh much business ; but surely there is nothin.or in all this nor in any of the evidence which I gave on that subject, that warrants the charge of my haviniT driven iiiconsistent or contradictory testimony on the subject of Kennett'^ ioan. The next charge made against me by the noble Lord, IS, that I gave an inconsistent account of llic cause of the Duke's separation from Mrs. Clarke. Rore airaiTi I am confident that I shall satisfy the Mouse, that th.c noble Lord's charge againnt me is without foundation. The noble Lord sai'.l that 1 put it upon the ground ot pecuniary matters, and that it was because her conduct had prcjiidieed his Royal lliglniess's name, Vvit!- regard lo money. Ai;d when Mr. Lov/tcn and Mr. Wilkinson were cjIIcJ, tl^y did not confirm me in tiiat part of mv tT. idenve. 260 Mr. Adam, The House will give me leave to observe that I statcc^ the circumstance of money, as one ingredient only in the cause of separation; that I stated the account of Mrs. Clarke's conduct in other respects, which had been the subject of investigation, to be the cause, and indeed to afford the principal reasons for the separation, as diey bad been the principal grounds of the investigation which had been directed. I submit that when I was asked at different times as to one cause of separation, namely, money, it was not to be supposed, that because I did not repeat every other cause, that I therefore excluded them it would be hard indeed if witnesses were in that way to be convicted of contradictory testimony. When I stated a single cause in answer to a question applying to that single cause, the other causes niust in justice and in common sense, be held to operate in my mind, and to make part of niy testimony. Ikit it was said that I wai not confirmed by Mr. Lowten and Mr. \\''ilkinson the House will recollect that I went through a long exami- nation by an honourable Baronet (Sir T. Turton) on that subject that he asked mc among other things, v.'he- thcr I had ever seen the narrative respecting Mrs. Clarke's conduct, from the time I had caused it to be delivered to liis Royal Highness, on tiic llh ot" May ISOG, now near- three years ago I said I never had, that I had not had any opportunity oi" rcircihing my memory with its con- tents, and that I had made no v.rittcn memorandum of the transaction. I conceived Lipuii that distant recol- lection of a long paper, that tlie pecuniary nialttr must liavebeen contained in it. .And here I must beg leave to call the attention of the House to what my conduct has been throughout this anxious, and to mc most particu- larly distressing case. I have been ready, I think the House will do me the justice to sav, to answer every ques- tion at any moment j but I have myself uniformly ab*" Mr. Adam. 2GI stained from exaniining the witnesses, except three or four short (juestions put to Colonel Hamilton, in order to ascertain that he had not had any communication what- ever with me, from the Sunciay when he told me that the note respecting Toavn was destroyed, 1 did not put a question to any witness, during this proceeding, until Mr. Lowtcn was at the bar; and to him at the close of his examination, I only put three questions, to ascertain whether a certain cause, Turner v. Mary Ann Clarke had been entered for trial at the ^V^cstmlnster Sitting, after Hilary Term lS() head of the evidence ; for my honourable Friend in the course of his very able and poweiful speech, referred to a pas- sage in Mrs. Clarke's e'.-idence, wiiich 1 shall stale a little more at large than he did. In p;ige 2(31 of the printed evidence, Mrs. Clarke is asked, " D(j you know why tlie Duke (jf York withdrew his proteeilon from vou? Mr. Adam slates that it was in conse(jiicnce of my pleading my inarriay:c to a bill of i'l-iO; but 1 can prove the contrary to that, as I had done it once before, aM(t he knew it; and the man had sent tlucatenini: letters 26.2 Mr. Adam^ to him^ and to the whole of his Koyal Hlghness's family* his name is Charman, a silversmith in St. James's Street. I have my owoi opinion of the separation." *^* Did his Royal Highness assign any reason for it ? No, he did not; but I guess the reason." *' Was it oa ' account of your interferences in Military Promotions ? No, it was what Mr. Adam stated, upon money matters^ but not that one of the bill." So that it is quite manifest that the only error in my testimony, is an inaccurate recollection in the source of my information, which is extremely natural at such a distance of time, and when a reference to the persons emploved in some of the most important parts of the in- yestigation was extremely likely to create an opinion or belief that that was the source. '" The oaly other point in which the noble Lord charges me with inaccuracy, is what relates to the account I gave of the Duke of York's declarations as to his corre- spondence with Mrs. Clarke on Military Promotion. The noble Lord sayS that I first admitted that the Royal Duke had corresponded with her on miUtary subjects that I had afterwards contradicted that, and desired that answer to be altered. Now, Sir, I think here I have some reason to complain of the noble Lord for not stating this transaction exactly as it took place, as that statement I am confident would of itself com- pletely satisfy the House that I had done nothing but what was most perfectly right and fair, according to the most rigid rule, and as long as it is permitted by the course of proceeding in every court in the kingdom, for a witness v-ho makes the application within proper time, to correct his testimony, 1 n)ust be held to have acted with perfect correctness. After havinn; been oiilisicd to aive a very lonor answer upon the subject of the note regarding Ton)'n's promo- J/r. J dam, 363 lion ; which is in page 431, and after two or three short answers on that subject, as to what the Duke had said to nie regarding that note, the noble Lord put the follow- ing question to me. (It is to be found near the bottom of p. 432.) *'Did he (the Duke of York) state to you that he had never written to Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military afiairsr" I vinswered *' He always stated to me, that to the best of his recollection he had never written to Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military affairs ; but that if he had done it it must have been \Try rarely." Upon considering this answer it appeared to me to be very inaccurate, because the latter part of it was giving the result which I had drawn from what the Duke said lo me, whereas to miike evidence correct the fact or declara- tion should be given for those who areto judgeto drawthe conclusion; anrl the evidence should not contain the infer- ence or conclusion of the witness as tliis answer did. Ac- cordingly as soon as the cxaniiivatio;i ot'ihe witness next called was concluded, I desired that my answer might be read, not to cxpimge what I had said, but leaving that as it originally stood, to correct it and to leave the whole on the evidence. Accordinirl}' in the next page bul one (p. -ISi) my correction appears. I desired the latter part of the answer to be left out, viz. The words " or if he liad vcrv rarely." The noble Lord immediately asked ine---" Did the Duke of York state to you that he did not recollect ever iiaviiig written to Mrs. Clarke about any military business whatever?" To which I answer- ed " The Duke of \'ork certainly stated to mc lliat he ditl not recollect to have written to Mrs. Clai ke on any military matter whatever, flc afterwards said that if lie had ever written to Mrs. CUuke on any miHtar\' matter whatever it must lia\c been in answer to souk- questions put in sonte letter of tier's ; and his Koval Highness said expressly that >^lien bhe once stat'-d sotnelhing lo him 364 Mr. Adam. early in their acquaintance, respecting promotion in the Army, he said that was a business he could not listen to, and he never heard more of it afterwards." Now, Sir, what I have to submit is that ther is not the least ground in this case, any more than in all the others, for the charge made bv the noble Lord ; but that the evidence I gave at first was an impression on my mind, a conclusion drawn by me, which was unfit to stand as evidence ; that the correction was as nistan- taneous as the nature of the thing would admit ; that it was perfectly correct in point of time and circumstance, and that the manner in which the evidence now stands, is the correct mode of giving testimony of this sort, namely, to give as near as memory will serve, the ex- pressions of the person whose declarations are the subject of inquiry. On these grounds I feel perfectlv satisfied that I could not injustice either to rhc Royal Duke, the House, or myself, permit the evidence to stand in the shape in which I originally gave it. I trust. Sir, I have now done enough to satisfy ihc House, and even to satisfy the noble Lord, tliat my testimony in all the parts of it has been uniformly con- sistent, and that the observations made on it by the noble Lord are without any foundations. Sir, it is most painful to me to have occupied so large a portion of the time of the House at so late an hour with a matter which though important evidence in the cause, is yet so per- sonal. I have felt much and^decply throughout thr; whole of this proceeding. It is impossible it would have been unnatural for me, considering the situation in which T have so long stood wilh the Royal Person ac- cused, not to feel deeply interested in what relates to his fame, his honor, and his station. Sir, I have besides had the feelings nearest and dearest to my heart torn by the representation of weekly journals, on a subject on Mr. Adam. 265 which it would be unfit aad offensive for me to detain tlie House j yet I cannot refrain from stating that it has been rcmarketl in those publications that the backs of lOtK) men were exposed to the commander of a battallion that the government of a corps should not be exposed to the heated passions of youth. From these general ob- servations it is natural to conclude that the evils alluded to, namely, severity of punishment and irregularity of discipline, must have prevailed in the particular case in which the promotion is censured; and thus the calumny is spread and gains belief, while I have it not iii my power to shew that no corps in the service could boast of fewer corporal punishments than that in question, and ihat every mean* from the first entry of that officer to the command, has been directed with a view to promote regularity of behaviour and useful military pursuits, while there has never been any thing like severity of military discipline. But, Sir, I have to beg pardon of the House for per- mitting myself to be led by the wounded feelin<;3 of a Parent to this allusion, and I will now proceed to ex- aniine t'ne question before us, I am anxious to do so with a mind as judicially framed as I can bring to any subject, and if in endeavouring to secure the attention of ;i numerous and popular audience I speak with more eagerness than becomes a Judge, they will consider the matter and not the manner, and in attending to the mode of reasoning I trust they will pardon the eager- ness in which I may announce myself. If I had been able to address the House after the Speech ;ji the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) and after all llioic v. ho ha\c spoken until niv honourable Friend near me (Mr. Whiibread) spoke, I sliould have had no occasion to have entered into the (jueslion, of how far the Koyal Duke was involved in the corruption which SSa Mr. Adam* Mr*. Clarke has proved against herself; or in any know- ledge of or connivance at that corruption. Because ex- cept the speeuzh of the honourable Mover of this inquiry, thatof my honourable Friend Mr. Whitbread and thai of the nnble Lord wlio spoke last, every speaker on this subject hitherto, has in distinct terms declared that the Duke of York was entirely innocent. of corruption, or of conni- vance at Mrs. Clarke's corruption. But corruption or connivance is now contended for by these three Gentle- ien, and tlterefore it is necessary to discuss the cvi- sfence according to that view of tlie case. But be- fore I enter upon the evidence it is most material to consider the precise nature of the question before the House. The honourable Getleraan who proposed the inquiry, moved an Address, calculated to chai-ge the Duke of York with corruption orcoimivaucc and therefore 10 remove him from his situation; upon that the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment, which is to leave out the Address and sub- stitute Resolutions, expressing first, that it is fit we should resolve as to the guilt or innocence, and se- condly, to resolve that the Royal Duke is not guilty of the corruption or connivance with which he is charged ; and then he means to follow these Resolutions witli an Address wliich is to convey them to his Majesty, but upon that it is unnecessary at present to say any- tlnng. V Since the amendment of my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the honourable Gen- tleman below me (Mr. Bankes) has moved another Ad- dress, and the right honourable Gentleman below him (Mr. Bathurst) has given notice of a Resolution which is to free fJis Royal Highness from any charge of cor- ruption, but to fix upon hiin ihe charge of having per- mitted Mrs, Clarke to con^,!nuni;\Uc v.ith hiin anJ to , Mr. Adxtjiu 26y interfere on the subject of Military Promotion. The simple question thercibre for the House to consider i Whether it is most proper to proceed by Address or by Resolution, and whether the Resolution proposed by the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is not the fit Resolution to be come to. It is material therefore in the present state of the question to consider whether Justice does not require that the House should come to a fair distinct question, of guilty or not guilty, and on the determination of that question to build your future measures. With that state of tl\e question in view, T shall pro- ceed to ob-ervc on the KvidLUcc. In considering thii case, it is the duty of the House to bear in mind a dogma of one of the most profound Philosophers, and most eminent Lawyers that this Country ever produced: Lord Bacon, I think, says, 'Mn matters of Judgement *' do not by strains of art or wit seek to play i^rizcs, but '* carry the lanthorn of Justice (which is the evidence) ** before your eyes upright to light you to the just con- " elusion." I am anxious to make this the rule and guide of my conduct in this most important and interesting case, but I shall not travel througii matter which has been alrea- dy fully discussed; 1 shall content myself by merely re- ferring to those ()bservati(nis, which have established the conclusions which I agree to. The numerous contra- dictions aiid their eiVect, which have bv;en statrd so con- clusivelv, and v.ith so much pcrspicuit)- and ability, by my learned Friend (Mr. Leach), I shall nrt repeat. The detection of lalse lestimonv accompli.-;lied so perfectly by the spcecli of my riL!;ht hon(;ural)le Friend the Chancellor ot the Ivxchequer, I slu/uld never tliink of following with any observation* of nunc to the same ef- lect. As tliat speech, whi.h \'. -i:; cu. incut for its eio- ^GS Mr. Adam, * quence and reasoning, was still more so for the strain of sincerity which pervaded It and rendered it peculiarly im- pressive, had its full effect with the House. I shall therefore leave all his topicks upon the effect of his speech. But it still remains to be considered what the plan and nature of the testimony is which was to be given, and by attending to its mode and character it will be seen how completely fallacious it is and how it has failed. Mrs. Clarke was necessarily the principal witness in all the cases: to fix the guilt of corruption on his Royal Highness. But to illustrate my view of the subject it will be suflficient if I consider her testimony, and that which was to confirm her in the three cases of Knight's Exchange, French's Levy, and Tonyn's Promotion. In all of them, and in all the other transactions there is a character belonging to Mrs. Clarke's testimony, most material to be attended to. She inculcated (according to the account of all the witnesses) the greatest secrecy while the business was going forward; Dr. Thynne is enjoined to secrecy, Mr. Knight is enjoined to secrecy, (""on y is enjoined to secrecy, and all his papers are di- rt cted to be destroyed, Sandon in every letter is en- joined to secrecy. To one who will attentively and inipartialiy consider her situation it cannot fail to appear that her motives for secrecy were of the most urgent nature; she had to conceal her transactions from the Duke to prevent his suspecting them, and to hide from him the objects of her inquiries; she had to conceal it even from her Agents, in case they should discover that she had not the influence with the Duke that she pre- tended to have; for it is manifest from the whole cir- cumstances of the case, and only contradicted bv her declarations, that she had not the means of obtaining the objects which she pretended. The very few \\\> Mr. Adam, :3dj| stances in all the numerous transactions of the office of Commander in Chief which she seems to have had anj hand in proves this; the correspondence wiih Sandon clearly shews it, and her continuing the transactions after her separation from the Duke, and still holding herself out as haying the power to influence him likewise shews that it auist have been her object to conceal that she might prevent those she imposed upon disco- vering her want of influence. All these causes com- bined to induce her to inculcate^ secrecy during the progress of the transactions, and accordingly she incul- cates secrecy in the strictest manner to every body pen- ding the transaction; this is universal and invaria- ble; it is the result of the testimony of all the wit- nesses, and of the evidence which arises out of the transaction and documents; yet now when she gives her testimony she would have it to be believed that there was no attempt at secrecy; that her injunctions to secrecy were useless; that the whole was carried on with so little reserve, thai it was the subject of conversation at her table, and that it was a nialter which she conducted with so little caution that it nmst have been known to every servant in her iiouse: that she pinned the list of promo- tions to tlie curtain of her bed, so that all who coul4 read might read it and lell it to them who could not; this marks such an inconsistency of procee keep her Agents and those she ini;.osed upon equally in the dark, while on llie other hand, tiu; publicity, the uponness, the disclosure at her tabic and l-j her whole family, is now brought forward to tliis House in carder to fix what it is the whole object of the casv.- and of her ajs the accuser, n.'ancly, to use every nicaiis to get th^ ffO Mr. Jdam. Pake's knowledge of the corrupt part of the transactioiv to be believed. This contradiction of testimony between her and the other witnesses, taken in a general view, Vv'ithout entering into particular contradictions, is most important in the consideration of this case, dud when coupled with the minute tacts and circumstances of iHconsistency which have been established against her, shakes her credit to the foundation. There is anothetmost important view of this subject, as it regards the character of the evidence. Mrs. Clarke is to prove tbe fact, that Knight's Exchange, that French's Levy, that Tonvn's Promotion, were obtained by her influence; but this by itself is mere interference without corruption, and although this might be supposed to warrant such a motion as has been opened by the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) on which I shall make some observations hereafter; it does not establish the crime of corruption in the Duke of York, which Mrs. Clarke as his accuser was determined to make good; to do that she must make good his know- ledge of her corrupt transactions; she therefore is to prove that the Duke knew that she took money. It is perfectly clear that her saving so would not be sufficient to establish by credible testimony the existence of that knowledge, and that taken by itself, in a case where no contradiction could be given to it, wlicre she had such avowed motives for such a charge, and where the whole tenor of the Duke's official duty repelled the inference, it must fall to the ground. The plan of the evidence is therefore to endeavour by corroborating facts and confir- matory proof to give eiTect to lier declarations of the Duke's knowledge of /i(?r guilt, and consequently to fix his guilt. Accordingly in all the cases, more or less, her evidence is attempted to be aided in this way, by Mr. Adam, 171 confirmatory proof. Now if tlic corroboration is sound; if the confirmatory evidence is clear and certain, t!u' de- clarations, absurd and incredible as they are, would hav something to support them. Even the declaration u hich she gave in evidence, that the Duke said " if she was clever she need never want money" might receive sonic credit and obtain some belief, if supported by collateral and confirmatory facts ; but if on the contraiy the cor- roborating facts which are all of her suggesting, aH eqi'.allv brought forward bv her the accuser, are unsound, if thev will not bear tiie test but fall from under her, then no credit whatever is to lie given to her declarations of tiie Duke's knowledge of her corruption; on the con- trary, all belitf of it must be refused, and the whole n)Ust vanish as a fa!.-e fabricated story. Having no basis but that which we ail know, and which is true, namely, that C'jIoikM Knight and Colonel Brook exchanged, that Colonel PVench had a Levy and so on, but ihat she pro- cured them f:>r the i)artic'?. far less liiat she informed the Duke that s!..; ': )t moncv tor so doing mu.st become tUlerlv de.oiJ ol .rtuii, and be rfjicted as untrue, w hen it rests n)';-r':lv on t"cr unsuonoricd unconfirmed decla- rations. In the llr-t c:?."-.', namely, the cxeiian;2e of Colonel Knight, tiie coiTohfjraiinir circumstances by which sli means to give cveJit to her decltratiou of the Duke's knowledge of the mone\- ivau-^ae'.ion, is the slip ol paj)er on which the uaJues were vr;it'.n, jud the cl'.aneina t)ie Biuk Note; as to tlie tirst of these the slip r^f p/ijL-r, my hMUJUrablc iwiciid near nn; (Mr. \\'liitl>re ic!) secnieil to r(K" on thiit as a very niaii^ial eireuni^t uic<.- of confirma- tin. Me iv-:, liw.'. sluiuld she iiave ihfjUi'ht of s.v.'.ng that sjie sl.cwt"! liio Diskc the ^!M? ^'.'itli tr:.: nani'.i ot Knigiil and T.ioi'kv'-, given iit:r bv Dwctor 'liunne, if ihe had \.'A ']::)' ii, Xow to my .ucrptiojj il.'.i li 272 Mr, Adam. no feature of confirmation ; she knew then, she may have heard since that the names were so commu- nicated to her, and it was as easy for her to state that she shewed the paper as that she mentioned the names; but this is not confirmation of corrup- tion, it is at most only confirmation of interfe- -fence, and as far as it yet goes is quite innocent, except in this last light. To establish the Duke's knowledge of the corruption she introduces the changing of the Notes which she received from Mr. Knight, Now it is very material to attend to the detail of the evidence in this part of the case, and I think it will be found that it is accompanied with such circumstances in the represen- tation of it as to leave it entirely without effect, as evi- dence of corroboration. In page 9 of the evidence, Mrs. Clarke says that Dr. Thynne made the proposal to her to get the exchange, and it appears from the Doctor's evidence and from Mr. Knight's, that the object was to get her to expedite the exchange, that she was to have j'200 for it, that it was paid after the exchange was gazetted; Mr. Knight thinks in two notes of .^"100 each sent in the Morning to her. Mrs. Clarke says that she told the Duke they were to make her some sort of compliment, but she does not say what it was to be ; but on the Evening of the day on which she received the Money she intimated to hini that she had received it and she represents that it was gent in a Bank note o/'jl 200. Now this representation which differs from Mr. Knight's is very material to be attended to, not because it differs from Mr. Knjght*5, but because her account of the amount of the Note is most important in considering the truth or falsehood of the story which she brings forward to confirm her evi- dence and by which she attempts to fix on the Duke, the knowledge of her corrupt dealing. It i-^ farther ma- Mr. Ada\n. 273 terial to attend to the very words which she uses to es- tabhsh the Duke's knowledge of her having received the Money. She is asked " after receiving the 200 do you recollect at any time making that known to the Commander in Chief Yes I do." " When did you mention it to him The same day." " What passed upon the subject I only merely said they had kept their pro- mise." "Did the Commander in Chief know the amount of the Money you had received He knew the amount because I shewed him the note, and I think I got one of his servant's to exchange it for nic through his Royal Highness." Before I observe on the singular nature of this con- firmatory' evidence, founded on the note being changed by the Duke's means, it is most material to remark, that she states the payment to have been made in one note of iOO; that she says she shewed the Duke t]ie notCj es- tablishing that she shev/ed him a note of .!c- tions in these matters were made known to thi' Duke. But when it is di.-icjvcred that tlieic is a direct nuuise tor this ciianLfe of ntorv, and for this contradiction in her e\idence, wh-.n it shall, a? it dot-, appear from what 27 S Mr. Adam, followSj, that there is a motive for this change, the strength of the observation against her testimony is greatly increased. When she gave evidence to thi point on the 9th of February, she had learnt that her story would not be confirmed by the testimony of her butler, Pierson ; she had seen that witness on the Saturday, or the Monday, after her first examination, and had got an account from him that he was the person who had gone to change the note, -that the Duke, according to Mrs. Clarke's ac- count of Pierson's story, desired him, Pierson, to go to Stephen's, in Bond-street, his wine-merchant, to get the change. It became necessary that her evidence should be made to fall in with his account, and accord- ingly she says, that she * believes she did not state that it was his Royal Highness's servant who took it, but that his Royal Highness had something to do with it," an account which coincides with what she says she had learnt from Pierson, but directly contradicts what she herself iiad before said, to render the transaction respect- ing the change of the note confirmatory of her declara- tions as to the Duke's knowledge of her receipt of money for military promotion. Now the accounts given by Pierson, and that given by her, as Pierson's account to, her, even if true, do not confirm her in her declarations. She says, Pierson called it a bO note ; but in her evi- dence she has always referred to aj^'SOO Bank note, and no other. Pierson, on his first examination, p. G6, says, that the note which Loudovick changed, v.as changed in the morning, not the evening ; that it was given by the houseViecpcr ; and that it was some morn-' ing, a liitlc lime before Mrs. Clarke went to Worthing, in 1S05. When asked if he saw a note given to Loudcj- vick to change in the evening, he says, he did not. This evidence, therefore, cannot avail But he is called Mr. Adam. 279 back on a future day, it being represented by the honour- able Mover of these charges that on his first examination he had laboured under a head-ach, which deprived him of his memory. In p. 147 he has his former evidence read to him, and is asked if he has any aUeration or addition to make to it, he says, " no alteration;" and then goes on to sa\-, " one night that the Duke of York went to Wcvmouthj about eleven o'clock I was sent out to get a bill changed; I went out and got it changed, and brought it in to Mrs. Clarke, wlio looked it over and said it was all right. The Di;kc was present when I received it from Mrs. Clarke and gave it back to her." In p. 14S he says, *' he thinks It was j^^lOO, but is not certain. That he got it changed at Byfield and Bridgeman's, confectioners, Mr. and Mrs, Bridgeman changed it, that he went to Stephen's, In Bond-street, and they could not do it for him." Here is not one word of the Duke directing him to Stephens's, nor any evidence of his Royal Highness interfering, or having any thing to do with it, further than being present. Mrs. Bridgeman ii called, and in p. 271 she says, 'ihe remembers Pitrson calling In thr end of.Iuly, J6()5, with a note; she cannot recollect exactly what passed, lilt she did not change the note. She did not see the note, but thinks he said It v\as .,^100." Loudovlck in his evidence proved to be the only servant of his Roval Highness who ever attended him In Gloucester-place, .;v.y-=, that he never was sent with any note to change iVoni GloLicesior-place. So that this confirmatory evi- d;ii> c to b.ipport Mrs. Clarke's declarations of lh Duke's knuv\ ledge of her guilt is reduced to nothing, 'i iie .i^2()0 note turn, out not to be aX^OO, but a '100 J tc; an:l aci c;r Jing to .Mrs. Clarke's own account of 1 ler-on's ; ^il.i.uiiy, a.i'.OO. ''ill e order of the Duke ij li.^ s; .-vau. t'> 'iet ch.iuiied wlial her si-wanli could not 230 Mr. Adam.. get changed, proves to be without feundatlon. What-^ ever note was carried, was done by her servant, not by the Duke's, by her orders, not by the Duke's; and where it was changed, or whether it was ever changed does not appear. It is clear, from Pierson's evidence, that it was not changed at Stephens's, and it is clear from Mrs. Bridgeman's evidence that it uas not changed by her. The main confirmaaon brought forward by her to support her evidence being thus in the end absokitely aiven up and controverted by her conckiding declaration, it seems unnecessary even to refer to the contradictions which have been so incontrovertibly established by my learned Friend, (Mr. Leach.) I should not therefore, even allude to what she said with regard to the time of her application to the Duke for the exchange, were it not important to observe, that when she differs as to the time, from Mr. Knight, and Dr. Thynne, that the time she fixes for having made her application is ma- terial, because it proves her determination to ascribe a. time near the gazetting, in order to shew the influence she possessed, and with what dispatch she promoted the exchange; but in doing so, she fixes on a day, unfor- tunately, subsequent to that on which it appears by the official documents that the exchange was accom- plished. The knowledge, then, which the Duke of York had of her share in this transaction is reduced to her mere declaration, unsupported by any other testimony of any kind ; and as she is discrv-^diled in the very cir- cumstances which she brings ibrxA-ard as corroborative, there cannot be any concIu:ir,a of giiilt, or of a guilty knov/ledfre or connivance on tlie part of his Koyal Highness. I come now to the confirmatory, or corroborative evi- Mr. ^dam. 2Sl dence, in the case of French's Levy, and I think I shall be able to shew, that that evidence is equally ineffectual, -tis to the proof of the Duke of York's knowledge of the corrupt transactions respecting it ; and that the payment of money for that Levy by French, or Sandon, to Mrs. Clarke, was never known to his Royal Highness. The evidence of confirmatinn in this case consists First, of the manner in which the Levy was disbanded, or put an end to, Secondly, in the circumstance of the plate having been bought from Parker hy her payment of ^300 of that money, a3 part of the price of it, and that the remainder of the payment, the Duke knowing this first source, was paid by his Royal Highness, Thlrdlj/, the conversation related by Miss Taylor. The first of these grounds arises out of the documents, and does not originate with Mrs. Clarke. The two last originate entirely from her, and under circumstances such as will receive, when I come to them, observations which I conceive to be of the utmost importance in order to destroy this testimony, and to shew that it falls from under her. As to the first it has been obsen'ed by my honourable Friend (Mr. ^V'hitbrcad) and by the noble Lord who spoke last, that the unwillingness with which the Duke put an end to the I^cvy, and the gentle terms In which he expressed himself when he diil dis- band it, are strong circumstances to prove that he knew of the benefit which Mrs. Clarke derived from it. In this part of the case there are many oii-ervations to be made which I shall omit, because the y have been already inade, and as I think, conclusively ; I shall coniine nivself merely to the facts which relate to the Levy being put an end to. It appears that representations came from Dublin early in Januarv, JSO.'i, respectiiiu; the inij)cdiment3 to ^hc recruitinir the Levy tliat his Roval Highness iinnj*> fS2 Mr. Adam. diateiy ordered an inquir)- into it that this, however, did not prevent the Commander in Chief from directing General VVhitelocke to communicate to Colonel French his dgterniination to discontinue the Levy, unless a very considerable increase should take place in the ijumbers recruited. General VVhitelocke's letter is dated the 2d ol" pebruarvj 1805, and appears clearly to be in obe- dience to the Duke of York's commands. Here there is evidence that his Royal Highness had taken steps to announce the eventual discontinuance of the Levy. I'his at least is no proof that he was apprehensive of any discovery. The correspondence afterwards with Mr. Kirkman takes place, and by a letter dated 14th of April, from General Whitelocke to Colonel Gordon, which must have reached the 15th, tlie ccnduct of the tem- porary Serjeants in London, is rej)rescntcd as disgraceful. On the l6th of April, 1803, (No. 20 of the Appen- dix,) his Royal Highness v.rites to the Secretary at War, that his Majcsiy had been pleased to approve of the discontinuance of tlie Levy which he had recom- mended to his Majesty. It is contended that the man- lier in which his Iloyal Highness expresses himself is so gentle, that it indicates a knowledge of the corrupt practices which existed between Mrs. Clarke and Colonel French. On this I have to observe, Fint, that the letter of his Royal Highness contains impressions con- formable to the letter on which he acted. Secondly, that it seems most extraordinary that niore should be required tlian tlie act of discontinuance that act con- stitutes the real substantial injury to French. Ihe corps had been a most losing concern to him. He had paid a large sum to Mrs. Clarke, and wss left in debt to his rgcnt. The continuance of the corps might have relieved h!]Vi--the discontinuance ruined him. It was the act of fcliicontinuance, therefore, that he n:ust have hit; audit 4 Mr. Adam. 2 S3 was that act, if the Duke had been apprehensive of discovery, which he must have resisted and avoided yet he stopped the Levy the very day after lie received Whiteloeke's letter. The hnnguage, therefore, which he used to the Secretary at War in his official letter, could not operate as an alleviation in the mind of Colo- nel French for such an injury, and the mere fact that the Duke did discontinue the Levy is of itself suffi- cient to shew that he did not act under any apprehension. But, Sir, the whole tenor of the conduct of his Royal ILighness shews, that he had no apprehension for any discovery in any part of his conduct. When he separated from Mrs. Clarke, when u])on a full knowledge of her character from the written report whicli I conveyed to him, his mind was satisfied, he took his determination with a firmness he suppressed his affection with a resolution quite inconsistent with the fear of discovery. When she attempted to renew the intercourse, he was equally firm in withstanding it. In the non-payment of the annuity there is again proof of his acting from motives which shewed no fear of a discoverv of anv knowledsic, on his part, of her corrupt conduct. The same con- clusion is to be drawn from the conduct of liis Royal Ili<2;hncss when I communicated to Imn her letters of June, ISOS, which co!itain a direct threat of diseovery, and that it amounted to something serious. From the time tliat these letters were written, whatever might have been the wish, or inclination, rcsjX'cling the annuity before liiat pcrir,d whatever miuht have bien jiroper to have been done in it, it became impossible for his Koval Highness to act otherwise than he did. He slu wetl no inclination whatever, as 1 have staled in m\' eMclencc, to give way to that tiircat, and no fc ar or ajvpreiicnsion of any tiling that she could er/nmuinicate. The Royal Duke certainly never shewed anv intliualion by acting 2S4 Mr. Adam. the unbecoming part of compromise, or settlement, in consequence of that threat. And his Royal Highness, I trust, knew me too well to suppose that I would have been the agent in such a transaction, if he had been so inclined. On the whole I cannot help being clearly of opinion, that there was nothing in the Duke's general conduct which denoted a fear of discovery ; and that in the par- ticular instance of discontinuing the Levy, the language in which it was conveyed does not afford an argument to that effect, especially when put against the act itself, (which was the real injury) which had been long resolved upon ; and the resolution having been announced two months and more before the accomplishment of it, gave room for such communications as might have excited ajiprehension if there had been guilt, yet nothing of the kind appears. I now come to the question of the purchase of the plate, and the corrroboration supposed to be derived from the mode in which it was paid. This testimony was opened by the honourable Gen- tleman on the day on which he preferred his charges, and must have proceeded distinctly from the information of Mrs. Clarke. It was meant to shew that the Duke of York knew of the first payment for the plate being made by Mrs. Clarke ; and that he knew tliat it was made by money derived from French for having pro- mised him his levy, that the Duke by paying the balance must have known the source from v> hence Mrs. Clarke derived the money, which made the first payment. lu order to shew how fallacious this part of the confirmatory testimony is, it is necessary to examine llie account, and to discuss the evidence which relates to it. The account is in page 129 of the evidcjice. The sum total at tin- debit side is ./ISl'l and a friictioii. The first payment Jij'r. Adam, 2S5 on the credit side is ^500 said to be paid by Mrs, Clarke from French's money. Now it is material to observe, that this payment was made on the isih of May, 1804; from whom it comes does not appear oa the face of the account, only that the account is en- tilled as the account of Mrs. Clarke. The next payment is .i 200 the 12th of July, by a bill at two months, but whose bill does not appear on the face of the account ; but it is to be remarked, that there is a long interval between the first and second payment, conseqiientlv whatever connexion the Duke of York may have with the second payment, there is no neces- ^an,- connexion between the first and the second, from which to infer, or even to conjecture, tliat he knew any tliing of the sort. Having made these observations, res- pecting the account, I nmst now turn to the evidence of Mr. Dockcry, page 2iS. That witness is a^ked *' Whether he knows iliat the plate was scut to Glou- cester-place for the inspection of the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke:" he answers, " Not to my rccollecllon.'* *' Whether he recollects the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke goins; to Birkitt's to examine the plate,'' ''No." There is then no evidence whatever of the Duke of York haN'ing ever seen the plate in company uilh Mrs. Clarke, or any evidence of hi.s having ever seen it at all. The witness is next asked as to tiic payment of the plate. He says, ^500 was paid when delivered, tlie re- mainder was settled by bills at difierent date;. lie vlocs not know by v.hom tliC j'500 was paid : but it v/a- paid in two notes of . 300 and ^'200. The evidence then is entirely defective as to v/ho paid the money ; and whoever paid it, there is not the sniall- ^t proof that the Duke of York v. as pi ivy to its pay- jnent ; nor is it to be inferred, or con; .ctured even, that it was knov.n anv hosv to his Roval Hichness that it was ess Mr. Adam. paid on account of the plate ; and the account is not one to which the Duke of York had any access, or with which he had any privity. The witness then says, ** That the bills by which the remainder was paid, were drawn by Mrs. Clarke upon the Duke of York ; and that they were afterwards paid by the Duke by drafts on Coutts and Co. ; that he offered the bills to the Duke as they became due, but that his Royal Highness never spoke on the subject of the service.'' From this then it appears that the Duke, as the bills became due, gave orders for them, but that he attained no knowledge of the transaction by any conversation with the witness, and there is no evidence of his having obtained any from any other quarter, consequently all that can be said to have been known by his Royal Highness was, that he was to pay bills for a service of plate to the amount of something more than 1 300. Here it is neces- sary again to turn to the account. From the debit side of the account it appears that the value of the plate was ^1363; and from the credit side of the account itappcara that the Duke paid d'\'i2\; the other part of the account relates to the other matter with which the Duke had no connexion ; and whether the jf 500 was specifically applied to the plate, or not ; or whether the Duke was thus taken in to pay what remained due of Mr. Birkitt's bill, of a different date from the service of plate. Tha first on the l6th of May, the other, the iGlh of June, is of no importance in the present consideration. The question here is, as to the Duke's knowledge of the bOO having been paid for the plate in part, and having bc^a the .^'500 paid by French to !Mrs. Clarke. First, then the .-iT'-'iOO being French's money is not made out, nor is there the slightest evidence that it was French's moncv. Secondly, ^"500 being paid at all for the plate, Mr. Achm. 2S7 to the knowledge of the Duke of York, is not made out. The only thing tliat is made out is the payment of an account equ:i! to the service, by the Duke, and therefore his knowledge of the payment of the bOO being paid for the plate is negatived ; and thus this piece of corrobo- ratory evidence, v.^hered in with so much particularity by the Mover of thc>e charges, and suggested to him by ]Mrs. Clarke^ falls from under them, and leaves the ca^c on her un.^upported assertion, unless (he evidence of Miss Taylor is to be considered as conferring that sup- port on Mri. Ciarke'^^ evidence. But, Sir- before I leave this question of the plate, I jfnust rco'icst the attentioji of the House to a collateral matter introduced by my honourable Friend, (Mr. Whit- bread.) My honourable Friend in a very elocjuent pas- Jtagc of his speech, endeavoured to impress a sort of les- son of political morality on the House, mentioned that this plate wa'^ the Due de Berri's plate, a prince of the monarchy of France, \<\\o had been driven by the mlfcforUuie of revolution into this country, and by ne- cessity had been obliged to part with this service of plate : ar.d he seemed to infer from his statement, and from the les.-on nhlcli it might teach, as if the Royal Duke had knovji and pAiniiited the plate of the un- fortunate D\\c de Berri to become the property of Mrs. Clarke. Now, Sir, I do feel extremely anxious to remove the po>>i!>!iity of such an impression in addition to all the other im favourable visws that are now cn- deavovircd to 1)2 altach.ed to the character of the Royal Duke, flis having given this j!aie to such a person, with such a knowledge, i<* a thing he is incapable of ; and by looking at the cvidtnee, page 247, it appears that the witness who states it to have belonged to the Due de Berri, states in the an'^wera which immediately 188 Mr, j4dam* follow, that the Duke of York never saw the plate. Of knew to whom it belonged. , I shall now endeavour to discuss the subject of Miss Taylor's evidence, in a manner that I trust will not raise a prejudice against me, even by those who are the most anxious to protect Miss Taylor. I am aware how inef- fectual it is to attempt to do any good with any tribunal, especially with a popular tribunal like this, by counter- acting their prepossessions. I see that in many there is a prepossession in favour of Miss Taylor, or rather a pre- judice against the manner in which she has been cross- examined, and in which evidence has been brought to discredit her. Without admitting that these prepos- sessions arc well-founded, but on the contrar}', consider- ing the course taken as perfectly legitimate, I do not feel it necessary for my argument to call that course in aid. The noble Lord (Lord Folkstone,) has told us, that Miss Taylor has suffered cruelly in consequence of what passed in this House respecting her. If that be so, I say sin- cerely, that I am very sorry for her sufferings 5 but I cannot therefore agree, that the rules of justice are not to be follovvcd out, that witnesses are not to be de- tected, that they are not to be traced in their lives and connections, and that their evidence is not to be com- mented upon, whatever the consequence may be. It is a misfortune, but it is one in which all of us in our turn must be liable for the sake of justice. The noble Lord, who commiserates Miss Taylor, does not think therefore that he should abstain from the most severe observations o other witnesses. He attacks, without reserve, the official veracity and the correctness of Colonel Gordon's testimony, (a witness above all exception,) without con- sideration as to the effect it may have ; and in doing so, he does his duty, when he makes the observation which hi* conscience justifies, and his judgment dictates. But Afr. Adam. 285 uhlle T ay this in defence of justice, I do not require it to ser\'e mc in the course which I shall lake in discussing Miss Taylor's evidence. In my view of it, her character, her course of life, her connexions, shall not have a single observation made upon them. On this subject I beg the most serious attention of the House, as I conceive it, in the view I take of it, to be one of the most important features in this most cniel, most extraordinary, and unprecedc-nted case. The nature of the evidence which Miss Taylor has given, is well known to the law ; upon which it will appear that much doctrine of great importance is to be found. It is in ordinary criminal cases known as evidence of confession. In other words it is the verbal declaration of the party, brought against him to convict him ; an J, though admissible, is invariably considered as the sligbi- est and most ineffectual of all testimony, unless sup- ported by a strong foundation of fact, that is, by the Res Gestae, and without such support is not permitted to have any influence in any case civil or criniinal. Now, before I cite authority on tills subject, permit me to state some principles and rules wiiich govern in matters of evidence of this nature. If I were asked what legal demonstralion is, I should say that legal demonstration is that evidence, in whkti, if the witness speaks true, the fact to wliich he speaks must be true. Tliat it is the highest evidence wliich human. affairs admit of from the testimony of witnesses. Thus an event, which happens in the sight of the witness must be believed to be t ;k', provided the wituess who proves it is a witness of veracity. In proportion as tl^e matter to be given in evidence fall short of ih;ii cliaracter, ir\ tl;e same proportion (however pure and credible the wit- ness) llic testimony falls short of le^al demonstration. i^O Mr, Adam, And in tKe same proportion the conviction to arise froni it diminishes. Now the evidence of verbal declaration, of words spoken, or conversations held, is directly the reverse of that which I have termed legal denionstrationf for in all testimony of this kind, the witness may be the witness of perfect truth, and yet the fact to which he speaks may not be true ; nay, it may be perfectly false : or, to speak more correctly, it may be true in the con- ception and belief of the witness, according to his re- collection, and yet in fact different, and give an im- pression perfectly different from the words spoken. There is another character belonging to this species of evidence, very material to be attended to, namely, that it is impossible to contradict it. It is a declaration in words, and all that can be said by any other witness, than the witness who proves them, is, that he did not hear the party speak them. When two persons are present to see an act done, vou can have contradictory proof. The negative can be proved ; but in the case of verbal declaration, the negation cannot be established: it is re- marked therefore by all law authors on this subject, that the witness to confessional evidence, or verbal de- clarations cannot, in those Courts where oaths are ad- ministered, be indicted for perjury. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Blackstone in his Commentaries says, *' Words * arc the weakest and most suspicious testimony, seldom^ " remembered ac cirattly, or reported with due precision, " and incapable in thtir nature of being disproved by ether '' necrative evidence." That incomparable judge and writer, who at once braathcs the spirit of liberty and jus- t:';e, Mr. Foster, of whom it was truly said, that his ,AOiks vv-ould last as long as the constitution of England should endure, says, '^ Words arc t;-an:>ient and flcetii^g '' as tho wind, easily misunderstood, and often aii^- " rcpor'td ; \vhct;:cr through ignorance, inattention, or Mr. Adam, 291 f' malice, it mattereth not to the defendant, he is equally *' affected in either case; and they are extremely liable to '^misconstruction ; and withal this evidence is not in the " course of things to-be disproved by that sort of negative *^ evidence by n\ hich the proof of plain facts may be, and is ** so often confronted. Hasty confessions made to per- ^* sons having no authority to examine, are the weakest *' and most suspicious of all evidence ; as proof of them '^ may be too easily procured, and cannot be by any " means contradicted." If these doctrines and principles are applicable to any case, I am sure it must be allowed!, that they are applic- able to that under consideration ; for a case of verbal de- claration more frausht with every circumstance which leads to the disbelief of its accuracy never v/as attempted to be brought before any tribunal. First of all, it will be recollected, and I beg the attention of the House to this most important obser- Tation, that the testimony given by Miss Taylor; her coiVHrmation of the evidence of Mrs. Clarke ; the exis- tence of such a person, or of such a proof was never hinted at by the Mover of these charges, when he opened them ; nay, it appears that it was not only not known to that Geatlcman, but that it could not be known to him, and that it has been thought of and discovered by Mrs. Glarke since the charges were brouglu, and yet this was a charge in which corroborating evidence had beert thouglit of before hand, but was made to rest at the opening upon the payment for the plate, and on that alone. Another proof that no confirniation by Miss Taylor was then thought of. Dates here are of the greatest importance. The honourable Gentleman made his opening speech on the 27lh ofJaniu'.ry. The evidence was outjied on the lit oi February. Miis Taylor, page 47-2^ in licr second ex- U 3 SjS Mr. Adanu ainination is asked, "Did you at any time after^^^arcJs have any conversation with Mrs. Clarke relative to the observations of the Duke of York upon Colonel French's business." " Not till within three weeks or a month/' " What was the conversation you had at that time." " She asked me if I recollected the Duke of York mentioning Colonel French's name in my presence. I immediately recollected the circumstance and told her." She says this passed within three weeks or a month. A month will carry it to a day or two before the time of the opening ; three weeks will carry it to the day of the evidence beginning. Now is it probable, nay, is it possible, if a piece of confirmatory evidence, so relied on as this, had been known at the time of the opening, that in the intercourse between ihe hononrable Mover and Mrs. Clarke it would not have been known to him, and if known, that it would not have been stated. What I have to remark on thi^ evidence, is first, the different manner in which she proves the different parts of the conversation. The first branch she speaks of most positively. She says, " The Duke's words were, as nearly as I can recollect, ' I am continually worried by Colonel French; he worries me continually about his' levy business, and is always wanting something more in his own favour.* Then turning to Mrs. Clarke, I think he said, ' how does he behave to you ?' She said, ^ mid- dling, not very well." Being desired to relate the rert, she says, "the Duke said, * Master Frcncli must mind what he is about, or I'll cut him up and his levy too.' That was all he said." Now, Sir, it is clear, that the middle part of the conversation is that which infers guilt; the first part and the last part are perfectly imio- cent, might have been spoken at any time, and before iiiiiV body : and may be admitted to have hef u spoj^.ta by Mr. Adam* 293 he has no memoiy (i>f any thin^^ that passed in the foii'?:satu>a three wcv!v> S96 Mr. Adam, ago upon the subject of this conversation which passed nearly four years ago ; and yet she recollects with pre- sision, at this distance of time, the terms and words of that conversation. Now, without imputing to her in this argument any thing that affects her veracity, giving her credit at present for having been in the Duke of York's society at Gloucester-place, (though Mrs. Clarke's servant, Pierson, the butler, who was always in attendance when the Duke was there, says that Miss Taylor never was there,) giving her credit for a regard to truth, as far as her memory will serve her, I concludcj and with confidence too, that the criminating part of this confirming testimony cannot be taken to be true. It comes at such a distance of time, from a witness who recollects so little of what has passed recently, with im pressions made upon her mind so calculated to give it a bias, that though the witness may, according to her confession, speak true, the declaration which she states cannot be true, but must fall within all the ex- ceptions which I have taken to this sort of evidence> and for which I have cited the greatest authorities. There still remains behind however some evidence upon this part of the case, which has not been touched upon by apy person who has yet spoken, which seems to bear very strongly on the credit due to the memory of Miss Taylor, and which likewise strongly affects her credibility in point of veracity. In the evidence of Miss Taylor giyen the first day of her examination, she is questioned pjar- ticulary as to the time when this conversation took pUce, and she says it was at the time that she removed with her father's family from Bayswater lo Islington. In orWr to ascertain when this was, it will be necessary to look particularly to the evidence which she gives as to her places of residence. In page 123, she says, " I lived at Chelsea from last Michaelmas twelvemourfh." Mr. J dam. ?f This carries the commencement of her residence at Chelsea t Michaehnas, 1 SOT j she hved at Kentish- Town immediately before that, and she says, " I Jived there not three quarters of a year." This carries the commencement of her living there back to Christmas, 1 S06, at farthest ; she hud gone from Islington to Kentish-Town, and she is asked how long she lived at Islington ; she answers ** a little more than a year." This would carry her beginning to live at Islington, and her leaving Bayswater, back to Christmas, 1B05, or a little before that period ; however, when she is asked again about the length of time she resided at Bayswater^ she enlarges the time. The first question is, page 12-1, " How long did you reside at Islington ?" " A little more than a twelvemonth." ^' How much more ?" *' Seven or eight months." Now seven or eight montiis seem an odd explanation of little more than a year. But suppose this to be correct, though I knew it not to be so, and that it will be impossible to prove that she re- mained at Bayswater longer than Michaelmas, 1S03 ; the eight months, a tolerable stretch for a little more than a year, carries it back to the month of May, 1S05. Now the levy was discontinued on the iGth of April, 1805 ; the notice of its discontinuance, was on the 9d of February, 1805 ; consequently, the conver- sation, to be true, could not Ikivc passed later than the interval between the '2d of February and the I6lh of April J and the time which Miss Taylor assigns for having heard it, after stretching that time to the utjnost, explaining a little more tlian a year by i'- ven or eight nionths, (ixes a time for it, afier the levy was at an end. If this is to be taken as a correct ac- count of the time, it is f :tal to her veracity ; if it is to be considered as erroneous, it is fatal to the correctness cf her mcn^ury. Ir.eiiherca.se, it is cU>tructive of her 2S^. Mr. AdttTif, testiirionyj Ss to evidence of the description in qiiestiofij, which, tO'be arailabic, must come from a mind capable f clear and accurate recollection, so as to insure to a certainty that the words repeated were the words spoken j whereas, we have here an additional instance (to ptit it m the most favourable light), of the vagueness of her Eeeolkctions. On these grounds, Sir, the conclusion 'a^hich I draw is, that the evidence to corroborate Mrs. Clarke, in the case of French's lev)', completely fails i and that this case again rests upon Mrs. Clarke's un- sonfirmed assertion, and upon that the Duke of York can-not be held to be guilty of participation in, or a con- nivance at, her corrupt dealings, considering the nature of that testimony, and the influence which dictates it. I come now to the matter of Tonyn's promotion, and Slaving consumed so much time, at so late an hour on ^e other subjects, on this I shall be extremely short. If ^his case had stood as it did at first, no question could have he to his rank, but with the firmness due to trisith, and to an honourable discharge of my duty, what appeared to me to be fit and ncessar)% I trust that I shall not now be considered to flatter, when I say, that it would be strange indeed, to visit such services as the Duke of York^s, for sucii and so few causes of improper inter- ference, with such severity as the right honourable Gentleman's censure. Is it to be said, that because a person, living in the connection in which Mrs. Clark-e lived with his Royal Highness, had a slight influence, cr a slight interference, in the disposal of a few com- missions, that this is to stamp him with a crime, and to o-perate his removal from office ? Is it possible in human nature to prevent a person in that situation from having the knowledge of many things that are proceed- ing in a manner the most innocent, and to prevent such a person, if she Is so inclined, from availing herself of such knowledge ? Is it possible, that what occupies a person during the day should not make part of his eou- ersation in the evening, and that he should not, in a Mr. Adam. 30l moment of relaxation, or from feelings of affection, express himself innocently, respecting persons who have been tlic subject of his consideration during the hours of business? I trust. Sir, that there is still liberality enough in the \\t^dr nn' judgment in this case, whieh vruuld guide my con- science on the most solemn occ;isicn. I }k\ Adam* 30$ promotion the oLjections had been removed by subse- ^uent events, and the long coniinuation of voluntary services. This gallant ofiiccr, who fought at the batlic of Corunna, and stood by tlw side of his friend. Sir John Moore, v>/hen he fell, General Hope had recommended to the Commander in Chief, at the dying request of Sir John Moore, \n order that he might get his rank. When his Royal Highness comnnmicated this subject to me, under the circumstances which I have just set forth, be said, ** I know, from your attachment to Gi-aham, that it will give you pleasure to learn that I have passed a great part of this nioreiing in writing: to his Majesty my reasons for thinking that the obstacles to Colonel Gra- ham's promotion are removed ; and I trust I have given fiuch reasons as wiil induce his Majesty to authori;e the promoting him to the rank of Major-General. The King's answer has not yel come back, but I impart the matter to you because I know how much you will be gratified in being told wliat is so truly interesting and important lo your friend." I felt the kindness of the commu'iication, and being particularly impressed wjlh the whole scene, v.;t;i the excess of feeling, the fortitude in repressing it, and tJie kindness in devoting himself, under the.-e circumstances, to the iiiterests of others, that I could not refrain frsm shewing and expressing what I felt. After a little time his Royal Highness said, "you mav now discover from ibe communication which I have imparted to you, several days before it can be known lo the public, how I may have been abused in tjmilar cases, and by what means comnuuiieations,. v.hieh mig'.it drop in conversation with motives per- fectly pure on my pari, njiuht-be liirned to purpi^ses the most criinuia! and cu:ri;pt. if J liad ineuuuncd ..iv.h a liiatter as C'/ionel Giahani': ir-truded jjKjmolion in ibc utilo'jf ai (j'ouLf rer-j' iM 3fri Adam. that a communication, innocent on my part, would have been immediately made the subject of a base and scan- dalous traflBck, from which I could only be secured by the honour of the man who was the object of promotion." Sir, it is impossible that these circumstances should not make a deep impression on the House, and it would be a strange perversion of understanding to say, that such a communication violated the rule I have given in evidence as to the Duke's conduct, in not communicating with Mrs. Clarke on these subjects. I mean his having said ** that when Mrs. Ciarke, early in their acquaintance, stated something to him relative to promotion in the army, that that was business he could not listen to." It is no violation of this rule that in his ordinary mireserved conversation with a person in whom he implicitly con- fided, and of whom he had then no earthly distrust, that he should accidentally mention subjects of this nature. And every candid and honourable mind will allow that it is impossible in the intercourse of life that men should be tied up to such strictness, or that any body, in the least acquainted with the world, can impute such con- versation as a matter of crime. Sir, I shall trouble the House na farther than merely to state, that these views of the different parts of this extensive question satisfy me, that in a case of this nature, the principles of substantial justice render It much more tit to proceed by resolution than by address ; that the proceeding by resolution leads to a decision on the justice of the case, without being obstructive of any nherior measure, But i?i an address you involve the ^\icstion of justice and of policy, by resolution you fcparatc thenij and by separating justice from policy in the first instance, vou do not exclude the exercise of youv discretion as to any uliiiuate measure, by addrs-ss Mr. Smiili. 305 or by any other course consistent with the Rules of Par- hament, and the principles of justice. Mr. William Smith said, that many observations had been made on the conduct of the House towards the honourable Mover of this business. That of the Gen- tlemen with whom he usually acted, he thought perfectly right, and was ready to defend it. The honourable Gentleman had entered on the affair without concert, had therefore taken on himself all the responsibility, and with the exception almost exclusively of the noble Lord (Folkestone), v.ho had subsequently aflorded him much assistance, was entitled to nearly equal merit and praise. Many and serious impediments had by powerful persons, been thrown in his path ; it had been unfairly attempted to terrify, and even to brov/-beat him ; but all these things he had manfully resisted and despised. He had set a no- ble example, and deserved well of his country ; but it did not follow from thence, tliat it would ha>, e been pro- per for those who were generally suppose^! to act together in opposition to the present adininisiratiou, lo have ta- ken up as in a body, the accusation of the Royal Duke ; nor did he think that such conduct on their parts, would have been deemed right; or even decent^ by the public. Xluch has also been said of the inducnce whicli the general opinion ought to have on the decision of this question in the House, and though the point was deli- cate, he was ready to declaie his sentiments. He had always been and still continued a firm and a zealous ad- vocate for Reform in Parliament, and would be ashamed to leave the adversaries of that important measure m full possession of one of their strongest and most favourite ar- gun)tnts ; that those who o-.ved their seats to jiopular elections, would always be afraid to stem the tide of X 306 Mr. ^mitfi. popular opinion, though they should be convinced of its opposition to justice. He believed that on the present occasion, the nio^t se- vere sentence would be the most popular ; but he thought his own and every man's duty to use the advan- tages which his situation aflbrded him for forming the best judgment in his power, and then to act upon it; trusting, if he suffered for the mo^ment, that the good sense and candour of his constituents, would eventually do him justice also. But he should then be especially careful to free himself from every other bias ; as, if any influence whatever were to be permitted, it ought without doubt to be that of the public sentiment in infinite prefe- rence to any other ; that, even if mistaken, would pro- bably be honest and un corrupt, at least (which some otliers might not) and therefore least likely to injure the general welfare. The evidence has been so fully discussed on both side?, particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his ht)nourabIe Friend (Mr. Whitbread) that little remained to be added with advantage; and he should confine his remarks to a few points in three or four of the case?. which appeared to h.ave been less noticed by other Gen- tlemen. With rc^pcet to the famous note relating 1,0 Tonyn, whatever mi',::;ht be il;cu^ht of its importance, he tlioiiglit its genuineness most irrcfragably establisbed. In addition to the utnif^st similarity of V/ritIng a.nd Oa- pression, on exan!>]iati<.)u of about a do.'rcn of notes aiid letters of the Duke's wrlilen at dinirenl times and place?, he had found all but one, on the unne paper with ihat in quesiion, and several scaled with the same seal ; while among forty of Mrs. Clarke's, now before the House, produced by accident, not selected by lierseU, there was not one scrap of ['aper similar to the Duke's, nor a frac- jnent timilar to the seal, la 'jh.urt no argument coulu b? Mr. Smith. 307 hJduced to maintain its being a forgery, which would not render it impossible to prove any document whatever, and must not go almost the length of asserting, that the greater the appearance of truth, the greater the probabi- lity of falsehood. Other and strong circumstantial pre- sumptions in its favour, had been too often urged to be repeated by him. As to the commission given to Carter, he had at first observed the fact with pleasure, and had it been the theme of a novel, it would doubtless be applaud ed. The objection to it was of a different kind, and the army would re'j!;ard it with displeasure, that feeling must spring from the tainted channel, through which the fa- vour had flowed. A similar remark might be made on Major Turner's case. Allowing for argument, the premi- slbility of listening in verij particular cases, to such spe- cies of information as Mrs, Lucy Sinclair Sutherland's an unsupcrable objection lies to it, when proceeding from so suspicious a quarter ; from one who appears to have been as well known to the Commander in Cliief as Mrs. Clarke herself, and to whom therefore it was unjust and indecent to pay that attention ; ncitlicr could he forbear observing on tlie weakness (.f attributing inconsistency to those v.ho contended for giving credit to Mrs. Clarke, nliile they refused to his Iloval Highness the liberty of listening to Mrs. Sinclair S'.uherl.uul. How different were the cases; by a connection with the Duke of his own choice, was^Irs. Clarke forced on the unwilling Attention of the House a similar connection, equallv of his own choice, made his attention to Mrs. Sutheri.md moct indecent and unfit. Miss Taylor's name he Vv-oulci -lot for his ov/n sake have brouglit again into discus-ion, esiH:cia1iy a-; lier evi- den-:e, li()\\e\er authentic, \\a.-5 not in ii;-^ (jpinion, inca- pable of explanaiion, which did not necessarily ii:,;.ly 'orrup'ion to the Duke, but he felt himself compelled to X 2 308 Mr. Smith. protest against a principle attempted to be establishecf, as he thought most cruel and unjust; that it was allowable to- make insinuations destitute of proof, in the course of cross-examination, tending to destroy the character of a witness, in order to take chance of saving the party accu- sed; to the infliction of such vicarious suffering he would never consent. In common justice, this mode of extorting truth was frequently practised with a severity so harsh and disgusting as to disgrace the professors of the Law, and in v.hich they were protected only by the dig- nity and authority of the place in which they stood j but the practice itself found its justification only in the ne- cessity of obtaining truth, on the sudden as it were, du- ring the course of the trial, from persons of whom ths counsel had probably no previous knowledge. Can these reasons be alledged for the torture of Miss Taylor. ^'iperto vivere vole, which was formerly the privilege of virtue, was nov^^ incidentally become in a considerable degree a salutary restraint upon vice. How then came it to pass that all the multitude of assessors, collectors, surveyors, inspectors of taxes, parochial and general, windows, houses, and property-tax with all the runners of ihc police officers, all the Townshends and Macnianuses, and other mvrmidoms of Bow-street, have never been able to establish against this poor unfortunate female, one single distinct proof of misconduct, to authorise the insinuations against her ; if so, with what humanity or justice has she been pointed at with the finger of scorn, as a mark of infamy? Was it a crime generally to be a witness? or only for an humble individual to appear 3(rainst a Prince ? If so, it ought to have been recollected that she was forced thither, and was reluctant for a very j)Owcrful reason "'she has three brothers in the Army," l)ov>ever \n contending against this principle, the ho- nourable M'.nibcr meant to declare as his decided, and h Mr. Smith. 509 believetl impartial opinion, that neither in Miss Taylor's nor in any other evidence, he could find sufficient ground to convict the Duke of York of corrupt participation in the practices of Mrs. Clarke. But going thus far, it might be asked of him on what ground he could wish the removal of the Duke from his liigh situation? In this lie saw no inconsistency; sufficient reason for that measure seemed to him still to remain ; in the interference which he had permitted in official matters, proved beyond all doubt to the just offisnce, and perhaps to the great injury of the Army. The extreme scandal of public decency, the thoughtlessness and folly at least, which prevadcd the whole transaction, and which those who felt themselves bound to acquit his Royal Highness of the other branch of the charge^ were compelled as an unavoidable alterna- tive to admit to all this the country neither could nor would shut their eyes, and if the House were so disposed, they could not thereby save the Duke's character, though in the attempt they might lose their own. It had been said that the House had no concern with the mere vices of public men, nor ought to take on itself the office of a Censor Morum. This he thought true as to conduct merely private and personal. With this it would be un- wise and absurd in Parliament to interfere ; bi:t when these \ice3 were so intimate !y mixed witli tiie oliiclal conduct of men in great public ^itllatlons, the House bethought was bound not to pas? them by; if on such weakness in high places, that House could not act as censor, vigilant for the interests of society, vshere cuuld any siu li pfjwcr be fo ind ? It v. as of tlie utmost importance to dir^m^ll!l-h be- tween indulirnit allowance of prlvcU'.- lailiiiL:-, aiul ili;a Indifference Uj all mailers of thi> n.Uure, when the ntj- t.'cc of iheni 'Xii\\<\ nut be avoided, a^ IriLdi d to J.''ba:C 310 The Secretary at War. that standard of public morals, which ought to be main. tained as high as possible. "Ahlus Ibunt qui ad summa nituntior." " They highest reach, who for the summit strain." Men whose notions were not corrupted, might recover- from great failings, but none could ever attain to great excellence, who did not set out with a lofty aim, and if once the springs of morals were vitiated, and whenever the mounds of law were transgressed ; a torrent equally foul and rapid would oversweep the land. Was it not by personal as well as political corruption, that Charles II, was reduced to become the miserable and despised tool of a foreign enemy ? Nay it was not improbable that this degradation of the crown rendered ^ihe expulsion of his successor more easy? On the contrary, with all the hy- pocrisy alledged against Cromwell, was not the apparent morality of his time connected with a wisdom and vigour in the government, which made the name of England universally respected abroad, though under the despotism of an usurper. The honourable Member concluded by preferriiig the measures suggested by his honourable Friend (Mr. Banks) to those proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and rather than concur in the Address which followed, he would consent never again to set hii foot in the House. The Secretary at Wak rose, and said, that in the observations Ijc w;is about to make he should be as brief &s possible ; tiie question he considered as divided into two branches, one as to the Duke of York having cor- ruptly participated in an irregular disposal of commis- sions; theotiicrin having permitted such transactions to take ph.co unnociced, while he must have had a reason- au'c groi: jJ For suspicion ; for eitlier of which he was to b^^ ccnsidi'.rcd -is unfit for t'jc oiiicc of Commander in The Secretary at War, 311 Chief, and be dislodged. As the evidence liad been al- ready so clearly remarked upon, he should not take u[> the time of the House by goint^ again into it. He was fully convinced'^ from wjjat had already passed on the subject of Mrs. Clarke's tesrimony, that her evidence was considered, by the majority of the House, as unworthy of belief. {A general cry of No ! no ! no I) He at least considered such to be the case, and liis object would be to point out to those who discredited her testimony, ge- nerally, that that being set aside, no other ground existed for believing that his Royal Highness had any knowledge of corruption. Her evidence went to prove a participa- tion, which, if believed, would require a stronger mea- sure. The right honourable Gentleman then entered into an argument to prove that Mrs. Clarke had not any degree of influence over his Royal Highness, for she ap~ peared ignorant of the usual course of business ; had she been in the habit of conversing with his Royal Highness, it could not have been so ; and that this was the case, was clearly proved by vaiious parts of the evidence ; she did not even know when an appointment was to take place, or why should she be so anxious to get The Ga- zette ? Had shebeen in the habit of traiTicking wilh the Duke for commissions, slje would not iiave been \g\\o- runi ai' i\ic gazctti/iir; nor would she, as in one case it was proved, have lost half her moue\'. By tlie letters of Mrs. Clarke to Captain SanJon, it would hav^^ been her interest that the levy should have coniiiiucd, as she was V) have received a guinea a man. As to tiie case of Ma- jor 'I'otiyn, it actually proved, nolonly that there were no grounds for corruption, but that there w as in fact proof of cvt;n want of commnnicaticMi wuh the Duke of York, on the subject of militaiy promotions, ijo little d; 1 she know of militar\' business, that although ."iOO!. was at stak'>, and she an\i(ni'^ to ohlam it, yet she was a 312 The Secretary at IVar, whole week ignorant that he had been appointed to 9k majority ; and at the time she wished to stop it, as ap- peared by her letter from Weybridge, the appointment had taken place eight days ; it also appeared, that not the smallest step had ever been taken to stop it. As to Colonel Shaw's case, when Mrs. Clarke made her com- plaint, and was told he should be immediately put upon half-pay, he was actually upon half.pay at the time. The case of Samuel Carter had been sufficiently observed upon ; and as to Mr. Dowlcr, his first answer proved that he had espoused the cause of Mrs. Clarke ; for, when asked how he had obtained his appointment? he replied, that he had purchased it of her; this too at a time when she had no influence with the Duke ; the whole of this case, therefore, went for nothing. The right ho- nourable Gentleman then came to the question how far guilt was to be attached to his Royal Highness for not en- tertaining suspicion ? It was contended, that at least he ought to have had some suspicion. Now the whole scene of corruption was before our eyes, we might think so ; but it was a matter of doubt, whether we should have thought so had not this been the case. It had been said that it was a matter of notoriety; this he denied; for even those concerned did not know that it was through Mrs. Clarke's influence they M'ere to be served; the no- toriety, thererore, went for nothing. An honourable Gentleman had stated that his Royal Higiiness should have had suspicion from her expensive establishment, and that j^l 0,000 a year was but a moderate income to support it. He, however, greaily differed with that Gentleman, and thought it might be maintained at a much smaller rate. From this view of the subject ho therefore concluded, that the Duke of York knew no- thing of the corruption, nor hiid any reason to expect that Such corruption existed. Tlic right honourable Gentle- Sir Francis Bttrdelt, 313 man tlien drew a comparison of the admirable state of discipline in which our army is at present, to that in which it was when he first took the command, stated this to be the result of his activity and ailxnlion, and trusted the House would nor, by their vote, deprive the country of his future services. Sir Francis Burdett " In rising to speak upon tliis subject, I must acknowledge, Sir, I feel it to he a most painful duty I am about to undertake, and after the very able manner in which it has been already treated by others, I should think it would ill become me to detain the House with a tedious detail of the evidence Avhich has been set forth to the House. It is at present fresh in the recollection of all, and therefore what I am desirous of doing, is merely to attempt to draw some results from that w'hich has already been laid before you, or at least to shew the effect that the reasoning of otliers has had upon my mind, and the grounds upon which I think our decision ought to be founded. The first thing that has Struck me, from the commencement of these proceed- ings, has been the very extraordinary conduct pursued by those who are his Majestv's Ministers, with respect to the honourable Member who has brought forward tho original motion. It has appeared astonishing to me, that the right honourable and learned Gentleman o[^positc, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an officer of the pub- lic, and his Majesty's Attorney Cjeneral, the public ac- cuser, and indeed all the Crown Lawvers, whose duty it Is to delect and punish public delnKjucncics, iiave been upon this occasion arrayed upon tl'.e side of the piuty ac- cused. '1 iicir duty surely consists in seeing justice done in whatever manner that can best be promoted, and to take up a pubiic deiinquentv in tlie mnnncr best calcu- lated to pro.iccuie to conviction.--- (^//t-f//- / hear!)--' With rcga;d to the honourable Mover, I hcurtdy agicc 3 14 Sir Francis BurJett. with the honourable Gentleman who answered Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he put to sea upon a troubled ocean, in a small skiff ; I know not with what manner of sign in the binnacle he embarked, but of this I am sure, that he has steered by a polar star, and that it will bring him through all storms and dangers. He was told, that if he failed in making out those charges and ac- cusations, infamy must attach to his character ; and it was even at the same time stated by a right honourable Secretary, that he had placed himself in such a dilemma, that, tipon the decision of that question, his character and reputation must hang. I trust, that in this stage of the business, and after the long and protracted debate, in which so many attempts have been made to do away the effects of the evidence adduced, it at least cannot now be said, that any of the smallest discredit or infamy can attach to that honourable Gentleman who brought the matter forward. [Hear! hear IJ -If, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), must still somewhere attribute infamy in these transactions, he must consent to let it rest upon his own shoulders. His speech has been said to be most ingenious and able ; but, if so, I think I must also state, that it has been so sophistical, and so uncandid, that it appears rather to have been the defence of an advocate, than, as it ought to have been, the summing up of tlie evidence before a couit. It was evidently deiicient of all candour or admission on the one side, and excelled in starting difficulties upon the other; and indeed was, upon the whole, the most injutlicious defence that learned Gentleman could possiblj- have made. All tlie evidence adduced at the Bar could not induce liim to come to any other conclusion, than that tliis v>oman, Ivlrs. Clarke, had no influence whatever upon the mind of the Duke of York. I believe, however, he will stand alune in tlrat Sir Francis Burdett. 315 conclusion ; but itproveslhat his mind was so blinded by some circumstance or other, it is impossible what he said could have any influence whatever upon the decision of the House upon this great and important question. He eould not see the plainest object in the broadest daylight, and yet he appeared able to pick up the most trifling par- ticles even in the most utter darkness. The principle hitherto has been to actempt doing away the evidence of Mrs. Clarke. Now, Sir, when we consider what has been the evidence of that individual, how long she has been under examination, and liow many hours she has been sifted bv lawyers, in order to produce something from her own mouth, attaching against herself, even from her cradle almost up to the time she appeared at the bar, we must be astonished at the truly consistent man- ner in wliich she gave her evidence. She stands. Sir, in this predicament, that you saw tiie worst of her at the first; for she appeared before us under the most unfa- vourable impressions, and all that has come out fromlier first appearance to the close of lier examination, has pro- duced impressions of quite a difTercnt nature and ten- dency. She came, indeed, under such paiticukir dis- advantarrcSj in point of her known character andsituation in life, tiiat, undoubtedly, very little attention was paid to her evidence ; but as you went on, other c;rcum^;tanccg cameforv.ard, that rendered it impossible that any such evidence could have been given by any one, but upon that most simple of all intentions, that of telling tlir nhiin and Ijoncst truth. (Hear ! hear .') It so li.ippencd, h(;\v- cvcr, that all those who endeavoured to (.r.trap her, or to make her discredit herself, found tlienisclves con- stantly foilcid. His Majesty's Attorney Gcreral ex- amined lur hour a(':cr 'I'^-ur, and w.is coi;tiiuuiljy defeat- ed ; but if he lu.d succeeded in the sliL^lite^t degree, he \i0ul'J luvc endeavoured to overturn ihc cl^.ct of her tes- pi6 Sir Francis Burdctt, timony. Hypothesis had been^raised upon hypotliesis, jsurniise upon surmise, and inference upon inference, and now, when all of them had failed, Mrs. Clarke was to be raised by them into the greatest prodigy that ever exist- ed ; and, in short, it has been stated, that no witness ever was examined, that possessed abilities, under- standing, and cunning, equal to Mrs. Clarke. If I thougiit her capable of rearing up that dram.a that has been exhibited, I too would certainly unite with them in saying, she was one of the greatest geniuses ; for she would be surely as capable of writing the tragedy of Macleth, as she was capable of trumping up such a story. We should consider, however, that the grand connecting link m her evidence is her connexion and in- fluence with the Duke of York ; and whether, under all the circumstHnces, you have not the best evidence that the nature of the case can admit. You have reason to believe, that the influence, of itself, was a corrupt in- fluence with the Commander in Chief, and that he had reason to suspect that such a corrupt influence existed ; in any common case, this would be acknowledged the best evidence, and why not deem it such in the present instance ? Shame of his Royal Highness ! for, I am sorry to say, that the very defence which has been made, must appeal-, in any case, as disgraceful. The learned Gen- tleman began with stating, what is very usual with Gen- tlemen of the Long Robe, that other people were mista- ken in laying down erroneous premises, and drawing false conclusions ; and his conclusion was, that the evi- dence of Mrs. Clarke was not at all admissible. I do not agree with either his premises or his conclusions, for I think the evidence of Mrs. Clarke is certainly to be ad- mitted, but witli due suspicion. When, however, we find her evidence corroborated by that of Miss Taylor, in regard to facts, it'may rather he tiiougbt wonderful thaC Sir Francis Burdett, 31 7 there can be such strong and convincing proofs produced upon such a subject as have been upon this occasion. Had it been a fabricated evidence, she must have known more than she stated. Nothing is more common than for Judges to state to a Jury the grounds of credit, as well as the grounds of discredit ; but had this been done fairly by any of tlie right honourable Gentlemen in this case r \Vith respect to Miss Taylor, there is not the smallest reasDU to doubt her ; and yet merely because she appears to be a relation of ISIrs. Clarke, they sup- pose that ail this is nothing but an infamous scheme of these two women to discredit and defame the Duke of York ; but even were this the case, the manner in which they have gone i.bout it would not only shew a want of ingenuity, I>ut would expose themselves, as being the boldest women t!iat ever existed. If the case^ as to Co- lonel French, for instance, be a trumped up story be- tween these two persons, surely Mis. CUuke cannot be that genius that the right honourable Gentleman states her to be, for she certainly would have taken caret make it so sU-op.g a case, that no doubt could possibly exist. T!i 2 right hoiiourable Gentlenic-.n's arguments have destroyed one another ; all his suppositions have been unfunr.Jecl, and his surmises the mere chimeras and hvpotliescs of his own brain, leaving out every lin'ng that can lead your judgment inthe evidence already before us. i^llcar ! hear !) Upon tlie whole, it is in my mind the mos*. v.eak and injudicious defence that could p(;^-;bly be set up for any individual. Tiic honourable Member below me, v.ljo moved the Amendment to the Addres , ha;;, I think, taken a most injudicious line as a Member of Parliament; for he was giving up that which is perfectly tenable as that v.hlcli was untenable. This, T think, is invpovsible to agree to, as no one can shut his eye; against t!ie coiiupt intlucncc and criminal conni- tl$ Sir Francis Burdeff^ Vance stated in the evidence. They have brought nd evidence whatever to shew that Mrs. Clarke is not to he believed, although the Duke of York has had one oif the most able and experienced solicitors in London, INIr. Lar- den, who has used every means to bring witnesses from every quarter, until he found it impossibly to bring more, against the testimony of this Witness. An ho- nourable and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Burton,) has said, that Mrs. Clarke lias contradicted herself no less than 23 times, an assertion which is merely made to sup- ply the deficiency of witnesses to do so. It is surely, then, a very different thing, whether witnesses do contradict themselves, or are contradicted by others for in the former case it is evidence as it were point blanc, wiiile in the latter tlie witnesses themselves ma}- be mistaken. The alledged contradictions in her evidence as to the case to which I have alluded, arc, as to whether a note was a I OOl. notCj or a 200l. note, which she sent to be changed ? and whether the transaction was to be kept only a secret from the Duke, or from the public ? But in this Mrs Clarke's statement is surely as plausible as that of Mr. Knight, and theie can be no reason to disbelieve her more than the ether. The same attempts have been made to discredit the testimony of Miss Taylor, merely because she did not wish todivulo-e at fiist the residence of her father and mo- ther, nor the place uhcre she was born. This is the most absurd mode of discrediting^ a vvllricss that ever I heard. O There was an honourable Member who spoke early in this debate. I beg pardon, I must call him a learned Gentleman, for he is his Majesty's Attorney General, to "whom I listened n-ith the greatest attention ;and although 1 never had an opportunltv of knowing him, I did expect that he would have stated s^Tne lumiiious points, soine elucidation of the case; but hew have wc been disappoiiU- cd? Sir, I remember having hejird cf a great Lawyer, z Sir Francis Burdett, 319 ^Ir. Dunning, who on being asked by a Client to recom- mend him to a Counsellor the most proper for his case, asked him "what is your case?" The person applying answered, '* it is a very bad case." *' If so," said Mr. Dunning, ** you had better take the worst Counsellor you can get; for if you employ a man of genius he will be hampered with it, but a bad Counsellor will not stop upon any point, for he will go on without ceasing, and by using many words, have the appearance of making a great defence/' (Hear! hear!) And so, in the pre- sent instance, the defence made by that learned Counsel- lor opposite has, I confess, given me a very strong im- pression as to the depth of his understanding ; and it puts me in mind of an ass, who will reject the choicest food for the sake of enjoying a feast upon thistles; or of Chris- tian, in T/ie Pili^rim's Progress, who, when he wa.^ in the Slough of Despond, had to leave his travelling compa- nion in the mud, as the learned Gcntlem;in had left his client, the Duke of York., and out of which ail the Ariti- Jacoblns in the land would nor be able to extricate him, (Hear I hear! liear!) I'iiat same learned GeiiiJe- man, towards the conclusion of his sncccli, appealed t<> the compassionate feelings of the House. Now, Sir, al- though this is not the time for payirig attention to such considerations, yet it did fix in my mind a strong impres- sion of the complete and irresistible evidence attentHn;); this case in every part, lie did not seem at all to be ap- pealing to the full extent of the statement of the Chan- cellor of the Excliequcr, for he seemed di>po.s -d to p-ive up a considerable part in order to save the rest. He seem- ed to express a great doubt as to the hand-writing of the note about Captain Tonyri; for, after it had been proved by the best of evidence, the v.or^t was brought forward to rebut the best, and he boldly calls it a forgery, because Mr?. Claikehad stated that she could write verv like the S30 Sir Francis Burdett. Duke of York. Why, Sir, this is but melancholy testi- mony against such a weight of evidence as has been brought forward upon this particular point, and it makes it appear that nothing but prejudice could actuate any- one to make such an assertion. With all those talents, and that genius, which are ascribed to Mrs. Clarke, it should seem that the utmost she had done was to raise a sum of money in the Duke's name, and not even for her own behoof. She has turned her talents to no account whatever; and what is still more extraordinary in her transactions is, that there should have been such unneces- sary fidelity in hr dealings with her employers, as well as towards her creditors. She made nothing for any pur- pose of her own, for it was to pay the tradesmen's bills, and to satisfy the poor people's demands, who had sold goods for the use of the Duke of York. I should be sorry to speak disadvantageously of his Royal Highness's con- duct, but I must say, I think what he is said to have al- lowed Mrs. Clarke, has been exaggerated. Mrs. Clarke comes to your Bar under such disadvantageous circum- stances, as, I think, should have prevented any generous or well-disposed mind from taking advantage of her. Not even bare justice has been done to her ; although, Avith respect to the witnesses called inbehalf of the Duke, all the n.ilk of human kindness has been shewn to them by the riglit b.onoiirable and learned Gentleman op|)o- site. The honourable Member for Cambridgeshire stated arguments, which, I think, are also very extraordi- nary, in order to prevent your coming to a fair conclu- sion upon the consideration of the evidence, which con- clusion the House must ultimately come to, if it act fairly and honourably towards the country. If Mrs. Clarke had no truth in her, she has had at least the singular fa- cuify of extracting truth from others, who were brought for the purpose of contradicting her, and changing the 4 Sir Francis Burdett. 321 uliimate decision. Captain Sanson, amongst others, is said not to be worthy of behef, because he prevaricated in one instance, as to the letter of the Duke's hand-writing; but the fact is, that witnesses are the more to be beheved upon some points, when they come to conceal the truth as to another point ; for their evidence, when corrobo- rated by others, is more forcible than if they were actu- ally straight forward witnesses. She told you that Dono- van would deny a fact, and he did deuy it ; but it was af- terwards extiacted from him. In short, Mrs. Clarke has always given you the means of extracting the truth from others, and their evidence has uniformly tended to corro- borate her's. This is really doing nothing but justice to Airs. Clarke, and I wish equal justice to be done to both sides. But, Sir, putting all the positive evidence out of the question, I say that the circumstantial evidence is of itself so strong as to justify the House in passing a dicision in conformity with the Address. It is of such a nature, that, in a Court of Justice, with a very slight degree of posi- tive evidence, it would be sufficient to condemn any indi- vidual tried for his life. But what is most extraordinary in this place is, that the legal gentlemen of this House seem to lose all those abilities which they display else- where. {Hear! hear!) In fact, all these witnesses, al- thought brought for the purpose of contradicting Mrs. Clarke, )'et appeared to Mr. Aitorncy-Gencral not to be sufficient, and he, at length, thought Mrs- Clarke abso- lutely bewitched, and, as it were, gave up the trial to get rid of her. How is this to be accounted for, when they say, at the same time, that Mrs. Clarke is possessed of such talents and abilities, that nobody is like her, and that she is equally powerful as an enchantress ? In such a de- fence, it appears they can do nothini-,y ;i nature as can well be couceivoi]," The honoura'oie iiaroncH iheti alUided to the c.l^.e of Colon*.! Shaw, whose loiJtrs, he thouglit proved what were tfie general feelings of the army, "hi the case of M.-jor Turner too, it appeared that Mrs. Sinclair SuLiic:rla',i;.! !iad also been In the habit of asking fa von !> of the Di;k':, y.:- tho'.igh it had been stated by the occictary ut War to amoimt to nothing, as Major Turnf r"'- ic-i(:{nation liad not b'^en accejMed of, on acc:ount of ?vli;. Suthurland'i representing to Cojonel Gordon, that lie had behaved ill to a btlv. He knew not what mihuuy \k\[\.- ap; ly to i>iu;h y -1 354 Sir Francis Bur del t. cases, but he begged the House to look to the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York himself. It was evident the Duke felt no remorse in shaking her off, and exposing her to poverty and to infamy. Such conduct, (said Sir Francis) makes a man's blood run cold. The evi- dence of Mrs. Clarke is a melancholy contrast with the honour of a Prince. She offers to give up her annuity to pay her debts, but that annuity, when applied for, was refused by the Duke, although formerly promised. And on what grounds was it so refused ? Why, he states, that although a bond had been promised, yet no bond had been given ! There is the Honour of a Prince for you ! ! 1 I think the evidence adduced may shew clearly that the Honour of a Prince is not at all to be relied upon. His Royal Highness's desire to procure money by any means, or from any quarter, was also eminently conspicuous. The transaction with Kennett was one which even alone should call for . the interference of the House, as it shewed that the Duke f York was capable of recom- mending a worthless character to a place under Govern- ment, in the hopes of obtaining the loan of a large sum of money for it. Do you not call this corruption? Cor- ruption and money are said to be synonimous terms; and because the Duke had not received the money in hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued, that therefore there was no corruption, and that there never was a period when corruption existed less than at present. I should not be surprised to find that he thinks he has got the golden age in the fall of man, or that Paradise is now regained. Your military establishments are every where increased, and places are now disposed of in every quarter of the world, at a time when the people were never so oppressed, wlien every man is looking to ruin, by the grievous tax of 10 per cent, upon his income. Is this the mode by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to in- Sir Francis Burdett. 325 troduce industry, or to reward merit? Although the cor- ruption of the present day did not resemble that of former times, when 500l. would be offered to Members in the lobby of the House, or when invited to dine at your ta- ble, each individual would find a large sum of money in under his plate: I wish there were at the present day no other species of corruption in existence, than that open way of accepting the bribe; but unfortunately corruption is now offered secretly, and so concealed, that the man who is thought to be one that would be ashamed to re- ceive it, is he who has it secretly offered to him, and who secretly receives it. How could it come to pass that this Royal Duke could feel himself in a situation to have re- course to such unworthy means, when it is well known lie enjoys more than any one of the Royal Family ? This surely gives force to the testimony, which is complete without it, whether you take the positive or the circum- stantial evidence. The documents are of themselves con- vincing to every mind. The legal gentlemen see nothing at all in all this; but when I look to their former con- duct in Courts, I know not what object can actuate them to argue thus ; for when the blood of man, the lives, the fortunes, and all that is dear to a family are concerned, what is the language we hear ? Have we not seen com- mon spies and informer?, wretches whose oaths sliould not pass for a groat, brought forward in Courts of Law to take away the lives of their fellow-creatures ? Juries in former times would be liable to be attainted if they reject- ed a of those who brought it forward. Mr. Few, a witness, has pro- ved to you, that having sued Mrs. Clarke for a debt, which she succeeded in resisting, this woman, who has been s*yled so revengeful, nevertheless, thought proper most honourably to pay him. That is an act of honour, which, in my mind, surpasses that of the Duke of York. Those Gentlemen who advocate his cause, have called in the last resource, whi-ch is the appeal in a desperate cause ; they have called witnessess to speak to the general cha- racter of the Duke of York. In that respect, too, I be- lieve, he will be found as deficient as in any other point of view. In short, his Royal Highness's honour rises ou-t of this discussion like BaiLquo's ghost, " V/ith twenty mortal gashes on his head, * To push us from our stools." It is impossible, Sir, that, under all the circumptancet of this case, the Duke of York can retain the situation he now holds at the head of the army ; (Hear / hear '. hear }J for I have nothing to do with'what may be the . consequences of this question being so decided, as it rs only to be determined by the evidence before you. We must come to such a vote, let the consequence be what it may, with no other consideration but that of justice alone.---\V'e have been v.-aracd, upon this occasion, not The Master of the Rolls. 397 to be watped by popular influence; but the circumstances of the case render it necessary not to allow it to be decided by popular clamour. The people of England, who have been all along remarkable for being lovers of justice, look to you for nothing else; and be your decision what it ma-yj if it be but justice, I am convmced it will satisfy the people." Sir Francis Burdctt then concluded an elo- quent and impressive speech, of which the foregoing m but a rery imperfect sketch, as the honourable Baronet was not distinctly audible in the gallery, with stating, lliat he would vote for the original Address. The Master of the Rolls said, that he wished much to hear the evidence canvassed and comniented upon be- fore he expressed his opinion, and with that view had de- layed ofi'ering himself to their attention until that mo- ment. I'herc were many parts of the ingenious speech of the honourable Baronet in which he agreed ; it should be his endeavour, In what he had to :^ay, to discharge his duty Vk'ith impariiality, and assist in the promotion of their common object, the discovery of the truth. (Hear I tiear I J He agreed with the honourable Ijaronct, that ul- timately every man should vote according to his convic- tion, and that he should do all in his po\vcr that that con- Yiction should be right ; else it would happen, as Dr. Johnson had said, that strong party principles would produce wrong convictioiis, and that would countenance the charge, that though the conviction ^vas produced, it was not come by honestly (aiaicghj. He adniittcd it was desirable that their minds should be pc';fv.c'.lv uii- biasscd and uprighr, in the investigation ; iIiaL tiu-y sjiould be eijually removed troin popular jircjiidice up ui the one; hand, and lr'>.n considerations ol rank and r-lauoniipuu the other. Smli v/crc the scuUiii-.iu-- uuli v. hich it be-j ca!nc that JImusc to pronounce iis de'^l-a. It appeared l(j liini liiaL llicrc were two 4ucsii'jn:^ heloie tueai ; lirsi. 328 The Master of the Uolls. whether they would come to any opinion upon the char- ges of corruption against the Duke of York, and what steps they would pursue in consequence ? And secondly, what opinion they would entertain of the evidence in sup- port of these charges? Supposing it to be the prevalent notion that the Duke of York was guilty of personal cor- ruption, the question then was, whether they should pro- nounce the judgment, that he was unfit to be at the head of the army ? He could conceive cases in which the House might refuse to pronounce any opinion, but he could not conceive any case in which it would be justi- fied in pronouncing an ambiguous opinion. He felt it difficult to know what the House would be at. He wish- ed the honourable Gentleman had not driven them to the necessity of coming to a decision upon that point. He agreed in the definition which the honourable Baronet had given of corruption, to constitute which the receipt of money was not essential 3 any improper motive, any undue influence was corruption. The Address proposed might have the effect of convicting the Duke of York by a minority. He wished that the honourable Gentleman had set out with proposing a simple resolution, which woulcj bring the fact before them at once. Supposing then, that it was necessary for them to pronounce a di- rect judgment, he would consider vi^hat grounds they had upon which to rest it. He was not aware, that in any former case they were similarly circumstanced as in the present. In ascertaining the credibility of witnesses, they should consider with attention the circumstances under which the testimony was given, and a very prominent circumstance for their consideration was, whether the res-^ timony was given under the obligation of an oath. They had had persons at their Bar not much akin to the Roman or Athenian virtue, and they v/ere to decide whether they would take the unsworn testimony of such witnesses The Master of the Bolls. 329 agaliT^t any of their fellow subjects. (Hear ! hear !) The testimony of such witnesses, he allowed, might jus- tify them in putting a man upon his trial, and he imagi- ned that the reason why it was not thought necessary t9 give the House of Commons the privilege to administer an oath was, that their inquiries were supposed to be di- rected to ascertain the grounds of accusation, preparatory to the institution of a subsequent trial. Every one agreed as to the necessity of ascertaining the credibility of Mrs. Clarke; if she were not believed in all, her evidence was only circumstantial a species of evidence inferior to that which was direct. If Mrs. Clarke's evidence was admitted in all parts, without exception, it brought home the charge against the Duke of York in its most aggra- vated circumstances 3 for, by her evidence, it appeared that he not only knew, but authorised and recommended the traffic in commissions ; that he did so to save his owa pocket, and cast the expense of her support, from him- self, upon the nation. lie was a little surprised to find the Address so worded as not to rest upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke ; the language of it was, that it was to be presumed, not that it was directly proved. A nobfe I.ord had said, that he belie\t;d her testimony all toge- ther; it was not inconsistent with that belief that he should be willing to vote for a stronger measure. The honourable Gentleman who spoke second in the debate, had said, that Mrs. Clarke's evidence required corrobora- tion, and in that opinion the honourable Baronet himself agreed. If her testimony were suspicions, if there were a doubt upon their minds whether it was true or ialse;, that was enough to prevent them from acting upon It; it was not necessary to prove that it was actually false. There were many circumstances to be taken into consi- deration in weighing the credibility of witnesses, the h; could not be unsuspected. To what extent then was Mrs. Cbrke*^s testimony corroborated ? As to her influ- ence over the Diike of York, it was proved sufficiently ; but in connecting him with her corrupt deaHnga, Miss Taylor was the onl)' corroborating evidence ; others could only go to establish the fatt of certain appointments hav- iiig taken place; she alone went to prove the incitement een addressing a Jtirv, imd>l grounds suriKlcnf to justily their verdict ; ii lie had ':r< ai doubts of Mrs. Claike's evidence, he would i? 332 The Master of the Rolls} say that he was not able to come to a decision, but he would say that he had grounds for standing neuter, or calhng for a farther investigation. It was a contradiction in terms for a man to say that he was uncertain whether he believed her evidence or not, and yet act as if he had believed it. The House should observe her general de- clarations in contradiction to her specific charges against the Duke of York. [Here the honourable Member read parts of her evidence, in which she stated her constant applications to the Duke of York and his favourable re- ception of them.] In the first place she stated that she did not commence that species of trafBc till the period of her distresses in Gloucester-place ; but it appeared that she had been engaged in it in February^ 1 804. She had said that that traffic was to relieve his Royal Highness from the expences of her establishment, but that end was not answered : thev oucrht to take alons with them what she had said, that the Duke of York was in the utmost distress all that while that he could not give her jf 100. Was it not wonderful then that he did not ask her, '* Pray Mrs. Clarke, what have you done with all the money you received for the commissions I gave vou ?*' Besides, if the Duke of York did give his authority, and mention what recommendations were proper and what not, she could never have failed j but it was plain that she met with delays and failures in the case of Colonel French's levy ; and in the case of Major Tonyn there was much delay, though the Duke of York, with one dash of his pen, could have dispatched them at once, and that too without any danger to himself. It was also evident to every one that Mrs. Clarke was in a miserable state of ignorance respecting the Commander in Chief's office; her letters upon all subjects connected with it were filled with perpetual blunders, though she represented herself as in the habit of daily conversations The Master ef the Rolls. 333 with him on these subjects, and on the business of that office J she had always some excuse to account for her failures, she knew how likely they were to occur, and was provided against them. With respect to the case of Major Shaw, there was nothing delivered in the evidencr, but what tended to raise a considerable suspicion of the veracity of Mrs. Clarke's story about that affair. She had taken upon herself to say, the Duke of York told her all along that Shaw was a very bad man, and yet, if we can credit her, we are to believe the Duke had no mind at all of his own, but the moment Mrs. Clarke Tccommcnded, there was instant promotion. In the case now before the House, he conceived they had not a dis- cretionary power. As fiir as he was able to form a judg- ment upon the question, it did not appear the Duke of York had even permitted those transactions upon which was instituted the present procedure. He could not but admit there was great reason to regret the Duke had ever suffered Mrs. Clarke to open her lips, or say a single word on military affairs. At the same time, we ought not to exclude from our consideration, that Mrs. Clarke had appeared to be acquainted with persons of the greatest respectability, and thereby the Duke of York was probably mistaken about her character. Dr. po=cd to contend it ought to be entirely excluded from their consideration. After ad- verting to the observations made by different individuals in the House, during the course of the i)rescnt discus- -lon, retrarding tjie sense of the people, lie thought it th\i Jutv of fcvcrv Member to investigate the cvidmce before ihem \sith the utmost coolness and deliberation; to attend to the truth oidy, and examine according to the be-)t of their jMd^uu-ntj a!)d ihta there could not exist a 334 iSn- Samnel Romilh/. doubt but their decision wodld be satisfactory to the country. Sir Samuel Romilly said, he considered it his duty to trouble the House upon this important occasion with a, few observations. In doing so, he should consider this case in a different point of view from any Member of the profession to which he had the honour to belong, and who had preceded him in the debate. However, he would not find it necessary to enter minutely into all the evidence affecting the question now before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone the length of making a proposiiion, that the testimony adduced did not go to prove there was either corruption, or any con- nivance at that corruption, by the Commander in Chief, but such a proposition was not in the present instance calculated to produce his own assent. This question, in its original state, was different from its present condition; for the honourable Mover proposed an Address to His Majesty upon the subject, stating the existence of cer- tain corrupt practices, and the connivance of his Royal Highness at the same ; this was succeeded by an amend- ment, proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and another by an honourable Gentleman on the same side of the House with himself, (Mr. Bankes). Some doubt was stated, how far it was the province of the Commons to proceed concerning his Roval Higbness's conduct ; but could it be in any way questionable, \\hen it might be expedient to remove a great man from any im)iortant ?nd official situation, but the House of Commons were very correct in taking the step thcv iiad done bv the present proceeding? He would express vcrv shortly his opinion on the subject. In that Hou.-e some degree of mi.^take manifested itself during the discussion. It seemed to be understood they had to come to a decision tlicrc vpon the guilt or innocence oi' the Duke of Yoik. I3'r, Sir Samuel liomU'^^ 3-8 J l^ey had no dtcision to make, nor was any decision pro- posed on the (juestion, whetiicr the Duke was guilty ot not. Charges were certainly brought before the House) and they were botind to come to a (k-cision on those charges, which was consistent with their proceethngs. On this occasion it had also been said, a speedy decision ought to be adopted, in justi<"e to his Royal Highness; hut the letter of the Duke's also deprecates their coming to any decision ; still he could not help animadverting upon the impropriety of sending such a letter to the House of Commons. It was the production of evil and injudicious counsellors; for his part he felt extremely sorr)-, and if he were to utter his real sentiments on the occasion, he had to lament the existence of such an in- judicious proceeding. Me wished it could be expunged from the Journals and that it could be blotted out of OUT remembrance for ever. (Hear! h:ar ! ) (The hohourable and learned Men^ber here rcprl ^^vi^ n--t of the Duke's letter to ihellnif.-e of Coinnio:!.-., wiicrc he dcprerates tluir decision.) C'ertaialv the question for their determinrtlon was not whether thcve was corrup- tion or connivance bv the ConuDander in Chief, in ihc*. course of the-e tran.-aetion'-. ? Their consiilcratlon ought t-o be drawn to whether or not tlurc was ground to charjre him generallv ? lie did not, after having carefully examined the whole of the evidence, find himself war- tanted in saying there was no ground to support dtslinct charges acrainst the Duke of York, neither did he ice I di.ipot^ed to admit there was no truth iu tlic cvids uci'. If lie referred himself to the; te'timonv gi^en i^y Mrs, Clarke, he \\as induced to suppose sf-nie credit was ihie to her; he did mean tiicrebv to r^av that credit v.as chie to -her in every thlnij. In this diseusfion, argunicnf had been used, and o])iiii'>n- pvonounccJ, rv^peeiinvj- the evi- dence of accousplice. On this ,-utM^..? he w.i^ boauJ 336 Sir Samuel Romilly, to declare It to be the law of the land, that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be received, and, if cor- roborated by a single circumstance, might convict a man of a capital crime. In a case of a robbery by three per- sons, the fact was the man robbed, though he saw there were three robbers, yet it was so dark he had not an op- portunity of discovering their faces, or any remarkable circumstance about them, by which he could identify their persons ; yet, upon the trials, one of the robbers gave evidence against the other two, and his testimony was only corroborated so far that his relation of the cir- cumstances of the robbery, and that of the gentleman robbed, agreed together ; at the same time nothing was brought home to the conviction of the two men, but by the evidence of this accomplice. The case was reserved for the opinion of the twelve Judges, who afterwards pronounced the evidence to be good and legal, and the conviction right. There was another case at the Old Bailey, where the evidence of an accomplice, with an. equally small portion of corroborative testimony con- victed the prisoner, and where also the question was reserved for the twelve Judges, upon which they delivered- a similar opinion. Many observations had been applied to those instances of contradiction which appeared in Mrs. Clarke's evidence, and he would allow if a witness in a Court of Justice were to be guilty of palpable con- tradiction, even m a very immaterial part of his testimony, still he would not be entitled to credit in the rest of his evidence. Notwithstanding it appeared to him some distinction was due to witnesses, whether they delivered, their evidence not upon oath, as was the case in that House, or they were regularly sworn, as in courts of jus- tice. In point of strict morality, no difference existed, but circumstances would always have sufficient weight with the general part of society j the solemnity of a Sir Sa7nuel Romillj/. 33 1 Court and the form of an oath must be supposed to make considerable impression. Yet he was not inclined to condemn, or to say the evidence ought to be invali- dated, because, wlien a witness is called before a large assembly, she chooses, in a part very immaterial, to en- deavour to conceal where she lives. Mrs. Clarke's tes- timony \vas given at the Bar under very unfavourable circumstances : there \vzs a looseness and levity in her behaviour, still she was fully impressed that she might suffer if her testimony were wrong ; therefore there was considerable weight resting upon the whole of her evi- dence. In general, great objections affected the case, but thev were not sufficient to set aside lier testiniony ; and though it was admitted there was considerable con- tradiction, yet he formed his judgment upon the whole of the evidence taken collectively. Me was free to ac- knowledge that Mrs. Clarke came to state a story, which on its face might seem improbable, and this grounded merclv upon her testiniony and that of Miss Taylor. This, however, she did, without the possibility of know- Insr what other testimony there might be, cither in corroboration or contradiction of it ; notwithstanding which, two parcels of letters had been produced, the one comin.. : ._ \\m> j^arl of the case there were two points partic ;. ; , : : V)0 attended to ; tiie one was t!ie evidence of Mi-.s ..;.;'..: , the other the note found at ("ajitaiu Sandou's. respect to the fermer. it had been objected to t ., z 33 Sir Samuel RomlUi/, ract^r of one connected as she was, affecting to keep a gchool. This objection he considered as ahogether trifling; on the contrary, the fact was rather an evidence of the goodness of her character, at least with the parents of the children committed to her care, insomuch as they had all withdrawn them since the period of her unfortunate examination. But what interest could she possibly have in coming forward for the purpose of giving a false tes- timony? Could she be supposed, merely from the circum- stance of her acquaintance with, or even obligation to^ Mrs. Clarke, to be guilty of a crime, which, morally speaking, although without the sanctity of an oath, was equal to perjury ? and was it therefore to be imagined her connnunication was to have no weight, especially when balanced against the obvious danger of giving evi- dence against so great a character as his Roj^al High- ness ? Would any court of justice, he would ask, weigh for a single moment such objections ? If then, credit was to be given to her testimony, what did it amount to? ft was argued, and that gravely, that the question stated by her to have been put to the Duke by Mrs. Clarke, respecting Major French, " Mow does he behave to you my darling ?" meant only whether he had been trouble- some to her as he had been to himself. Why, if that were the true interpretation, what had he to do, but to desire her to shut her doors against him ! But if it was taken in its more natural and obvious meaning, whether he had been properly libcrrl towards her, this would na- turally and easily explain the whole transaction. But it was agreed how iniproba!)lc she should recollect a single conversation, and at such a distance of time ; it should, however, be remembered she had stated, that not being acquainted with the name of Major French before then^ and oi)serving an air of mystery, she had therdtfore her attention drawn to the circumstance. The next point Sir Samuel RomiUy. 33J ^vas that of the note found at Captain Sandon's, as shewn to Captain Tonyn. Of the truth of that letter he pro- fessed not to entertain the smallest doubt. If he were acting under the solemn obligation of a Juror, and that the life of a prisoner \v; s to be the stake, he would have no hesitation in finding it to be original : he could have no doubt on the evidence. He considered it as not treating the Duke fair to assert his Royal Highness had avowed he had never written it. This must have been before the note itself had been produced ; and if the note itself had been produced, he would have been as much surprized as any of them at its existence. He had known instances in which ])roofs had been attempted, by comparison of hands, to establish that a paper was writ- ten by a person ; but never before had ht- known an attempt, by such a mode of proof, to establish tliat a paper was not written ; and lie only regretted lie had not divided the House on the adnii-iion of such testimony, as he was confident that, huv/ever he might be in a large minority, he would have every professional gcnlleman in the House on his side. The note itself was evidently written in haste, and as an answer to one written to him upon business. *' I have received your note, and Tonyn's business shall remain as it is ;" that is, it is my pleasure it shall be so, in consequence of the note I have just re- ceJKied from you. He was not called on to say this was connivance, but only he could say there is no ground to charge the Duke with the offence; and this the more especially as his Royal Highness was not there in person, and uj)on proper investigation he may be proved wholly innf)cent of the charge. The next question for their con- sideration was, v.hether, in the event of their not adopt- ing the Resolutions of the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Percevalj they should vole an Address to His Maj'!:ty, praying the removal of his Royal IliLrhncss. 2 2 340 Sir Sarmtel Romilly^ Upon this head it had been asked, would they proceed to adopt the measure of praying for his removal without trial and conviction ? This he considered as uncon- stitutional language. Would they suffer even Ministers to remain in power till they had undergone \hQ formula of conviction ? Had not that House proceeded to call for the removal of Ministers, particularly of Lord Melville, without conviction, and even that for an offence com- mitted in his former office? The House had even pro- ceeded to expel its own Members ; and yet, forsooth, they are not to address for a removal, without a previous conviction, and all this because they could not examine witnesses upon oath. Would they not put the Duke on the same footing with any other Nobleman ? Because, if persons of the highest rank would accept of official sta- tions, they must take with them all their responsibility. If then, it appeared that his predecessor, or any other ia that high station, had publicly kept a mistress, and that she had corruptly taken money as a matter of public notoriety ; if he were even to go out of his way to solicit places for the unworthy, in other offices than his own, were they ready to say the existence of such evils was not ground sufficient to justify them in going up to the Throne, and saying the army was not safe under such a Commander? Shall it be said at one moment that they should treat his Royal Highness in the same manner a? they would any other subject ? And shall they be told the next moment, will you run the risk of alteration in the succession to the Throne ? For his part, he was, lu- believed, of all men, the least to be governed bv popular opinion ; still he felt, that, under the circumstances it; A liich they were placed, they should be peculiarly care- ful (;!' their proceedings, after inviting as it were, tlie public to canvas their conduct, by the mode of proceed- ing they hati thought fit to adopt. Thus situated, tl-cy The Solicitor Gcyiernl. 34 1 . should be careful of the consequences, if they were found to differ in the conclusion to be drawn from these pro- ceedings. He had every consideration for the feelings of the Royal Family, but he had more for the character of tliat House with the public. If it should once go forth to the world, that that House heard of corruption with indifference, if they should ever lose the confidence of their constituents, there was no saying how far- spread or bow fatal might be the consequences. AV'ith respect to himself, he never gave a vote with more deep reluctance, and wished he could say there was no ground for accu- sation. He might reasonably expect some share of prosperity, but in perilous times like these there was no knowing what vicissitudes awaited us ; but, happen what would, he could hope for no possible advantage from the vote he should then give, which was for the original Address. The Solicitor General observed, that at such a late hour of the night he should abstain from going at any length into the o])inions he entertained, but trusted he should meet with their indulgence, anxious as they must be to receive information even from the least capable; and notwithstanding the several opinions im- puted to such of his jirofession as had spoken on the same side of the question, he vet hoped he should meet with the credit of sincerity in those he should (^Tcr. H^ proceeded to state what he. conceived to be ilie. piic i e question they were called on to decide ; and what t!ie form and manner in which thcv should decide itj n- his honourable I'riend, who spoke last hut one did not seem to consider it rightlv. The question v as tii'.-t. whether there existed any proof of ^uilt ^ccond]y. whether the J3uke of York was guilty and, tiiirdly, ?upj)osing the other two, whether they should proci cri by way of Address, or in what other manner : With re. - 342 The Solidior General. pect to the right of that House to address His Majesty to remove any Minister, without first a conviction of his guiltj he certainly never doubted it 5 but he submitted whether it would not be but right to decide upon the question of guilt, before they came to the resolution of presenting such an Address ? As to the Address proposed by an honourable Member (Mr. Bankes) though it pro- fessed not to convict of corruption, yet it did that of participation ; and therefore he considered it as even more exceptionable than the original Address, as being more equivocal. If it were supposed thai the Duke of York suspected Mrs. Clarke of disjwsing of commissions corruptly, and for money, to officers, however otherwise deserving, this amounted, both in morality and law, to corruption, or something worse, as acting in breach of his own regulations ; on this account, he preferred the mode of proceeding by way of Resolution, to that of Address. Another objection he had to the latter mode was on account of its ambiguity j but by that of Reso- lution, there could be no mistake whatever as to what they specifically meant ? The Address did not go far enough if there were guilt, and if there were not, it wejit a great deal too far. He contended not for the Prince, but the British subject. Where then was the crime in the Duke denying the charge against him, and begging for trial, claiming the right of every British subject by Magna Charta, to be tried per judicium parium et per leges terrcB ? He had avoided intruding on them before, but he should consider it a direliction of his duty, if he did not call on them to pause before they condemned without trial. He did not deny but abuses were practised by Mrs. Clarke.~She had been an Army Broker from the year 1804 to I8O6, and from that to 1 808. The question for the House to determine was, whether the Commander in Chief was privy to the trade she carried on ] As an The SoVultor General. 343 accoinpUce, he allowed her to be a competent witness, but, as such, her evidence required to be corroborated, which had not been in a single instance ; from the cha- racter she had given of herself, she ought not to be be- lieved. (A ay of hear ! hear !J He meant as an army broker, whose trade was lying ; how great a proficiency she must have made in the profession, w hen she imposed upon Donovan and other agents, who were adepts in deception, and made them believe she had influence over the Duke of Portland, from the year 1S06 to 1S08 ? And would it be attempted to be contended she had that in- fluence? Might she not have acted in the same way, while under the protection of his Royal Highness ? Had she not the effrontery to tell you, at your Bar, that Mr. Malby was iier Duke of Portland, and might not Donovan or Sandon have been her Commander in Chief ? and was not this made more probable by the evidence of Corri, who stated that she always intrcaled him to act in such a manner, that not any of the trans- actions should come to the ear of his Royal Highness ? It is not by oral testimony that Mrs. Clarke is confirmed, but by documental evidence ; even in that there was not a particle of proof, that the Duke of York had connived at the abuses committed. Then it was said there had been a few incidents accidentally found, which brought it home : if it was so, he acknowledged he had not the wisdom or ability to find them out. He then alluded to Mrs. C.'s letters to ^h\ Adam, and tlie threats thcv held out. Hesubmittid, it was impossible that it could be argued slie was an unwilling v.itne=s. He would subnut to the Hoiise what she had staled passed six months after the conuiiciKcmcnt of the e.-tablishuunt in Gloucester- place ; I'.ii Royal Higlincss suggested to her a plan of raii-inti; 5.j,0(;Ul a year, by felling cf-inniiHsIon'; in t!..: iifu\ V !:1 .h v.^jc ii \\\.' i!i; j.'o-.tl. b) - Liinu \\\) a i^Iu^p, 344 The Solicitor General. and carrying on a regular trade. Could any Member seriously think that this was true : a person of his high rank^ a Prince holding the elevated station he did, would commit himself to Sandon, and the rest of the miscreants who made so despicable an appearance before that House ? He was of opinion, if he had in the smallest degree connived, that he would not have appointed such a man as Colonel Gordon for his official agent ; or would it be policy of him, if he was engaged in the business of the shop, to write a circular letter to the Officers of the army, warning them against such practices ? It could not be said that was inviting them. He also suggested a clause in the Mutiny Bill inflicting a forfeiture of three times the amount given for a commission, gained by illicit means. Was not this sufficient to convince the House and the country that he was innocent r To any refleciing mind it must be, when it was considered the impossibility of her raising so large a sum, wlien watched by Colonel Gordon and Mr. Greenwood. ITc had not yet heard it asserted that they were charged with corrup- tion, iind he felt assured he never would ; they were men who stood too high in public estimation for the lash of calumny to reach them. Would his Royal Highness, if implicated m any improper transaction with Mrs. Clarke, knowing tlie talents of the v/omun, and knowing she had the power of daninuig him for ever, have solirittt! the I'ight honourahU; and learneil Gmilcman (Mr. Adam,) lo b.ave infjuircd iuio her coricinct as ro niouev matters ? and when Mr. Adam called on lur, wouhl ?h< not iiave told him of the rorrupi transactions they had been conjointly carrying on.' But the never did. Hi? Moval JJighncs> heard iicr eharacirr v.-as bad and ho ilirew jier OiF. Could it. be beliewcl ]ut >nouic1 not h;ivc given her hcranmiitv if it >.\as onl\ lo buv up the objccfionabl':. Utter?, if he i:(j!tci ivi->^nli:;cly refused to suffer the appricaiicii for the j)lacc and the ncgociation of tlie V-an fur Uiniselt to go on tofn'thcr? iiutyct the thing di4 345 M)\ C. IV. Wynne, go forward, until it was discovered that ICennet was ah infamous character, and in fact wliolly unable to procure the loan he had })romised. This then was a transaction, which, taken alone, was sufficient to render the Duke whollv unfit to fill the station of Commander in Chief. He did not mean to go distinctly through the other chanrcs; but, thinking as he did, that Mrs. Clarke was neither so bad nor so incredible as she had been endea- voured to be represented, yet supposing her testimony to be wholly expunged, as it was contended it should be, there remained the charge of corruption sufficiently proved by the evidence of Miss Taylor j this he congi- dcred a ground of considerable weight. The learned Gentleman (Mr. Perceval) had observed, that there was^ great indignation expressed by this side of the House, when she was asked the names of her father and her iDother. That was not so. The indignation they had felt and expressed, was at the subsequent questions re- lative to her mother being confined in the Fleet Prison, thereby exposing her illegitimacy; and he firmly be- lieved, ihat if the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Pcrccva!) had paused before he put the question, he rvould have abstained from it, when the question could have no possible eflect one way or the other, especially if he had asked himself, would not such a question be likely to ruin a struggling girl, and bring down her cre- ditors on her? as in fact it had since done. It had been objected to a noble Tord (Folkestone; that he had ques- tioned Nicholls v.hethcr he had not been charged with forging a will he had done no such thing j b'.;t even if he had, how great was the diflerence? The one was a question to a matter of fact, while the other was only whether a charge was made, however untrulv, and, in truth, was every day's practice in every Court of Juslicc. Independent, however, of these, there appeared in e\ i- Mr. C. jr. Jlynnc. 34* dence no less than six instances in which the Duke of York had suffered Mrs. Clarke to interfere. To say no- thing of French's case, there was that of General Cla- vering, wherein it appears that the Duke allowed her to Interpose for the procurement of a regiment. Instead of expressing anger at such a proceeding, he contents him- self wliJi mercU- sa\ing there was no regiment to be pro- cured. In Tonyn's case, there was the evidence of the note at length; however strongly proved, it was stiil considered as doubtful by the right honourable Gen- tleman (Mr. Perceval); a doiibt he considered as the more extraordinary, after the instance he witnessed of a learned Judge, (.Tolmson, of the Irish Bench) in wliich that Gentleman had contended for a conviction, grounded merely upon a comparison of hands. By tlie evidence of this note, it clearly appeared she had not been checked as she ought to have been, for her improper interference. The next case was that of 8. Carter. It seemed to be the wish of some Gentlemen to put this case out of the question, inasmuch as he having now scned lour years, and with credit to himself, the original de- gradation had been washed away. This doctrine may do very well in novels and romances; but even in these, is the advancement of the favourite hero made to depend on such a woman as this; i'^ it not rather always owing to his own merit? But where one sees him serving at her table, and behind her carriage, and the next week seated at the same table with his Colcniel, as if he were his own son, one could not repress the indignation such a niea- Jtire is calculated to excite. But it wa^ 'lud there was a reduction of the x\rmy going fttrward at the [)enod he was lirst recommended, and that liierefore he could not be promoted; but even if there were, tlure were also promotions, and li' there had exist el the desire to ser\ e, IxJ'jrc Ml-. Clarke lud taken liim up, it could siialv 350 Mr. C. IV. IVijnne. have been done. This appeared not only by her testi- mony, btit also by his letters. This appeared to him one of the heaviest charges that had been brought against the Duke, as evincing the unbounded influence she pos- sessed over him, to do any thing she pleased, however improper. Of the case of Dr. O'Meara, he would say nothing it was a disgraceful information, and he would pass it by in silence. In Dowler*s case, he was ready to admit, her evidence was not to be received without cor- roboration; and he, for one, would give his vote with- out being influenced by a word of her's. How did Mr. Dowler's evidence stand ? It was said he was her paramour, and had expended large sums of money on her ; and that therefore it was to be concluded the lOOOl. was not to be supposed to have been given for his appointment. It was also objected to his testimony, that he had not stated his having slept with her. But what, he would ask, must those feelings be, that could state such circum- stances, except the question was put so direct that he could not avoid ans'.verlng? and even if a little equivo- cation on the subject were observed, he should consider it as in some degree to be excused. He had stated, that lie had not made application to any one but Mrs. Clarke; it certainly v;as odd, if the fact were otlierwise, that no trace whatever was to be found among the papers in tlie treasury (if s^uch application, titlicr by Sir Brook Watson, as- alledgxd, or by any otiicr person; not to mention the circumstance of his father and Sir Brook being of oppo- site sides in politics. ''J'hcse, then, v.ere the instances of improper inlcrfereiice allowed on the part of Mrs. Clarke; and if any one should be found in future in the like situation, it was natural to suppose that the officers of trie Army v.ouk! expect the like conduct; the con- iidcration was not so much as to the past, but the future; as aillni;:!^ encoiirageinf^nt to a repet'tion of the oTcncc,, M?'. Cromer, 351 It was said his Royal Highness was so thoroughly sensi- ble of his conduct, that there was no danger of his falN ing into the like error; for his part, he was free to say, he had no such confidence; upon all these grounds he thought the Address was right. After however having heard evidence at their Bar, and after every defence the activity of agents and the zeal of counsel could devise, it was hard to say, after all this, that they should be called on to bring it to another trial. Mr. Croker stated, that the difficulties under which he rose being so numerous, a- Well from personal indisposition as from tl^e exhausted state of the subject, that he trusted the House would favour him with their indulgence whilst he should deliver his sentiments. An indulgence, which, as he deserved the loss, he needed the more, and never so much as on this occasion. He w'as anxious to have fol- lowed the honourable Baronet who spoke last night, but being then prevented, he should take the present op- portunity of making some observations upon the insinua- tions wliieh that honourable Member had made against the l;ue of condr.ct which had been pursued during the discussion of that important subject. The honourable Baronet had brcn pretty profuse of his advice to Gentle- men on his side of the House, and had not always cloath- ed it lu the most modest and conciliatory terms. If he could venture to imitate the honoarable Baronet's exam- ple, and offer unlooked-for counsel, he should tell him, that the speech he had lately delivered was the least biil- liant and effective that he had ever heard from him ; and that it seemed tri him that the pleasantry and wit which the honourable Baronet had attempted, was neither of a style or merit to do him much credit, and his newly acquired humour did not certainly become him so well as his former cicclamatorv seriousness; but the honourable Baronet was not> he wa> aware, without his object in as- 352 Mr. Crokeri suming the tont he did. On Gentlemen belonging to the ' profession of the law, he had exercised his powers (no very successful ones indeed), of ridicule, and had denied to them almost the common faculties of reasoning men ; he had attributed to their minds a professional bias, a kind of warp, that rendered their sentiments not only unworthy of respect, but absolutely deserviug, if not of reprobation, at least of suspicion ; tliis in the honourable Baronet was not unartful ; his opinions were indefensible on any grounds of law or justice ; his objects were at variance with all the settled principles of the Constitution, and he therefore felt it prudent to deprecate the suffrages of those, whose learning would direct, and whose eloquence might expose his errors. But was the study of the law the only one of all the employments and businesses of mankind which imparted a peculiar character, and fixed an indeli- t le mark on the human mind. Did the honourable Ba- rcutrr. fo; instance, not feel that the trade of being a can- oulatc iV :, ^' affect the sentiments of him who had pursued ir, Ziiuc *.-: nab.t of flattering popular passions had been so violently executed, the honourable Member said, that he was sure the one observation was as well founded as the other; and, on a judicial inquiry, he thought the country would naturallv look to the judgment of those who iiad made the comparison of evidence the principal study of their lives wlicn the question was to determine upon the credit of witm'Sscs, and the weight o( testimou)-, he tliought the praclilioners of Westminster Ilall entitled to at leajt as niuch conlidencc, a> the orators of Brent- ford and Covent-Garden. But he wished more parlicii- larly to call to the notice of the honourable Baronet a circumstance, which had been mentioned during the ex amlnalion, which in\olvcd the name of the honourable Baronet, which he did not himself believe , but as lie ^ir Francis) had not, to Mr. Croker's great surprise, Mr. Croker. 333 ^ lixplained, nor contradicted it to the House in the courQ? of his speech, he should state the circumstance, merely that the honourable Baronet should explain, although it was his firm belief that Sir Francis had never made the pflFer to Mrs. Clarke, which he believed she had pretcnd- pd. When Mr. Donovan was under examination, he mentioned, under an apparent agitation of spirits, that Mrs. Claike told him that she had been promised 40001. ty the honourable I5aronet for the papers in her posses- sion, which she refused to give up under ten thousand pounds; but Mrs. Clarke in Iier examination denied hav- ing ever been made such an ofi'er, or having mentioned it to Mr. Donovan ; but in her letter to ^Ir. Adam, she Said, that if her terms Vicrc not complied with, she would deliver all the letters in her possession to two Gentlemen, without naming them, however, but wliom she sta.'ed to be as positive and independent as the Duke, and acquahii- ai)ces of Mr. Adam ; so that. !icr letter corroborated eveiy syllable of Donovan's report of I'le tiansaclion, except that to Donovan the iianics t/f I'ic j^eisous v/crc given, and to Mr. Adam only the dc.>cri[;.ic;n, but a dcseription almost as accurate as t!}c numcs would Iiavc been. Tiiai. was a fact cf some importance, and !icii:.isted the lio- nourable Baronet would Inform t;ic Ilou-,e whcllur i.e was oneof the Gentlemen ihcPi alluiled to. Alter the nrmy able speeches which had already been made, it was not his intention to go over all tiie evidence, he should only mention such parts as were striking. The condtict of Mrs. Claike appeared to him to be infcunons iind detesta- ble in the highest degree^ and it was a maf^r of astonisn- mcnt that some Gentlemen !-:houJd take ij v.)uC:i pai'ii to make her testimony appear to ad', ent;i.,('.. '.-jnt wua per- fectly aw are tliat the evidence of an accomjilicc, volunta- ;-ily given, woidd be received with j.ax;'t caution, and jn that account ilic pretended to giv(i her evidence 0:1 A A 554 3fr. Croket, all occasions with great reluctance, in order to give it greater weight, and enable lier to atchieve, and with thi design, with this fraud on the fiont of her evidence, she had not feared to offer herself at the bar, a false witness in her heart before even she had opened her raouth. Ha could not hear, without indignation, the praises lavished on this woman ; her talents were audacity, and her wit falsehood ; but she was not merely audacious and false, she was not unartful in her boldness, nor thoughtless in her fraud, and did not neglect taking advice as to the most proper mode of conduct for her to adopt. No doubt slie had good advice, and her apparent reluctance, her pretended unwillingness to betray the Duke, were the fruits of it. If, indeed, she had been what she repre- sented lierself, an accomplice, unwillingly dragged to your bar, a witness anxious to forget her wrongs in the remembrance of former affection; a woman injured basely, deepl}' injured, but bearing no malice fur the in- jury, and desiring to requite them only bv discretion and silence ; h?.d she been any thing of tiiis, every word sliC uttered would have stamped itself on their minds ; every spark of evidence tliat was drav/n from her would iiave been a fiasli on tlicir ujinds, and a torch of shame to the illustrious, hut in that case convicted, criminal. Had she been ZiW iiidifj'cre:it wiXn^si^i without interest or feeling in the cause, she would Iiavc had an ovcrpov/crhig cflecr. But as it ^va8, '>\itii malice rankling in her h.eart, with falsehood on her rongue, ;indjir.pu deuce on hcrforchtad, ivhat man, he wci:i(i not say what lawyer, their opinion ihe honourable Earonet considered a; notliiisg, but what honest man would credit so profugate a witness. Eut she was not only a witJicss, she wns a procuress of wit- nesses ; it was ill pro(.f tiKU nt the hour siie was rcpresei'i- tiug herself as unvvil!:-!<_l\' implicated in tijc accusation ^i^uiiisi the Duke of York, she was in fcict ranging the Mr. Croker, 355 town to procure evidence agaiirst him, and when she had found tl)e persons fitted for her purpose, she emploved her so much admired talents in refreshing their memo- ries to recollections suitable to her views. In the pur* suit of those views, she had ventured every thin^, nay she had even dared to contradict to his face the honourable Gentleman (Colonel Wurdlej, who was conducting the charge. She pretended that the. lettei-s taken away from her by him, were taken much pgainst her consent, and that they had most of all led to this unfortunate inquiry ; which could not be the case, be- cause they did not at all relate to the conduct of the Duke of York, but mentioned only the Queen and two Dcanries. Those letters, however, tlie honourable Member produced, and he was extrcmelv huppv at the circumstance, because, in his opinion, they gave a death blow to the whole prosecution. Tiicy were dated in tiic month of December 1808, upwards of wo years after she had separated from his Royal Iliitli^u'ss, and cvi dcntly proved that at that very monifiit slic wr-: cmtv- ing on a conupt traffic, when she could have n;) pos.s'ble influence with the Duke of York. I'cing asked wlicll-'.cr she made use of the Duke of York's name in thc>c trails- actions, she answered as she would have done to the fame question, if it liadbcen proposed to her w!)ile slic liv- ed at Glc)uci-,M T-placc^ wliy indeed she rather believed that people did sriil tliink that she had inilucnce with tlv* Duke. The audacity of the witness, which had ijccii termed flippancy, \v;.s scandalous and dii'::-u;ciu!. Ic appeared to him strange that any prlembcr cr^uld tiiia!; oi putting the evidence of Colonel Gordon on a level wiiii tliat of Mrs. Clarke, as the honourabh; I'aroiu': and th:: noble Lord hud done, and wdnch he c^'uk! not, accout:t for. It seemed as if they were a!'-;rt.cd v.iih a disorder limilor to that of some tick person;-; v, .'lo wi^h for v. fiit A A 9. Sa6 Mr. Croker. is itidigrstible and hurtful, and alT\-ays reject what iJi wholesome and good. They blamed that honourable Office for what they termed concealing a paper contain- ing the name of Colonel Brooke, till nearly the close of the investigation ; but he would ask Gentlemen whether that paper had not been produced in its proper place ? It related not to Knight and Brooke, but to Colonel Plegdell and with Plegdell's papers, according to the regularity of Office, it was of course deposited ; would the noble Lord and liis friends have the paper in two places at once \ or would they have placed only in that bundle of papers to which it had no relation ; the paper comes out in its 6t time, and in its regular course. But Colonel Gordon's pencil-marks are mentioned with a sneer, a silly sneer,, as if it were easier to add a pencil-mark to a paper than one in ink ; the pencilled note was unfavourable in its first aspect to the Duke, and therefore instead of its being added to the pap'^r, it would better have become tiic hionoiirable Gentleman to wonder why it was not obliterated ; ii!ut object, its Ijciag in pencil, woukl have facilitated any other, would it not, and therefore if any use was to be mac! c cf this argument, he would ask, was it i^ot r:it'i;er a proof of ColDoei Gordon%: honour, that he ui'l not even obliterate the mark, which Gentlemen had contended to bear so much agair.st the Duke {Hear! hear!), lie did liot mean to a-::crt tliat t'lere was any great integrity in C'uloiicl Gordon'b ]U'csL'rvliig the wri- ting in pencil, l/';i;, as i;i.s!!u;ations liad been made, he thought ii i'air to argue, th;it had Colonel Gordon any secret inteiilion of clcarii'.g th.e Duke on tiiat score, the case, wiiicii was afterwards clcr.r and saliifactory, u-ould Ht (incc have been o, anvl pieelL:cled all discussion upon ir. Ne:;t, where was llie equivc^erition of Colonel Gor- don in his evidence wiih re>pcct to Captain Maling,^ \viic:i if v/:is well kno\vn ;!:;: iione ot the ciicinnstanee^ n-r-riiicd tv' hi;n aUichal lo tl-c Gentlemen iu Ccionel Mr. Croker. 557 tjorcloh's office ? Colonel Gordon -was asked abont a Captain Mallng, who had been in Mr. Greenwood's office, who had received three commissions very rapidlv, and who finally was a Captain in the Royal African Corps, and the noble Lord would have expected him to answer concerning a person who never had hecn in Greenwood's office, who had }20t received three com- missions rapidly, and who was not in the Royal African Corps. It was not surprising that the honourable Baro- net and the noble Lortl had disapproved of Colonel Gordon's evidence, but it woivld be indeed surprising if any other Member of the House would do so. Surely the evidence of Colonel Gordon was decisive against that of Mrs. Clarke, not that the oath of a person of rank was preferable to a person of humble circumstances, but where evidence was taken without the sanction of an oath, persons of rank had certainly the best title to credit; Colonel Gardon spoke widi all the responsibility of his high chamcrer, a responsibihty not inferior in honourable minds, to that imposed by legal forujs. Eut xM-iS. Clarke was neither bound by the sanctit}- of the law, nor res- tricted by any deference to soci(,-t\' ; to speak falsely was CO nc.v disliononr to her, she came to give her evideiue careless and unsworn, unless slie might be said to have laid her lianl on that large volume of malignity and re- venge, hc'i heiu't ; ar-d to b^ sure it was riot surprising that tho^e wi)o j)ar,egvr,zed her, siiould !ia\c' con- temticd e(j'i.iHv tliC huinbie vcriicity of Mr. .\i(;i;oi. and the iiigh-nund.jd lion/ju;.- of Coloi-.c-l Cc-.u n ; tr.ev despi- sed r.iovak^ in tiie Inw, and iiiV'^^'rir-/ w. l c x.iheti. and would oniv f.rec'it iIls v/onian, '..!i'.' i:;,(l ccirinr morals, integrity or trutli. I'cr: his p;i;t, wli^w lu- oiiiisiclenxl the merits of thi-. l)en;-.v,,.if nt er^'atuic, iUi> uiroiuroverti- ble witne<-s ot t'l': n^'ble ly.rd's, hev.a-o! opinion, Tuat but for her sc\'_. stu- v.'ou!*-:ib!e protKi-.I, ou^ unitiiT^^iiicvf^ t raits <ravity never Cij;:! I Iinvc h-.-cu fuv:'.'.\ H'.nr,' h'Uff fvhm ihc Opph'llioiiJ , Ml-. Crok' r was gkid of this a|>- plau.-e. l,c ho[jed that tiic iU'.Uw good feeling iW.ii 5o6 Mr. Crolen {)ronipted it, would also be apparent when he Came \6 shew that the Duke was innocent of this baseness, andtft visit upon Mrs. Clarke the vengeance due to so detestai ble a calumny. The greater our horror at hearing such things attributed to the Duke, the greater will be our Indignation, if they are found to be false, at the invea- tress of them. See then how the case stands. Mrs. Clarke says this hint of the Duke Jirst put her on trafficking in commissions, and that it was given about five or six months after she went to Gloucester-place ; butobscrvethe cases of Tonyn, Spedding, French, Loudon and Bacon had occurred, some of them before she was one month, a/'^ of them before she was three months in Gloucester, place. She says besides, in another place, that hcv first thought of traffic was excited by persons applying to her. If then this matter was first suggested to her by persons so ap- plying, and if we find that by much the greater part of her commerce hud been prior to the time at which she says the Duke suggested to her these means of pecula- tion J it follows tKat her representations are altogether false, or that truth and falsehood arc inextricably mixed up in her story. For his own part he believed the former to be the case, but those who thought the latter, would surely not go so far as to believe those parts of her testimony in preferanv':e, which were the most incredible, and the most direct ly contradicted by others, and by herself. If the Duke of York is to be thus tried, if the grossest improbabilities are to be presumed against liim, if the cQutnidictions, the ccpiivocations, tlie lies of his accusers are to be of no avail for him, the result of the discussion is as little doubtful, as the opinion which he thouglit t!ic country would entertain of a result built on such foundations. She says a!?o, the Duke could not bo ignorant of the expcnccs attending her establishment, a*, the money he allowed her could r^ot pay tlic servants' 3/r. Croker. 5 CI Vi'agcs and their livery. It was a fortunate circumstancd riovvever, that the House knew she only kept two livery scivants ; and he would appeal to the noble Lord, wlie- tlier his economy could not make lOOOl. a year pay tha wages, and find tlicm liveries. The honourable Mem- ber took tlicn a view of Samuel Carter's case. With all her professions of attachmein to tiiis young man, her conduct had by no means been favourable to him. Who was it that had called liini the footboy ? It was Mrs. Clarke herself, in her description of him to the honour- able Gentleman who had moved this business, for lie believed that the honourable Member would have made rse of no expression to degrade the character of this young man, liad he not been led to do so by the testi- mony of Mr-. Clarke. But this testimony did not coincide with that of her servants who had been adduced as witnesses in this case. The evidence of Loudovick, Ihou^x not directed to this point, was, on that very account, of great weight ! In his examination on the 2d day of the inquiry, before Carter's name had been thought of, and before he could have had any sinister object in giving liis evidence, he iiad stated Mis. Clavke's cstahlish- nicnt of men servants at Gionccster-place to have con- sisted of o!ic butler, one coachman, and one footman, and no morJ*. Here then was no inention of Caricr, lliougli if he had occupied a menial station in the house, tliere was every reason why Loudfjvick would have, at that time, included him in his answer. Mrs. Claiko/s own servant involuntary corroborated loudovick; they camcj indeed, to state that C;irt(r was a servant, but the cncnmstances Avhich thev a.lciuccd u'crc all ai variance Avith that fact; what marks ct' scrvitud? had iic u[)oa him? Did lie receive: wages; no, Mrs. Tavcv herself accjuits him of that, Did lie; wear livery r no, tlio livery lervants themselves admit that \v: yid not ---lUu then a J6t Mr. Cro/l-er, coachman was called (and be it observed, that this maa mas lately retaken into Ivlfs. Clarke's service), and he said boldly, that Carter was in the heibit of going bcliind the carriage ; this to be sure, was strong; but just as the witness was withdrawing, an honourable Gentleman thcnght of inquiring, how often Carter had gone behind tiie carriage, iind tlien tliis coachman answered, " only nce or twice J'^ A strange sort ox footman this who receives no wages, wears no livery, and in the course of twelve months service, goes behind the carnage but once or twice. Is It possible tliat he was indeed a foot- man ? and is it not, admitting he did once go behind tlie carriage, an easier solution to say that this boy, then about seventeen years of age, might ones in ix giddy U-o\\c^h?A'e gotten up behind the carriage. If he was a regular servant, and considered as such, t5,hy was he not found more frequently in tliit^ituation ? 2t was worth whilc^ however, to examine into the cir- cumstcinees more particularly. This boy liad been rcpre- lentcd by Mrs. Clarke as a menial servant : when did he tnter this situation, or hov/ long did he continue in it ? Mrs. Clarke, it seems, went to Gloucester-place on the 38th of March, and Samuel Carter was gazetted on the 51st of the same month. Samuel Carter was admitted not to have been with Mrs. Chirke till she went to Glou- cester-place, and s}>e was not there five days till he was gazetted. If ever he was her i'oot-boy, therefore, as she )ras slated, it must have been during the time that he was also in the arm}'. Mrs. Clarke, however, in her vidence cannot charge her nicmory with particular dales, as if it were a matter of no consequence to her when she went to Gloucester-place, under the protection of his. Royal Highness. Did the House believe that she could look on this event with such indifiercnce thai it left no tracK of the time in her uiemorv. The whole cf bci I\Jr. Croker. - tm /evidence had been much of the same nature. She could ;iot recollect when she went to Park-place, to live with Jiis Roval Highness ; she could give no dates on the subject, as if these events had been to her matters of incre indlfflrencc; as if living with the Duke of York had been a mere ordinary circumstance, and not worthy of recollection. She, like the cekbraled lovers, wished " to annihilate both time and space;" but howev^ much it might be her interest and objeck to compound and forget dates and times, it was the duty of the House to be very particular ui this respect, Dates were the touchstone of evidence, and the landmark, as it were, to guide them in this inquiry. It might not suit her purpose to recollect dates ; but it was very necessary for the House to make a very attentive comparison of those minuter circumstances. The tcstimoriy of dates waa invariable ; they were indelible and eternal monuments, and when all means of detection might fail, often led to the discovery of the hidden sclieraes of malignant accu- salion, and concerted plans of revenge. Tlie witnesses which followed Mrs. Clarke in corro!)o"ation of her tes- timony, seemed all to be afiected with the same short- iicss of mcuiorv as herself wilh respect to dates, and rautiouslv avoided involvinL': themscKts in anj* of tiiesc difficulties that a circumstantial reference to dates misht create. Miss Tavl'or, too, did not recollect dates, but she had an admirable mciviorv for one solitary conver- sation, which from its nature and circumstances was not verv likely to have iiuprcsjcd iisel!" upou her ; but to be jiurc, with the assistance of .M:<. Clark-, she had brought herself to a Jiio^t cK ai recr'leclion, not only of the mailer, but aU > tlie wmicI-;; and a!v)\-e all, of words of cndeair.jciit, \-, liuh, ii" she were r^allv in the habit of livinii: \. i'J) the l)u';r and Mr-. Cluke, would have brcti JO familiar a;. ii Gr'J;!).:ry a* not to attract her parlicukir 3iS4 Mr. Crbkd?^ ifrotlce. This feature, in fact, pervaded the whole of the evidence that bad come forward to support Mrs. Cl'irke. They all forgot place and date, which \va3 most certainly no recommendation in favour of her wit- nesses, and which through the whole of the inquiry, and particularly in the case of Carter, had a manifest tendency to mislead the Hoyse, and prevcni their coming with that ease, with which otlierwise they might, to a positive negative of her allcgatioi-is. Mrs. Clarke had fcpresented Carter as an orphan hoy ; but she had not said when Captain Sutton died, and at what time this young man was left i^i that situation. It was certain, however, and it had appeared in evidence before them^ that this young man had obtained his commission while Captain Sutton was still alive ; and it was most probable Jrliat he had continued to live with Captain Sutton till the 21st of March, 1S01-, the day on which he was gazetted ; and it appeared that his Royal Highness had received the thanks of Tvlr. Sutton for the commission given to his protege. In her representation of this case he was convinced that Mrs. Clarke had given a proof of her charr-fCter and disposition which could make no very fa- tourable impression on the House. This circumstance alone shewed how far her resentment against the Duke oS York was capable of kading her. She had taken care, Ijow- tvcr> that this injured young gentleman should be absent^ ant Bftpaegteti the House to t:ik(? r.cticc ci' the c:rcum^ttm':cJ^ Mr. Cioker, SOl that all the officers whom she had mcfltioned in the course of this inquiry were cither absent or dead. Mrs. Clarke, it appeared in her evidence, had furnished Sa- muel Carter with sums of money, and therefore she had thought she had a right to make use of his name to crvc her own purpose. Gentlcnicu had eulogized the good feeling of Mrs. Clarke for raising this hov from humble rank to the station of a gentleman; he could see nothing to praisu, but evcrv thing to obbor in her con- duct, for enckavourino- to dcivaJo a q:c.utlcnian to the rank of a footman; an.d to add io ibis injurv the insull of pretending that she 'nad been the unwilling in?trumcnt of the honourable Gentleina.n, who in fact had been by falsi" prclcnces, induced to becon-ic her's. It was a case of that nature, tlKit tiicre was cvciv rca-on not to bring it forward, even supposing it had Iktu true to the utmost extent, lliis ciicun'.-tancc was aiio'hcr proof how much Mrs. Clarke was at a ics^ to m.r.kc out such cases as would contribute to \.\i^ end sirj had in view. lie did i:ot blauie the lionourable Gcntl'^ir.an for bring- ino- forv.ard tb.e case a; jUatcd to liiui, aiul was S'.ue that iu.d Mrs. Clarke told !ii;n ibc truth, tho bon'.)i!rable Member v.-oukl \v\rc hc;;:i t!:c 1:hI man in the world to create ui^'icc! -;->;rv' unjri<^;ii:'.-- l)v a di-^cu^.-ion of this nat';rc, to an indivivluai v/hd-e c^nbr f.'.ult apj'>rarcd to li;ive ujc:i a conuc'::i(>n v, irli Mrs. Clarke, of v.iiatcvcr dt'scrij)tii;n ibai n)nn;:xion might !)'-. After what he had ^aid, and on tiic gr.;unds he had stated, r.c trusted it wa:5 unnecessary for lii:n to rav more on the case of CiU'ter. \Vitl) rc-n.;ct to the cxrliange bctw.ru Colonel Knighi and Colonel Hrooki.; tl^at tu.-t" vras ru'r.iillcd by the Cunilcmen over the wa\ to !;'.'-; bcrn a'rj.aiy salis- factorilv txi)laiiK-d. Wv- hhonl^i uoi, thLiribre, say mure (Ml thia Iicad. 1 he ca-r of C aptaiu Maliug, li^ ;ho!.i'!;t, bad l-fu cijuaUv e\;>!aiu'jd, and rcqiMrc'J 356' Mr. Croker\- notVilng farther in vindication of his Royal Highness J and as there was an admission of the propriety of the conduct of the Duke, he shouM not stop merely for the purpose of commenting on the inconsistency of the orisjinal accusation, or on the failure of ihe subsequent charge, attempted to be superinduced upon it. Wilh respect to the cases of Spedding and Tonyn, (fur as they were contemporaneous, he would consider them toge- ther,) there existed circujnstances that convinced him of the falsity of Mrs. Clarke's allegations. These two officers applied to her, as appears in evidence, many months before she even pretended (o take a step in their behalf, though she was, during all that period, in the greatest distress for monev, yet she does not attempt anything in their favour; at last, however, after three months' delay, Tonyn became impatient, and wished to retract his securities ; then, indeed, she finds it ncccs^ $ary to begin to appear active ; then she deceives her agent, Sandon, to say " that slie, has spoken to the Duke, and that he has promised to do it." One now expects to find it done immediately, Oh, No ! the Duke is so busv, that though he has promised it, and ^' that ihe iJibirr 2s doncy^ to use her own words, it cannot be compleatcd for a month ; but then she confidently pro- mises success. In the mean whlk* General Tonyn had applied in his son's favour; a large augmentation of the army takes place; Colonel Gorciou of bJs own accord includes Tonyn's name in the nroniction, because he had been placed on the list in coni^equence of his father's application; and early in August, s;:: mcniiis aucr Mrs, Clarke's interference had been promised, Tonyn, with upwards of fifty others, was gazetted Major. But what in the mean time becam-e of poor Spedding ? Spedding, Vv'ho was to give her 7OOI. for ihe ir.ajority, while Tonya Ifave but 500l., Spedding is neo;!..cle:l ; but, at last h? Mr, Croker. 967 10 gels impatient, then something too must be done to hold him on, and she writes to Sandou that she ha spoken to the Duke, who desires Spcdding *' to write for what he wants, as that is best." The Duke wished to promote Spedding, but was so cautious that he desires him to send in an official memorial, ui>der colour of which he would do this disgraceful job. ^\'ell, Sped- tVmff docs write in, and cf this very memorial, which he himself had planned and dictated, of this very memorial that was to excuse and cover his corrupt partiaHty, what notice lIocs tlie Di;ke take r he w rites in it a refusal, and nothins: was ever done in consequence. Good God I v'ho can think that the Duke was a party to this ? Those who cat' rt.iiu such an opinion must imaeine that his Royal Highness had put himseU" into Spedding's power, with no ot'uer object than to provoke the exercise of that power, by disappointing expectations which he himself raised. Bat what, in iacl, is tlse clue to all this confusion r il. is this, that tins artful woman and lier associate?, by a varjtty of iic\icL's, kept ofilcers hanging upon {v.r; and slie t^^ok tlic chances of tlicir bcin^j; prcn:ctcd in t;;c iixau wiiiie i)y their natuial interests or r.icrit.-;. Sl'C tdio )-ou, >hj h"(l hundrcdi and inmdrciis of ppplicauo'/is, and lnjr instances of" alledired ^uccc-s iiv:-, four or live ; like i!isurers in the lottery, ^hc took htr chance of \\hat:night come up; in the thousands of names tliat arc annually gazetted, gome of her dupes migh'. be drawn, ri:e shortest time that any person aj pearcd to Lie en licr Lnr.ks, (except Ki^'uht, wliose case was aclmittf-d io!;<- c'cailvexplained,) was six nionlh>, and with all this cr!;-y, a^jd all these chance-, what success iiau -l.; to sh , ? In August, 130), a gpzellc came out couiaiuii.g u^.'.vards of two bundled j)ru.'noli(.in.-:, and Ibrtuuatci'.' It }y.r, Tonyn's lunic; was in ii, that to Ijc -nuc wu: a ini^e of b(.)u\. S6^ jyy. Crakeu "But unfortunately, a greater prize, viz. Spedding, Jay undrawn at the bottom of the wheel. What! in sucl^ an augmentation of the army, in the promotion of twq hundred officers in one day, Mrs. Clarke, the favourite, the accomplice, of the D.uke of York, pretends even tq have made but one. But one, and that onCy whose, father, an old General officer, had had a promise for him J but one who gave her only 500l. when she saySj, that many others had promised 700l. for the same pro- motion ; but one, in short of the hundreds that applied to her, and of whose money she declares herself to have been so greedy; it must be allowed that it was a most unlucky day's drawing, aqd one that ought to hav? taught those who had insured with her, if such persons were to be taught, that her lottery was of all lotteries the most fallacious and dJuslve. But she had not yet done with Spedding, his name might come up next, and accordingly his patienpe is protracted by various devices to the month of November. ^^' hen finding thai this Duke, v;ho had promised so largely, is doing nothing for him, he applies to his Colonel to procure him leave tQ go on haii'-[)av. Then comes the ttorm of female rage and disaj^pcMnUxl avarice; rcdd Mr.s. Clarke'* letters to S.andon, '- w hat can Spedding mean by asking for leave to go on half-pav r 'lis odd bcliaviour, and you must thi'ik tb.at some o^;j': thinks me \\>''^Ci terj/ ill ; of course, 'till this is cxplaiued I'ully, I shall think of nothing eh-e.'' A\.\s ! poor Spedding, your hour is come at last; you liavc (.iicatcd the Duke and his mis- tress ; his Royal Iliglmcss had rc^-koned (.11 your money to enable him to support his establishuicpJ, you have deceived him; and the all- povcuruil Mrs. Clarke vows her \cn,o;eance agaiuJt )'ou ; veu are undone, a'ou will not be allowed io retire on i;;,ir-pav ; you v-,-ill i)o ordered pa diiUnt service, and nolliing but- the inimtdiaie pay.-^ Mr. Croier, 369 IToent of the 700l.. will now avail you. But no ! this Duke is a most extraordinary man, wlien he promised Sped'Jing favour, and expected his money, he refused the very request he desired him to make ; and now that he is enraged at him, and that his mistress can think of nothing 'till slie is revenged, he grants him his request. So it was, in spite of Mrs. Clarke's rage for the loss of lier 700I. Spcdding's application was complied with ; and alter all hiis attendance on Mrs. Clarke, and all her assurances, the only favour he appears to have ever received, is one that is directly contrary to her wishes and her interests. In speaking, then, of Captain Speddincf, the honourable Member did not mean to say that Cap- tain Spedding h^id been guilty of all these practices; his argument was, that Mrs. Clarke had thus stated the case, and that on her own shewing tlurc was a miserable failure, and a complete disproof of her alleged influence ; and, if indeed. Captain Spedding was ignoianl of this negociation, it only strengthens ttie arganiciU against Mrs. Clarke, bv proving liow wantonly and grouiull'jssly she used the names of ofiiccrs, and how probable it is that her other charges stand on no l.^itler i':}uudation5 than this. Who then would say that Mrs. Clarke had that influ- ence she pretended to ? Were he sitting in a Court of Justice, the case (;f S;;xddin[r alone wordd be cn'jugh to enable hijn to make up his judgment respecting her pro- tended influence. That alone would be suflicieut to convince him that her pretences were false. Here v.as a failure which could not be accounted ibr biit from t!ie utter want of influence on the part of Mrs. Clarke. He did not think it necessary to enter into the cai-es of El- derton and Kennctt, tliev were so remote, fVom. tlic ge- neral nature of tbc charges, and so little co)U)ccted with the Duke's public character, as Conunandcr in Chief, B B 370 Mr. Croker. that he bhould not take up the time of the House In any inquiry into these subjects. With respect to Colonel Taylor, whose name had been mentioned in one of Mrs. Clarke's letters, he stated, that this officer had been nominated to his promotion by Lord Mathew, whose right it was, as Colonel of a new levy, to do so, and whose honourable motive in doing it no man could doubt, who knew the noble Lord's character j but Mrs. Clarke's letter says, that the Duke would not con- sent to let Taylor get on by the Irish levies, but would permit him to do so by purchase. Now, unfortunately for Mrs. Clarke, the reverse was the fact, and it shew s how loose and uncertain her information was, even when she spoke most confidently : the Duke had re- fused to let Taylor get in by purchase, and had con- sented to his doing so in the Irish Jevy. He would not dwell on this case, but he requested the House to consider its facts, and he was convinced no one case offered a more certain disproof of Mrs. Clarke's iniluence over, or even knowledge of, his Royal Iliglmess's measures. His interference in favour of those men, might or might not have been decorous, but it was no interference in right of his ofnce, and> of course, not within tlie present bounds of the inquiry. The case of Doctor O'xMeara was similarly situated, .ind of this case, some k-iurs on the table, which, liow- ever, had not been proved and read, gave a satisfactoiy explanation ; into which, however, as those letters were, not printed, and as the whole subject was foreign to the matter of the charges, he declined entering. With respect to the case of Colonel Tucker, all that Mrs, Clarke recollected was that his name was one of a long list that had been given in to her : but wliy did she recollect the name of Tucker alone out of so many Why did she select him as the object of her accusation ? J/r. Ci-ohr. 371 What pre-eminence had he over others, lo recom- mend him to her malice ? Her reason was natural, her motive obvious and characteristic ; Colonel Tucker was dead; (Hear! kear !J after the most meritorious and honourable service in Spain, he was returning to his native country, and, in the very sight of that country^ was shipwrecked, and unfortunately perished. The waves that swallowed him, had not yet given up his body to the funeral honours that awiiteJ him, when this woman took advantage of his fate 10 tarnish his honour and degrade his memory ; but Colonel Tucker might, in his last moments have exelain)ed, " non om~ nis mcriar j" he died, but honourable character and fra- ternal piety survived him. His brother had nobly thrown himself between calumny and the memory of the de- parted, and the feelings thai prompted, and the success that had attended this appeal, were equally worthy of the dead and of the living ; of him, lowborn this })osthu- nious dutv was paid, of hhn by whom it v/as paid, and of this House wiio had received it witli #0 much generous syuipalhy. (Hear! hear!) This was a case too v/orthy of Mrs. Clarke, it wa? one that she must have selected wiih jjhasure ; lo trample on the grave of a gallant soldier; to brand him with dis- honour, when he could not rai.je his voice to contradict her; and was this the witness, lie asked, of whom they had heard so many panegyrics, (hear ! hear ! J and whose truth and virtue, it had been said, m:ule the weakness of sex excusable, and whose humanity had been represented as exleiuiatlng her frailty and her fault ? The h(jnourable Member then piocecdcd to the case of Colonel Shaw, which had been represented as a case of peculiar aggravation. From Mrs. Clarke's evidence it appeared, that the Duke of York had first sold this office- Ids appointment to the Deputy Barrackmastcrship at the Cape, and afterwards, from tlic meanest motives that li 2 372 Mr, Croker. ould possibly be attacbcd to human conduct, from par- ticipating in the resentment of his mistress on pecuniary grounds, had deprived him of its advantages, by reducing him to half pay. Should this case, however, of peculiar ag<;ravation, as it had been calleJ, be found to be wholly without foundation, what opinion were they to entertain of such a witness, and how little dependence could they place on her other testimony ? Mrs. Clarke has produced a letter of Colonel Shaw's, on which he had no doubt she had been induced to found the charge. He could, he said, if it were necessary, prove from the context of that letter, that Mrs. Clarke had not gotten him his appoint- ment, and that the service for which he gave her the money, she never performed, namely, getting him put in full pay. General Burrard's letters and Colonel Gor- don's evidence had sufficiently shewn the falsehood of ^Irs. Clarke's colouring of this case. Bat there were some circumstances in it which obliged him to call it to tlie more particular notice of the House, less for the pur- pose of explaining the case itself, which had already been done, than for that of shewing th'c flagrant falsehood, with whicli Mrs. Clarke liad constructed her accusations. Tiiis wonMi'A h:id stated, that on h^r beir.g disappointed of the sum Colonel Sh:rvv had pron^.ised her, she com- yduincd to the Commander in C'lief, who told her that he knew all aion? she had had a bad t>liow to deal with ; and that to ])unis!i ;dm, b.e wovdd place him on the half pav, which, Mrs, Clarke sa\?, was accordingly done : ''Ifow much a plain tale sludl set her down." It ap- j)ears by her own admissioris, ai.d by the evidcncco C oatt's books, that the ground of Mrs. Clarke's resent- ment did not occur till after ti;e Qih of May, 1806, v.hcrcas Colonel Shaw wa-, put on lialf pav on tlic Sth of the same month ; so thjt- the n i;i:shmttit inflicted on the po'.;r C(no'.iel must have taken place before the alledged Mr. Croker. 373 offence. {Hear ! hear !) But this refutation was not (though 8o unanswerable) the only one. Mrs. Clarke says, she, in consequence of her disappointment, complained to the Duke of York ; but the House, ill as thev must hv this time think of her testi- mony, will be astonished to hear, that after her al- ledge ddisappointment ihtnever saic his Royal Highness; the separation had taken place on the 6th, 7 th, or 8lh of May. Mr. Adam says, that he laid the result of the inquiries into Mrs. Clarke's conduct before the Duke, who then came to a final determination to part with her for ever ; accordingly, as appears in another part of the evidence, he went down to Oailands, and never san.v her after; and on the 1 !th of May Mr. Adam had an inter- view with Mrs. Clarke, at which the separation was de finitively established. Tins was no inferential evidence, no argumentative deduction. These were plain facts and certain dates. Wisely had Mrs. Clarke and her followers avoided with such studied equivocation, to recollect dates. \\\i mav judge by this cxaniple how her story would have borne that unerring test. It cannot now be argued that the Unke made his high ofTice subservient to this woman's revenianc of iuc(.n-^tenev ini.! t.ilMjliMM;', ilwu Mr^. (."'nikc was n()t to 'jt: en 'iited in any !'.j:'t. '' !'-'" e\ivienee \s ithout circuni'^'aiK i;- '>[ the ni'i-^t Ciir >ir)i a; i:-'r n.i'ure: havun'^ faded in i. ' :- \a \\\,\<\\ i,\\<.- wa-i >u t (".i.J;-!;-! and sa vehenient . \\\ a ea-e I'lO (ji' Mie!; n;: j);)ii.!i).':;-, and wliieh iitlrcltd 5') nrilcial!} the ^lu;rjcter oi the p.i:-na a::ci:iuL 374 31r. Croker. In cases of defence a person might fail from want of the proper attention, perhaps from want of ingenuity, or from a want of the necessary evidence, which he could not command, and at the same time, from such a faiKirc in one case, they were not to judge that the defences of other points were equally weak ; but he contended, that in cases of accusation, the matter was very different. Here the accuser had time to arrange and select his cases, and was required to bring none forward that he could not substantiate. It was to be supposed, in such circum- stances, that he would adduce no charge that he could not make good, or which, at least, did not carry the ap- pearance of truth along with it. If, then, the accuser should fail in one of his most important charges, and discover an attempt to impose on ihem by the most false and unbounded pretences, he asked them if they were not warranted to reject the whole ? This was precisely the case with Mrs. Clarke ; she had been found to faU sify most grossly, in one of the most important charges, in a charge which was held out against his Royal Highness as one of the most aggravated nature ; and if in this she had failed, what credit were they to give her in the other charges, where circumstances perhaps rendered it less easy to get so completely at the truth ? Mrs. Clarke must have v/eighed this case as well as the other?, and must have equally known its truth or falsehood, and if it appeared that she, knowing it to be false, had, not- withstanding, brought it forward with as much confidence as the other charges, they v.cre entitled certainly to dis- card the whole, unless supported by other evidence inde- pendent of her testimony. It appeared that Colonel Shaw's letter had fallen into her hands, and there being no date of the year to it, and being of a nature that might be variously interpreted, she had determined to found on it this accusation. It is now knov/n, that this Mr. Croker. 375 letter was written a fortnight after the separation from the Duke ; and, if it were necessary to examine so minutely, it would be seen that even the very words of the letter were at variance with Mrs. Clarke's represen- fcation J it speaks the language of reproach and not of excuse, and seems to upbraid Mrs. Clarke for having neglected his interests after she had received his money. But this examination is superfluous. The dates, the facts form such a mass of contradiction to Mrs. Clarke, that he hardly supposed the noble Lord himself, certainly no other person, would venture to assert that she was now deserving of credit. The whole of tiiis case ought to be a warning to the House, how little confidence was to be placed on her testimony, and with wliat caution they should proceed against his Royal Highness on such evidence as her's. They united, he contended,,.the two great qualities of judge and jury. They were to consider the case of Colonel Shaw as an example of tivat sort of ground on which the whole of the charges rested, and from it to judge of the others. There was one circum- stance more which he felt it his duty particularly to ad- vert to, and the more especially as he did not recollect to have heard it noticed by any of the Gentlemen who had spoken before him, thougli in liis opinion, it went to shew how little influence Mrs. Clarke really possessed ; he meant the circumstance of her not having been able to do any thing for her brother, Captain Thompson, which was not to be accounted for on any ground but her want of power. \Vas it to be supposed, that while she was procuring a regiment for one gentleman, a ma- j(jrity for another, and a levy for a third, that slie never would have applied to his lioyal Highness in favour cjf her brother, or that hib Royal Ilijjliness, if he had been in the habit of granting her such favours, would not very naturally have been disoosed to ^civc the brother of his 763 Mr. Croker. mistress ? But she had not only not obtained promotion for him, but it appeared also tliat (hat gentleman having occasion for only a fortnight's leave of absence, Mrs, Clarke does not apply to the Commander in Chief, which was the most natural way if she had been in the habit of interfering in such matters, but applies to San- don, and represents to him the necessity of speaking to some friend in behalf of her brother. She does not ever^ desire him to apply to the Horse Guards, where she might have seconded the application, as she pretends to have done in other cases ; but Sandon, it appears, is de- sired by her to apply to some one in the Adjutant Generars Office, for the purpose of procuring this favour. Thatr must either suppose that she had no influence with his Hoyal Highness in these matters, having been obliged to apply to strangers, or that the Duke must be of a very extraordinary and unaccountable temper in not wishing to oblige his mistress in a point in which she was so much interested, though he listened to her applications in behalf of others in whom she had less interest. It ap- peared that Mrs. Clarke and her brother had been accus- tomed to draw bills on one another, so that even in a pecuniary view slie must have been interested in his promotion ; and to shew that this was tlie case, they had only to recollect tlrat A'rt;. Clarke had directed Sandon to look about, and see v.'hcre her brother coiiid purchase a cc^mpany, Avichout attempting to make any application to his Royal F.!g;)!}:>s, however natural tliis would have been liad Mr;. Clarke been convinced that she really possesstii such influence as would liave insr.rtd her success. To what cause tiicii v.cre they to attribute !)cr not having; npohcd to the Duke, it nor tea knowledge that ihe Duke discouraged all such inter- ference, or to a conviction tlnit her a implication would not succeed r Whiic they saw her ihcrefore imposing upon Mr. Croker. 377 others, and taking their monev under the pretext of usitij her influence, with liis Royal Highness, she takes quite a different course with respect to her brother, and applies to a friend to look out where lie might purchase. The honourable Member then proceeded to take a view oi" the whole, and declared, that from that review, and from the most impartial endeavours he had made to get at the truth, he was obliged to exonerate his Royal Highness from all guilt. With respect to the cases of Shaw and Carter, there was not the least scintilla of evidence. The others were nearly of the same complexion, though there might be a greater degree of plausibility attending them. Here the honourable Member said the moro pleasing part of his task concluded j he was now obliged to ccBsure not to defend. The Commander in Chief, he was of opinion, was culpable in answering such a woman, as she was, or taking any notice of her application in tht> case of General Clavering. lie had imprudcntlv al- lowed her to converse with him on public business; perhaps no evii result had occurred, pcrhops it happened only in one or two instances, but peihaps also it had hap- pened in more, though it is 'miy prored in one ; he therefore regretted to s.ty, tluit lie thought that this thouoh a venial ofience, was an ;ict of considerable indis- cretion, {Hear! htur .' from sonic of ike oppasifion Itnches.) Ves, he rcgictu:d tins unfoiLunate circum- stance, whici) prevented Inm from giviu^ that triuuipiiant vote which otherwise iic v.uiild 'luvc been able to do on this occasion. Hud it. ikk bc^-n xux il.is circumstance, the House must iia\c [jioiUji'.iicL.! .i nw..-,t ccniijJctc ac- iiuitt'il. Though this, how .. \iT, \s as a c iii:!iuis'ancL' ro be rcfiellcd, it was i)V no nic.ms d.' si;l;i a luuure as to pre- vent tl.cir pionouiH ing an acfjiiiual ti'ali v.oiriiption, auJ of all df^r:--cs of < oi; liptu;;), cw.w iiPtii;;!) wc should be i;bii"cd to l.^i^u-iiL ihc cMuii ul' I'uf^ i)ukc in prudence. 378 Mr.Croker. It was therefore that he most heartily joined in support- ing the resolutions of his right honourable Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer: and that, very unwil- lingly, he felt himself obliged to disapprove of parts of the Address with which he proposed to follow them. Much had been said respecting* their Constituents, and the riglit they would claim to review their conduct and their vote on this important question. He did not be- lieve that the honourable Baronet had offered his obser- vations on this subject as a threat, or with a design to impute impurity of motives to any individual in the House. For his own part, he trusted that he stood as pure as any Member present, and as free from all sus- picion of bias, or of acting from interested motives. There were Gentlemen present who had been in office, as well as those who were now in employment ; and to wish to be in office again was a laudable ambition, which he was far from condemning, as it discovered a wish to serve the country. He did not believe, however, that either those now in power, or those wishing to get into power, were necessarily to be biassed op that account, in giving their opinion on the present question. For his own part, he was conscious of no bias in his mind that did not arise from the nature of the evidence before them. He did not agree with either of the Addresses that had been moved, as they both mixed and confounded too much what, in his opinion, ought to be kept distinct and separate. Tiiey went too much to confound all sorts and degrees of guilt. Where he, however, obliged to vote for either of them, he should certainly give his vote to that of the honourable Gentleman, (Colonel Wardle) in preference to that of his honourable Friend. There was a manliness in that of the honourable Gentleman which recommended it, in his opinion, to their notice. We will go to the King, was its language, and what wc Mr, CrokbT, 379 dare think we dare say. But that of the honourable Gentleman, (Mr. Bankes) seemed equally afraid of pro- nouncing the Duke of York innocent or guilty j it was a poor and timid compromise which * Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike, " Just hints a fault, and hesitates diilie.'* [Hear! hear!) For his part he would not make anv compromise of his feelings on this occasion, he wished the House to meet the question boldly, and to decide, whatever that decision might be, as truth required. If the House thought his Royal Highness guiltj', they were to say so. He did not wish them to belie their fientlments, but to declare what they felt. If, however, they thought his Royal Highness^nnocent, why be afraid to say so, or why address his Majesty for the purpose of removing him from office ? It would be very strange indeed, if, after weeks of inquiry, the only determinatioa they could come to was doubt iind uncertainty with res- pect to the existence of guilt or not ; and therefore an Address to His Majesty to dismiss his Royal Highness, if he pleased. The King certainly may dismiss him, if he please; but he -did not need the House of Commons to approach the Throne for the purpose of telling him this truth. He contended, therefore, that, instead of \h\\ doubtful decision and half measure, the House should endeavour fust to come to a positive decision wjtli respect to the innocence or guilt of the Com- mander in Chief. Had tlie cliargej prcTcrrctl agaiiist him been proved, or not ? Had he l)ten guilty ol' per- sonal corruption and parlic;;'al,ionj or not ? Should he be found g'lilty, he then should liavc no objeciion to vote for a;; Address to his Majesfy, to dismiss him from the public service ; but he could not i;i conscience vote for thii Address till j-jd^nicnt had been given resijctling Iijs 360 Mr. Croker. criminality. He could not vote for sucb an Address, and. allow him to be innocent at the same time ; and if he was guilty, either of the Addresses were too feeble to convey to the Throne the sense of the House. It was no sm^ii objection to these two Addresses, tha.t they wer^ so nearly alike, and yet that the Movers could not agree. He must say that the motives of the honourable Gen- tleman, (Mr. Bankes) in moving an Address diflcring only in shades from the other, were to him inexplicable, tjnlcss indeed that honourable Gentleman was of a dis- position to be satisfied only with his own productions, or that he had artfully modelled his proposition to catch a few stray votes ; to catch them not by its merit, but by its obscurity : not that his Address was that which any man would prefer, but that in tlie mist and darkness with 'which it had overshadowed the debate a few members, not seeing which way they were going-, inigiit follow the honourable Gentleman. Address was the name the honourable Gentleman had given to his proposition, and its nature was Address. But he hoped the House would not vote in the dark, and that this " ioiir d'addresse" would meet the reception and success it deserved. For his own part, he would say, like Ajax, " whatever be the result, restore us the day ; and if we are to die, at least let us die in the light." He contended that tlie fu'st duty of the House was to come to a resolution, declaring their judgment respecting the guilt or innocence of tiie Duke of York. It would t'lcn be time to consider wiiat was the next step tiicy were to puisue. Having laid this foundation, thej^ were th^ni to j)roceed with the super- structure. An Address from iis very nature, must in- volve many topics, on eacii of whicii Gentlemen might mrmtaia opposite or-inions, ai. in tiie present instance; he approved of sci^.: j)arLs aiul d.^approved of others, of each of ihv. three Aduxs-sei:. \\'hv ihcn siiould th.c Mr. Croker. 88X House be bewilJered with so various a cliolce, and such conflicting sentiments ? Why not come to resolutions, that by their nature not only admitted, but insured per- spicuity and precision. If these resolutions convicted his Royal Highness, then an Address for his remorai would be framed without difficulty, because the ofFence would be on record, and the consequent course defined as well in form as in substance. Should they find his Iloyal Highness innocent, they might still present an Address, should that be thought necessary, of congratulation and condolence. (./ Iniigh). Though it was not uncommon to consider Gentlemen coming from the country he be- longed to as liable to incono>istcncics of expression, he V ould appeal to the most scrupulously nice in this respect, if he was not correct in what he said ; they much regret that- his Royal Highness shotild have formed so unfor- tunate a connexion, and at the same time congraiujati , His Majesty that they had found no reason to accuse his Royal Highness of the corrupt practices alledg^'-:' against him. {Ilenrl hear \) What he urged was ccrtranly the most natural course. After having selected llie road, they ivcie then to consider what sort of carriage they were to cmplo}-, and not to act like a ni::n, who, having made up his mind tliat he sIioljU jo to Greenwich by water, should tlicn throw himself iiUo a post-chaise ; or should set out for Dorsctihiie in a wi;crry on the Than\es ; but this was the Cientleman's (Mr. Bankcs's) course ; he had irrevocribiy selectctl his vehicle, before he knew which road lie was to go ; his vVdihcss was to be a))plied to all possible, and even ihc most conira- dictory cases. If tiie Duke of York, he guilty of the barest corruption, what proceeding riliuli \vc take ? " My Address ;" but if he is only guihv of the minor offence of ncgligetice, what then ? " Why, my Address ;" Well, but if he be not guilty of any thin;.j, uuJ he entirely S82 Mr. Crolicr. acquitted, wTiat course have you then ? " Wh} , truly still my Address." It was like the Spanish doctor's universal remedy. He is consumptive, bleed him ; he is plethoric, bleed him ; he is palsied, rheumatic, or aguish, still bleed him ! bleed him ! The honourable Mover, in thinking that the facts had been established, had done right, he thought, in moving an Address for the dismission of the Commander in Chief; and had he been equally convinced of the facts having been es- tablished, he did not know but he shonld have gone farther than the honourable Gentleman had done. Tliough a lawyer, he hoped that he did not look on every thing in a perverse waj*. There certainly were difficulties, and he would allow that the House might feel considerable embarrassment how to vote; but would any man say, that he could vote for any part of the Ad- dress, and not give his assent to the whole r They were not to come to a decision with respect to the words they siiould use in describing the result of their inquiries, but with respect to the facts themselves. The measure of adopring a Resolution first had this advantage also, that it did not prevent an Address, while voting the Address, would prcvept any subsequent Resolution. Jrom every view of the subject, it was necessary they should first adopt a Resolution indicative of their sentiments respect- ing the great question of guilt or innocence, and then they might determine the nature of the Address, if such a farther measure was thought necessary. What should we say of a judge, who, while the jury were deliberating on their verdict, should be niaking up his mind on tlie sentence, resolved to prciuoi.ncc equally, whether the verdict should be murder, or manslaughter, or not guilty. if an appeal in this case wzi, to be made to the countrj', it was still more necessary they should come to some de- ternainate and precise Resolution. This appeal had been Mr. Croker. 383 cliallenged, and he had no objection to make this appeal j but it would be necessary for this purpose that the coun- try should know on what grounds they voted. He ad- mitted the country had their eyes on them, and when they should return to their Constituents, they would have a right to ask them what vote they gave on this question. It was not unparliamentary to say so, and he wished to let his Constituents know his precise vote on the occasion : but how could the country know their sentiments, if they did not come to a decided and {)0sitiv^ vote on distinct facts ; now, if the honorable Gentleman persisted in pressing his ambiguous Address, which gave such opportunities of evasion ; and which would neces- sarily be productive of so much mistake, of whicli, when they came to account to their constituents, every one might give his own convenient interpretation. I voted for it, says one, because the Duke was guilty ; and I, says another, because he was innocent ; and I, replied a third, because he was neither guilty nor inno- cent. Let us pursue the aatural course of the human mind, and of human operations. Let us first decide on facts, and then argue on their consequences. Acldicss or not, as hereafter may seem necessary, but first let us decide the preliminary matter. Firstlv, Is tlic Duke guilty of corruption, or wliat is the same, connivance * Secondly, lias he suHcred without a criminal r.otivc the influence of this v/oman over his public duty ? \'.u\ thirdly, ought he to be deprived of the ccjiiimatui oi til- army r In each of t!usc resolution^, he desired to giv, :i distinct vote ; and tic thoUfj;ht tlic country would exprct from every Gentleman a simliar course. Let us convict him or acquit !iim of these thlncf';. Let us dismiss him from, or retain him in the command ortiic army ; but, whatever was done, he implored the House, in justice to tlic Duke, in justjtc to the country, and in justice to 384 Mr. Henry Martin. themselves, to do it in the face of day, and not to huddle up the question in the intricacies of tliese ambiguous and obscure Addresses. Sir F. BuRDETT, in e::planation, and in answer to the Honourable Member's question, said, be should al- ways feel himself quite disposed to gratify even the curiosity of any Member, however disorderly it might be to put such questions as that now put to him. The mode of putting that question to him inferred almost a refusal to reply, as if he (Sip F. Burdett) had actually retired with some of the public money in his pocket, or that he had been concerned in giving monej to conceal a great public grievance, of the nature comprised in the charges now before them. He did not, however, feel disposed to reply with ai,v acrimony to such insinua- tions, but certainly only with a view to satisfy the Ho- nourable Gentleman, and lie had therefore to state, that no such circumstance as his oiYcring money to Mrs. Clarke did ever take place. Mr. Henry Martin said, he was surprised to hear a right honourable and leanicd Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General) obicct to the present proceed- ings, upon the ground that the House of Commons had no right to be sitting upon tliC trial of a person in the Duke of York's situation. Did that learned Gentleman not know that the House of Con^mons stood in an ano- malous situation in jiuch cases as the present? They did not as in other tribunals, act by ari y particular rules as to evidence; every man tliat was accused by t'lcin stood before them for trial, and mi;,;iit if he chose come and state his defence. Tiiey had all the pov/crs that could be comprised in a public functionary, for what would be their use if ihev .were to feel themselves fettered a$ a Grand Jury? If they conKl not lhii.> pass sentence of coiidenmatioii on persons licldipg li'gh and responsible Mr. Hen)^ Martin. 3S5 public .situations, he should be glad to know upon what principle they could act? Upon what ground could the King dismiss such individuals from the public service, except upon evidence adduced before the House of Com- mons? This was not a novel case, for there had occurred Repeatedly precedents to justify their present conduct. He might refer the right honourable and learned Gentleman to times soon after the Revolution> times that i^'cre better adapted than the present for ascertaining the just rights and privileges of the Constitution. He alluded to the proceedings of that House upon the Partition Treaty, when they investigated documents and exa- mined witnesses, not upon oath; and what conclusion did they come to ? They addressed his Majesty to re- move from his councils for ever Lord Somers and the two other noble Lords mentioned in tliat Address. Oa what grounds did they proceed, and did they stop there? No; they thought that their crimes went further than they could punish, and they therefore voted an impeach- ment. This was not done till after they had passed a sentence of condemnation, tlie most severe that they could pass ; and yet the honourable and learned Gen- tleman had said, "why did the House proceed to con- demn without evidence? and why not send the Duke of York immediately to triul ? for it would be better to stab the Royal Duke to the keart at once, than to advise his Majesty to dismiss him from his councils for ever." Was not Lord Somers, and the others, possessed of feelings as well as the Duke of York? If so, were they not equally and suiEcii-ntly warranted in advising his Majesty to dismiss him from the head of the Army? Had the HoubC in doing tliis, refused to hear the illus- trious Personage that was brought before them; that right still exibtcd. It was only vulgar notions and pre- judiced education that could asslmulate the rules by c c 3Sd Mr. Henr^May'tin, which Pirliameiit were to be regulated, to those of other Gbiirts of Law; for he knew' of rtb fixed lU^e^ by which Parliament w'as to' be' 'regulated. They had heard a great deal of the rights and privileges of the Duke of York; but was it therefore to be imagined that because that Royal Personage enjoyed privileges,, there were none also enjoyed by the House of Cbmtnons? or that they could not by virtue of the Constitution deprive him of them ? The House had received advice not to pro- voke any of the constituted authorities, for fear of their own existence, but not a word had been said by those who gave such advice, relative to the rights and priyi- Icges of the Ilousc'bf Cominons. He should argue that it was not only a right, but it was the bounden duty of the House of Commons to prosecute every inquiry of this sort, in the way they had found their forefathers act; and that they wene not to sacrifice their rights, from the consideration of the hi^h rank and station of *fhe illustrious Person accused. It might be said, wit^ the precedent of Lord Somers before them, why not impeach the Duke of York? To that he should answer, "tlrat where they had a punishment commensurate to the offence, the most proper way of proceeding was to in- flict that punishment. \Vhy did they in any case im- peaciir It was becau^jC the oifence was one which they could not otherwise remedy. If there were no ether mode of inliicting that punishment which appeared ade- quate to the otfence, then tliej' must at once have re- course to impeachment. The Crown Lawyers had taken very extraordinary objections to the witnesses; upon the principle that the House were to confine them- selves entirely to the Rules of Courts of Law; but it was iruly remarkable to find that the}' appliec} those objec- tions to all those who v/cre produced as witnesses in support of the charoes, but not to those wdio were called Mr, Hemy Martin. es7 ^6 contradict them It may be said that this testimony is not upon oath; they could have none of those con- tradictions which were alledgedto exist; and he was con- vinced they would not exist, were this matter coming to further investigation. Every witness who comes to be examined in a cause, has been interrogated previously as to the matter at issue; but the witnesses who came to that House in such a question as this, did not come pre- pared to state particulars with such accuracy, as, upon further recollection and preparation, they might be enabled to do. For instance, Mrs. C'iarke had not come prepared to state how many times she had Visited Mrs. Faver}^ lie was surprised to hear the honourable and learned judge opposite (Mr. Burton) state matters which shewed evidently that he had blotted every tiling out of his memory which he must hijve learned and have practised in his official duties. It had not yet been sufficiently explained by these learned lawyers, what was actually the improbable part of tiie testimony; for his part, he could not help thinking there was nothing at all improbable in it; for when he looked into the let- ters of the Duke of York that wjrc produced, he dis- covered fully as much improbability in tlicm as in th; "whole statements of Mrs. Clarke. It was upon the con- viction of her testimony, coupled with those of Miss Taylor and Mr. Dowler, by which it was corroborated that lie would be induced to give the vote he intended to give, namely, for the original Address. It would be unnecessary, and indeed a waste f)f time, to restate the evidence, and therefore he should only observe, that, as to Dowler, he had a right to say he stood uncontra- dicted. As to the case of Dr. O'Meaia, he could iiard- \y take upon himself to say what was done; but it was evident, that through Mrs. Clarke he was put in a situa- tion in which he was likely to be promoted. I'hc last c c 2 381 Mr. Rose. time he had heard the expression popular clamour , it was one that originated within these walls, and was dis- seminated throughout the country, as it suited the par- ticular party purposes of the present Ministers. (Hear ! hear! hear !) But since it had been again alluded to, he could not help stating, that the pubUc have a feeling upon this subject; and he might ask, was the public feeling to be despised upon such evidence? He knew well that it was the mind, and not the situation, that created the independence of men ; and it was sufficient for him to know, that he supported this Address from % firm conviction that the evidence adduced as to these charges was substantially true, and clearly evinced that the Duke of York did connive at these corxupt practices, a nd therefore ought not to be retained longer in his pre- sent situation. Mr. Rose said, that he would occupy the time of the House but for a few moments. He had prepared himself to speak to many points f the evidence, and would have begged their attention for a longer space, if the able and perspicuous manner in which it was already treated by his right honourable Friends, did not render it unnecessary, and even unpardonable, for him to re- trace what they had estabUshed. So unnecessary did he deem his remarks to the advancement of the cause to which he was favourable, that he would not have tres- passed even for the few moments he intended, if he had not been called up by an allusion to precedents, which, in his opinion, were not correctly quoted. The ho- nourable Gentleman who had just sat down, undertook to defend the Address, by an appeal to the time of King William, from which he professed to have drawn a pre- cedent. He (Mr. Rose) was as favourable to the time of King William as the honourable Gentleman could pos- sibly be j but, if he were not mistaken, that precedent Mr. Rote. ' 369 wat drawn from the time of Charles II. to which he Wrii not quite so partial. He believed that the honourable Gentleman's recollection had failed him in this paiticu-> Jar, and that the precedent upon which he so ranch de- pended was not to be found in so happy and constitu- tional a period of our history as he conceived, when h produced it to the House. Tiie honourable Gentleman had said, that the House upon that occasion addressed his Majesty to remove the four Lords from his councils and presence for ever; but when the honourable Gentle- man stated this, he had not stated the whole of the case, for the Lords remonstrated upon the occasion ; they said it was unjust that they should be condemned without trial; afid the result, that their remonstrance was suc- cessful, and the Lords were not removed. Inhere was another circumstance which detracted much from the force of this appeal to precedent, and that was, that the whole course of the precedents, after thut time, wore all against the honourable Gentleman's position; in the case of the Duke of Marlborough, in the case of Lord liali- fax, in the case of Lord Wnarton, tiiey were all against him; this, when combined with the failure of the former precedent, when pushed to its application, defeats that part of the defence which was attempted to be built upon precedent, lie had stated upon rising, that he would not oo into the evidence, and would observe that pro- mise; one observation however lie would mtko be^jre he sat down, upon the case of Dowler he had v.ished that the e\cciitors of Mr. Pitt should be applied to, as he thought that it' the recommendation did not appear in some of the books in their possession, the fact would be cstal)lishcd that he was promoted according to the itgular touibC. He begged to remind tb.e House that tjje situation ui. Paymaster was not one which was ca- gfily sought alter; it iccjuircd much atuntion, and was 350 J/r. Wortley Stewart. by no means so great an object as had been represented by those who would swell the gift into importance. Upon die whole, he was of opinion that the case was not proved against his Royal Highness, and therefore would not agree either in the Address or the Amend- ment. Mr. WoRTLEv Stewaut said, that having formed his opinion upon tJie question before the House, he was desirous to state the grounds upon which it was formed. He thought that the House of Commons was right in determining to examine witnesses at the bar, but after the manner in which the evidence had gone forth to the public, garbled and disfigured as it appeared in the daily prints, he dreaded, nay, he believed that the majority of the people of England did think the Duke of York guilty. He gave credit to the honourable Gentleman who brought forward the business, for the manliness and perseverance with which he had acted. The honourable Gentleman, and a noble Lord, and an honourable Ba- ronet, agreed in thinking that the Duke of York was gviilty of corruption ; if they did think so, why not follow it up? Why come forward with such a measure, when one far more decisive and severe was called for by the circumstance ? In those times, when the country was in such a situation, when the people were committed to. such a struggle against contending enemies; in those times, it was necessary that the characters of Princes should not be frittered away ; characters in which they were all equally concerned; and should they send forth that Prince to the public, with a character lacerated by imputations, upon which they did not dare to give an opinion ? He was prepared to give his verdict, and to give it eonscicntiously; he was prepared to sav, not only that the Duke of York v^as not guilty, but that there were ample grounds upon the face of the evidence to in- Mr. Jl'orlh'y Suuait. 3jl d^ce Iju^ to believe that there was a plot against him. lie wished to notice the case of Major Shaw, because he considered i| most important, inasmuch as it furnished a ground for rejecting Mrs. Clarice's testimony, by pro- ving, that in this instance she had spoken what he could forbear calling downright lies. She slated, that Major Shaw applied to her for a Lieutenant-Colonelcy, that he promised her lOOOl. for her ^interest, but that she got only 500l. and in consequence of that breach of promise, he was reduced upon the half-pay. Now, it was proved upon evidence, not subject to the suspicion which Mrs. Clarke's general character must have thrown over her's, that Major Shaw obtained the situation at the Cape of Good Hope, upon the condition that he would go upon naif- pay j this was expressly understood when he ac- cepted the situation] and yet Airs. Clarke would have them believe that it was in consequence of his disap- pointing her, his reduction from whole pay was inflicted. A letter of Mrs. Clarke's, which appeared in evidence, confirmed the disbelief of her account upon examination, and proved that she did not negociate the promotions; it was manifest also from an appeal to dates. With res- pect to the case of Colonel French, It was evident that with all her boast of iulluencc, many things were refused to him, though nothing could put more money in her pocket, or with Ie=^ danger to the Duke of York. As to the corroborative evidence of Miss Taylor, he begged to remark that she had given it in a qualified niaiincr; she said not posilivcly vliat hli word.^ \vcr.;; hai in a doubt- ful and uncertain way, she .-"aid, =he thought tlu\' were, " how docs lie ur:e you, ilaiiiu;:'" uh.n an c\idence swore to a cc;nvcrsalion at the end offoii!- y.u-, he was not inclined to give credit tw tiiat i-, idenee. 'i'here niig'it he a ini-t.ike in the aco:uiiit, tlicre luiirht he too n;-.eii pr(.Hnn|'!;<.in and too niu;;i ri-iju'-c on nieu'ory ^ 392 Mr. Worthy Stexeart, at all events, there were circumstances that should in- cline every body to weigh it maturely, and regard it sus- piciously. Whatever he was inclined to think of the Duke of York's indiscretion, for indiscretion he allowed he had been guilty of, in the unfortunate connection he had formed, but whatever he might think of that, he could not say, from the face of the eyjdenc?, that the Duke of York was guilty of corruption. As to the note to Captain Sandon, the honourable Member said, that it appeared throughout the whole that she pretended to an influence she never possessed. Captain Sandon had told them in evidence, that he did not be|ieve she pos- sessed any influence. l\t (Mr. S.) was not desirous of vindicating the conduct of Sandon, or proving him, upon the whole, to be a credible witness; but there was a circumstance which, in his mind, supported and en- forced his evidence in that particular, and gave it a stamp of veracity that would not easily be obliterated. It ap- peared in evidence that Captain Sandon and Mrs. Clarke had a quarrel. He appealed to the understanding of the House, whether they thought it likely that Captain San- don would so far forget his own interest as to break with her, if he thought she possessed the influence 3yas not exercised or required in this instance, told the House, at a subsequent examination, that she mentioned Mr. Dowler's acquaintance with Sir Brook Watson to the Duke, who replied, *.* that will do; his recommendation will be of us." Here was an instance of the ingenuity of the woman, and of her false- hood. He had only one word more to add upon the subject, and that respected the appointment of Samuel Carter. An honourable Baronet had stated the appoint- ment to be more honourable to Mrs. Clarke than to the Duke of York. He could not agree to it; for in one of her answers, upon a subsequent examination, when questioned respecting Carter, she said, with one of her laughs, which some approved, while others were dis- g;asted at them, *' O ! he is now upon the staff;" plainly indicating, by her manner, that that was another inir propriety added to the former impropriety of his origi- nal appointment. On that account the honourcibie Mr. *Long s^i Member was not incliflcd to give her all the credit for her conduct which some had attributed. The manner bespoke a feeling which he was not prepared to respect. Some observations had gone forth upon that case, tend* ing to sow dissensions in the army, ami was a flagrant abuse of the liberty of the press. As to the testimony of Colonel Gordon, he had but one word to say upon it ; it was perfectly unimpeachable ; some Gentlemen, how- ever, upon the opposite side, appeared to cast reflections upon it, bwt thcj did not apply. He (Mr. Long) had fretjuent intercourse with him in his official capacity ; and he could say, if ever there was a man who dedicated his life to the service of the public and the duties of his office, that man was Colonel Gordon. The first Address he thought objectionable, because it went to pronounce judgment without defining the crime; the other he thought objectionable, because it charged the Duke of York with suspicion, and drew a distinction, incompre- hensible to him. If he did suspect, ought he not to have inquired into the corruption he so suspected? A. man might refuse to look into the state of his aff'airs, if they were desperate, but would it, therefore, be said, that that man was not in debt ? An honourable Gentle- man had said, that it was not of corruption he accused the Duke of York, but of admitting an influence inju- rious to tlic public service; if that was, indeed, all, they should take the good as well as the bad, into account, and they would find the good to preponderate. Did tlir Narion, he asked, intend the removal of the Duke of York? If it (lid, it ought to say so ; it ought not to effect the destruction of his charactei without trial: if they supposed even the case of tlic meanest individual, either w'nh respect to life or property, and that evidence was to be sent out to the public, as upon this occasion, ac- companied with all the documcuts that ingenuity or uu- 398 Mr. Coke, lice could furnish,' he asked, whether justice would be done to the individual? Gentlemen upon the opposite side- might, say, it is true, you can make much out of the evidence, but the feeling of the country is against him, and that is to counterbalance your defence; they might say that, and m saying so, they would be only re- peating arguments he had heard a thousand times in the street. A noble Lord had expressed a wish, that they might be swayed by no private affection, but would act like lionourable men ;. he hoped so too he joined in that wish most ardently. He knew that Princes often gave themselves greater latitude in their conduct tlian other men ; but at the same time he knew there were many circumstances attached to the condition of Princes, which afforded a palliation inapplicable to the errors of other men. When he considered that they were debarred from an extensive commerce witli mankind when he consi- dered that they v.-ere prohibited from an intercourse with life in its most general and useful sense, and were by that means excluded from the practical lessons that result from intercourse and observation ; he saw an extenuation in their favou)-, which did not apply to the faults of other men^ whose fate was more obscure, but whose fortune was perhaps more favourable. Tlie honourable INIem- ber concluded with observing, that he could not accede to t'iie Address, nor to the Amendment proposed to it by his honourable Friend ; but the latter he particularly ob- jected to, as not consistent wiih the character and dignity of the House, which ought to have the energy and deci- sion to pronounce " guilty," or ' not guilty," upon the charges. ?Ir. Coke considered the conduct of his Royal Highness as corrupt in the extreme, and the person who had brought forward the subject, as deserving the wann- est thanks of the country, for the manly manner in which Mr. JVtndham, 399 lie Itild dohe it. There had been many arguments used upon Ihe proprTcty of criminating .the Duke of' York upon circnnisVantial evidence : on this point \\& had only to remark; thai more men had been hung in this coun- try oh circumsVantlal than positive evidence, and' was fullv coiivinced his Royal Highness had connived at the 'mal-practices "laid to his cliargc. He rose to speak his '"sentiments as an indepei;dant man j he was cxory way an enemy to corruption, however supported by those who reaped a benefit by it; and said, that although it might be ven' well to listen to their arguments, it would be \^ery wrong to pay attention to them. Mr.. Windham had attended to Jill A\liich had been said upon the important subject now before tlie House, in order that he might correctly form his own opinion. He was disposed to believe many erroneous motions had been formed upon this subject, but he thought the gene- ral and material question was, what line of conduct the House of Commons ought to adopt on the present occa- sion? There was a considerable variety of modes propo- srd in the course of the discusssion; in the first place, the Address moved by the honourable Gentleman (Mr. Wardle) contained unfavourable senlinieiUs, and a dis- tinct opinion on the Commander in Cliicf. The 'id pro- position, made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tcn- d<.d to institute no particular motion ; and in a third in- stance, it was proposed some measure should be taken ; "and the last Addr^.-ss intimated an inclination upon the whole opposite to the original Address. In point of form, he diil u.,)l know of any objcition to any on^ of the Addressee Blu if sr.ch were his opinion, in rcnpcct to the form, he should be induced to express very contrary sentiments in regard to their contents. The Address, as proposed. by the right honourable Gcnllcnian opposite (Mr, Perceval), desires wc should not vidmit of the sub- 400 Mk Windham. ject as far as to form a judgment on the same* It wil very extraordinary any one should recommend a determi- nation upon the points of the whole case first, before any judgment should be pronounced upon the general ques- tion. Mow would it be in the case of peace or war? Certainly no man would contend, we ought invariably to attend on the parts, and on them Separately come to a decision, but maturely consider the whole of the ca^e, and form a broad and definite conclusion upon the ultimate event. In measures of policy anc^ prudence, he would thus be inclined to guide his proceedings; and he saw no reason whya judicial measure should not be decided upon the same principle. For in his opinion, whatever gene- ral doctrine might have been assiduously held forth at this time, if that general doctrine directed a subject of a judicial nature to be divided into pafts, that doctrine w-as wrong, because such a subject ought to be a general question. The preponderance of guilt, or of innocence^ ought not in the present instance to be a subject of con- tiideration; but whetlier, upon all the matter now before the House, his lloyal Highness can be freed from crimina- lity ? For no doubt could be entertained, if any man were 10 be tried before a judge, it would first be a question for the decision of a Grand Jury, whether there was sufficient testimony to produce a further procedure j and if not, the person would be immediately set at liberty from the peril of his situation. It might happen, however, that the evidence adduced inight be of a stronger nature, and thereby the prisoner would be under the necessity of sub- mitting to the sentence of the laws of his country. Still he might, after a trial of considerable testimony, and grent impartiality, be acquitted ; yet there was a material distinction between the degree of criminality in the for- mer, and the latter case. Some Gentlemen entertained an opinion relative to the present investigation of his 5 Mr. IVhulhcnn. 401 Royal HlglineS9*s conduct; that, independant of any po- sitive teslimony, the internal credibility of the evidence was so strong, there needed no assistance from any addi- tional proof. I'he admissibility of an accomplice's evi; dence had fallen under the observation of an honourable and learned Gei\tleman (Sir Samuel Romilly) who, to his Surprise, had represented a case where a robbery had been dommitted by three persons, and although there was no evidence directly aifecting the pcjsoas who were charged with this particular ofieacc, excepting that of one of the accomplicos, yet by his testimony the others - were cGnvicted, and eventually sufiered the punishment of death. If such were the law of the land, it did not meet with his approbation; and former instances had in- curred his displeasure, where men's lives had been taken away by the evidence of the most worthless and vilest of society, and whose testimony was liable to every suspi- cion, as being devoid of truth. An accomplice in his t>pinion, was a })cculiar kind of witness, whose evideuc;' might be received or not, according to circumstances. A discretion in these cases was always to be exorcised, and ought to be proportionablv varied, according to the prin- ciple of a thermometer. He concurred with an ho- nourablc and learned Gcn'lcman, who spoke in a pre- vious part of the discussion, that a great distinction ought to be taken with regard to evidence delivered on oath, and that which is not delivered with that form of solemnity. If it were to be laid down as an hypnthe- sis, that witnesses examined at the Bar of the Ilouse of Commons wore to be considered in the same point of view as if they gave their testimony on oath, then he should think the House did very wrong in permitting those questions to be put, which had been asked of wit- nesses during the present investigation. Although he felt averse to state any of the evidence in detail, after so D D 402 Mr. JFifidkam. many had applied themselves to that part of the present case, yet he trusted the House would excuse him in ma- king a few observations on the character of ^Irs. Clarke. The testimony did not meet with his applause^ as it had that of many others ; there was a pertinancy and flippancy in it, and her character altogether such as denote her com- plete want of shame. Dexterity was an admirable quality, but in a woman it was a dangerous weapon; and he had been much displeased with those qualitiesof sauciness and flippany, which others had dignified by tlie name of wit. In regard to the manner she delivercdher testimony, Mrs. Clarke certainly possessed a power of communicating a story; still it appeared to him she was also capable of giv- ing it in such a careless and prompt way, in a way so un- premeditated, as to induce many to suppose she was ut- tering the simple truth. But we ought to be on our guard against that facility shewn on her part in telling the truth, though, taking it altogether, it was such as tended to es- tablish her honesty. There were likewise circumstances- which rose, as it were, out of the grave, and confirmed her testimony, and he had reason to conclude many con- sequences flowed from her interference. He neither agreed with those who cried up Miss Taylor, nor with those who endeavoured to cry her down. I'he manner in which she had been treated bv the House was indecent and monstrous, although her testimony was of a dific-rcnt nature v.'hen compared to that of Mrs. Clarke. Mrs. Clarke's evidence was good, but Iier character was bad ; Miss Taylor's character -^.aB good, but lier evidence was bad. When Miss 'J'aylcr took upon herself to conmiu- nicate to the House tlie conversation of the Duke, of York with Mrs. Clarke, it was remarkable, and has not hitherto been accounted (uVy p.ov/ she came to recollect so .accurately the words of i;is Royal Highness, but at tflr pame time wholly to forget those of Mrs, Clarke, She Mr. Windham^ 403 saH on the occasion, there were circumstances which led her to hear in memory the business, and recollect the words ; but why should she not recollect the words of Mrs. Clarke, as well as those of the Duke of York r Mrs. Clarke certainly possessed so much ability, that he would not be apprehensive of matching her against somr: of the best orators he had heard this night, but there was in his mind considerable doubt respecting the words used by Mrs. Clarke on this occasion. W'liile he applied, as he conceived justly, such observations on Mrs. Clarke's character, he was not disposed to shew any decided par- tiality to the Duke of York. This was a trial of the grave, it levelled all distinctions, and he sliould be sorry to deal out any observation toiVlrs, Clarke, wilhoulapply- ing those which were due to his Royal Highness. There was a great deal of inconsistency in her evidence ; neither did he believe she had that general and unreserved com- munication with the Duke of York; in this opinion he was corroborated by the paucity of instances where he: inllucnce had ever prevailed. It had been observed the instances of Mrs. Clarke's interference in military pro- n)otiou had become notorious ; and several people, on tJic credit of notoriety alone, coniided considerable pro- perty to her, ibr the sake of promoting their welfare. Hat the conceptions of men were sometimes so gn)S, as to lead them to believeaiiy thing held out as a temptation for their sordid dispositions. This only might lay the foundation foi that public opinion, liesidf.^, the Duke would never have declared he could forget, if there were a hundred in-lanees ; those instances, if any, ijad been rare, and liave been attended with any injurious consequence in military affairs. His wish was to convey truth ; he felt it painful, and this ought to lessen the sting. His intention was rather to vote with his friend on the floor, (Mr. Rankes). He should be disposed to acquit his Koval Highness, but not to the full extent expressed in the a;ncndnicnt proposed by the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer; but at the same time he trusted his Royal Hiixhncss would feel it his interest to pay at this period some attention to the public opinion on this question. The right honourable Gentleman had touched upon the ease of Samuel Carter, who, he said, had been treated harshlv, and appeared unworthy of consideration, even by iliose wiio lamented the severity Miss Taylor had expc- nouccd. He had been stiled a foot-boy better that than * footnK'.n : for the stigma which attached to his youth, woul'J g'-ow off as he grew older, and the mark of servi- Lord Castlereagh. 40.) tiule would wear Insensibly out of his mouth. f.J lauali !J Tlic little mercy and consideration Mi<> Tay- lor had met with, was alone to be justified by the cni- gency of circumstances. Was he not as much wounded ? Was it necessary he should be so wounded? He thought not, but considered him trodden down like a weed. He felt upon the whole, though not wholly coinciding with his sentiments, that he should act most consistently by voting for the Amendment of Mr. Bankes. Lord Castleueagh rose amidst a loud cry oi ^-'dues- tion ! Question .'" He said he should not, at that hour, intrude himself upon the attention of the House, but that he felt it his paramount ilutv to deliver his sentiments on a question of such magnitude. The right honourable Gentleman, to his surprise, had expressed his intcnti(ni of voting, as he conceived, contrary to what his opinions would have led the House to suppose, and which would almost induce a belief that he did so to mislead t!ie judg- ment of others. Por his part he inteaclcd to oppose both Addresses; he did not conceive it the proper mode to be adopted; he thought they should vote resolution-, and then act upon those resolutions; and not adopt an Ad- dress, which would Imply that the Duke of York w;is guilty of criminaJ connivance at Mrs. Clarke's fraud. W'iiat was the case stated? It was said the Duke of York knew of her applications; if he knew, he must be personally corrupt. Could any one suppose that he knew of her taking money for his patronage, ami con- verting it to the purposes of housekeeping, and bo con- tent simply with his removal, without a desire to bring him to furth(.T trial? The House was certainly competent to address his Majesty as tlie\' sliou! 1 deem fit, but wliere the crim'.- was so int.unou';, he couUl not reconcile it with I'ltne.v-) to the C jusliiiuion to ti;ul an\- pcrscm guilty il...'!'.i<'' hi> ab*e!ir(_'. He could n'.'t cjiceive ans' tliiiiH 9 -' * 406 Lord Castlereagk. which could bring so delicate a subject under his Ma- jesty's consideration in a niore poignant shape, which must be rendered additionally poignant if the House were not inclined to act upon .the recommendation of a constitutional trial upon this delicate and verj^ important question. The noble Lord said, he wished to take a view of the whole subject, which he would do in a brief manner. In considering the evidence upon which the question rests, it was not immaterial to consider under what impulse Mrs. Clarke came forward to give her evi- dence against the Puke of York ; she came forward with wrath and vindictive resentment ; but at the same time represented herself as unwillingly coming forward to submitto the Orders of the House. Mrs. Clarke's letters to Mr. Adam and Colonel M'Mahon must prevent any one doubting the existence of malice, He did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the hoaourable Member who had brought forward the present measure, yet thought he had deviated much from the line of conduct whicli could be considered as desirable or congenial to the feelings of any honourable Member; we find him, Vv iih more or lest. violence, possessing himself of certain documents: we fnd him at supper with Mrs. Clarke, with M'Callum. the professed libeller of the Duke of York, and with Mr. Corri ; we find him thus devoting his time to fuilil hi: duty. Mrs. Clarke shewed herself a very reluctant witness, when, instead of waiting for Mr. Dovvler paying her a visit, upon his arrival, she went to liim to an liotcl, for the purpose of (a laugh) arranging her future pro- ceedings: this proved her a very reluctant witness. 'W^o very different opinions appeared on the other side, as to the credibility of Mrs. Clarke's testimony. One hunovirable Member thought licr evidence unworthy o* credit, while a noble Lord behind considered it very cie- dible : he was rather inclined to the opinion of the no Lord Castlereagh, 407 ble Lord. It had been asked whether no part of her testimony was worthy of belief: He believed a good part of it was. fUear ! ) He believed it, because a great part of it was a fair account of her illicit purpose, intended, as he firmly believed, to bring home her de- signs against the Duke ; mark how she wished to do it with respect to Colonel's Knight and Brooke, where her falsehood was completely discovered. It might be said t be more so, when she described a list of persons which was affixed two days to the bed-head this was too extravagant for any one to believe. Then take ano- ther part of Ijcr statement, alike incredible, where she tells you, that the whole system was suggested by the Duke of York, to relieve her necessities, and that she had more patronage than the Oueen. Then she endea- voured to establish her story by other sovirces, as in the case of Ma'|or Tonyn, where she proved mistaken, and since the first day of her evidence, when she saw the likelihood of her being detected about dates, she has never recollected another date. He contended that she had been actuated through the whole of this system of fraudulent intrigue, by deliberate nudicc, and if such tes- timony as her's could be believed, the life and character of no person would be pafe. He said it was not difficult to conceive that a deliberate conspiracy existed between three or four persons, at least between three. Mis. Clarke, Mrs. Favery, her half sister, and Miss Taylor, whose evidence he conceived to have been well delineated by the la-t speaker. He asked, whether it was to he coi)e(i\ ed for a moment, without they cunsidereii the Duke ot V.-lhle tob^r^'ve this, even from an unimpeuchcd wit- m-.-^s, but .slifc was not; she recollected a something v.'hi'.h happcn',d threi years ago, and, retaining that, for 408 . hord Castle7tagk, got all others, as if she had been asleep ever sincff. Hence, he contended, that the whole of their testimony went for nothing; that it was to extort money, and origi- nated in systematic deception. It was impossible any one would believe this story, if the Duke of York could be considered as a rational being ; nor was it possible that he could lay himself open, when he broke, off this con- nection, to be degraded for his military administration^ which must have been the case, had he committed him- self with eighteen persons, which this list professed to contain. He then made some further observations on the evi- dence of Mrs. Clarke and Miss Taylor; he stated, he was decidedly of opinion, that the latter, in giving her evi- dence, was influenced by Mrs. Clarke, and ought not to be believed. He then took a circumspect and compre- hensive view of the Duke of York's conduct, as to the, dismissal of Mrs. Clarke, and contended, he would not have applied to the honourable and learned Member (Mr. Adam) to employ Mr, Lowton and Mr. Wilkinson to investigate into her conduct, if he had not known him- self to be perfectly innocent; he never had shrunk from any coercive measure she had threatened him with. He tegretted that the lettersfrom his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke had ever been written, but it shewed the purity of his motives, w'hen writing them, that he did not after- wards wish to purchase them. Alluding to the letter of his Royal Highness, presented to the House, he said it was that of an innocent man claiming that which is the birthright of every Englishman. It did not go farther than declaring his innocence, and protesting against be- ing tried in his absence, and that on evidence not given on oath. Tha clamour out of doors he hoped would never influc nee the House of Commons ; he then drew s. line between a representative and his constituentSj and. 3Ir.. Calcraft, 409 contended that it was not the duty of a Member of that Legislative IJody to attend to a popidar outcry, but ta judgf from the facts and evidence before them. He con- cluded by observing, that the Amendment of the honour, ^bk. Gentleman, Mr. Bankes, went to send the Com- mander in Chief into the presence of his Royal Father, and to tell him his son had been condemned by the House of Commons without a trial. He would ask them what must be the feelings of the parent not only at to his legitimate ofi'spring, but also his feelings as to the Jawful parent and guardian of the constitution of this country, which denied not any person, however menial and depraved, a trial. He entreated them distinctly to ?ay what were the charges against the Duke of York, not to say there was a little immorality there, or a little con- nivance here, if they could not come to a vote, that the noble Personage had committed a crime. He begged of them to pause before they sent forward to the world, that the Commander in Chief should be dismissed from his high situation, without the concurrence of any other tri- bunal than their own authority. Mr. Calcha FT said there was no man in existence felt more pain than he did, in being obliged to give a vote that tended to hurt the feelings of any part of the Royal Family. However great his delicacy on tliis subject was, he also felt for tlie justice due to his country, and what he owed it. It was a heartfelt consolation to liim to find, that any man accused had able defenders ; and the illus- tiious Personage could not have any caii.^c to complain, as he had been most ablydefenkd, which would reflect honour on their abilities, learning and foresigiit, when they ceased to exist. He ga\(; thcni all i\\k- credit for the [)art tlicy had taken, and he u:is coiiti'.icnt, in their pfficial situ;i;i(iiis, there could not he found men v;ho tould have acted with greater t,[!cnues. lie couKi n^l 410 Mr, Calcrajt, help observing tlie mLstatements of the noble Lord who spoke last, as to evidence. He was confident he could not have listened to it, or read it, with attention, or he %vould not have so much misconceived it, as to say that Messrs. Dowler and Sandon's evidence was concerted by Mrs. Claike. Would he contend that she sent to Portugal for Dowler, and to Spain for Sandon ? The noble Lord talked of a conspiracy, he wished him to shew where it.existed. Were the letters of the Duke of York to Mrs. Clarke a conspiracy ? Was the appoint- ment of Dowler as a Commissary, a conspiracy? Was the letter relating to Tonyn a conspiracy ? If not, tlie ground for supposing it, and the result originating from it, only commenced in the brain of the noble Lord, as- cended in the air, and, as usual with all inflammatcrv matter, evaporated, lie was surprised the Noble Lord should say Miss Taylor's evidence should not be credited. He had the authority of a learned Judge, (the Master of the Rolls) to state it ought to be credited ; and if he was to put the two opinions at issue, and leave it to the sense of tlie House, he had not a doubt how they would decide. The noble Lord talked of Mrs. Clarke not having an}- knowledge of the Commander in Chief's pecuniary cir- cumstcmccH, how ridiculous the argument was, when it was proved in evidence, that she attempted to negociate three loans for him ; could she have done this without 3 knowledge of his pecuniary difticulties ? and if she did, was it not natural that she mad(i him acquainted with her distresses of the same nature. The honourable Gontlc-> man, after some further observations, concluded witii giving his ^issqnt to the original motipu* Lord Milton. 411 Thursday, March 14. The Order of tlie Day for resuming the adjourned de- bate, on the conduct of the Duke of York, being then read. Lord !Mrr.TON said, that on so important a question, he had felt it his duty to the pubhc to exert himself, to come to a deliberate opinion according to the best of his ability and judgment, without being iiifiuenced by any of those clamours or considerations which he had heard from the other side of the House, were likely to have an effect on the question. He had not formed his opinion from the legal doctrines laid down in that House, nor from the doctrine ot the Learned Judge who had spoken on the other side, "vvho, in his opinion, was giiiitv of an absurdity in laving it down, that because a witness was false in any one part of her statement, that, therefore, the wliole of her evidence wa:' to be swept away. If t?\is doctrine were to be car- ried to the full extent the Learned Judge had laid it down, it would go to sweep away all, or most of the evidence on both sides of the question. He was of opinion that this V as goi)ig too far. He had formed his opinion from those parts of the evidence, which did not depend on the testi- mony of any one person of a doubtful or suspicious cha- racter, but which were connected together in a chain, which coidd not deceive. The result of that opinion was, that his Royal Highness could not be safely sutfered to ntaiu his situation. He could not go to the length of a Noble Lord near him, in sayings that he believed every .\()i(l which Mrs. Clarke had said; but, at the same time, iie could not agret; that every part of her testimony was I'aUe. 'riicre was a Rippancy and levity which took away tireat jart of the weight otherwise due to lier testimony ; lit: ;\a>; lljcrclojC; incliutd to reject every part of her pri- 412 Lord Milton. vate communications with^ the Duke of York, so far as they were uncorroborated by other evidence; but still there was a great deal of her evidence in which she was sup- ported by the testimony of others. Thus, he was of opi- nion that the evidence of Mr. Dowler had been unsuccess^ fully assailed. The story she told as to his appointment was not only confirmed by himself, but in a great measure by Mr. Long. He had heard a great deal about conspi- rators and conspiracies, but would any person say that the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Long) was one of those conspirators r The only case of direct corruption was the case of Kcunett an infamous character, and at the same time a bankrupt, from whom his Royal Highness was iiltemptlng, through the medium of Colonel Taylor, to negotiate a loan of 30,0001. or 40,000l. who, on his part, promised, if a particular otlice was conferred on him, that his Royal Highness should be accommodated to any extent. His Lordship desired the House to contrast this with the conduct of the Duke of Portland, who, when an infamous wretch came to him with a proposal for Church preferment, spurned the wretch from his door, and reported him to the Bishop of London, his Diocesan. Did his Royal Highnesss act so? No He referred the man to his Hon. Friend (^Ir. Adam). His Lordship could call the offer thus made to his Royal Highness nothing but 'a bribe. If this was not a proof of corruption, he could not conceive what was. It might be said that this case was not in point to the inquiry the House had directed to be made into his Royal tlighness's conduct as Commander in Chief. Rut hia Lordship carried it along with him into the cases of Tonyn, French, Scc. and when, in that letter of service, he saw, that if 4000 men were not raised within nine months, the Levy was to cease ; that it was not stopped at ^he expiration of that time, though not above (200 men w ere i:aised; that these men, who were nothing better thau. Lord MilloH. 4 IS ciimps, were even permitted to go on for 13 months, vvitlmi Mhich time they only raised 219 men he must say, that if ever there was a job, that was one. Tlnough whose influence, too, was this done? To his mind, through that of Mrs. Clarke. Miss Taylor, too, corroborated this evi- dence ; and, haying no other direct proof, he was entitled to make use of Kcnnctt's case, for the purpose of adding weight to it. Of the modes of ardJ)ip hoped the House would consider w ell what it was doing; that it would not be induced by threats from without doors to do much, nor by threats IVom within to do too little. If the Hou'e was convinced, that, under all the case, the Duke of York was not ht to be longer conti- nued in the situation of CommauHer in Chief of the Army of this Country, no person, he hoped, would be deterred 414 t^ofd Miliofi* from giving that vote, because it was to operate against t Prince, the son of a King ! He confessed that he, for one, felt a great objection to any son of the King holding such an ostensible situation. It was impossible not to see the feeling of the House on this occasion ; but they must not be deterred from doing their duty. They must address his Majesty, not to remove the Duke of York, but to remove the Commander in Chief. As Duke of York the House must be warped with prejudices; but he did not agree with a Noble Lord on the other side (Castlereagh), that if the House removed this Commander in Chief, they would not be able to find a substitute. He agreed that it was *n advantage to have one of the Royal Family placed as Commander in Chief, as they were not likely to be so mixed with parties. But the other inconveniencies at- tending such an appointment overcame its advantages. It w as said, howevei', that if the Duke of York were remov- ed, we would not get another person to accept of the office. He asked, if it should ever be the fate of this country to carry on the struggle on its own shores, the Noble Lord thought the Duke of York the only person who could act as Commander in Chief? The Duke of Marlborough had been removed from the office of Com- mander in Cliief, and the Duke of Marlborougli was a greater man than the Duke of York is, or ever will be. The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Pcrcevu!) thought that the Duke of York would get wiser a:; he grew older. His Lordship agreed, that if the rudiments of wisdom were once implited in the mind, it was natural to expec that the person might grow wiser with his years : but if the rudiments of folly had taken fast root, it v.as, on the contrary, more natural to expect the person to increase in folly rather than in wisdom. Did the Rigiit Honourable Gentleman really expect that \\u' Duke of York, at hi? Lord Stanley i 415 age, was to reform, merely because the Right Ilonourahle Cieiitleman informed him how very wrong a thing it was in his Royal Highness to sin against the Seventh Com- mandment? His Lordship was surprised not to have heard a single word from another Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Canning), who was very great on the subject when it was originally started. He hoped he would now at length come forward, and inform the House whether he attached infamy to the accuser or the accused ? If on the accuser, his Ix)rdship trusted he would have the candour lo say so. If on the accused, hl^ Loid^ihip waj> satisfied there was not a person in the House who would agree with him. His Royal Highness had given in a letter to the House in Mhich he declared on the honour of a Prince that he was hmoccnt. That was a phrase the like of which he had never heard before. If his Lordjhip said that he was guilty, and to no other decision could he come, while his Royal Highness, on the honour of a Prince, said that he was innocent, he did not see how it was possiblc for him (Lord Milton) to get quit of the conclusion, thai to his other guilt, his Ruval Highness had added that of falsehood. The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr Perceval) thought his Royal IliglincoS innocent, to liim, therefore, the declaration of the Duke of York, on the ho- nour o\' a Prince, that he was innocent, nuist appear per- fectly correct ; he (Lord Milton) however, ht ing of a con- trary opinion, found it difhcult to get to any other conclu- sion than that he had already mentioned. l^ord .Stanli:y had so long delayed giving \m (;[)Jnioii on this important question, anxious to prclit by the opi- nion of others of more experience and knowledge thi.12 himself. He did not think, however, that tlie case was to be tried on legal evidence, or tliat the House was bound by the rules of a legal court. They were bound to form their opinion from the conviction of their own mind, ai^d 4l6 Lord Stajitei^. ' wherever positive proof was wanting V/fere to act froitl tlieir own genuine feelings. He came to the consider;ition of this question, he was satisfied, with a mind equally un- biassed with that of the Learned Judge (Burton). If he had any bias, from the personal offices of kindness he had experienced from his Royal Highness, that bias must have been in his favour. But after the evidence at the bar of that House, sifted as he thought it had been too far, it was impossible for him to say that the Duke of York was in- nocent. He agreed with the Noble Lord who had juSt sat down, that many of the charges were not sufficiently made out, and that it was necessary to connect those that were made out with the office of Commander in Chief. If he as Commander in Chief condescended to make ap- plication to another of the Government, because he was to receive an obligation from the disposal of a place in the gift of that other branch, it was to his mind enough. A great deal had been said as to the evidence of the principal witness. One person thouglit that every word she has said is truth, another that no part of her testimony was to be believed. His Lordship's opinion was, that the greater part of her testimony decidedly belonged to truth. The Noble Lord (Folkstone) he was convinced did not ineaa t) say that she had not spoken a word which was not tri;e, but that there was not a material fact stated by lier which was not true ; and in this opinion he completely concurred. Another witness (Miss Taylor) had been very improperly confounded v/ith Mrs. Clarke. She gave evidence to a conversation in which the Duke of York himself bore a part, and in which he clearly betrayed a knowledge of the practices of Mrs. Clarke. The reason given by Miss Tay- lor for attending to this conversation ',v:is, recollecting that thcic was some man whom she V\as never allowed to sec. It appeared that Mrs. Clarke was constantly applving to the Duke of York for this, and lliat, aiiditwas tljcrcforu Lord Stanley. 417 impossible, it was inconsistent with human nature for his Royal Highness not to have conceived that this arose from tome interested or improper motive. The letters relative to O'Meara, and General Claverin;;^ are proofs of it, and if his Royal Highness had ever stopped the practice, he must then have made up his mind to submit to it. If there Was no other evidence than those letters which had beea produced at the Bar, he should have found himself called on to say his Koyal Highness knew of, and submitted to that connivance. Standing in the situation of a public servant of the Crown, his Royal Highness should not be suspected ; and the moment that he was so, should not be allowed any more to stand in that situation. His Lordship expressed his wonder how the idea of dismissing him had not at once been adopted by the King. In a former reign, the Duke of Cumberland, for the capitulation of Closter Severn, had not only been dismissed from his situation of Commander in Chief, but was even disgraced. That, his Lordship confessed, was a case of greater magnitude than the present ; but even here, he thought the oft'ence not un- worthy of the interference of his Majesty. Gentlemea had said, if the Duke of York had not been conscious of innocence, he would have submitted to the terras of Mrs. Clarke ; and that his not yielding to her proposals was a proof of innocence. A greater judge of the human heart, however, than probably any other man who ever lived, had argued this point very differently, and had shewn an in- stance in which guilt, when accompanied with rank and power, will expect to boast itself even over virtue, when unprotected. In Shakespear's play of Measure for Mea- sure, Angelo is made thus to express himself: " My unsullied name, tli' aiisterenebs ot' my li/e, May vouch against you, and my vested state. Will so yitur accusation over-wcigii, That you shall stifle in your o'A'a report, And smeli of calumny." E e 413 Lord Stanley. The Noble Lord proceeded to declare his conviction, that the commission was obtained for Samuel Carter not under the influence of the former application, but decidedly under the recommendation of Mrs. Clarke. If even the written evidence is to be believed, the instances alluded to by General Clavering, were not the only cases in which he had applied to Mrs. Clarke, and her exertions in his behalf been crowned with success. He states the reason why he applied to her it is, because he experienced her assistance in former matters. A worthy Alderman (Combe) had stated, that he asked Mr. Dowler if he had obtained hi appointment as an Assistant Commissary through Mrs. Clarke, or through the interest of Sir Brooke Watson, and that Mr. Dowler stated, that he had procured it through the latter. How was it possible, however, for that worthy Alderman to have thought of Mrs. Clarke, had it not been from the complete notoriety of her possessing and exerting influence over the Commander in Chief. The Noble Lord proceeded to observe, that it was remarkable that a speech so replete with accuracy of statement as that of the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Perceval) as that he seemed ready even to split a hair, and with a microscopic eye touched on the most minute particular, should have omit- ted every thing of magnitude. They were told that they should not attend to clamour. He was as much of that opinion as any man could be, but at the same time he was equally convinced that, so long as they continued to be the representatives of the people, the people had a right to know how they discharged their trust. The charge, how- ever, came with a peculiarly honest grace from those men who owed so much to popular clamour, the whole of whose political existence, indeed, depended on popular clamour. They were told also of the situation of the Duke of York, as if that ought to have any effect on their decision. This hf! conceived to be -as near the conSnes of impropriety a Mr. Ley rest er. 41^ |)Ossible. His Lordship was sorry for consuming so much of the time of the House, when they seemed anxious to bring the question to a vote , but this, he hoped, they would not do till they had heard some of the Country Gentlemen^ few of whom indeed had yet delivered their opinions. He should vote for the original motion, or for any amendment which might not be inconsistent with the opinion he had declared. If the general opinion of the House should be that the Duke of York ought not to remain at the head of the army, it was the same thing whether this object was effected in any one way or another. His Lordship was deci- dedly of opinion, that the Duke of York had been proved to be guilty of gross and culpable negligence in the dis* charge of the duties of his office, and also of improper connivance. Mr. Leycesteh stated, that in his view the House was bound by a regard to its own dignity and character to decide upon resolutions plain, intelligible, and decided. It was their duty to prevent any ambiguity, from which those who came after them would feel unable to assume, whether such resolutions might not be carried by one ma- jority upon one ground, and by another majority on grounds very different. This objection he imputed both to the ori- ginal Address, and to the Amendment of the Right Ho- nourable Gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes) to tlie lat- ter most particularly. In his view of the course recom- mended by that Gentleman it was this, that the House khould first acquit his Royal Highness of any corrupt par- ticipation, but that it should subsequently decide upon an ^Address to the Throne, which imputed to the Duke of York the strongest suspicion of being aware of such dis- creditable transactions. Now if it conld be contended, that the evidence made out the charge of suspicion in hig Royal Highness, he could not see how the House could suppert the first Resolution of the Right Honourable Gen^* tleinan, but if th^ House agreed, as be most sincerely did cS 420 Sir Thomas Turton. feel that there existed no grounds for the charge of criminal participation, he could not reconcile to himself by what means those who agreed in that Resolution, could after- wards vote for an Address of removal, founded as it was upon an alleged suspicion and knowledge of what was going forward, which, if true, must amount to participa- tion. The Learned Gentleman then proceedfed to discuss the various details of evidence, in so low a tone of voice, as rendered it impossible for strangers to hear. After a speech of one hour and a half he" sat down (amidst loiid cries of question, question). He concluded with an ex- pression of his determination to vote for the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Thomas Turton requested the indulgence of the House for an opportunity to state the reasons which go- verned the line of conduct he felt it his duty on that im- portant subject to adopt. He had to express his objections to all the various courses wliich were submitted to their consideration. It had long been a question of serious con- sideration with him, whether there existed in that House a legitimate power to affect not the life or hberty, but evea the character of persons whose conduct was brought be- fore it in its judicial capacity ? With such an impression, he could not but deprecate the original Address, and the milk and water Amendment which followed. The ex- alted rank of the illustrious individual whose case was in consideration, he totally removed out of his view, but if that elevation of rank conferred no ^^iviJege, neither did it deprive him of any, which as a British subject he en- joyed. To him, therefore, belonged the right of a full and fair trial by a competent jurisdiction. It was a matter of Parliamentary histoiy that the Commons did exercise its privilege of coming to resolutions upon the conduct of> persons holding responsible situations. They had done so, ot alone iu the case of Lords Somers, Halifax, and Ox- Sir TItomas Turton. 401 ford, but in a much more recent period, In the case of Iy)rd Melville. Still he would ask, was not such a course iu the present case punishment in its utmost extent ? Did it not tend to leave a stain upon the character of his Royal Highness, which, perhaps, no change of circumstance or of time could lemove? He would not deny but that the letter of that illustrious personage had filled his mind with considerable apprehensions ; still he could not conceal from himself that it contained in the desire it expressed a good deal of British feeling and British spirit. And when it expressed such a desire, and rested upon such chums to justice, he could not but view the Amendment proposed by the Right Honourable Geutleman (Mr. Bankes) as a smooth expedient, equally hostile to the illustrious person- age as the original Address, only that it was deprived of the rough bark. The handle was of gold, but the venom of the point was by no means taken away. The Learned Gentleman next proceeded to discuss the vaiious branches of evidence. He considered that Mrs. Clarke's character liad been unnecessarily commented upon. All parties had made use of her to prove their own case. She was cer- tainly to be considered as an accomplice, but her testimony was vidid, provided there was other proof to connect her evidence with the conduct of the accused. Her evidence was necessary ; indeed, if he was allowed the expression, it was to be considered the rubbish which was thrown into the interstices of the superstructure which was to be built uj)on these charges. With respect to the note, upon which a doubt was excited, whether it was a forgery or not, ho could only view that point as leading to one of two alter- nativeri ; either that if the note was forged, there was an end to the credit of the testimony upon which all the j;harges were founded ; and if it was not forged, that the circum^tatice of its reality was presumptive evidence in proof uf ih'^ uiiiueuce of Mrs. Clarke over his Royal r. e :J 422 Sir Thomas Turton. Highness. But this was not the only influence whicb the piinutes of evidence disclosed. The House had proofs of an interference in military transactions on the part of Mrs. Sutherland Sinclair with the Duke of York. On the in* timation of such a woman as that, the resignation of Ma- jor Turner was delayed for a considerable time. And on what ground ? On no other but the complaint of that lady, that Major Turner had behaved unkindly to her. It was natural to presume, that other correspondence than what was before that House did take place on this subject; and was it possible, under such circumstances, to deny that the interference and the influence of Mrs. Sutherlaud was highly improper? It was very desirable that moral purity should be preserved in the British army ; but the House should recollect, that the application of Major Turner, which was suspended, was not that he should go into the army, but that he should have permission to get out of it. (Hear, hear !) Had he died in the interval of the delay, what excuse would it have been to his executors or to his family to say, that they were deprived of his just claims^ because an allegation of unkind conduct, against Mrs. Smclair, had been communicated by the lady herself to the Commander in Chief? The Honourable Baronet could not account for the cir- cumstance of General Taylor's recommendation as to the conduct and progress of Colonel French's Levy being overlooked, particularly when the boasted regularity of the system pursued at the Horse Guards was taken into con- sideration. This circumstance did appear to his mind, when combined with Miss Taylor's evidence, to justify the Strongest suspicion of undue influence operating upon the conduct of the Commander in Chief. The learned Gen- tleman endeavoured to vindicate the lawyers against the general aspersions thrown out in the course of the debate^i ?13 he believed the Gentlemen of that profession, muc^ Mr. Ryder. 423 more fond to defend than to accuse^ and this disposition was not influenced by rank or situation in life. From the luauner in which this discussion had gone on, from thq ample and candid examination of evidence which preceded it, he deduced a consolatory circumstance, that whatever the decision of the House might be, which he hoped would be in concurrence, not with popular clamour, but popular feeling, the country would do justice to its representatives. It had been said, that the eyes of the people were turned upon them upon this occasion. Such he thought to be always the case ; but he cared not for himself, that the eyes of Argus were upon every part of his conduct. He trusted that he should continue to satisfy his constituents, and he would declare that he could not, consistently with his sense of honour and probity, vote for the Honourable Gentleman's (Mr. Bankes) Address, which insinuated much, but charged nothing nor for the original Address, tvhich required too much. Agreeing therefore with neither, he would reserve himself for the vote upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution, upon which he should pro- pose an Amendment, containing a distinct charge, to form the ground of an ulterior proceeding. This Amendment, he said, would be to the following effect : " That the Duke of York had a knowledge of the corrupt practices disclosed at the Bar." Mr. RicHAKD Ryder declared, that he not only thought with some of his Learned Friends that the evi deuce of Mrs. Clarke should be entirely laid out of consi- deration in Judging upon the case before the House, but he would go further and say, that if he were a Judge where such evidence was examined, he would order her to prison for perjuiy. As to Miss Taylor, he must, at the risk of any obloquy that attended it, express his decided opinion, tliat she was not entitled to belief. The impro- labiJity which spoke against her testimony were; inddj e 4 424 Mr. Ryder. too strong to be resisted. As to the arguments which hai been advanced relative to the rules of evidence, he ap-f pealed to the House whether any security existed against the most infamous charge by the most infamous accuser, unless the credit of such accuser were to be ascertained by the examination of collateral circumstances. If, indeed, that sort of cros-exaniination were discarded, a plausibly- constructed story would be alone sufficient to attach the imputation of guilt to the fairest character. The Learned Gentleman entered into a complimenlary detail of the services rendered to the army by the Duke of York, which, in fact, had made it the first army in the world, and therefore he appealed to the House, whether, if the most imperious necessity did not call for it, they would, particularly at such a crisis, desire the removal of such a Commander. To one part of his Royal Highness's official conduct he was enabled to speak from professional Icnowledge. He meant the administration of justice in the army, and he must say that it was impossible to witness a greater degree of solicitude than his Royal Highness uni- formly manifested for administering fair straight-forward justice, without looking to the right or to the left. He was also enabled to add, upon this point, the testimony of his jespecled predecessor, who. had found it necessary to retire from office, in consequence of ill health, and from whom he received an assurance as to the disposition of the Duke of York, which he found. to be fully justified by his own experience. When with this experience was combined the notoriety of the Duke of York's conduct respecting the improvement of the army in general his establish- ments at Marlow and High Wycombe, and particularly that at Chelsea, for the support of 1,500 orphans he could not, from any thing that had appeared before the House, persuade himself to vote for the removal of so act but he would ask, whether the prevalence of such preju- dices could be consistently dwelt upon by those persons who had themselves recommended the publicity of pro- ceeding to which they owed their birth ? With regard to the vote vvliicli the House was called upon to pronounce, he should have no hesitation in voting in the negative, upon any specific charge of corruption, but he would prefer the Address, as it amalgamated all the charges into one case, and proposed a form of proceed- ing more consonant to the dignity and usage of Parliament tlian the adoption of any or more Resolutions. It was much more consistent to carrj' the sentiments of the House to the foot of the Throne at once, than to record them in the Journals of the House in the shape of Resolutions, in which shape they might lie dormant. He was therefore an advocate for the Address, and, of the two, he should j)re- fcr the original. After some observations upon the testimony of Mr. Clarke, which he fully credited upon those points in which she was corroborated, and replying to the objections of his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Windham), as to the testi- mony of Miss Taylor, which he conceived to be quite un- shaken, and which fully proved that the Duke of York permitted Mrs. Clarke to interfere in his official duties, the Noble Lord proceeded to animadvert upon the allu- sions made to the expenditure at Gloucester-place. The inferences drawn from the amount of that expenditure ap- peared to him to be quite unfounded. Indeed before any 8uch inferences could be allowable, it must be assumed^ that the Duke of York was aware of the expence of this establishment that he was apt to look over the accounts. Now although he felt that it was no excuse for any man 425 Lord Temple. that he neglected such matters, still as this was a case upon which it was proper to speak out, he must ask, why, ii' the Duke of York never looked over his own expences, it should be supposed that he was aware of the expences of this woman? He rather believed that his Royal High- ness was much more disposed to profusion and extrava- gance, than to that sort of care and discretion which would be apt to lead to such an examination. These remarks he thought it necessary to make, in order to remove the impression which appeared to have been made upon some minds, in consequepce of the expence of the establishment alluded to. Here the Noble Lord expressed his satisfaction that he had now the pleasing part of his duty to perform namely, to acquit the Duke of York of any personal corruption; yet, at the same time, he must say, that it was evident his Royal Highness had improperly permitted Mrs. Clarke's interference upon the subject of military promotions, and bad also used his influence to procure places for her in other departments of the state of this the House had ir- refragable proof in the case of O'Meara, which he thought the strongest against the Duke of York. What, that a person professing a call from a God ! that a Minister of purity introduced by Mrs. Clarke should meet the patron-f age of ihe Duke of York ! that his Royal Highness could permit himself to be so forgetful of the duty he owed to his rank, character, and situation, furnished at once matter of astonishment, and ground for censure. But the undue influence aiul interposition of Mrs. Clarke was still further proved, by the instances of Knight, Elderton, and Clavering. This deduction from all these cases that the Duke of York did permit the interference complained of, and therefore he should vote for the Address. But if his opinions were such as had been expressed last night by his Right Ho- nourable Fj-ieiid near hina (Mr. Windham), if his mind Lord Temple. 429 Were so nicely balanced between the guilt and innocence of the Duke if, indeed, it was so near acquittal as his Right Honourable Friend professed it to be, he would not split hairs so long, and with half a hair strangle his Royal Highness. CA laugh). After all that had been proved and observed upon this subject within that House, and after a due consideration of the opinion which was known universally to prevail through- out, he would seriously ask, whether it was not meant to advise the Duke of York to resign, or whether his lloyai Highness himself did not entertain the intention ? Sure ho, was, that Ministers would not do their duty, if they did not advise his Majesty to recommend such a resignation. If not, Ministers would not deserve the confidence of any part of the country and wliat serious consequences were likely to follow? If, indeed, his Royal Highness should not resign, the most serious evils were to be apprehended. Obstacle? must arise, cross him in every step he took to thwart his views, and impede his progress in every quarter. The time, said the Noble Lord, is perhaps not far distant, when we may have to fight for British interests upon Bri- tish ground, and when all may depend upon the confidence reposed in the Commander of our army. But after what has transpired on this inquiry with the impression that prevails through the country with all that is written on the mind, and that appears to the eye, I would ask, whether the Duke of York can look for that confidence which may be so essential to our safety ? which, in f ict, is the rally- ing point, the very soul of an army in that sentiment which the address I niean to support has in view, his Royal High- ness, by the course of refurm he has promised, and which I have no doubt he will pursue, may recover the confidence >vhich must, I am sorry to say, be for some time suspend- ed. Indeed, it is impossible that this House should not feel; and that feeliDg, it should shrink from declaring that 430 ^^^' Wilhcrforle, the Duke of York cannot, at present, retain the command of the army. It behoves this House to take care how it proceeds upon this important occasion. It was an apo- thegm of Lord Burleigh's, that England could never be ruined but by its Parliament, and I say, that this country never can be ruined while the Parliament does its duty. The Lord Advocate of Scotland rose, tmidsi ft universal cry of " Mr. Wilberforce ! Mr. Wilberforce !* and said, the great impatience expressed by the House, could not however reconcile it to him to give a silent vote on such an occasion. [Here there arose a clamorous cry of question ! ques- tion ! which, though at first checked by the interposition of the Speaker, broke out at intervals, which prevented \\i from hearing more from the Learned Lord than what enabled us to conclude that he would vote for the amend- ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Wilberforce then rose and began by statin* that he deferred to the latest opportunity his intention of offering to the House his sentiments on the present most important question, because he confessed that it was his uniform and anxious wish to hear all that might be said upon the subject upon either side, according to the variouj views that different minds might be severally disposed to take of it, before he ventured to state his opinion, that he might see it, in every light, and in every shape, that \i could, perhaps, possibly appear in ; and it had been with a view to this, that he had from the very commencement of this business, down to that moment, devoted his fixed and undivided attention to every part as it passed succes- sively under his observation, both with respect to the evi- dence, and the variety of commentary that evidence had called forth; Ijecause it was his wish, as it unquestionably was his duty, to avail himself of every possible advantage, that could enable him to come ultimately to aa opiniou i however ground- less or malicious, it certainly had not been urged either ambiguously or latently. Those charges had made their way into print ; they had appeared expressly in pamphlets, which, though he had never seen, he was aware had ex- cited a lively attention on the part of the public, and there- fore must have been necessarily very generally spoken of. And yet were they, in defiance of such strong probability,' to conclude, that the Duke alone was unconscious of what he himself was most interested in, and what occupied the attention and filled the conversation of every other man. One would be inclined to suppose, that, in the discharge of the very duties of his office, he would be apt to come at some means of hearing what theme had so engaged the attention of the public ; and that if any communication of such prevalent reports had been made to His Royal Highness, it would have been received in the manner in which such a communication ought to be received, and that became an honest man, conscious of his own in-^ nocence, and not shrinking from the assertion of his ho- nour. It had long been a general notion that the army patronage had been corruptly disposed of. Was the Duke of York quite ignorant that such a notion had been generally entertained ? and that some mistress was believed to be the channel through which that pa- tronage had been exercised and abused ? From the edu- cation of His Royal Highness, he could not have been ignorant that at all times a mistress had been the active instrument in carrying into effect corrupt traffic. His Rojal Highness could not be well versed in the history of this country if he did not know what influence in forwarding aud promoting schemes of corruption the mistrcbrcs of Mr, JVilberforce, 433 princes had at all times evinced. lie must have read but little of the history of France, if he had not discovered that it inculcated the same truth, and that in all ages of corruption the mistresses of princes kept a sort of shop for bartering the favours of the Court, and it did not appear that in the present age they were willing to resign their prescriptive right to that species of traffic. A Right Hon. Friend of his(Mr. Yorke) had slated that the lady had come from the shop of an army broker into the protection of His Royal Highness, and that, therefore, she came ready made for the work she had afterwards so assiduously and successfully devoted herself to; but should not the know- ledge of this circumstance have operated only to have made His Royal Highness more watchful of her move- mcnts, and more jealous of her interference in his official duties ? was he to be less suspicious of resorting to such practices, because he knew that she been long in the habit - of them r and did not this go, along vvidi every other circumstance, to increase their astonishment, that the Duke of York could have had no suspicion of her corrupt traf- ficking r WiU another circumstance which he found it equally difficult to reconcile, was the knowledge the Duke of York must have had of the pecuniary necessities of .Mrs. Clarke. He did know that she was distressed for money, and at the very peiiod that she was constantly in the habit of soliciting him, from time to time, in behalf of many different persons of various ranks, and different professions. Now, when he put all thse things together, tliey did, when accumulated, appear so strong and irre- sistible, that he must repeat his astonishment that it could be possible for the Duke to have felt no suspicion of Mrs. Clarke being involved in such corrupt transactions. There did appear in the evidence of Corri, a circumstance that hs could not Jjelp thinking also went to shew how unlikely it was that the Duke must have been wholly free from Ff 414 Mr,- Wilberforc(f, sii=;picioiT ; when it appeared, that a few nronths^ feefore the connection was broke, that she had ordered Corri to burn all her letters and papers^ and that she had acknow- ledged that the Duke had heard something which had transpired, and that he was very angry, and that they might be brought before the House. There was another cir- cumstance which h'e could not help observing upon, and vrhich shewed a sort of wilful blindness on the part of the Duke of York to the dangers and difficulties of his situa- tion y he meant His Royal Highness never having shewn any wish to consult, nor never having actualty consulted nny of those honourable and good men with whom he was surrounded, as to the best mode of preventing Mrs. Clarke in her interference with his official duties^ and of guarding himself and his diaracter against any committal of either with his mistress ; upon such a subject his mis- tress could not be the fittest guardian of his honour, and one would have expected that on the least suspicion of her interference he' would have at once resorted to tlie advice of such honourable men ; but, on the contrary, he not only avoids all intercourse with them on the subject lie not only does not communicate with them upon i*, but he tries to keep them in the dark. This was not the conduct of a man who was himself free from suspicion. But there could be no doubt, on the other hand, of thfr paramount influence this conmiunicntion had upon his mind, and that he was naturally disposed to submit to an influence of this kind was to be inferred from another cir- cumstance that had come out in the evidence. He alluded to that, where it appeared that on a particular occasion, when an application had been made for leave to sell out on the {)art of Major Turner, it was delayed in conse- quence of a letter from Mrs. Sinclair Sutlterland prefer- ing a groundless complaint against Major Tnrp.t r ; but it was necessary for the Duke.tu satisfy Colonel Gordon^am^ 5 Mr. Wilbetforce. ' 435 accortiingly he put this letter into his hands when he re- quired of him to delay forwarding Turner's business. They I'ecoUected, too, that Colonel Gordon had said that he did not then know such a person in the world. Here it was only necessary to add, that it was beheved that Mrs. Su- therland had been, at a former period, mistress to His Royal Highness. Here, then, he not only shut his eyes, but industriously deceived those and kept them in the dark who might have been able to have led him aside from the dark precipice to which he was advancing, and it was mat- ter of great regret to perceive, that though it did appear in evidence, that Colonel Gordon shared a due portion of the confidence of the Commander in Chief in the depart- ment of his office, that there was no reason to believe that djat con^dence extended to any thing beyond official com- munication. Colonel Gordon was deprived of the means of rendering him the best office of a friend he was not the bosom friend ^^he was not permitted to be the bosom friend of His Royal Highness, and it would have been well for the latter that he had, the communication must have been attended with the most beneficial consequences, for it appeared Colonel Gordon had all along kept himself at a dignified distance from the private immoralities of IVis Royal Highness. Before he proceeded to comment upon the cases, which he should do with all possible brevity, he could not help making one remark of practical importance, it was with respect to the very difterent circumstances in which the persons at the different sides of the question were placed. A Noble Lord behind (T^ord Folkstoue), in his most excellent speech had said, and truly said, that the accused had had every advantage of legal knowledge, and eVery other aid that rank, power, and influence could give him; and, thererefore, if any unfavourable impres- sions remained with respect to any of the charges, or all of them, it certainly was not because any thinj; that could, iu Ff2 45<5 Mr. Wilberforce. the remotest degree, be brought forward, wliellier to dis- prove, to palliate, or to justify, had ehided the vigilance, or escaped the sagacity of his numerous and zealous advo- cates. With regard to the evidence i4) general, he should not think it necessary to go then into abstract commentary on the rules and nature of evidence ; but in charges of that nature, the proof must come either from Mrs. Clarke, or the DuLe of York, or those who received the favours, and the agent!? who were employed in the transaction. Now it did so liappen, that they kad laid before them all tl>cs several sorts of evidence. They had Mis. Clarke's they had that of the Duke of York himself (hear! hedr!)-^ they had that of those persons who had been benefited by receiving those favours ^and they had that of the agents who had been employed in treating for them. They had also, beside the letters written by the Duke himself, se- veral other notes and letters written at the time, and at a listance, that it was not possible any of them could have been written in latent reference to those charges. With re- gard to the witnesses, be would say a few words, and first, as to Mrs. Clarke, her testimony, no doubt, waa to b received with all due caution, but where corroborated it must be credited. A Right Honourable and Learned Friend of his (Mr. Ryder) had talked of the diflference be- tween evidence on oath and taken at the bar of that House, his Right Honourable Friend would no doubt do him the justice to recollect that he had in the beginnir^ foreseen many of the difficulties, aud had anticipated the inconve- niencies that would result from such a mode of proceeding as the present ; at the same time he could not admit the force of his Right Honourable Friend's objection ; and when his Learned Friend said that Mrs. Clarke would have answered in a very different way upon oath to what she had done at the bar, he replied to that by asking if th House wouI4 not have received her evidence upon oath ia. Mr. Wilherforct. 437 a very different manner. (Hear! heart) Bat .^e how !ie was contirincd, and ho\r unex]>ectedly, how extraor- dinarily confirmed, too ; there \*ere many parts of her evi- dence which, when they were first given, he and many Gentlemen near him thought at the time she was ro- mancing. Who believed her when slie first mentioned Dr. O'Meara ? lie, for his part, thought the same Dr. O'Meara to be a mere creature of her own imagination; and agaia, in the case of General Clavering, where she was compelled to bring forward unknown ;ind forgotten documents,' that put the truth of her evidence beyond doubt. He would now mention one or two instances of imall confirmations, that though small, were by no means unimportant ; the first was the manner in wliicli she had received the slip of paper from Dr. Thyime, concerning which she gave the same account Dr. Tliynnc had given, and before slie could possibly have known that he had given the account he did, and she stated, that she shewed this slip of paper to the Duke after dinner another small confirmatiou was, that she had stated that she never suf- fered a livery servant to come into the room when His Royal Highness happened to be present ; now in a subse- quent examination it appeared, that Sanuiel Carter and the coachman, liiid both upon one occasion attended in the room when the Duke was there, but it afterwards came out by mere accident, and not at all with a view to confirm her former testimony, that in fact, upon that occasion, neither Carter nor the coachman wore a livery. There wa?lso another small confirmation as to the list containing th names of the parties applying, the tilings to be obtained, and the sum proffered for them. Now, those matters might appear trifling, but he could not think they were ; the more trifling they were, the less claim they could have }iad to the accuracy of her memory ; but unquestionably the grand confiroi&tions are th Duke's letters and the rf J 438 Mr. Wilberforce. other papers. He thought it was evident from those let- ters, which she never could have foreseen would have been brought forward, that there had been a long and habitual interference on the part of Mrs. Clarke in military matters; and here he could not avoid expressing his surprise that honourable gentlemen should have omitted to make any observation whatever on these papers^-they did not ap> pear to have attended at all to this most important part of the written evidence, and though they were deciding as judges, they forgot to sum up all the evidence. It was utterly impossible that Mrs. Clarke could have foreseen that those notes could have confirmed her testimony in this case. Suppose that the friends of the Duke had known that so many of her letters were in the hands of Captain Sandon and Mr. Nichols, would they not, from the con- fidence they felt in his innocence, have exuhingly called for those letters, and expected to have found those valua- able documents to contain satisfactory proofs that the charges were grossly false ; but instead of that they novv rather served to give colour to those charges, and afford strong proofs of some of the material parts of some of the charges. At the same time he did not believe that the Duke of York loi-ked to the sale of commissions as a constant source from whence to supply his necessities. This he did not believe. Neither did he believe her when she said that the Duke of York told her that she had more power than the Queen. Therefore, of the absolute knowledge of the coriiptiou he thought they might acquit the Duke. The chief importance of Knight's case he thought to be, that it went to sheM' that there was a general prevailing senti- ment that there was no way of getting on in the army but by such base traffic. Dowler*s case he thought to be a most serious one. There was certainly not the slightest proof of the one thousand pounds having been paid, but then be tlioii^ht it made out that the appointment was yet Mr. Wilheiforce. 439 throHgh her influence. He had good reason for believing that the politics of Dowler had been opposite to those of Sir Brooke Watsou ; tlic He iiad l>cen fifteen years a member of the Whig club, and had opposed the other in tis own ward ; it was not likely that Sir Brooke would put him into a situation in his own office. With respect to French's levy, there certainly was something in that exceedingly suspicious ; Jie would not go into it, but the evidence had becK, in a great measure, confnmed by the letter^ in the whole of it Captain Sandon, whether her dupe or her accomplice, seems to have had every opinion of the strength of lier influeiKe over the Duke of York. So much so as that he was in the habit of sending her money from time to time. The words of the Duke, as deposed to by Miss Taylor, were by some Genllen>en denied to i>e necessarily im|jlying a criminal connivance on the part of tlie Duke ; but he was at a loss to say to what those words could have alluded, unless they meant what money ^Irs. Clarke was getting by the levy. However, on these words merely, as k was impossible to be sure of their ac- curacy, he would not find the Duke guilty of corruption. Another ci<'cuiiistance wae, that Capt. Sandon had given 4)recisely the same account at Torlsmoutli originally, which he afterwards gave here. The influence of this woman was unquestionably very great, and wlin they recollected liow readily he yielded to the solicitatioiis of Mrs. Suther- land, in by no means a reasonable request, they would be better enabled to judge how much greater the influence of Mrs. Clarke must have be^'U, and how much farther he could have been led by her, if he could be induced to go so far, in such a case, for Mrs. SuUierland. TImj situation -of the Duke was like that of a man, who, after neglecting his allairs for some time, was afraid to look into ihem, conscious of his 5-ituation, but endeavcnning lo blind hinj- .i'Jf lo it uiilll he deceives himself into a fatal misapprc- rf4 440 Mr. Wiiherforce hensicn of hi real condition ; every man that was at all conversant with our nature, must know liow easily we can deceive ourselves when we earnestly wish to do so. He could not, however, positively say that the Duke actually Icnew of the corruption. He disapproved, however, so much of the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, that if no option was left him but that he must decide either for that or the original Address, he must say, that of the two convictions, the stronger one would incline him to vote with the Honourable iSIember (Mr. VVardle), but to both he preferred the Amendment of his Honourable Friend (Mr. Bankes) ; that was entirely satisfactory to his mind. I'he Gentlemen opposite wished to have it stronger, but that was an old trick. He was too old a soldier not to be aware of that trick in parlia- mentary warfare. {A laugh.) He approved of it every way ; thought it just and manly, and it spoke the truth ; if it leads to -a ' most painful suspicion, he could not help that he was not guilty >it was not he who was cruel towards His Royal Highness, they had been guilty and cruel, who did not, before it was too late, awaken him to a si-'use of his situation. In adverting to the internal evidence, Mr. Wilbcrforce expressed his conviction that there could be no plot in the case, Mrs. Clarke, it appeared, was on bad terms with ?tlaltby, with Sandon, and others with whom this plot must have been contrived. Dowler and Sandon had but just arrived from the Continent. There was, he frankly confessed, the strongest coniirmation of her evidence on some of the most material points in the letters a sort of evidence which had always been considered as the best, as they were written at the time ; and of many of these she herself did not know the existence. He next adverted to the argument in favour of the Duke of York, deduced from the management of the arnjv. As far as this tended to" Mr. H'iiberforoe. 441 liew that these transactions liad no material bad effect on the character of the army, he thought the argumeut a juit one ; but when brought forward as something to be placed in tht opposite scale, it lathet tended to prove the Btrength of tie evidence. He allowed that ihe Duke of York, by placing Coloiiel Oordon, and otlier most ho- nourable persona, about him iu his office, had given a bond to the public for tlie correctness of his own conduct and one could only regret that he had not, when he knew of ^J.s. Clarke's interference, given instructions to Uiem to check it. lie could not doubt, from the evidence of the tlonourable General opposite (Sir A. Wellesley), and otiiers, that improvements had taken place in the constitution of the army ; but he rather thought the Hon. General did not do justice to himself or his fellow soldiers, when he ascribed his and their victories to die Duke of York. The excellence of the British, he ratlier ascribed to the freedom of the British Constitution, and that gra- dually-descending scale of rank, which gave every hidc- pendent man consequence, and a feeling of dignity which spread over the whole community Magno nc corpore miscct. If the House refused to state the conviction which this evidence was calculated to produce, the public would not believe that they were not convinced, but only that political reasons prevented their expression of that couviction. The House ioper effect on all the mem- bers of the family. The more they looked to that exam- ple the more they would consult their own honour. The requisition upon llu- private feelings of the House he con- sidered as inconsistent vvith its judicial character. A Judge was bound to pronounce, not from a private feeling, but according to the evitlcncc. He lututioned an f)bseivation of Judge Hale, one of the mt)st luunuuc of judges, that Dieny was also due to the country. 4 Mr. Canning. Mr. W. proceeded, amidst coughing, and loud cries for" the question, to state that it became gentlemen to consider well whether they would permit his lloyal Highness to re- Snain in the chief command of the army after the scenes which had been disclosed at the bar. As far as he was con- cernedj he must say that the Duke of York could not be al- lowed to remain there with safety and prudence. As an histanceof the danger, he observed, that the enemy miglit, by large bribes, have recourse to such a woman for inform- "Tation: and he adverted to the cifects of such a policy in the Austrian campaigns, and in the case of the Emperor Paul of Russia. When so great sacrifices were required of the people they had a right to expect the severest cen- sure of these practices from their representatives. Much of the character of the House with the public depended upon the vote of that niglit. He did not say that they ought to act from popular influence in opposition to their own conviction ; but it ought to be recollected that the House derived its strength from the confidence of the peo- ple. Some verbal alterations in his motion he thought his Honourable Friend would not object to ; but on account of any little objection of that sort. Gentlemen ought not to bo jestrained from performing a great practical duty. Mr. Canning rose amidst loud cries of Question I and made an ingenious speech, to which the lateness of the hour precludes a possibility of doing justice. He str^ongly objected to the compromise of opinions on this UDJect, and was astonished that his Honourable Friend (Mr. Wilberforce) of all men, should have proposed such a thing, considering how little he had practised the tactics of Parliament. The House ought to come to a specific decision on the charge of corruption. His Honourable Friend had said that he was not prepared to say that the Duke had connived (No, no, from Mr. Wilberforce). Then he was prepared to say so (No, no). Then he was not prepared to say any thing on the subject, (ji lotid Mr. Canning. 445 laugh). Aiid this was the result of six days debate. H felt deeply on the point of morals, but he doubted whether it was a subject proper for this House to take up. H denied that tiie House was disposed to interpose a shield between his Royal Highness and conviction, merely on ac- count of his illustrious descent ; but he hoped the consi- deration of his rank would not operate against him. He afHrmed, that if the Address of Mr. \VardIe was carried, corruption would appear on the record ; and, therefore, justice to the illustrious Duke required that the House should, in the first instance, decide on the charge of cor- ruption. The plan proposed on the other side was of the same nature as if a Judge should say to a Jury, " Gentle- men, whether the prisoner is guilty of this of that, I know not ; but that is not the question for you to decide : yoii are to consider whether, from other circumstances, it may not be prudent to have him hanged." (A laugh). The grave charge of corruption having been made that ought to be disposed of. But he allowed that after that there were minor considerations which well deserved the attention of the House. This question, however, ought to be disposed of separately. With regard to the letter of the Duke of Y'ork to the House, he stated that the mean- est person at the bar of a couit of justice was forced to plead not guilty. He was forced to say that he would be tried by God and his Country. Yet when the Duke of York called for trial in this way, it was to be denied him. Was that equality ? The mode which the Duke of York had taken of addressing a letter to the Speaker, he affirmed to be a much better course than if he had himself come into the House, for in the latter course he must have soli- cited the consent of his Peers. He affirmed, in opposition to what had fallen (rem the last speaker, that the letters had been fully considered by those who supported the pro- puMtiong of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and men- 44^ Mr, Canning, tfoned that thiily-one out of forty-two had been commented an in one speech (that of Mr. Croker). The note which had excited such a sensation had been svi'elled into more importance than it deserved. He pro- tested against this method of drawing inferences from the letters of pubiic men, and mentioned an instance of a let- ter which he himself had written to a poetical L^dy, who bad written an Ode on Vaccination, which by such infe- rences might be tortured into high treason. He expressed bis astonishment that it should have been said, that Sir B. Watson could not have appointed Mr. Dowler, because liis father differed from him in politics; and remarked with a great deal of humour, upon the lofty political dissen- sions between Deputy Dovvler and Commissary Watson. Me denied that he had said that infamy must attach to the, accused or the accuser^ though he did say that it must rest somewhere ; and it did rest with that confederacy, of which the Duke of York had been the dupe and the vic- tmr. As he had in one instance been misrepresented by- addition, he had in another been misrepresented by cur- tailntent: When lie said that some men might be led to. dt>ubt whether the licentiousness of the Press did not over- balance its benefits he had added, that the evil was tern-, pbiaryi butlhe good permanent. This had been left out, and as an argument in favour of hi$' own reeoUectiwi, he alhided to the misrepresentation as having taken place in- one publication only, out of twelve. Mr. Canning also observed, that before these charges had been brought for- . waid, it would have been well to have weighed, whether the evil wonld not surpass the good that could be produeedi; This was his feeling, and he would not conceal it, thou^ ht should be misrepresented se far as to have said, that- the transgressions of Princes ought to be overlooked. W- the day should come, when the thanks of the House should' be moved to th accuser, be would oppose the motion;, Lord FoiksioftcMr. Pofisonhj/, %47 and he tmsteil he would find man}- to join him. He con- el tided a most abJe speech, by agnin insisting upon the ne- cessity of coming to a distinct resolution on the cliarge of corruption. Lord Folk STONE, in e:cplanation, said, that as to the observafions which had fallen from him, on the point of infamy, they fell to tlic ground, if the Right Honourable Gentleman had not made use of tlie words attributed to him ; but, at the same time, he spoke not from any pub- lication, but from his own recollection. In allusion to an insinuation against hiui, by Mr. Canning, he observed, tfiat he had arrogated to himself more authority than the Almighty, when he (Mr. Canning) visited ihe sins of the father on the children, to the third and fourth generation. His Lordship appealed to the House' as to the want of li- berality and decency in such a proceeding {Hear, hear, hear!). Mr. PoNSONBY observed, that the House must have been highly satisfied with the cool and candid manner in which the Right Honourable Gentleman had performed his judicial duty {a loud langh). The Right Honourable Gentleman assumed that it was the duty of the House to proceed by Resolution. But where he found this piinci* pie, he had forborne to state. He (Mr. Ponsonby) was disposed to acquit the Duke of York of personal corrup- tion ; but on what remained he had no doubt that his Royal Highness ought to be removed from his situation of Com- mander in Ciiicf. It was utterly impossible, the Hononrahle Gentleman observed, to say that the Duke of "^Oik v ;iS not implicated in the corruption, wlicn he allowed Mrs. Clarke to per- se voic ill carr;-!!;^ U on. The cuse of Kennett \^as surely rif>i carinv'.tcij -,, iih the army, ^lll, at the .siini' time, the Mlt'.r V, as Hindi' t'j til'.' Duke oi^^ York as Commander in Ciatfj and \hx liou-.t 'L<\ not liud that the conuuuincati(^ti 448 Mr. Tierney. bad been dwcontinued. This transactioa was so ii^ar 19 personal corruption, so loose and vague in itself, that it was impossible to say it should not actuate the conduct of the Commander in Chief. This was a case of all otberi in which the educated part of the cammunity was capable of judging. They were accustomed to weigh evidence ts well as the Members of that House, and it was in vain for Gentlemew of their own authority to give such a cha- racter to their own proceedings. Theie never was any thing so necessary as that the People should have confi- dence in their llepreseutatives that they should think them Bonourablej and that ihey should really be so. The question was then loudly called for, and the stran- gers were ordered to withdraw. Mr. TiERNKY spoke after the Gallery was cleared, but the purport of his speech we Mere unable to collect. While the Noes were in the Lobby, Mr. Perceval ad' dressed them. He observed, that it was likely there might be several divisions to-night. The first merely regarded the form of proceeding. The second would dispose of Mr. Wardle's Address. If it should be negatived, he should then move the second of his Resolutions, having waved the first. The effect of this Resolution would be, to declare the opinion of the House on the innocence of the Duke of York. Having succeeded in it, he should move that the farther proceedings be adjourned till Friday. He begged, however, that Gentlemen would not leave the House, as it was desirable that the main question should be carried this night, and he suspected there might be several divisions. On a division the numbers were For Mr. Bankes's Amendment 199 Against it 294 Majority a|;ain$t the amendment , . , . . 9^ Chancellor of the Exchequer, 449 A secoud division afterwards took place on Mr. Perce- val's ameadment on Mr. Wardle's Address. For tUe amendmeut 564 For the original motion 1'23 Majorit)' in favour of the Duke of York . C41 Adjourned. Friday, March 17. The Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Charges against the Duke of York, hav- ing been read, the Speaker stated the question. Some conversation then took place between the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Tierney, with reference to something that had passed on the last night of the dis- cussion, as to the mode of proceeding. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to know if there were any ob- jections to the Resolution he had then read to the House, to which Mr. Tierney objected. The Chancellor of the Excheouer thought it un- necessary that the House should come to a distinct Reso- lution upon the question. When the fust Resolution he had proposed should be withdrawn, he considered Gentle- men might then engraft any motion upon the Address which they thought expedient. The motion which he intended to propose, -would have the effect of stating, that the House, having examined the Charges, and heard evi- dence thereon with respect to the allegation of corruption in the sale of commissions, and having carefully considered the evidence, and finding that personal corruption and con- nivance have heen alleged without evidence to make good the said allegations, express an opinion on the truth of these allegation?. The Right Honourable Gentleman 450 illr. Tiernci/. did not wish to press this Resolution, which was merely descriptive. Mr. TiERNEY considered the course which the Right Honourable Gentleman proposed to pursue, as not to be the best that could be adopted. He had one great objection to the Resolution, namely, that upon entering it upon the Journals, it would appear as if nothing had come before the House to criminate the Duke of York. With respect to the charges of corruption or ciiminal connivance th6 question of the Address on a former night had disposed of these topics, and, as he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House. He was desirous of remedying the incouvenien- eies to which they had been placed, by proposing some measure best calculated to convey to the public the real sentiments of their Representatives, and to satisfy that anx- iety which was so evident in the public mind. He had no objection that there should be distinct Resolutions to convey the idea, that the charge of corruption was done away. The character of the Duke of York he conceived to be public property. If the official functions had been vested in any other man, he should have conceived it as private property. The people had a right to object, as their interests were concerned, that no person should si( upon the Throne whose character had been tainted. He did not mean to say that his Royal Highness the Duke of York was in such a situation. In an liereditaiy govern-^ ment, where it was known that Princes were vicious, care had been taken to prevent them from ascending the Throne, As to the present case, it had not been proved that his Royal Highness had been guilty of corruption. An idea had gone abroad that the House had disposed of the ques- tion entirely. It was with this view that he would wish to propose some question for the decision of tlie House, so that the public might be assured that Parliament had not entirely disposed of the case. {Hear! hear!) The im- |)>>;ssion Was so very general that the Duke of Ynk had received an acquittal, that every Genlloniaii must be inte- rested in endeavouring to remove it. The proposition which he should submit for their consideration, would go that length. The Right Honourable (icntleman had said, that all that the House had to do was to inquire whether his Royal iligluicss the Duke of York was corrupt. They had already acquitted him of corrtiption. Tie was dis- posed to acquiesce in that acquittal ^ but then his Royal Highness came before the House in another character that of a public functionary. If Royal Persons would take upon themselves the character of public functionaries, the House was bound to decide on their conduct, as if tliey were any other persons. (Ilea}' ! liear !) In the Resolu- tion the Right Honourable Gentleman proposed, it was necessary that Parliament should inquire into the oilier matters growing out of the Charge ; and a Resolution to the effect he proposed would answer that purpose. As jt now stood, it would go forth in the world, that all the House of Commons had to enquire about, was wiiether his Royal Highness was corrupt or not, and to come to the simple question of guilty. Aye or No. Would the Right Honourable Gentleman agree to a Resolution to this effect; That having inquired into the Charges alleged against the Duke of York, the House thought it necessary to inquire into the whole of the circumstances connected with his Royal Highness as Commander in Chief? It was more painful to those who wish well to the Duke, to pro- nounce an opinion upon his conduct as Commander in Chief. It was his wish to let his Rnal Highness's affairs pass as mildly as possible, but by pressing a Resolution to that effect, the Right Honourable Gentleman had fortd Jiim to say what otherwise he would not have said. He knew that his Rosal Highness, and all those who knew him were batished, that be was entitled to every thin^ that could C g 2 452 Mr. Ticrneif. be said of him, as a mild, good-natured, and attentive mas in his official capacity ; but entertainiivg that opinion of hi Royal Highness, he had another duty to perforin, a ddty to the public, and this made it necessary for him to declare, that public offices should not be filled by persons on whom even suspicion might rest. Tlie Right Honourable Gen- tleman, by his Resolution, >vould pass over every thing of the kind, and would acquit his Royal Highness of corrup- tion, and declare to the pubtic that they must be satisfied with that acquittal. The House would then be placed in an extremely awkward situation. The minds of all ranks of the public bad been turned by anxiety. In every company it was the subject of conversation ; and here, when the public were exj)ecting an opinion upon the conduct of the Duke of York, a Resolution is proposed, which gives no opinion at all I He was far from being a slave to public opinion, but if he did not pursue that line of conduct which, as a public man, he conceived was proper, he should be ashamed to look the public in the face ! What was the object of the Address which the Right Honourable Gentleman pro- posed? It was in effect an Address to his Majesty, to con- tinue the Duke of York in his command. For, after it& ~ stating the inquiry that had been gone into, the hope was expressed that his Royal Highness the Duke of York would imitate the bright example set by his illustrious parent during the whole of his reign. What was this? Why, giv- ing to his Majesty something more than a broad hint, that iiis Royal Highness should not be removed. (Hear! hear!) He wished to guard Gentlemen against going too much with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ! With respect to the letter, he must say that his Royal Highness had been hardly dealt with. This, in his opinion, was the produc- tion of a cabinet. {Hear! hear!) The Right Honourable Gentleman, on a former night, had insinuated that the Honourable Member who brought forward the Charges, Mr. Tier n if. 45 S liad coHsuited cooler heads than his own, but what should he (Mr. T.) sJiy of his Uoyal Highness when he sent such a letter as that to the House? Why, that his Roy! Highness had not consulted cooler heads, but weaker beads than his own. -.{Hear! hear!) He really believed, that the Duke of \ o:k would never have put his name to that paper, had he been consulted. He had Unt his name to mean and base purposes! He could not understand why the Duke of York did not write the letter when the charges were fust brouglit forward. Some doubts had been entertained as to the proceedings of the House being judicial. His Royal Highness certainly had a right to be heard; and with respect to the assertion in the letter, ** upon the honour of a Prince !" if be said upon the ho- nour of a Prince, it may be understood, in fact it was, a sort of a flourish, which he believed the Secretary for Fot eigu -Affairs knew who wrote. It was unwortliy of the Duke of York. He regretted that he should be decoyed into ex- presi^ing such sentiments as he liad done in that letter. It was in fact written for the sole purpose of keeping Minis- ters in office i The regret expressed u as evidently the hand}^ work of a Special Pleader 1 The Houple so safe as with their liejM-e- seniativesr {Hear! hear!) The House were not bound by a:i. slntt rules, and Ive would propose to put into the Address what !. t only would satisiy the King of his Son's lionour, but would also sali.sfy \.\v: public. And by the Iieioluti'jiJ, it V. as of important coubequcnce to the 2)ublicj t; g 3 454 Mr, Bathwit. that his Royal Highness should not be retained as a public officer, unless his conduct was proved to be beyond tho reach of doubt. He could not^ therefore, vote for the second Resolution, He could not say therein what was passing in his mind it was unpleasant on this occasion that he could not agree to the second Resolution, without there was a distinct pledge that the House should come to an opinion upon the whole of the proceedings. He agreed most cordially with those who described the merits of the Duke in military matters. With respect to a precedent on the subject of his Royal Higlmess's removal, there had been one in the case of the Duke of Marlborough, vlio Mas charged by the Commiysioiiers of Public Accounts with having convertea to his own use the sum of 63,0001, from contracts for suj)plying bread to the army on the conlincnt. The House had determined to lake the matter into consideration, and the Duke resigned. Her Majesty in Council, however, determined that he should resume his appointments. The enemies of the Duke of IN'Iarlborough interfeicd; and, on the present occasion, if the enemies of the Duke of York had been quiet, his Royal Highness, perhaps might have resigned, and no possible imputation, Mould have rested on his character! The Right Honour- able Gentleman, he recollected, upon the production of the letter, had made use of some great words in allusion to those Gentlemen objecting to the letter; he had said,^ " Whj, you won't hear the Duke of York you wish to condemn him unheard." He now, however, wished to withdraw the Resolution, which had the effect of allowing a hearing to the Royal Duke. However painful, there- fore, he must come to a vote against the Right Honour- able Gentleman. Mr.BPtAGGE J^ATBUR ST conceived that oneof the objec- tions to the Resolution aiose out of the word " Charges,'' in the way in which it was used in the Address^ and not ia Mr. Barham. 453 Xhe Resolution. The public might, he thought, have fonneil a wrong opinion of the proceedings of this House, but he could not think that any thing which could be in- troduced would accelerate the public mind. There was not any occasion to withdraw the Ucsolution for the pur- pose of engrafting on it the future course of proceeding His llight Honourable Friend had said, that it was competent for any oilier Gentleman to move tliat there was a degree of censure imputable to his Royal Highness, a degree of shame, short of corruption. With that view he wished the question withdrawn ; it was necessary the House should pronounce an opinion, and lie originally intimated that lie should submit a proposition to that effect. But he did uot agree that it was prudent to move an Address which must put the Crown to the necessity of adopting pro- ceedings which, under such circumstances, must be pain- ful. Mr. Barham considered that those Gentlemen who had voted for the Resolution, had been obliged to do so, because they could not agree to either of the Addresses proposed. He was one of those who could not bring him- self to think that degradation and eternal infamy was no punishment. He could not consent to pronounce judg- ment for w hat in the Address was ambiguous. It was suf- ficient for the character of the Duke of York, that the Charges were not proved. Although his Royal Highness might not be guilty of corruption and connivance, yet he miglit be guilty of great misconduct, so as to render him unworthy of trust. It was therefore better not to dismiss ihe subject without cxpressljig an o])inion. He did not ijpprovf! of an address full of llattcry. It was therefore an act of justice due to public opinion, that this House should *;xpre'.-,.s lucir sentinunls iu a manner most likely to meet tiie objects which all l)ayhat had been said^ connected with the mode adopted in the present instance. He had adopted the suggestion of an Honourable Gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bathurst) in order to convey his sense, tliat his Royal Highness was not guilty of corruption, or of connivance at corruption, in the most clear manner. The Resolution he had to submit, would therefore be, " llrat it is the opinion of this House, after the fullest and most attentive investigation of the evidence reported by tlur Comniittee of the v.liole House, appointtu to in- <4uire into the conduct of his Royal Highness the JJuke of ChiinceUor of the Ejichequcr. 46 i \ork, lliere is no ground for charging him, in the execu- tion of his oftice of Commander in Chief, with personal corruption, as alleged in the said evidence, or any con- nivance in the corrupt and infamous practises therein ex- posed." His meaning was distinctly this, that there was no ground for carrying forward such charges against his Royal Higiiness, as they were not founded in fact. An Honour- able Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) had said, he could not agree with him, because something unpleasant against the Duke of York remained on his mind. Surely the prlodiu:iblo from his Resolution; that the lAiirc of York should be continued in office, though the House should resoke that he was not guilty of the charges. Though they should acquit him of corruption or of connivance, jstiil they would not be justified in coming to a vole for his coutinuuuce ia otHcc, aittr the evidence they had heard. He hoped the Honourable Baronet would withdraw his Anicnihuent, that they might have an opportunity of pulling a direct ntixative on the resolution of the Cliaiicellor of the Ex- chequer. i h\v. Ellison felt the important duty which was cast 474 Mr. Ellison, Hpon hitn, as a senator, upoft this most awful dccasion. He had bestowed all the attention he was able to com- mand on (be evidence which had been given at the Bar of the House upon this subject. He had attended also, as well as he was able, to all the arguments which had ben urged on either side of it ; the result of the whole pras, that, in his mind, bis Royal Highness the Duke of York was indeed guilty guilty of connivance in the shame- ful traffic of Mrs. Clarke in military promotions. Much had been said about clamour out of doors on this subject, supposed to have been raised for the purpose of deterring Members of the House of Commons from giving their opinion freely on the great question now before tliem. He thought there was no foundation for that complaint, for he had no doubt that every member of that House would do his duty in it independent of any other considera- tion than that of the performance of that duty ; and here y, he must invoke the integrity of each individual member whom he now had the honour of addressing through the inedium of the Chair. I^t every man who heard him, lay his hand upon his heart, and say, if he could say, after he had read the evidence given in this case, that the Duke of York was not guilty of connivance at the mal-practices of Mts. Clarke in military aiwl. other promotions, which ehe procured, and alsd* tried to procure, through the me- dium 6f the influence which she had with the Comman* derin Chief? He was ready to admit that the evidence of Mrs. Clarke was in itself somewhat suspicious, but sup- ported by other testimony, and connected with circum- stances, it must bring conviction to the minds of all who heard it, and that the more remarkably, as her evidence was corroborated by little facts and minute circumstances, travelling up step by step until the whole of the mass of her evidence was entirely confirmed. He had no hesita- tion in saying that there was no court of justice in the Mr. Eilison, 475 kingdom, wliere there was a proclamation made of any gaol deliver}', in which the evidence given by Mrs. Clarke at the Bar of that House, corroborated as it was by docu- ments and the testimony of othere, would not be received, and would be conclusive even in matter of life and death ; and this he said ^ith perfect confidence, notwithstanding the opinion given by a learned judge (Mr. B.) early in the discussion of this subject, for whom no man in the king- dom had more respect than himself; but he must be al- lowed to judge from facts, and he did not hesitate to de- clare, that unless the House of Commons pronounced the Duke of York guilty of connivance at least, it would be a mockery of their proceedings. He felt himself bound to say this, and that the House would not avoid to say the same thing by its vote, unless they had a mind to be ridicir- lous in the face of the world. He felt no difficulty in con- sidering himself as competent to judge of this question, as those who affected superior S3gacity to his, for he had a good deal of experience in the investigation of evidence had the honour to be chairman at a Quarter Session, and he must say, that the evidence given in this casfe against the Duke of York was as satisfactory as any he ever heard in any court of justice in his life. It was his duty to consider this subject, and he did con- sider it with the same solemnity as if he were a juror upon his oath, totally divested of all party whatever. As to the argument, that if the Duke of York was con- victed upon this occasion, the House would be setting a dangerous example for pulling down great men, he must answer, that as a member of the Parliament of the British Empire, he knew nothing of great men, or of little men, he must do his duty to the people by declaring what it| his conscience he believed to be true, without any regard to what the effect might be on any great man or men. He was not to be deterred from tloing his duty from general 476 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. observations that he was disgracing the House of Bruns- wick. He was ready to shed the last drop of his blood in support of the House of Brunswick in a good cause, but he must not be terrified by names. He was determined to support' the throne of this realm, and he knew of no better way of supporting the throne than by censuring those whose misconduct abused the confidence put in them by that throne. Nor was he to be told that the people wished to pull down princes, because they were princes, but the people wished to make princes behave as princes ought to behave ; and in that the people were right, and their demands, as to the Duke of York, were just. He must say that, taking the whole of the proceedings of the House of Commons upon this subject, there was a per- fect conviction in his mind, that the Duke of York was privy to what was passing with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military and other promotions, in which she used her influence with his Royal Highness, and that not in one instance or two, but that he was privy to the whole of it. The words of the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, that after examining the evidence, there was no ground for the House to charge his Royal Highness with personal corruption or any other connivance, he could by no meajis assent to, because he felt it was false ; and as a public character he must say, that he thought the Duke of York ought to be dismissed from the office of Commander in Cliief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that be had altered the Resolution now before the House, for the purpose of meeting the ideas of some of his Honour- able Friends, which were to avoid any words which ^might tend to cast any reflection on the Honourable Xjentleman who originally instituted this inquiry ; but after the present resolution should be carried, if car- Tied, there was nothing to hinder the House to cumc Mr. Home Sumner Lord Henri/ Petty. 477 to any Resolution declarative of its disapprobation of the influence of Mrs. Clarke with the Commander in Chief. Mr. Home Sumner thought the Amendment pro- ceeded to a length to which he could not follow it. He wished the two points of personal corruption, and connivance to be separated from each other, that the opinion of the House might be taken tiistinctly on both. Mr. WiLBERFoRCK Complained, that by this mode of proceeding, that of blending personal corruption with connivance, two things were united which were in their nature distinct ; throix)8d an Ad- dress that was not couched in terms sufficiently decisive.-- To this imputation, so very satisfactory an answer has been given, that it does not require any furtlier notice. But, l^ir, tlie Right Honourable Gentleman htructed 480 Mr. Whithredd, his Resolution, that it really has the appearance of " gbmg about to catch votes" which, however, he does not seem to think very blanfieable-' and he has fortunately stumbled on the expedient of involving two questions in a manner that, to him, appears to render it impossible that they should be considered separately and the House is, upon this principle reduced to the necessity of an absolute condemnation or acquittal. '* The distinction," says the Kight Honourable Gentleman," which has been so ac- curately defined between persoiial corruption,^ aiTd what i termed connivance, I cannot comprehend, notwithstanding- the references which have been made to the celebrated work of our great lexicographer, with a view to illustrate that argument ; and so far from thinking connivance as greatly inferior to personal corruption, I solemnly declare, that I conceive such a connivance more mean more foul and more base, than a cqnvuction of direct and personal corruption ; and, if the Duke, being acquitted of all per- sonal corruption, should be convicted of connivance only, all those consequences which have been anticipated in the event of his being convicted of personal corruption, would inevitably ensue. "^ This is the , argument of the. Right Honourable Gentleman, from which, I beg. leave totally to differ. If, Sir, the Duke should be found guilty of connivance only surely it might with great troth . and propriety be said, you are not so mean so foul-; so base or so low, as if you had been convicted of personal corruption. Your character is certainly not irretrievable you may by the correctness of your future conduct obli?- terate what is past. The Right Honourable Gentleman has really, put us into a very unfair predicament he calls upon us for fairness, and tells us, that .after voting for his proposition, we may then come to an Address on the un- due influence that has been exercised through the medium of tliQ Commander ia Chief. Is not tUis- gijet of ithe steps Mr. Whithread. 401 by which he means to arrive at that point, towards which his opinions and measures tend a declaration by this House, that the Duke of York is a fit person to continue in the command of the army ? This opinion, Sir, I can- not but deem extremely dangerous, and fraught with mis- chief. Here I cannot avoid noticing the new ground wliich has been taken, by converting Mrs. Clarke into tlie ac- cuser. Would you, sajs the Right Honourable Gentle- man, vie! J, up yourselves as the instruments of Mrs. Clarke, the accuser whose object is to lay the Duke prostrate at your feetf Would you, by such conduct, vilify the House of Commons ? Mrs. Clarke, Sir, was a witness only the last night of this discussion and my Honourable Friend> if he will so permit me to call him, who brought for- ward this important question, was an '^ instrument in the hands of an abandoned junta." I beg, Sir, we may con- sider the tendency of the insinuations which have been thrown out against that Honourable Member. Can we say that the public accuser must " sift his inward soul.'* Sir, in a popular government like ours, it is the " direct interest of the community that a public accuser should bo especially cherished" unless individuals are encouraged and supported by the public voice, where shall we find that man who will have the courage to attack the " corrupt ofiFences of the great ?" If the man who renders so im- portant a service to the public is branded with the con- temptuous epithet of an instrument in the hands of an abandoned junta, where shall we find one who will un- dertake to drag forth the perpetrators of these foul oft'ences to the view of the public? Let me ask the Right Honour- able Gentleman, whether the accuser of the Duke of York was " even acquainted with Mrs. Clarke" until long after he had meditated the brinj^ing forward these charges ? '' Does he disbelieve tho Noble Lord [Folk- itoiie)^ who, in his place made that dclaration ?" Of I i 482 Mr. Whithread. whom did that Junta consist ?-^Of persons divided from each other without any bond or motive of union of persons who^ by the indei'atigable zeal and perseverance of my Honourable Friend, viere converted into instruments of public safety from whom that great, important, and beneficial effect will be produced, that nothing but the manner in which the defenders of his Royal Highness are endeavouring to interrupt and frustrate the proceedings of this House, can possibly defeat. A Right Hon. Gentle- man has told us in one of the magnanimous threats wliich he is in the occasional habit of fulminating that so far from attributing those beneficial effects which I anticipate from the institution of these charges he conceives them to be of a tendency so diametrically opposite, that should a vote of tlianks be moved to my Honourable Friend-r-he will oppose it to- the last moment, although he should stand single in that opposition, of which, however, he had not the smallest apprehension. Another Right Honourable Gentleman and friend of mine on this side of the House (Mr. Windham), remarked very strongly on the manner in which my Honourable Friend obtained the possession of those letters which have been so highly instrumental in eliciting the truth of the charges against the Duke of York. These letters he alleges to have been obtained by force or Jby collusion, and I was, 1 confess, not a little surprized lo hear from my Right Honourable Friend the very broad assertion, that under all the circumstances which had been made known to us, he should, if he were constrained to make his election between the two cases rather be in the state of accusation in which his Royal Highness now stands, than in that of my Honourable Friend, as having forcibly possessed himself of these important documents. [Here Mr. Windham said that his expression had been mistaken.] Mr. Whithread continued Sir, 1 .sincerely rejoice, to be informed of my mistake_, and do most cheer- "Mr. IVhithread. 48S fully bow to the correction of my Right Honourable Friend. I aay, Sir, I rejoice to find that my statement is erroneous, for it did seem to me to be totally inconsistent with his judgment and liberality. But, Sir, as this senti- ment has, if I am not incorrect, been stated from another quarter of the House, (we think Lord Castlereagh), 1 will ask, whether there is not something between the extreme of violence and that manner and extent of force with which those letters were obtained ?^ And Gentlemen will at the same time recollect, that the violence of my Hon. Friend was by no means necessary to enable him to obtain those papers, which, upon a motion for that purpose, in tliis House, would have been put into his possession through the medium of its interposition. I need only quote the precedent of a similar motion by a late Member of this House (Mr. Paul), in consequence of which the possession of the papers required was obtained. But, Sir, I may surely be permitted to say, that so different is my opinion from that to which I allude, that I declare I should have no objection to stand in the place of my Honourable Friend. Surely, Sir, no Gentleman can think this a charge of reprehensible conduct, who reflects on the manner in which papers and letters of high political importance have been purloined transcribed and replaced without tlio slightest suspicion. The instances in which ' these things are known to have happened are very numerous ; but I shall oiily mention the remarkable case of the celebrated and illustrious Dr. Franklin, who was accused of having possessed himself of certain letters resjuating hich, al- though he underwent repeated exnmiualions before the Privy Council, he constantly refused to make any dis- clojjure. It will be remLmbcred with wiiat obloquy he was assailed on that occasion ; liu was sliubscriber; and a valuable sword was presented to Sir Home Popham ; who was tried by a Court Martial. Sir, these things are not to be tolerated; they must no longer be suffered. And when Officers in the Army sit in judgment on the Duke of York ; even at the very moment that we arc deliberating on the charges that have been brought against him, it is high time that this House should set its face against all such proceedings. Wliile the Right Honourable Gentleman is ridiculing one Gentleman, and bearding another, what are we about? We address his Majesty to dismiss the Duke of York from the oflice of Commander in Chief. A body of CJJeneral Officers addre'^s the Duke of York in terms of regard and approbation ; and thus a contention arises beiw een the Army and the Houfec of Commons. (Hear! hear ! hear!) Is there a man in this House, who can be insensible to the consequences : 1 beg to be understood that I am now stat- ing what 1 believe, and for which statement 1 am certain there n a fouuilation. If I am incorrect 1 request to be Bfet ri^ht by the Secretary at War; (oy, on a topic so nio- 1 i 4 483 Mr. Whithrtad, mentous, I should be particularly sorry to make an erro- neous statement. (Hear! hear! hear!) All the compli- ments that have been paid to the Duke of York, from no one of which do I wish in the slightest degree to detract, are out of time ; they have nothing to do with the question. The Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. C.) last night, in the abun- dant vigour of his imagination, thought proper to draw a comparison between an Honourable Gentleman of this House and Robespierre, who, it will be recollected, at length refined on all former tyranny, by his famous Decree of Accusation, in which the objects of his vengeance were accused of being " soup^onner d'etre suspecte ;" suspected of being suspicious, 1, Sir, may suspect that the Duke of York must have suspected and known of the transactioiia with which he is charged, without classing him with a monster whose crimes can never be forgotten. Let me sk, where was the rationality of that comparison ? Bril- liant as was the speech of the Right Honourable Gentle- man^ 1 am quite sure that I shall have the entire feelings of this House with me when I assert, that the comparison to which 1 allude must, to use the mildest term, be deemed very great blemish and deformity, in what wight, in many other respects, have been esteemed a very beautiful composition. The Right Honourable Gentleman was, however, in a vein of jocularity that appeared to be irre- sistible; and amongst other humorous remarks, he did me the honour to thank me for my lecture on taste. Now, Sir, as in the course of what I said that evening, I cannot recollect that I ever mentioned the word " taste," it really does appear to me that the observation was misplaced. If, however, presuming on the opinion which the Right Ho- liourable Gentleman has done me the honour to entertain of ray taste, I may venture to offer a sentiment on a sub- ject to which I really did not know the extent of my pre- teiisjocs, I am very sojry to say, that the allusion of the Mr, Wliithread. 489 Bight Hon. Gent, to the ancestor of a noble Lord (Folk- stone) in the debate of yesterday, did manifest so total ao absence of that taste on which the Riglit Hon. Gentleman had so recently received a lecture, that it may be said to have been completely thro\Mi away upon him. Indeed I sincerely wish that he had restrained that observation, which 1 am quite sure was as little creditable to his judg- ment as to his taste. But the Right Honourable Gentle- man is, unfortunately, too apt to indulge his oratory at the expence of every thing, and every body. I, however, could not but feel extraordinary satisfaction at the very calm, manly, and highly dignified manner in which the noble Lord answered the observations of the Right Hon. Gentleman ; which I would willingly persuade myself, even the Right Honourable Gentleman, himself, caimot call to his recollection, without regret. Sir, little did I think that to ground a pointed sarcastic speech, the Se- cretary of George the Hid would have raked up the ashes of George the lid; from whom the ancestor of the noble Lord received his title to rank amongst the peers of this r'^alm. The rumour to which the Right Hon. Gentleman thought fit so indecorously, in my opinion, to draw the attention of the House, was but a matter of conjecture; a mere report which was never substantiated ; and has long ceased to be believed. It cannot escape remark that this is an imputation on that Royal House whose virtue and attachment to freedom have so justly endeared it to this nation. And let it not be forgotten that the same judgment which selected the ancestor of the noble Lord as a fit per- son to be one of the hereditary Counsellors of the Crown; also selected the immortal Chatham ; whose son was the object of adoration in the eyes of the Right Honourable Gentleman ; and 1 will only request the Right Honourable Gentleman to recollect the. pitch of glory to which this kingdom was raised io the reign ^)l Gv^orge II, whose me* 400 Mr. Whkbread. mory might well have been spared the imputation o( ztk improper disposition of the honours which it is in the pre- rogative of the Crown to bestow. From the Gentlemen who have undertaken to defend the Duke of Yoik, we have heard deep and loud complaints that the character of tliat illustrious personage must be destroyed for ever by the measures which have been proposed on this side of the House That, Sir, I must beg leave positively to deny, Had the Amendment to the Address, which was proposed by the Hon. Gentleman on the floor (Mr. B.) been per- mitted to pass. His Royal Highness would have been re- lieved entirely from the imputation of personal corruption. But if it were possible to destroy the character of the i)uke of York, as has been asserted, it could only be by the absurd and injudicious proceedings of Ministers, and the unseasonable interposition of the Gentlemen of the Army. I however deny, that by coming to a vote in the affirma- tive of the Duke of York's connivance, his character will or can be destioyed. If he shall be found guilty of con- nivance, will it be said that his retreat is for ever cut off.'' That opinion can only be entertained by those Gentlemen who have hinted at the extravagant possibility of a Bill of Kxclusion; that is certainly a suggestion wholly unwortliy of consideration or even notice ; besides, the possible succession of tire Duke to the Crown is very remote, and contrary to the usual expectations and calculations of the probabilities of the duration of human existence. The Hon. Member for the County of Cambridge (Mr, Yorkc) has expressed no inconsiderable degree of alarm an'l ap- prehension from the line of conduct that may be adopted by the people of this country. Sir, although I am well convinced that 0^^'^ persons out of a thousand have a rooted conviction that the charges against the Duke of Y'^ork have been fully proved ; let it be remembered that the people of England are enlightened ; generally speaking Mr, Whithreail 401 ^el! educated ; and that knowledge is perhaps more ge Herally diffused in Great Britain tlian in any country of which we have any knowledge ; and here the ingenuous aod solid observations of my Right Hon. Friend (Mr, Poiisonby) cannot but be felt by tlie House with great force. Tlie people of this country, says my Right Hon. Friend, are iij the freqiient habit of serving on juries ; and consequently are familiar with the nature of evidence; more so, indeed than Members of Parliament, who, from their rank and station, are not required to attend that duty; so that, in fact, as the whole of the evidence is in a correct state before the public, that public may be deemed to be at least as well qualitied to draw a correct conclusion from that evidence as the Members of this House. But, Sir, I feel the most implicit confidence in the good sense and solid judgment of the People of England, who will most assuredly never be driven to violent mea-sures, if that branch of the Constitution, which is assembled in this House, will faithfully and courageously, without measuring the injustice by the rank of the accused, execute their duty as the Representatives of the People. Sir, 1 will venture to affirm that if, by the course of nature, the succession to the Crown of England should happen to vest i>i the Duke of York, no such incapacity as that which has been snggestexl by Uie Gentlemen on the other side will be found to attach to his Royal Highness in taking the peaceable and acknowledged possession of the Crown. If Ministers and the fiiends of the Duke of York will cease to act with that want of judgment which they have hitherto so emi- nently dis{. laved, there may be a reasonable hope, that in time, the Duke may regain that coutidence which he cer- tainly at the present moment docs not possess. Sir, when Louis the Eleventh ascended the Throne of France, the verj' first measure of his reign was to announce, that the affronts which had been oiFcrod to the Duke of Orleaua 492 Mr, IVhithread. Would never lie remembered by the King of France. And I do trust and confidently hope that if, in the dispensations of Providence, the Duke of York ever be called to the Throne of these Realms, the generosity of the people of England will never suffer them to remember in the person and government of their Monarch, the faults of the Duke of York. Will those, Sir, who talk of Jacobins and mobs, when they have excited the whirlwind, undertake to direct the storm ? Sir, I cannot conceive that there is the least ground for apprehensions of this nature, if the House of Commons will do its duty. We, Sir, are the Representatives of the People of England, and every eye is anxiously and keenly fixed on our proceedings; from us jnstice is expected ; and if we, as their Representatives, disregard their interests in a case of the most peculiar im- portance that has existed since the period of the glorious Revolution, it is not possible for human foresight to con- jecture the extent of the evils with which this land may be afflicted. Let us. Sir, be calm, and endeavour to dis- criminate correctly the features of the extraordinary case that is now before us ; and having so discriminated, let us deliver a decisive opinion, and not waste our time, or trifle with the feelings of the people by talking of suspicions. We must come to a decisive opinion ; let us, without fur- ther hesitation, address his Majesty to remove the Duke of York from the head of the Army. We shall by that means cast oil in the waves of that tempest, the increase of which appears so strongly to have excited the terrors of the Member for Cambridgeshire. By this the people of England will at once be convinced that they have ob- tained a verdict of equality. The Honourable Gentleman, who always speaks with sufficient power (Mr. Fuller) has described, in very forcible language, the anonymous let- ters with which he has been so greatly tormented. The Hon. Gentlemau is certainly averse to controul at any Mr. fVhitbrcad* 498 lime ; and we may reasonably infer that he does not (ee\ himself qualified to endure witli more than common patieiice, those teazing applications, or admonitions, for I know not what to term them> to which every public man ia necessarily subjected. But every one in this House knows the nature of these things ; for my part, I have bushels of letters, such as those complained of by the {Ion. Gendeman, some of them beginning " Honoured Sir** ; others with " You are a great rogue ;" just as tlie splenetic or irritated humour of the writer dictated at tlie momeot. As to wild and micontrouled democracy, every man who has at all contemplated the nature of that state of government, and the unfortunate scenes which have been exhibited in a neighbouring country, in consequence of the excessive predominance of the democratic principle, must be thoroughly convinced that, except a rooted, a confirmed, and savage despotism, there can be no tyranny superior to that of an uncontrouled democracy. I have in view, and my ideas have at no time extended beyond that view, a rational, temperate, and gradual reform ; but &e period when that reform shall be deemed necessary must arrive, and I think it may be rationally believed that at no time was it ever more imperiously called for than the present. I am told not to indulge in these visionary pros- pects ; not to tliink of reform. Is it not necessary i Are not the Army, tlie Church, the State, all in situation* which loudly, and imperiously, demand instant reform ? If we look at that Herculean labour with firmness and reso- lution, if we undertake it with sincerity and in that spirit with which it ought to be prosecuted, the country will be gradually drawn back to that state from which it has in- cuntrovcrtibly been declining ; and the day on which this* reformation is commenced by the voting an address to his Majesty for the removal of the Duke of York from the htad of tlie Army, may be converted into the most tri-* 4&4 Mr. Whitbread, umphant day tliat England has ever seen. Jaccfbininn^ which is ever present to weak judgments and imaginationSy tio longer exists ; it is absolutely exploded ; and every one knows from whence the absurd rumours on that subject have their source. Men talk of libels, and terrify them- selves with even the sound of jacobinism ; has not royalty also libels ? and have we not an Antijacobin ? On this subject I will not at so late an hour extend my observations ; but 1 trust that the characteristic good sense and love o-f liberty of the people of England will not suffer them to entertain a doubt of their capacity to enjoy the blessings of rational liberty^ unmixed with licentiousness. The Right Hon. Gentleman, to the brilliancy of whose speech of yesterday I have so sincerely paid my tribute of ap- plause, among the numerous topics on which, in the ple- nitude of his power, he chose to iiKlulge his fancy, la- mented his inability to recollect an appropriate designation for those honourable Members of the House of Com- mons, who were, as he is pleased sareastically to ternv them, the " Landed Grajidecs" of this Assembly. My honourable and learned Friend (Mr. Adam) one of the professed advisers, as he has been termed, of the Duke ofc York, has, with that propriety and good sense which al- ways mark the delivery of his sealiment, observed, tbjrt there are certain modes of designation for persons of every description; but amongst those which my learned Friend enumerated, 1 do not recollect to have heard that of " Landed Grandee." I am not aware that the situalioi* of any Minister of the Crown, sitting in this House^ can- justify the selection of any jNIember as the object of such an epithet as that of " Landed Grandee." I am, how- ever, most certain that the high and sincere estimation ia which my Hon. Friend (Mr. Coke) who was so designated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, is universally held, is not mferior to that of any niau^ in any rank or condilioiiy m. Mr. Whithread, 493 these realms. I will not, I cannot be angry with the Right Hon. Gentleman for the opportunity which he has thus afforded me of expressing my high respect and unfeigned regard for my Hon. Friend, who has^ I well know, so just a sense of the real foundation on which his grandeur rests, that he will never exchange it for any that it is in the power of his Majesty to confer. I trust I may here venture to express an opinion which I have long entortaiued, that nothing is more prejudicial to the real interest of the con- stitution of this kingdom, than the frequent transfer of these " Landed Grandees'' into that higher House, in which they instantly lose all their grandeur. For my part, 1 am sure 1 should make a very poor Lord ; and if every person viewed this subject in the same light with myself, an Honourable Baronet (we are ignorant of the Gentleman alluded to) would have accepted the advice which was offered to him. The translation of a meichant into the rank of nobility, however it may gratify, in some repnects, cannot be reasonably expected to be productive of un- jnjxed satisfaction. It was well said, by a high character, of a gentleman with whom he was personally acquainted, and who attained, at his urgent solicitation, the rank of Nobility ; " When fiom a Merchant he became a xSoble- tnan, I never spoke to him afterwanls but once. As a merchant, you wore at the head ; as a nobleman, you are at the tail of your rank ; I ^.h.ili never more speak to you." In these debates we have had the singular advantage of the brilhant speech of the i{\%\A lion. Gentleman to direct our cotirse. It was certainly, in many r..spects, one of the ablest speeches that I have ever liturd ; but it was, at the same time, susceptible of iuiproveini :ii, inasmuch as it might have !)eeii contrivtti lu tosich however blithily on the question in dcl)ate, to \\\.\v\\ merit it certainly has no claim. The Kiuhl Hon. Genllt'.nan touehtd upon every tiling but liie qutstion ; head over hecb ; wc had an eiilo- 49S Mr. Whithread, gium on the military talents of the Duke of York at secorid haud^ derived from the character given in the House, en- livening a recapitulation of the disquisitions of the lawyers, and a complacent self gratulation on the convincing speeches of ministers , but not one word to the question. On this side of the House, with the solitary exception of the gallant General (Ferguson) and some few other gentlemen, we were confined to the plain, downright, and straight- forward sentiments of the landed Grandees. Sir, 1 shall no longer detain the House, having delivered my sentiments with the plainness and sincerity which become an inde- pendent Member of the English House of Commons, and one of the Representatives of the People whose in- terests I shall for ever conceive to be inseparably united with my own. Notwithstanding the laboured manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to convince the House of the expediency and propriety of the resolutions he has proposed, I am firmly convinced, that, such is the complexity in which the decision of the important question is unfortunately involved, by the variety of amendments proposed, that many gentlemen will feel much difficulty in ascertaining the manner in which they are to give their votes on the several questions as they will be put. My anxiety is, 1 do not hesitate to confess, very great, that the Right Honourable Gentleman may not succeed in his motion for the resolution for the continu- ance of the Duke of York at the head of the Army, will, I am absolutely convinced, be not only injurious, but incalculably dangerous to the interests of the Empire. The Secretary at War said, that what the Hon. Member alluded to, took place at a Club, of which he was an unworthy Member, which met once a fortnight, where Officers met and expressed their obligations, as well as that of the service to his Royal Highness. But it was determined to do nothing until the House of Commons had disposed of the present subject. Mr. Bathurst. 497 Gen. Phipps knew nothing of the meeting of General Officers. Mr. Secretary Canning disclaimed it, and observed, that nothing could be inore injurious to the cause of his Royal Highness than persisting in such a measure. Mr. CoATEs did not conceive himself inferior in point of independence to a Gentleman who had boasted of it (Mr. Coke, of Norfolk) although he should vote differ- ently from that Hon. Gentleman. The House divided For Sir Thomas Turton's Amendment 1 35 Against it S34 Majority 199 The House divided upon the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for acquitting his Royal Highness of Per- sonal Corruption and Connivance ; For the Resolution 278 Against it \\)Ci Majority for Ministers 82 Adjourned. Monday, March CO. Mr. Bragg E Bathurst moved the Order of the D:iy for the House to enter further into the consideration of the minutes of the evidence taken before ilic Coi..niittee of the whole House on tlie coiKluet of hi.s Royai Highness the Duke of Vork, which being rem I, The Chancki.i.oU of the Kxcii r.gi: j:r said, that be- fore the House proceeded upon this subject, he liad a fact to communicate, which was of c<)nsid(;ralile iaii)ortance in ihe consideration of that subject ; and which he s'louid K k 498 Chancellor of the Exchequer. submit to the good sense and discretion of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Bathurst) might possibly induce him no longer to persevere in the intention which he had formed upon this occasion that of calling the attention of the House of Commons to the question of the propriety, or of the im- propriety of the Duke of York continuing in the office of Commander in Chief of his Majesty's army. The fact to which he alluded was that of THE RESIGNATION OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS, OF THE OFFICE OF COMMANDER IxV CHIEF. This event took place from the spontaneous motion of his Royal Highness, which his Majesty, with whatever re- luctance it might be attended, was graciously pleased to accept. The motives which actuated his Royal Highness to choose that step were such, as^ he trusted, would meet the entire approbation of the House that of a deference to its proceedings ; for his Royal Highness was determined not to anticipate, by any act of his own, the decision of the House of Commons ; and when that sentiment was stated, he trusted it would meet the entire approbation of the House. He was desirous of stating, as clearly and dis- tinctly as he could, the motives of his Royal Highness in this resignation, and which were fully explained when that resignation was tendered to his Majesty : the substance of which was *' That the House of Commons, after a long and full investigation into the conduct of his Royal Highness as Commander in Chief, having passed certain Resohitions, declaring their conviction of his innocence, and acquitting him of those criminal charges which had been moved against him, he thought he might now tender a resignation of the office he held of Commander in Chief, without ap- pearing to shrink from those charges, or that he ever cu-> Mr. Bathunt. 4^ lertiuned a doubt of his inHOceuce being fully proved. That the motives which induced him to approach \ns Ma- jesty, who, as a kind and indulgent Father and gracious Sovereign, had conferred on him this higli command, ia order to request he N^oidd again receive them, were, that Laving obtained so complete an acquittal of all corrupt motives, and of all participation or connivance at corrup- tion, with which he had been charged, he was desirous of giving way to tiiat public sentnnent which those charges, however ill founded, had unfortunately drawn on him. That it did not become him to give up a situation, in which his Majesty's confidence had placed him, without expres- ing a hope, that during the period of fourteen years he had had the honour to hold it, his Majesty had been convinced that he had done every thing in his power to promote the interests of the service, and to evince his constant regard to the welfare and prosperity of the army." Having stated this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it to his Right Honourable Friend, whether he now thought it necessary to persist in his motion ? The question was then put, That the House do proceed to the Order of the Day for taking into farther considera- tion the Evidence on the Conduct of his Royal Highness jhe Duke of ^ ork, and carried without another word. Mr. Bragge Bathlrst then proceeded to call the attention of the House to the subject now before it a subject which it became the more neces.sai y for him to ex- plain, in consequence of the important fact which hit Kight Honourable Friend (the Chancellor of the Exche- C[uer) had communicated to the House, that of the resig- nation of his Royal Highness of the office of Commander in Chief; and that still more especially, since it did not appear to him that that event, important as it was in othef particular^, ought to make any alteration m the resolutioa .of the House of Commons on the subj<*ct which ha noif Kk 500 Mr. Bathiirst. submitted to its consideration ; and this he trusted the House would do him the justice to feel, to have been his impression, from the first moment when he mentioned this subject to the present hour ; and he was confident that nothing had happened in the result of the other questions which had been determined on the subject of the conduct of his Royal Highness, which ought to have the effect of altering his determination. There was nobody who felt more than he did for the loss which the country would sustain in a military view from the retirement of his Royal Highness from the office of Commander in Chief; for there w^s no one more willing than himself to admit that his Royal Highness had introduced into the army manj beneficial regulations ; no one was more ready than him- self to admire them ; and while he admired these regula- tions, he was perfectly ready to admit, that no other per- son than his Royal Highness could have accomplished them ; and therefore these considerations made him regret that his Royal Highness should have been driven by cir- cumstances (as he had been driven by circumstances) to retire ; but if the House would do him the justice to recol- lect (as assuredly it would recollect) the ground on which he first suggested his proposition to the House, there would, as he presumed, be no difficulty in assenting to it now; but he owed to the House an apology for calling th attention of the House to the subject now before it, and in doing this, it would be necessary for him to give a short history of the proceedings of the House upon the subject of the conduct of his Royal Highness, and of the senti- ments which he had urged on a former occasion, when h^ opened the resolution which he was now about to submit, the repetition of which, although indispensible, was to hitn 'grievous, and made the more irksome, on account of the resignation of his Royal Highness, a resignation which did ^fDiot !u)M ever do away the necessity of the resolutionj for if Mr. Bathttfst. 501 it had, he shouW have been glad to wave it. lie expressed some anxiety lest he should be niisundcrslood or misrepre- sented ; for he was aw are that, to some consideration of the House, he was, on the contrary, inclined to believe that he had been influenced in so doing by a conscientious dis- charge of his duty. If the motion of the Noble Lord had been brought forward at any other time than the present^ still he could not accede to it. As to the alle- gation in the lesolution, '' that his Royal Highness had permitted Mrs. Clarke to interfere in military mat- ters,*' it was to liis mind quite an unnecessary pro- ceeding. Neither did he agree to the charge of con- nivance which had been imputed to his Royal High- ness. A charge of that nature he should not have beea ready to admit hitherto, but now it was wholly unne- cessary. His Royal Highness, by sending in his resig- nation, had given every atonement which was in his power for any negligence which he might have shewn in his official capacit3', and therefore the amendment of the Noble Lord was totally unnecessary. Were he disposed to concur in the proposition of the Noble Lord, he should be going against the opinion of the House, wiio had already negatived the idea of corrup- tion or connivance. Jt would not be correct in him to recommend to the House to acrrce lo the amendment, because he should thereby desire them to proceed on grounds wliich they had negatived. The word " now" in the Noble Lord's amendment was very objection- able ; and conceiving that exclusion from othce was sufficient punishment to his Royal Highness, he should rather incline to vote fur the amendineat of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Lord Folkstonf. 409 Mr. Hutchinson maintained, that the House, al- tiiough they had received the notification, had still aa important duty to perform towards tlie public. There was, in his opinion, a great deal to be done; the re- aignation of his Royal Highness did not satisfy the Justice of the case. He thought that it ought to go forth to the public, that this House was disposed to do diem strict justice, by coming to some resolution ex- pressive of their opinion upon his Royal Highness's conduct, and tending to prevent similar practices. Sir Charles Price justified himself for the vote which he had given on a former night ; but in examin- ing the evidence, he was far from saying that the con- duct of lijs Royal Highness was not highly censurable. Being of this opinion he should agree most cordially with the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He thought the House ought to mark its characlcr by coming to some opinion upon the Illustrious Duke's conduct. Lord FoLKSTONE conceived that it was absolutely necessary that the House should do something more than merely accept the c()uununicati(jn wliich the Right Hon. GentleUKUi had uuide of his Royal High- ness's reaiirnation. The manner in which that com- munication was made to the House, did not altogether satisfy his mind that bomclliing more was not neccs- ary to be done by tlie house. If it hafl been an- Dounced by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that he had brought down a message from his M:ij<'siy, .signiiying the eviMU, and indeed a Iclter iVoin Lis Royal High- nes-, then the House would have been in possession of documents which would have authorised a stoppage to the [)roceedings, and could iiavc been .landed down to posterity. (Hear! hear!) Rut tiuit communication did not appear on the Journals. W iih rc.-.pcct to iht ^Id Lord Tempte, charge of corruption, he thought the evidence war- ranted the conclusion which he had drawn against his Royal Highness on that point, and therefore that he was an unfit person to return to the station of Com- mander in Chief~-he had lost the confidence of the country. He agreed in the amendment proposed by his Noble Friend* Mr. Herbert could not agree that, after what had happened, it was not proper for the House to proceed any further. He could not concur with the Right Hon. Gentleman in his amendment; but was of opi- nion, with the exception of the word " now," that the Noble Lord's was less objectionable. Sir J. S. Sebright declared his intention of voting for the amendment proposed by his Noble Friend. Lord Temple. It was not my intention. Sir, to have troubled the House this night; but from what has fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer), I feel it impossible to give a silent vote. A report had been prevalent previous to my entering the House, that the Duke of York had re- signed ; and I had made up my mind on the naked fact of his resignation, that no further proceedings were necessary. Had the mere statement of the fact been unaccompanied by the observations of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, I should have acquiesced in bis wishesj without thinking it necessary to offer an ob- servation. But, Sir, the facts which he has assumed, are so totally at variance with my opinions, and with what has yet been proved, that it is impossible for me to conform to the desire he has expressed, of suspend- ing all further proceedings, and sliall most certainly give my vote for the amendment suggested by mv Noble Friend (Lord Altliorpe). Sir, I cannot but deeply lament, that, considering the Duke of York Lord Temple. ^\\ thought proper to address this House by letter, during the investigation of the charges which had been ad- duced by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wardle), he should have permitted the important fact of his resignation to have been communicated to us by an extract or copy of a letter to his Majesty, through the medium of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; or that such a commu- nication, which cannot be recorded on the Journals of the House, should have been made the foundation of a measure of public importance, so great as that of sud- denly desisting from the decision of a question, which has now occupied, unceasingly, the House from the beginning of February. Sir, I must say, it would have been more satisfactory to me, had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a verbal communication, without reference to the letter of resignation addressed to his Majesty, than that this House should receive the inti- mation of so important an event at second hand; and must confess myself to be greatly at a loss to comprehend thepropriety,which, having dictated a letter to the House of Commons at one period of the investigation, should ha/e deemed it unnecessary in the present instance to make a direct communication, by the same mode of address which he had already, in a previous stage of the business, found it expedient to adopt. The Chan' cellor of the Exchequer states, that the Duke of York "Withheld his resignation until his innocence had been clearly manifested. Now, Sir, feeling as I do, that al- though on one point his innocence was so far mani- fested, that by the resolution of this House he is de- clared to be acquitted of direct and personal corrup- tion, I must most seriously and solemnly protest against the general assertion, that the innocence of his Royal Highness has been clearly manifested in the en- larged and fxtended asose of that expression^ as it was 612 Lord Temple, introduced and applied by the Right Hon. Gentleman ; for. Sir, it must be apparent to every gentleman in this House, that the complete and absolute innocence of the Duke of York on every part of the charges against him has not been substantiated. The discussion before the House was not terminated, and if the Chancellor had not made the communication we have heard this night, the House was prepared to proceed on a very strong and material point; 1 mean, Sir, the conduct of Mrs. Clarke, whose interference a very large proportion of this House appears to have thought utterly inconsistent with that cautious purity of official conduct which the public had a right to expect from the Commander in Chief of the military force of the British Empire. This, Sir, was a part of the accusation which had not been disposed of, and on which we should have un- questionably come to a vote. Can it then be said. Sir, that the innocence of the Duke of York was already fully proved ? Sir, 1 will not pretend to say, what might have been the vote of this House on that question; but I do affirm, that the facts do not bear out the statement of the innocence of the Duke of York having been fully proved. The influence of the Duke of York had been used by Mrs. Clarke to obtain the unwarrantable appointment of improper persons; and until that ac- cusation be disposed of, it is too much to tell the House that the innocence of the Duke of York is fully proved. Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having, as he conceives, made good his' ground by the assump- tion of this false position, proceeds consecutively to in- form us, that it cannot be supposed that the resignation of the Diike of York was produced by any apprehen- sion of the consequences of this discussion. Sir, the correctness of this assertion I will not take upon me to doubt; but this I will say, that it would have well be- Lord Temple. ^i$ come the advisers of his Rovil Highness to have re- frained from any thing which could be consinied into a tone of defiance. Sir, it had been nitMe docorous to have recommended his Royal Highness to have ad* mitted, that his resignation was not wholly unintiu- enced by the strongly avowed sentiments and opinions that have been expressed net only in thi* House, but throughout the United Empire; that his reriignatioa was not ex mero motu, not the result solely of his own. pleasure, but in some degree, however inconsiderable, in deference to the sentiments of a considerable pro- portion of this House, and to those of a very large ma- jority of the British public. Sir, it would have been no diograce to the understanding of the Duke of York, or his advisers, professed or otherwise, to have said, *' I bow to the opinion of the country, on the incom- patibility of my retaining the high office of Commander in Chief in opposition to the voice of the people ; tliey have generously and justly acquitted me of that accu- sation, under a conviction of which life would have been an insupportable burthen direct and personal corruption or participation ; I therefore withdraw my- self from a situation which 1 can no longer 1111 witli satisfaction, because it is not in unison with ihe feelings of ihe country." The people, Sir, would have felt this; and it is not easy to appreciate the elTecl which might have been produced by a diguiticd and manly appeal to the generosity of the British nation; but to assume as a proof of absolute innocence a half-pro- nounced sentence of acquittal, is that to which I can never agree. To close the door against all future pro- ceedings, by this presumptuous asiuniption of that which is not yet proved, is that against wiiich I wiU *ver loudly protest. Sir, I will not admit that the re- signation of th Duke of Yoik has beeu uninflunccd 614 Mr. Addington. by his dread of the event of the inquiry and discussion of this House. But, Sir, if we hud not received this communication of the resignation of his Royal High- ness from the Right Hon. Gentleman, I cannot but hope that the decision of this House would have been consistent with the firmness by which it ought ever to be characterised. It would not have been enough to have expressed our opinion indirectly, to have cen- sured by a side wind; the Crown ought not to have been left to collect our opinion by insinuations, sus- picions, or inferences; it becomes the Commons of England to speak out plainly, broadly, and in such a manner as to prevent the possibility of being misun- derstood. Sir, the Duke of York having resigned, the object which the House of Commons had in view is attained ; and I am the last man in this House (and such, I trust, I am known to be) who would urge any question beyond its fair, candid, and rational bearing. An impeachment has more than once been mentioned ; but 1 disclaim all idea of the necessity or propriety of any such measure ; it is, in my opinion, a subject not to be agitated. 1 am merely anxious to support the dignity of this House and of the people, whose repre- sentatives we are, by protesting against the admission of a fact which is assumed, not proved, the entire in- nocence of the Duke of York ; and I, therefore, in consequence of the assertion on that point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall certainly vote for the amendment of my Noble Friend. Mr. H. Addington defended the observations of lii:; Right Hon. Relation from the observations made by the Noble Lord, as to his wishing to obtain, bj means ofaside wind, the acquittal of his Roval Higli- iies3. The Right Hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between popular clamour and public opinion, much ta Mr. H. Thornton. 515 the advantage of the latter sentiment, which, he con- tended, was the feehng of the enlightened, thinking, and rational part of society. He agreed in the motion of his Right Hon. Relation. Mr. GoocH considered thathis Royal Highness was responsible to the House for his conduct. Mr. H. Thornton had entertained some doubt whether the motion of tiie Noble Lord (Lord Al- thorpe), or that of the Hon. Gentleman (^L'. Bathurst), was preferable under the present circumstances ; but on the wholcj he inclined to that of the Noble Lord, and chiefly for the following reason. The House, hp was sure, must by this time have discovered how very difficult it was to express, in any detailed resolution, the precise sentiment of the collective body of those who were disposed to animadvert on the conduct of the Duke of York. His Royal Highness happily, as he thought, had resigned his office, and thus relieved them from this difficulty ; and it was now perhaps bet- ter to avail themselves of this circumstance, by re- cording it to be the ground on which the house ab- stained from further proceedings, than again to fall into the old difficulty. He, for his part, could have voted for the motion of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ba- thurst). It contained nothing to which he did not agree, but it did not comprise all his sentiments. It left out what was not official. There were many cir- cumstances entirely distinct from the concerns of the office of the Commander in Chief; such, for example, as the affair of Kennett and Dr. O'Meara, which, by indicating a general laxity of principle, contributed materially to make him think the Duke detective in the qualifications of his imporlaiii otiice. Mr. Thornton could have joined with the Hon. Cicntlemen as far as he went for the s.-ike of conciii.iiion \ but an optijn I. 1'2 5l6 Mr. Whithread. being now afforded him, he was for the resolution of the Noble Lord, to which both he and other gentlc- Hien might agree, each nevertheless interpreting it according to his own views of the case. He wished the word *' now" not to be inserted. Mr. Whitbread. '^ Sir, having already trespassed 80 much on the attention of the House, I shall certainly endeavour to take up as little of its time as possible ; but I cannot avoid stating the grounds on which I shall vote for tlie Amendment, which has been proposed in a speech so devoid of affectation, and so pregnant with ability, as that of my Noble Friend behind me (Lord Althorpe). For, to have voted for the Resolution of the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) would have been totally incom* patible with my ideas on the subject, even had no Amend- ment been suggested. Sir, there are different ways of con- sidering every subject; some grave and important, and others light and ludicrous : and 1 found it not a little diffi- cult to ascertain whether the Hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Hi- ley Addington) intended to be serious or jocular when he said that the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend would have a manifest tendency to facilitate the continuance of the Duke of York in the office of Commander in Chief. I do, however, believe, from the best consideration I can give the subject, that the Honourable Gentleman was really gerious in an assertion so whimsically paradoxical. Now, Sir, is it not monstrous to suppose that it can be declared by this House, in the solemn Resolution prepared by the Right Honourable Gentleman, that this House sees, with deep regret, that the improper interference of such a per- son as Mrs. Clarke has been suffered to exist ; and if such a Resolution, expressive of the official misconduct of his Royal Highness, which has actually been the case, should be placed on the journals of this House ; is it not, I say, monstrous to talk of that Resolution faciliLating the conti- Mr. Whithread. . 517 finance of the Duke of York in the office of Commander in Chief? Sir, in my mind it would tend to exclude him for ever from again filling that high station ; it would be the fiat of his irrevocable exclusion from that high office : nor can there, I am certain, be any one gentleman in this House, except those who have expressed their decided opinions on that Resolution, who can imagine that the Duke could have continued a single hour in office after the passing of such a vote. Sir, I repeat that this is a mon- strous proposition. Now, with regard to that part of the re- solution which goes to compliment his Royal Highness for his conduct in the high official situation he has so long held, it does not appear to me to have been sufficiently proved that it was so transcendently brilliant as to call for an eu- logium ; nor do I see the propriety of introducing in an Address, in which certain parts of the conduct of his Royal Highness are certainly inculpated, a complimentary allu- sion, 1 am very far from intending to deprive the Duke of York of any part of the merit he can justly claim ; but as a Member of this House, sitting in my place, 1 cannot bring my mind to think, that his conduct can, with con- sistency, be at once condemned and applauded in a Reso- lution of this House. As to the morality of the case, this is not the time to read a lecture on morality. The Duke of York has resigned ; and whether that resignation has proceeded (as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has observed) from the innate consciousness of his own inno- cence, or whether it has resulted from a deference to the opinion of a distinguished minority, so strongly expressed ; for the opinion, Sir, even of a minority, has, in former times, had very important consequences ; it has produced a cessation of war between great nations, and, abstractei friendship, and in saying this, I am sure I am not going too far. He must be a bold man who would have laid open to the Duke of York the impropriety of his conduct on the matters which have have been recorded on the journals of this House. No prince can have such a friend. Unfortunately, from their rank and education, the minds of princes do not ap- pear to be adapted to that species of intercourse which can permit the admonition of a faithful friend, which, in the midst of the best advice and counsel, has been so often answered by princes with a bow, and permis- sion to retire. In addition to these important consider- ations, let it be remembered that princes are, from their situations, compelled to form connections in which the heart has no interest ; shall we then tie them up in fetters more strong than we would use to other men ? Shall we proceed to lecture and throw stones against those whose temptations are greater than ours? I wish it could be remedied ; and I cannot here help observing, that we have a Royal Duke who does Dot stand conspicuous for any of these immoralities (probably the Duke of Gloucester Hear!) I am sen- sible that 1 have already trespassed greatly on the tiica Mr. Whithread. 505 and attention of the House ; but I intreat their indul- gence for a few miuutes on a subject which I mea tioned the other night; I mean the Meeting of Gene- ral officers, in wliich it was proposed to address the Duke of York, and on which subject the Right Hon, Gentleman opposite to me (Mr. Canning) so candidly and handsomely disclaimed all interference. I under- stood. Sir, from the Secretary at War, that it had beea put down, and that too by the Right Hon. Gentleman, himself, as soon as it was suggested. Now the story which I have heard is very different, and considering how fatal the consequences of such a proceeding might ultimately prove, I thought that the interference of a Member of Parliament might have a tendency entirely to prevent the mischief to be apprehended ; that il miglit strangle the monster so abhorred by our Consti- tution, of military deliberation, in its birth. I have been informed. Sir, that the proposition for this Ad- dress had originated in a letter written by a general officer, commanding a garrison town; and that such proposition or letter, was in the hand-writing of Sir D. Dundas, who, at the meeting of the general officers, communicated the substance of it in a sj)ecch to tiiose general officers who were present, of wiiom a list, amounting to thirteen in number, has been given to me since I entered the House. The motion that wa^i made was seconded by Sir D. Dundas liiniself ; and my information is, that with the opp(;sition of o;iIy one general officer, it was received ulniobt wiih acclama- tion : that it was, in consequence ol' that opposition, withdrawn ; but that the intention was not set aside, but deferred, witii the possibility of beiug revived. Sir, I have reason to suppose that this is uot a so- litary instance of an intention to present nn Address f a similar nature; for accideulally meeting with a 525 Mr. Whithredd, gentleman in the street, a bookseller extremely well known to the gentlemen on the other side ; (Mr. Stocfc- dale we apprehend) he communicated a very singular application that had been made by a clergyman, who wished to find some person wiio was qualified to cor- rect an Address to the Duke of York, paying him many just compliments, but at the same time suggest- ing to him the impropriety of his resignation. The stood sense of that Gentleman led him to dissuade the clergyman from persevering in a measure so highly improper, and which were of a most fatal tendency. I am not. Sir, in the least afraid of this now. To have mentioned the fact is sufficient to prevent its progress. I cannot here help expressing my great satisfaction at seeing several military gentlemen in their places, for I am one of those who have always thought that a ge- neral assemblage of gentlemen, of different professions, is highly useful, as we are at all times able to possess ourselves of the information they can afford on subjects respecting which we are necessarily ignorant. I have merely mentioned this fact to draw the attention of the House, and shew the disposition which has actually existed in the army. It is sufficient, I am sure, to remind that highly-honourable class of men of which our army is composed, that the duties of the citizen are paramount to those of the soldier. The celebrated appeal of Caesar to his troops, when he termed them " Quirites," is in the recollection of every Gentleman; as soldiers and citizens, our army ought not to deli- berate, but to obey. There is one more point on which I feel it necessar}^ to touch ; much has been said of the benefit of having a Royal Commander-in-Chief, who could step in with his protection between officers of the army and Parliament. Sir, what a picture does this draw of this House uud of Administration : Every Mr. Whithread, 52? Administration, he says, must be so corrupt, that if you take the command of the army from the son of the King, every officer will be exposed to danger. Sir, it has been exhibited to the view of all mankind, that a prince of the blood has been continued at the head of the army, while under the accusation of serious charges in this House. Now, Sir, I do seriously and solemnly ask this House, whether this could have gone on for two days, had the charges been against any other person ? It is now clear, whatever doubt might have existed, that it is not fit that the son of a King should have the command of the army. From the first day of February to the present moment, has this House been incessantly and most laboriously occupied in the investigation of these charges ; and after having, by a miraculous coincidence of circumstances, tliat have come to light gradually and most unexpectedly to in- culpate the Commander in Chief, what do we get ? at the end of many weeks, a voluntary resignation. See the facility with which the son of a King can be brought to account; see the facility with which the Odium of an accusation can be cast. Now you have put the charges in a tangible shape, we ihank you. Tins, Sir, was the language of the Gentlemen on the other side of the House ; but now the Ocntlcmau who offered them thanks for having put the charges in a tangible shape, refuses to give any thanks at all. Sir, the dilTcrence of cases is great between that of the Duke of York and tlie memoraljlc one of the dis- missal of the Duke of Cutnhcrlaiui, iIk; favourite sou of George H. in the iaUancc ot" the disgraceful con- vention of Ch)ster Seven ; the dismissal of that Koyal Personage I'ollosved the act in-iiantancoK^ly, and forms u striking contrast with ll:c tardy and r(hictant resigna- tion of the Duke of York. ! do assert, Sir, without 528 Mr. Addington Mr. Canning. hesitation or qualification, tliat a son of the King is an improper person to be Commander in Chief of the British army. It is impossible for me to sit silent ia this House, and not offer an explanation of my reason for supporting my Honourable Friend (Mr. Wardle), who, I will venture to say, has with him the wishe? and opinions of most of those whom he values in this House ; and who, I am confident, has *' the hearty thanks and entire approbation of nine hundred and ninety-nine persons in a thousand out of it through- out the whole of the United Empire. Mr. Addington explained. The Secretary at War said, that respecting the meeting of general officers, on which the Honourable Membenvbo had just sat down had so much dwelt, he would only repeat the statement he made on a former evening. An Address was talked of, but no form of Address was read or proposed. It was merely the subject of a short conversation. So far was he from seconding such a proposition, that he knew nothing of it nntil the cloth was removed. He gave his opinion that nothing should be done until the investigation was at an end. There were only thirteen officers pre- sent, very few of whom took any part in the conversa- tion. If he had been asked on coming out of the room, whether such an Address was intended or not, he would have b&en at a loss to answer the question. Mr. WiiiTBRKAD said, he understood a paper, the writing of General Dandas, had been read from the chair. He was happy to find, by the statement of the Secretary at War, that it was not so. It would make him more happy if he could learn from him that the idea was wholly abandoned. Mr. Secretary Canning observed, that when he heard, for ihc first time, of an intciitioa of addressing Mr. Mitbread^Mr. Legh Ketk. 529 the Duke of York, he lost no time in Expressing hti marked disapprobation of such an interference of any part of the army. He did then suppose that the state- ment was made on some more grave authority than it now appeared to be. If there existed any intention of making such an use of any part of the army, a more culpable design could not be formed. But thef seemed to be no foundation for such an apprehen- sion on his part. A mere conversation at a convi- vial meeting was swelled into an idea so alarming to his mind. If at any future time a design so criminal and unconstitutional should be formed by the army, or any other body, he could assure the Honourable Gen- tleman he would give him every support in his power in any measures he might think necessary to counteract such designs. Mr. WhitbREAd said, that if any doubt was enter- tained respecting the accuracy of his information, the best way would be to call the persons to the Bar, and investigate the fact. He understood the proposition had been made before dinner, when perhaps the Ho- nourable Member was not in the room. The Chancellor of the Excheouer, in reply to an observation in Mr. Whitbread's speech, said, that the resignation of the Duke of York was his act alone. He was therefore at a loss to discover upon what grounds the Honourable Member v.ould say that he had deserted his Royal Highness. General Loftus confirmed the statement of the Se- cretary at War. He said, he was assured by an old general officer, who was present at the meeting, that the idea of an Address was merely thrown out, and that the conversation on it existed only for a very short time. Mr. Legh Keck declared himself against the Amend- M m iSO Mr. Bathurst Chancellor of the Exchequer. ment proposed by the Noble Lord, and in favour of the original Motion. Mr. Bathurst replied. He would not consent to withdraw his Motion. It did not come by surprise upon the House, but had been almost a week before them. He conceived the House was bound to pro- nounce upon the minor charge, that of his Royal Highness having permitted an improper influence to be exercised over him. The putting his Resolution on the Journals would be no bar to his Royal Highnesses return to office. It did not charge him with corrup- tion or, connivance, but went merely to say he had been indiscreet. He thought it incumbent on the House to mark their sense of this part of the Duke of York's conduct. The question being loudly called for, strangers were ordered to withdraw. We understood Mr. Bathurst's resolution was negatived without a division. The Chancellor of the Exchequer next moved, that the word " now" should be left out of Lord Al- thorpe's Amendment. After a conversation of some length, from hearing which strangers were excluded^ a division took place. Ayes - - - 235 Noes - - - 112 Majority 123 for leaving out the word now. MINORITY 531 :lt: MINORITY ON MR. WARDLE's MOTION. ADAMS, C. Althorpe, Lord Antonie, VV. L. Astell, \Vm. Aubrey, Sir J. Bagenell, W. Baillie, Geo. Baring, Thos. Baring, Alex. Bastard, J. Pollex. Bewicke, C. Biddulph, R. M. Bradshaw, Hon, A. C. Brand, Hon. T. Brogden, J. Browne, Ant. Byng, Geo. Caicraft, J. Colie, J.W. Col borne, N. R. Combe, H. C. Cooke, Bryan Craig, J. Creevey, Chas. Curwen, J. C. Cuthbert, T. R. Daly, Right Hon. D. B. Dickenson, W. Fcllowes, Hon. N. Ferguson, R. Fitzgerald, Right Hon. M. Foley, Hon. A. Foley, Thomas Folkstonc, Lord (Teller) Goddard, ThomM Gordon, Wm. GrenfelJ, Pascoe Hall, Sir Jas. Halsey, Joseph Hamilton, Lord A. Hibbert, Geo. Honywood, VV, Horner, F. Horrocks, S. Howard, Hon. W. Howard, H. Howorth, Humph, Hughes, W. L. Hume, W. H. Hurst, R, Hussey, Wm. Hutchinson, Hon. C. Jackson, J. Jacob, Wm. Ktmp, T. Kensington, Lord King, Sir J. D. Knapp, G. Lambton, R. Langton, W. G. Latouchc, J. Latouche, R. Lefevre, C. S, Lester, Garland Lloyd, J. M. Lloyd, Sir E. Longman, G. Littleton, Hon. W. Maddocks, W. A. Mahon, Lord Markham, J. Martin, H. Maule, Hon. W. Maxwell, W. M m 2 5Si List ef Minoritif^ I MUbanke, Sir R^ Mild^nay, Sir H. Milner, Sir W. Moore, Peter Morris, Robt. Mosely, Sir Osw^^ld Mostyn, Sir .^kos. ' ' - > Keville, Hon. R. Noel, G. N. Ord, W. OssulstoD, Lord Parnell, H. Peirse, H. Pelham, Hon. C. A, Pochin, C Porcher, J. D. Portraan, G. B. Prittie, Ho;i. F. A. Pym, F. Ridley, Sir M. Romilly, Sir S. Scudamore, R. P. Sebright, Sir J. Skarpe, R. Shelley, H, Shelley, T'. It would have been 1 been obliged to retire pn Shipley, W. Smith, Sam. Smith, John Smith, Geo. Staniforth, John Stanley, Lord Symonds, Thos, Talbot, R. W. Taylor, C. W. Taylor, W. Thomas, Geo- White Thompson, Tljios. Tighe, W. Townshend, Lord J. Tracey, C. H. Turner, J. F. Vaughan, Hon. J. Wardle, C. L. (Teller) Western, C. C. Wharton, J. Whitbread, S. Wilkins, Walter VVilliams, Owen Winnington, Sir T. E. Wynn, Sir W. W. Wynn, C. W. W. 27, if Sir Francis Burdetth^d not account of indispos'tion^ MINORITY ON THE MOTION OF SIR THOMAS TURTON. Those marked * did not vote in the Minority on Mr. Wardle's Motion. The new Members are 23 in number, so that 156 \\\ all have declared his Royal Highness to be either criminal or weak. ADAMS, C. Babington, Thos.* Althorpe, Lord Bagenell, Wm. Antonie, W. L. Baring, Thos. Astell, Wm. Baring, Alex. Astley, Sir Jacob* Bastard, J. Pollex. Zast of Minority. 533 Biddulph, R. M. Bradshaw, Hon. A. C. Brand, Hon. T. (Teller) Brogden, J. Browne, Ant. Byng, Geo. Calcraft, John Combe, H. C. Cooke, Bryan Craig, J. Creevey, Thomas Curwen, J. C. Cuthbert, J. R. Daly, Right Hon. B. D. Dickenson, W, Ellison, Richard* Fane, John* Fellowes, Hon. N. Ferguson, R. C. Fitzgerald, Right Hon. M. Foley, Hon. A. Foley, Thomas Folkstone, Lord Folkes, Sir Martin* Goddard, Thomas Gordon, Wm. Gower, Earl* Greenhill, Robt, Grenfell, Pascoe Giles, D. Hall, Sir J. Halsey, Joseph Hamilton, Lord A. Hibbert, Geo. Honeywood, W. Horner, F. Horrocks, S. Howard, Hon. W. Howard, IL Howorlli, Humph. Hughes, W. L. Hume, \V. H. Hurst, R. Ilutchinion, Hon. C. Jackson, J. (Dover) Jackson, J. (Southampton)* Jacob, Wm. Kemp, T. Kensington, Lord Knapp, G. Lemon, Sir W.* Lemon, John* Lester, Garland Latouche, J. Ijitouche, R. Lambe, Hon. W. Lambton, R. J. Langton, W. G. Lefevre, C. Shaw Lloyd, Sir E. Lloyd, J. M. Lloyd, Hardress* Lubbock, Sir John* Longman, Geo. Lyttleton, Hon. W. M'Donald, James* Madocks, William Mahon, Lord Markliam, J. Martin, H. Maule, Hon. W. Maxwell, W. Miller, Sir Thos.* Mills, Wm.* Mihlmay, Sir H. Milner, Sir W. Moore, Peter Morris. Robt. Mostyn, Sir Thos. Moscley, Sir Oswald Newport, Sir J.* Noel, G. W. North, Dudley* Ord, Wm. Parnell, H. Palmer, Charles* Pcirsc, Henry Pelham, Hon. C. A. Poclnn, C. I'orchtT, J. D. Portnian, E. R. Prittie, Hon. F. A. Py.n, 1-. Romiily, Sir S. Saint Aubin, Sir J.* Scudamore, R. P. Ziisf of Minority. 534 Sebright, Sir J. Sharpe, R. Shelley, H. Shelley, T. Shipley, W. Smith, Henry* Smith, Sam. Smith, John Smith, Geo. Staniforth, John Stanley, Lord Stuart, Hon. M.* Symonds, Thos. Taylor, W. Talbot, R. W. Taylor, C. W. Tempest, Sir H. V. By the death of Lady Dorothy Fitzwilliam, which hap- pened on Thursday se'nnight. Lord Milton and the three brothers, Dundas, were prevented from attending and voting, as they undoubtedly would have done, in support of Sir Thomas Turton's motion. Thomas, Geo. White Thompson, Thos. Turton, Sir Thos. (Teller) Thornton, Samuel* Tighe, W. Townshend, Lord J. Tracey, C. H. Turner, J. F. Vaughan, Hon. J. Walsh, Benj. Wardle, C. L. Western, C. C. Wharton, J. Whitbread, S. Wilkins, Walter Winnington, Sir T. E, MINORITY ON THE IlESOLUTION OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER. ADAMS, C. Abercromby, Hon. J. Agar, Eman. Althorpe, Vise. Anstruther, Sir J. Antonie, W. L. Astell, Wm. Astley, Sir Jacob Aubrey, Sir J. Babington, Thos. Bagenell.W. Baker, J. Baring, A. Baring, T. Bastard, John P. Bewicke, C. Biddulph, R. M. Blackburne, J. Blackburne, J. J. Bouverie, Hon. B. Bowyer, Sir Geo. Brand, Hon. T. Bradshaw, Hon. C. Brogden, J. Browne, Ant. Byng, Geo. Calcraft, John Calvert, N. Cocks, J. Coke, Daniel Parker List of Minority. 5aj Colburne, N. W. R. Combe, H. C. Cooke, Bryan Cowper, E Synge Craig, J. Creevey, Thomas Curwen, J. C. Cuthbert, J. Daly, Right Hon. D, B. Dickenson, W. Drake, T. D. Elliot. Right Hon. W. Ellison, Richard Fane, John Fellowes, Hon. N. Ferguson, R. C, Fitzgerald, Right Hon, M. Foley, Hon. A. Foley, Thomas Folkes, Sir Martin Folkstone, Ix)rd Falkland, W. Goddard, Thomas Gordon, Wm. Gower, Earl Grant, C. Grattan, Right Hon. H. Greenhill, Robt. Greenough, G. B Grenfell, Pascoe Giles, D. Hall, Sir James Halsey, Joseph Hamilton, Lord A. Herbert, H. Hibbeit, Geo. Hobhouse, R. Holmes, W. Honywood, W. Horner, F. Horrocks, S. Howard, Hon. W. Howard, H. Howorth, Humph. Hughes, W. L. Hume, W. H. Hurst, R. Hutchinion, Hon C. Jacob, William Jackson, J. Keck, G. A. L. Kemp, T. Kensington, Lord King, Sir J. D. Knapp, G. Knox, Hon. T. Lamb, Hon. W. Lambton, R. Langton, W. G. Latouche, D. Latouche, R. Lsters G. Lefevre, C. Shaw Lemon, John Lemon, Sir W, Lethbridge, J. B. Lloyd, J. M. Lloyd, Hardress Lloyd, Sir E. Longman, Geo. lygon, Hon. J. Lyttleton, Hon. \V. iM'Donald, James xMadocks, \V. ISIahon, Hon. S. iVL'ihon, Lord Mark ham, J. Maiyutt, J. -Mavlin, H. ^Laule, Hon. W. Maxwell, W. Mildinay, Sir 11. Miller, Sir J. xMills, C. Mills, Wm. Milner, Sir W. Milncs, R. P. Moore, Peter Morris, Robt. M(/>^eU'y, Sir Oswald Mostyii, Sir Thos. Nevill, Hon. R. Newport, Right Hon. Sir J- Nocl,C. North, D. O'Haia, C. 536 List of Minoritt/* Ord, Wm. Ossulston, Lord Palmer, C. Parnell, H. Peele, Sir R. Pcirse, Henry Pelham, Hon. C. Petty, Lord Henry Pochin, C. Pole, Sir C. Ponsonby, Right Hon. G. Ponsonby, Hon. F. Porcher, Dupre Porchester, Lord Portraan, E. B. Prittie, Hon. F. Pym, F. Ridley, Sir M. Romiily, Sir S. Russell, Lord W. Saint Aubin, Sir J. Salusbury, Sir R. Saville, A. Scudamore, R. P. Sebright, Sir J. Sharpe, R. Shaw, Charles Shelley, H. Shelley, T. Shipley, W. ^I'imeon, J. Smith, H. Smith, S. Smith, John Smith, G- Smith, W. Stanley, Lord Stuart, Hon. M. Sumner, G. H. Symonds, J. P. Talbot, R. W. Taylor, C. W. Taylor, W. Tempest, Sir H. V. Temple, Earl Thelluson, G. W. Thomas, G. W. Thompson, J. Thornton, H. Thornton, S. Tierney, Right Hon. Geo, Tighe, W. Townshend, Lord J. Tracey, C. H. Tremayne, J. H, Turner, J. F. Turton, Sir T. Vaughan, Sir W. Ward, Hon. J. W. Wardle, G. L. Warrender, Sir G. Western, C C. Wharton, J. Whittle, Francis VVhitbread, S. Whitmore, S. Wilberforce, W. ; Wilkins, W. Willoughby, Henry Windham, Right Hon. Wm. Winnington, SirT. E. Wynne, C.W.- Wynne, Sir W, Sneyd, Nath. Stani forth, J. Lord Milton and the three Honourable Mr. Dundas's were ^till absent on account of the death of a near relation. INlr. T. W. Coke and Mr. Owen Williams, were obliged to go into the country. In the Divisions against the Duke of York there divided 56 Knights of Siiireb. In \\hfavonr there were 82 Place- men and General Officers, besides the Sons and Biio- TiiERs of Placemen. /. G. Barnard, Printer, Skinner S/! University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. JA^ 2 8 I CQ7 DUE2W^^trtU!^UAf ERECtlvED \h>^' ^ ^^'' Form SIE 97 'H 506 Frederick ^ A 7m Aurrustus, duke of |^ York and Albany, 1763-1327, defendan"^"^ Mr. ''I'ardle and the rke~onWJr I UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACTLITY 1 A A 000 098 685 i DA 506 A7m Ll5fIf!tlt7iM!