"1806. the beginning, whether there was any truth 66 to have spoken thus: What would "the house, or the public, wish for more, "than that £16,000 should be spent in "two years on such a baggage as this. "For his part he thought it might have "been seen from the shuffling way in "which she answered the first six ques "had been paid to the person who was "always employed by his royal highness, "to receive the money intended for Mrs. "Clarke. Beyond that (as his Royal Highness authorised him to state to the Commit"tee) his royal highness.frequently gave "her personally other and considerable "sums, of which, however, he had kept "no memorandum. Mrs. Clarke had "stated at the bar, that her allowance of "£. 1000 per annum, was paid in drafts. "With regard to those drafts from the banker, if the house thought it necessary "to have any proof, they might examine "the servant, to whom they were uni"formly paid at the banker's. This ser"vant then took the money to the Duke, "who put it under a cover, sealed it, and "sent it by the same person to Mrs. "Clarke. Besides this, there were trades"men for furniture, wine, jewels, and the plate (with which the house was already" tions put to her, that they ought not acquainted) to make the total amount "to have proceeded with this silly and " of £. 16,760 from Jan. 1804 to May "foolish inquiry."In the last part Here the right hon. gentleman, of his observations Mr. Fuller was right "if it was necessary, might be called to enough, if the Duke's word is to be op"prove the facts he now stated, on the au- posed to the evidence against him. Not thority of his royal highness, at the bar of only not more than six questions; but no "the house.". Reader; impartial read- question at all should have been put to er, does not this strike you as a very Mrs. Clarke, if the Duke's word is to be novel procedure? However Mr. Perceval, opposed to her evidence. Mr. Bereswho came into office to protect "our holy ford, however, is reported to have observed, religion," may console himself with a upon this very novel procedure, that "it statement of the Duke of York having ex- "was needless to think, that, by shutting pended £. 16,760 upon a concubine, while, "their own eyes, the House could also shut in addition to all his immense salaries and "the eyes of the public;" and never did he pensions, he was borrowing £. 54,000 from make a truer observation in his life.the minister out of the taxes raised upon Mr. Perceval was then examined thus: us; however consoling this may be to Mr." Question:-Do you know if his Royal HighPerceval, does it not strike you, that the "ness paid any, and what sums, towards producing as evidence, facts stated upon the" keeping the house in Gloucester-place, authority of the party accused, is something "besides £.1,000 a year allowed to Mrs.. new, quite new, in English jurisprudence?" Clarke ?-Answer:-I know nothing of Have you ever seen, or heard, of any the £.1,000 a year but from the witness thing like this before, either in parlia-" at the bar. From the Paper I now hold ment, or in any court of justice? Is this "in my hand, I see, that from the 11th of the way in which any of us are treated, when we are tried? If there happen to be more than one judge upon the bench, do we ever see any of them pulling papers out of his pocket, and, in contradiction to evidence given before the court, state so and so, upon the authority of the person under trial?- -But, reader, why was this statement kept in petto, till the last moment? Why was not the bare word (for it is no more) of the Duke taken before, and opposed to the declarations of every witness, in every stage of the proceeding?- In short, why all this time taken up in inary? Why not have asked the Duke, at January, 1804, to the 18th of June, 1806, "£.5,551 has been paid in drafts (as the certificate of the Duke of York at the bottom "states) for the use of Mrs. Clarke. The payments to the tradesmen are also ve"rified by the certificate, and to the best of my recollection and belief."-Lord Folkestone objected to this hear-say evidence in favour of the accused, when it had uniformly been rejected, if attempted to be used against him.- -They now desisted; and they still left it, as the reader will receive it, the bare word of the Duke of York against the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, corroborated by the magnitude of the es to offer their services before next Saturday night. This is my sincere opinion, and, if it can be shown to be erroneous, let it be done.But, be this as it may; what has the regular keeping of books in the Duke's office to do with Mrs. Clarke's sale of commissions? what has it to do with the es tablishments in Gloucester Place and at Weybridge.Mr. Cripps, however, whose question appears as naturally as can be, to have produced that" diligent inquiry" from Mr. Perceval that led to this curious procedure, was, it appears from the report of his speech, wonderfully well satisfied with the account of the Chancellor of the Ex-tablishment and the vile traffic in Glouces chequer. Mr. Cripps thanked the right ter Place? This" regularity" did not "hon. gentleman for the information he prevent the officering of Samuel Carter, "had given him. He would not have the concubine's foot-boy, as we shall see "made the enquiry till the end of the pre- anon. Oh this will never do. This is "sent investigation, had he not been aware poor work. If Col. Gordon can bring "that very strong impressions had been made proof, from his books or his boxes, that all "on the public mind, from the belief that that has been proved has not been proved; "Mrs. Clarke was supposed to support her why, then, this able Colonel may be said expensive establishment on the allow- to have afforded "great consolation" to his "ance of £. 3,000 for three years. The royal employer; but, if he cannot do that, "answer was most satisfactory, and what-it is even to undervalue the sense of the "ever might be the issue of this enquiry, Duke to suppose, that, from what the Colo"it must be a great consolation to his nel has done, or can do, he will derive any "Royal Highness to know, that without it, consolation. Before we return to our "it never would have been known to the case, a remark or two is, by this digression, "public in the manner unfolded by Colonel justified, and even called for, with respect to "Gordon, in how excellent and regular a the evidence of all the military officers, and "manner every thing was conducted in the indeed, almost all the witnesses that have "Office of the Commander in Chief, so highly been called.- -In courts of justice, the "to his honour, and so productive of benefit to evidence of a brother, a father, or a very "the British army."- -Aye, aye, Sir! It close friend, is always received with some was not necessary for you to state, that portion of allowance for partiality. Peryou were fully aware of the strong impres- sons, known to be in any-wise dependant sion made on the public mind by Mrs. upon the parties, are heard and believed Clarke's evidence, though, if I forget not, with similar caution. There is no doubt, some one or more did say, that she shuffled that my neighbour, or a stranger, is a in such a manner, that no one could possibly better evidence for me than my own servant. believe a word that she said. We can have The officers of the army are not the serno doubt, Sir, that you are satisfied, because vants of the Duke of York; but, it is peryou say so; but, it does not follow, that fectly well known, that they are much we should be satisfied by so easy a method. more dependant upon him than any servant, And why, Sir, digress? why fly off considered merely as such, can possibly be from this soul-comforting statement of the upon any master. The worst I can do to Chancellor of the Exchequer, and draw us a servant is to turn him off; but, the Comafter you, into observations upon the "ex- mander in Chief can, with the approbation "cellent and regular manner," in which of the king, at any moment, without reason Col. Gordon shows "every thing is con- assigned, not only turn any officer off, but, "ducted in the Office of the Commander by that very act, strip him of his rank in "in Chief?" What has he shewn, Sir? life, and of the means of obtaining even That the dates of recommendations and of bread to eat! My discarded servant can appointments and commissions are regular- go to another master; but, there is no other ly entered, and that letters are neatly co- master, no other service for the cashiered pied into books? Why, Sir, we know, that officer to go to. For this reason, amongst this office costs us, including the salaries others, it doubtless was, that sir Francis Burand pensions of the Duke, hundreds of thou- dett wished it to be enacted, that no officer sands a year; aye, hundreds of thousands; should be discarded without being so senand, there is nothing there done, as far as tenced by a court martial; a law the more appears from the evidence given to the necessary, because the office of Commander House, that might not be done, and full in Chief was held by a son of the king, by as well too, by any four or five of the five which means the advice as well as the hundred persons, who, by an advertise-power was concentrated in the throne.ment in the news-papers, offering them I say not this with any wish to disparage £.150 a year a-piece, would be induced the evidence of Colonels Gordon and Lo 7 CASE OF KNIGHT AND BROOKE. It is alledged, that, in July 1805, Col. or Lt. Col. (no matter which) Knight, wished to make an exchange of commissions with a Major, or a Lt. Col. Brooke; that the application of these two gentlemen had been, for some time, before the Duke of York; that it was not followed by the grant of the Duke to exchange; till, at last, Mr. Robert Knight, brother of Col. Knight, at the suggestion of Dr. Thynne (the medical attendant of Mrs. Clarke), offered to Mrs. Clarke, through Doctor Thynne, the sum of £.200 if she would get the exchange accomplished; that Mrs. Clarke, undertook the job; that she told the Duke of York that she was to be paid for it; that the exchange, in a few days afterwards, was ordered to take place and was actually gazetted; that, upon this, the fulfilment of the contract on her part, Mr. Knight paid her the £.200, and that she not only told the Duke, that the money had been paid her, but actually shew him the note or notes. raine, or of any other of the military offi- conve 66 Duke of York, a notification in the usual way, that, when a proper successor presented, there would be no objection to the exchange; that he does not know of any positive promise made to his brother by the Duke, previous to the application to Mrs. Clarke. Upon being asked: "Why "was the application made to Mrs. "Clarke," he answered, "There was a delay in the business; but the cause of "it I do not know. I mentioned the cir"cumstance to Mr. Thynne, who was then attending my family. He advised me "to apply to a good friend of his, Mrs. "Clarke." He then repeated what he has said before about the offer of money.Upon further questioning, he says, that Mrs. Clarke desired him to keep the whole transaction a secret, lest it should come to the ears of the Duke of York; and that, recently, she has told him, that the Duke having used her extremely ill, leaving her in debt about £.2,000, she would, if she could bring him to no terms, expose him, whereupon the witness said, he hoped she would not expose him and his brother by mentioning their names, to which she answered, that God knew that was not her intention. Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke states, that in, or about, July 1805, Dr. Thynne applied to her to obtain leave for an exchange between Knight and Brooke; that he made her an offer of a pecuniary compliment; that she thinks the sum mentioned was a couple of hundred of pounds; that Dr. Thynne told her, at the time, that Mr. Knight had long been endeavouring to get this leave, but had not yet succeeded; that, on the same day, in which the proposition was made to her, she mentioned it to the Duke of York, and gave him, while at dinner, the slip of paper, which she had received from Dr. Thynne, containing the names of the parties; that the Duke asked her whether she kucw the parties; that she answered that she did not know them at all, and that certainly they would make some sort of compliment, but that she is not certain that she mentioned the exact amount of the compliment; that, when the exchange appeared in the Gazette, she sent the Gazette to Dr. Thynne, together with a note from herself; that, in a day or two after that, she received the £. 200, which came to her in a note, with Dr. Thynne's compliments; that she thinks the compliments were written in the note; that she made this circumstance of the receipt of the money known to the Duke of York; that she did this on the day on which she received the money; that the Duke must have known the amount of the note, because she shewed it him, and she thinks that she got one of his servants to get it exchanged for her, through his Royal Highness.- Upon her cross-examination, she says, that she thinks she can say positively that the note, with the money in it, came from Dr. Thynne, because she told her maid to go down and give the man who brought it a guinea; that the Duke got the note changed for her, because she could not get it done herself; that she did not know any thing of the servant's name who was sent to get the note changed.Being asked, whether she desired Mr. Knight to keep the matter secret, she says, she should think that she did certainly, but does not recollect, but it is very likely she did. Being asked, whether she ever expressed a wish that it should be kept a secret from the Duke; she says, "O no, never;" and that she is quite positive that she never said any thing like it. Being asked, what the Duke said, when she first opened the business to him and told him she was to receive a compliment; she says: "He told me that he knew the business very "well, that 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." Being asked what time of the year the transaction took place, she says: "The Duke was going down to "Weymouth on the night that I changed "the note, which was the reason that I got the note changed; my servants "could not get it changed, and his ser"vant got it changed for me. Lord Ches"terfield's family was going down, and he, "was going to be god-father to Lord "Chesterfield's child: it was the end of "July or the beginning of August. Colonel Gordon, who is the public military Secretary of the Duke of York, says, in substance, this: that it is his duty to make to the Duke a report upon all applications for promotions, or exchanges; that he has no doubt that he made an enquiry upon the case of Knight and Brooke ; that he fully believes, that the grant of the exchange was made in consequence of his report; that he kept no minute of the enquiry or report, and was not in the habit of doing so; that the delay in question took place on account of some doubts of the eligibility of Col. Brooke, and not on account of any objection to Col. Knight's request; that he has not the smallest reason to suspect that any influence other Placed on half-pay Bt. Lt. Colonel 23 July, exchange. to exchange, the answer stating that the Duke had no objection to the exchange, and that, when an eligible successor could be recommended, the request would be taken into consideration.-Col. Gordon also produced the following document contained in a letter from Greenwood and Cox, the agents of some of the parties, which document bears date, 1 July, 1805. C. L. cannot be acceded to, II. R. H. does not 94 approve of the exchange proposed. 1 Jan. 1800 Sir, By direction of General Norton, we have the 24 May 1804 honour to inclose a form, signed by Brevet Lieu9 June 1804 tenant Colonel Brooke of the 56th regiment, to 5 Jan. 1805 exchange with Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards, together with a copy of a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Knight, stating, 05. H. R. H. does now approve of this that he is satisfied with the security given for payment of the regulated difference between the value of the two commissions; and being informed the counterpart of the exchange has been sent in through the Agents of the 5th Dragoon Guards, you will be pleased to submit the same to Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of York.- -We have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, GREENWOOD & Cox. N. B. Mark well, reader, the words in Italics, were, in the original produced, written in PENCIL!!! Ludovick Orramin (who was called on a later day) a footman of the Duke of York, said, that he was a foreigner; that he had lived 18 years with the Duke; that no other of the Duke's servants ever went to Mrs. Clarke's; that he used to go there at eight o'clock in the morning to take the Duke's clothes; that he never saw Mrs. Clarke at her house but once, when he went to take a favourite dog for her to see; that the Duke was not then there; that he is quite certain that he never was sent by any one, from her house, to get any note changed. In his cross-examination, he repeated these assertions; he said, that no other servant of the Duke was permitted to go to Mrs. 'Clarke's; he asserted of his own knowledge, that no other of the Duke's servants ever went there. He said he had been asked (previous to his coming to the House of Commons) the same question about the note, by the Duke, by Mr. Adam, by Mr. Lowten, and by Mr. Wilkinson, and that he had given them the same answer. David Pierson (who was called on a day after Orramin had given bis evidence) was butler to Mrs. Clarke in 1805, and is now butler to the Honble. Mr. Turner. He states, that he recollects in 1805, the Duke going to Weymouth and Mrs. Clarke to Worthing; that, about that time, which was in hot weather, he saw Mrs. Favourite (Mrs. Clarke's house-keeper) bring down a bill, in the morning, and Ludowick going out and getting it changed, and coming back and giving it to Mrs. Favourite again, and she took it up stairs; that he does not know the amount of the note; that the Duke was up stairs at the time; that he is not certain whether the Duke was up or not; that this is the only note he ever recollects Ludowick's getting changed. -Pierson, in a second examination, recollects, what he had forgotten before, that, on the night that the Duke of York went to Weymouth, about 11 o'clock at night, he himself was sent out to get a bill. changed; that he went out and got it changed; that he brought the change to Mrs. Clarke, who said it was all right; |