The National Register. — London, England, 1809-02-05 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER. FEB. 5. THE DUKE OF YORK. The House then went into a Committee. Mr. Wharton in the Chair. Mr: Wardlp rose to correct an inadvertent error in his testi. 'bony on Wednesday night. He had then said, that he had not been with Mrs. Clarke on Tuesday morning, hut had seen her an that evening, he now recollected having seen her twice on that day, though not on the day bet ., . , re, He wished therefore, that that errpr might he corrected, The 'Chancellor of the Exchequer. Had the Honourable Gentleman any conversation with Mrs. Clarke on Tuesday rela tive to the present inquiry ? Mr. Wardle. No conversation of any moment. Certainly no particular, no pointed conversation. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Did the Honourable Member first mention the charges against the Commander in Chief to Mrs. Clarke, or she to him ? Mr. Wardle. 1 Palley that in the first instance I put some questions to her coareffling what I had heard, and that it was in consequence of those queitions I got from her the information 1 did. The Chancellor of the Exchequer. Could the Honmirable Gentleman state from whom he first had his information respect ing those charges? • Mr. Wardle. It would be impossible for me to do so t I could not with proprjety name the persons from whom I had it. The Attorney-Ceittrul called upon Mr. Adam to produce the Intiers sent to him by Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Adani then produced the letters. One of them he said was dated June the 190, without any year, and it was in dorsed in his own hand, June 19, 1508. The other was dated 4 , Saturday" without any month or year. The first letter stated, that Mrs. Clarke had applied to the Poke of York for the pasinent of her promised annuity of 4001. per annum, of which 5001. was then due to her, but to no hurpose. She found, she said, that he was a man d ev o id of onour and principle, and that his word could not be relied on. She requested Mr. Adam to inform his Royal Highness, that qnleits he agreed to secure her annuity, she would publish every circumstance against him that had taken place during their con gection, and al his letters to her, which amounted to something efrious. That he was more in her power than might he ima glued. But she wished to avoid the pain she herself must feel at exposing him. • Before she did, she would send a Copy of the proposed publication to his family. She requested that he Could continue his protection to her son, or got him into the Charteryhoase School. The child was not accountable for the conduct of its parent. Mr. Adam stated, that this child w as not by the !hike of York. The wowd letter was dated holler-street, Cavendish-square. It begin with a complaint, that she had received nn answer to her former letter about her annuity. She stated, she was en gaged in committing to paper i'll4 the circumstances to which site had alluded in her former letter, and that she had about 50 cpr 60 letters of his Royal Highness's, which would give weight to her charges. She had promised, she said, to give them up tnitlie Tuesday following, and it would be afterwards impossi ble to recal them. It was pot to publishers she would give them, but to Gentlem'en as opulent as his Royal Ilighoess, and More independent ; and if the Duke did Rot OlieVe her, they would. He might do as'he pleased. Theselotters were directed to Mr. Adam, Bloomsbury-square, god Signed t• M. A. Clarke." Mr. Aciax examined by the ATTOItNEY- 4 1.:NERAL. The Attorney General asked, whether these were the two letters alluded to in Mrs. Clarke's evidence? Mr: Adam re plied that these must be the letters, as he was confident he bad received no other, except perhaps a note of two lines, which be did not very well recollect; it was not in his possinsion.* Attorney.,General. Did his Royal Highness express any ap prehension as to what Mrs. Clarke alight lip able to cuanunni ate ?• A. on vat:Owe. Q. Did you communicate the letters or their contents to his Royal Highnieis? . A. Yes, I did. Q. The Letters 'themselves? A. Yes, the letters themselyes, }ad he read them in my presence. Q. After that did he betray the slightest apprehensions ? A. clot the slightest. Mr.•BEREsfoRD considered it as a degradation to the House %o prOceed farfherinto the history of this infarnmis woman, for go he must call her. Pancitvat. sold, if he were called upon to give his opi- 4414.* In %wßose pouei4ion is the Note 9 \ l lion, even as the 'Me 'WWI, he could have no hesitation iu saying, that the evidence of the wi:ness was not to 'be relied upon, If Mrs. Clarke had said, that she had never represented herself as a widow, and if it could be proved that sue had so represented herself, and got credit upon that ground, it woe certainly a very important circumstance, and still more so, if, upon payment of her debts being demanded, she had turned round and represepteil herself as a married woman. "Fliere was, besides, another fact, which it was very material to ascertain. llis Ilonoorahle and [maimed Friend could prove, or imagined he could prove, that this woman, who had said that her hop. hand was engaged iu no business, did live with her husband who was a mason with three children. All this ought to he prodnee4 fur the satisfaction of the Ilouse, and he hoped that it would have its full force, because the corpus dairti in this ewe de, pended entirely on her evidence. There was no doubt that money had been given, but the question was, whether lois Royal Highness knew of that circumstance, and had been pre" smiled upon by her influence to grant promotions and exchanges in the army. This depended entirely upon her testimony, r o ad therefore it was material to skew, in the most satisfactory mom. ncr, that her evidence was unworthy of the least credit. The A TIO RN EY UEN ERA L. said, that in the evidence which he adduced he always looked at the distinct point under toast. deration. The subject here was the conduct of his Royal High ness the Duke of I ark, with regard to the army; mid the par ticular question was, whether he had conducted himself core ropily in granting commissions with a view to put money in the pockets of those whom he wished to favour. That there Were persons about h i as almost always happened in such cases ' s% he represeoted themselves as possessed of influence i and ('sat thew were dupes credulous enough to believe them. and to waste their moues—he had no doeht. No witness had attempted to fix any charge upon his Royal Highness the Duke of 'erk but Ildirs t Clarke ; and if the cause Had been before a jury, the jade would immediately tell theni l that it could pot stand a moment upon the testimony of sock a witness, even from her own admits The NTTORN EY7GEN ER 4. tin desired landovick Armor to be called. Mrs. Clarke, he observed, had said that she was sure the Duke of York knew she got the 'lOOl. because his sorwaut had been sent by him to get it changed. [Judos ick Armor examined by, the ATTORN EV•GgNER A L. Q. In whose service are you?—A. In that of his Royal flightless the Duke of York. • Q. How long have you been in his service ? A. Eighteen years next September. - Q. Were ally, and what servants accustomed to attend his Royal Highness on these occasions? A. None but myself. (. During how luitg was the witness in the halm of going to his Royal Highness at Gloucester-place ? A. Front kW to 9. What was the single occasion on which he saw Mrs. Clarke? A.' When he took a favourite dog of his Royal High ness for Mrs. Clarke to see. --Q. Was you ever seut by his Royal Highness or. rs. Clarke while at Gloucester -place to get a mite changed A. Never. Q. Was the is itness lent by any one at that place to get a note ehaaged ? A. No. Examirrd by Mr. WARDLE. Q. The witness has taken it loan himself to say that no other servant went to Gloucester-place to the Duke of York but hints self. On what ground does he say so ? A. Becanse I had ordera to bring those things and no other servant ; no other servant was permitted to do it. Q. He asked whether the witness could assert that no other servant took a letter to Mrs. Clarke to Gloucester-place ? None but me. Q. 1 understood you to say that no otherservant of the Bugs carried letters ther,e to your kuowledge ?—A. None to my . knowledge. Q. I think he said he only saw Mrs. Clarke once at Gloucester place ? A. Only once. By Sir F. BURDETT. Q. Had yoa any communication with rosy one as t o th e ev i., deuce vou have given to-night ? A. His Royal Highness asked me if I had ever changed a note. Q. Had you any communication witb any person besides his Royal Highness ? A. I was asked the same question by Mr. Adam. Q. Had yoi any conversation with any other person on the same subject ? A. Iresor it h Mr. Wilkinson. Q. Will) is be? A. lie is a Geetilmskfrutn Mr. Low teas } t 'p