The National Register.
London, England, 1809-03-12 00:00:00

TIIE NATIONAL REGISTVR.

how any transaction of the Duke of York with that man,
be made to press upon the character of his Royal Highness.
th regard to the case of Major Turner, the Gentleman who
,bed to resign, but who•was prevented for a time by the inter-
Tence of a lady of the name of Sutherland, I shall make hut a
w observations. What is the consequence of Mrs. Sutherland's
aresentations- of Major Turner? An inquiry is made into the
rcumstances to which her letter alludes; his Colonel, Lieut.
,!n. Cartwright, the proper person to whom an application for
ormation in such a case is to be made, clears his character.
id immediately afterwards his resignation is accepted. Col.
'Won's evidence goes to show, that had the letter been anom-
Low, the very same course would have been adopted. From
ly evidence that has been produced to substantiate the charge
dative to Samuel Carter, it is impossible for the House to ea-
Ttain any other view of the case, than that it was an act of
mane and attentive consideration on the part of the Com-
alder in Chief towards the orphan son-of a meritorious officer,
'ho had lost his life in the service of his country. But allowing
)at the commission was granted through the application of Mrs.
iarke, could any one.condemn the Duke fora compliance with a
request which was not merely innocent, but honourable to her hu-
mnity. I cannot help expressing my opinion, whether the facts
'ere so or no, that this part of Mrs. Clarke's testimony did her ere-
it ( Mar ! Ilear ! ) Yet it deserves to be observed, that the first
pplication for a commission for Samuel Carter was in 1801.
'he application was not then acceded to, and the reason might
probably have been this, that a great reduction was then taking
place in the army, and there were few commissions to dispose
of. The letters of the young man abundantly show that
he was known to the Duke of York. The paragraph in his
Royal Highness's letter which relates to General Clavering,
Is, Clavering is mistaken, Mg Angel, in thinking that any new
regiments are to be raised, only second battalions to the existing
corps; you had better therefore sell him so, and that you were sure
there would be no use in applying for him." It appears clear to
me that Mrs. Clarke must have been playing Waite same game
upon General Clavering, that she had been playing off upon so
.many other people, and what the Duke wrote to her appears
merely to be in answer to some harmless and unimportant• ques-
tions, which, considering the sort of intimacy that subsisted be-
tween them, it is not very surprising she should have asked.—
The introduction of Dr. O'Meara to his Royal highness, who
procured him the honour to preach before his. Majesty, is cer-
tainly a circumstance extremely to be regretted ; but it is -a
subject that has no relation to the inquiry now before the'
House. I cannot help remarking upon one peculiarly strong
feature of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, where she appears to me to
be contradicted by the moFt decisive testimony. She is asked
from time to time, Was the Duke of York privy to your receiv-
ing money from officers to prOcure them promotion To this
She answers-- -Yes, I never concealed any thing from his Royal
Highness. But how does this appear from her own letters found
in possession of Captain Huxley Sandon ? There is an anxiety
throughout the whole, that it should not he known to the Duke
that she was any way connected with Santlon; and this I can ac-
count for in no other way, than by supposing she was afraid lest
Otis highness should discover her practices. The Right lion.
Gentleman then went into a minute examination of the probable
expenditure at Gloucester-place, during the period that Mrs.
Clarke was living there under the protection of the Duke of
York, and contended, that the sums he furnished her were suf-
ficient to cover the expenses of that establishment, without there
being any necessity for Mrs. Clarke to have had- recourse to cor-
rupt and criminal means to raise supplies. Af!er Commenting at
some length upon the evidence relative to the service of plate
purchased of Parker and Birket, he put it strongly to the House,
whether it was. possible that the Duke of York, with the
patronage of preferments to the amount of near 400,0001. a year
in his disposal, could have connived at or been concerned in the
paltry criminal traffic to which Mrs. Clarke had so falsely at-
tached his name. The Right Hon. Gentleman next touched
upon the contradictions of Mrs..Favery, who he had no doubt
was the half-sister of Mrs. Clarke, though that fact had not come
out in evidence. « To oppose the testimony of such witnesses as
these," said tite Right lion. Gentleman " let us consider who
are the persons, with the exception of this abandoned woman,
who have enjoyed most of the confidence of his Royal Highness.
Characters like lien. Calvert, Colonel Gordon, and many others,
went to ,exempt ; his Royal Highness from every insinuation of
undue and improper influence. The persons I have mentioned
cannot be deetne likely to have sulfered any circumstances and
practices of corruhition, or even of negligence, to have passed

unnoticed under their eyes. When I consider all these graml
and impressive points, 1 cannot reconcile myself to the opinion
that the House will not come to an immediate decision on the
nature and-merits of the charges preferred against the Duke of
Y ork. t may therefore pm:s upon t hem the necessity of a
judgment both prompt and d.!cisive. The Right lion. Geutle-
man, after strongly urging the Bout to come to a decided judg-
ment on the charges, concluded with toovitig the following reso.
lotion, " That charge, hay ing been brought against his Royal
Highness the Duke of York, imputing to litta personal corrup-
tionotoi criminal etninis'ance in his othee of Commander in Chief
of his Nlajestv's Vorces, and this House having referred the said
charges to a Committee of the whole I I ouse, and haying maturely
and carefully investigated the saint-, feel, it its duty to pronounce
a distinct and direct opinion upon the said charges of personal
corruption and criminal c
Mr. BATHURST could not, for his part, approve of the Address
moved by the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Wardle). Thk! House had
it it-: its power to pronounce an equivalent censure without a per 7
sonal demand of his Majesty, that he would be pleased to dismiss
his son from the command of the army. But if he haul an oljecti on
to the lion. Geutleman's Address; he had an aliens' equal ob-
jection to that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exenequec.
The former, he thought, went too far ; the latter certainly not
far enough. Now, as far as the proposed Address merelymerelyexpre,,sed
the innocence of his Bova] highness of all corrupt partici patimt
and criminal privity, he most fully concurred in it. But this
division did not include the whole charge ; he had originally' (in
his own conception of it) divided it into three points,- pr distinct
heads:—

Ist, A participation in the corrupt dealing.
2:1. A knowledge of such corrupt dealing..
3d. Undue intlueece. There -were many Clentl,ltnen who
were perfectly prepared to acquit his Royal Ilighnes4 under the'
two former points, but who entertained a very diifereat opinion
on the latter. Under such circumstances they could not vote for
the proposed Address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either
because it might be supposed to involve them in a g,Nferal ac-
quittal, or because it did not go far enough. Ile most sinc.rely
wished, that some Gentleman would propose an Address, which
should unite all these points, and thereby, as he hoped, com-
prehend all parties. 1f no one else should make a motion to t his
effect, he should most certainly deem it his duty. For the pre-
sent he would put Mrs. Clarke and .111 the oral testimony quite
out of the way, and attend only to the letters. These letters
were in fact, the least suspicious part of the evidence. The
hand-writing of all had been verih..d, and the g rmter pari of
them had been produced by chance, and without any jnendnility
or concert or contrivance.' Such weii, the packets produced by
Nichols. In one of these was a letter from his Royal Ilighnesi
the Duke of York to Mrs. Clarke, in which he seas,—"
Clavering that there are no new regiments to be raked."
Now this certainly proves that the Duke of York Was is the
habit of consulting Mrs. Clarke, and let the Right Hon. Gentle,
man explain it as he will, it appears that his Royal Highness
had no reserve with Mrs. Clarke upon these sulicet;;. And u hat
was the point of fact—a man of family acid cotim.ction,
neral Clavering, is so thoroughly persuaded of the influence of
Mrs. Clarke, whether she really had it (or not, that lie oll'ere:1
her one thousand pounds to procure hira a regiment. Here,
therefore, one important point is established—that the army
had this opinion of the influence of Mrs. Clarke, and that ttiey
acted under this opinion. He had examined the evidence
with the utmost care from the beginning to the end, and *the
result of his opinion was, that there was no evidence w hat=
ever which could bring home to the Duke the guilt of participa-
tion, or even of privity. But he must avow it, on the ot 41
hand, as his most decided opinion, that there was the ;nest po.:
sitive proof that the Duke had bestowed the place:(
ments of his office anger the ':„uggestion and influence of Mrs.
• Clarke, and therefore the most improper. The Chancellor ot
the Exchequer had consumed a great deal of time in endeavouring
to exempt his Royal Highness from all blame in the case (if
Captain Carter. But how did the matter stand ? The letters
of Carter spoke for themselves—to w how did this young matt
impute his promotion—every letter teemed with gratitude to
Mrs. Clarke, and to Mrs. Clarke alone—there was not a word
of the Duke mentioned in them—not a syllable which would
lead to any opinion that the Doke had given him his commission
as the son of Captain Sutton. It was nqiiting to this view of
the question whether Samuel Carter was or was not alootman
of Mrs. Clarke; the only inference which was necessary to he
deduced was, that this young man had prucured his commission

't

f
111
•
•
• 4
11
•
•

1 _
throughout the whole, that it should not be Known to toe LJUKC
man explain it as Ile ww, IL itililuatt z 4,1.1. ...,
that she was any way connected with Santion; and this I can ac- .1 •.,..•••• . • •., ..... •,.
had no reserve with Mrs. Clarke upon these subjects. Ant w hat :
,
count for in no other w:l,y, than by supposing she was afraid lest was the point of fact—a man of family anti enttec!ioa, Ii!.; (;;..,
H
his Highness should discover her practices. The Right on. neral Clayering, is so thoroughly persuaded of the ittila:_atee of 1,-
Gentleman then went into a minute examination of the probable Mrs. Clarke, whether she really had it or not, that lie
oill•re.1 '
expenditure at Gloacester-place, during the period that Mrs. her one thousand pounds to procure him a regiment. Here,
Clarke was lining there under the protection of the Duke of therefore, one important point is established—that the army
York, and contended,6 that the sums he furnished her were suf- had this opinion of the influence of Mrs. Clarke, and that itie'y
ftcient to cover the expenses of that establishment, without there acted under this opinion. He had examined the evideece 1
being any necessity for Mrs. Clarke to have had- recourse to cor- with the utmost care from the beginning to the end, and the'
•
rupt and criminal means to raise supplies. Af!er 'commenting at
result of his opinion was, that there was no evidence what.
some length upon the evidence relative to the service of plate
ever which could bring home to the Duke the guilt of participa- f i
111" purchased of Parker and Birket, he put it strongly to the House, tion,
whether it was. possible that the Duke of York, with the hand, as his most decided opinion, that there was the taest pa.,.. 1,.
patronage of preferments to the amount of near 400,0001. a year or even of privity. But he must avow it, on the ot4f
proof that the Duke had bestowed the placeaitappoie:... fi
sitive :t a
Ti
in his disposal, could have connived at or been concerned in the meats of his office antler the 'suggestion and inane:ice of Mrs ►I.
paltry criminal traffic to which Mrs. Clarke had so falsely at- • Clarke, and therefore the most improper. The Chancellor oi I
-
tached his name. The Right Hon. Gentleman next touched the Exchequer had consumed a great deal of time in endeavouriNg i•'
upon the contradictions of Mrs. :Favery, who he had no doubt to exempt his Royal Highness front all blame in the case (if
was the half-sister of Mrs. Clarke, though that fact had not come Captain Carter. But how did the matter stand ? The letters hi,
out in evidence, 4.' To oppose the testimony of such witnesses as of Carter spoke for themselves—to w host did this ) to.mg wait 1 :
these," said the Right lion. Gentleman " let us consider who impute his promotion—every letter teemed with gratitude to t,'
are the persons, with the exception of this abandoned woman, Mrs. Clarke, and to Mrs. Clarke alone—there was not a word i•!:
who have enjoyed most of the confidence of his Royal Highness. of the Duke mentioned in them—not a syllable which would it"
Characters like (cn. Calvert, Colonel Gordon, and many others, lead to any opinion that the Mike had given him his commissien
went to ,exempt his; Royal Highness from every insinuatiolt of as the son of Captain Sutton. It was Ailing to this view of .1 ' '
undue and improper influence. The persons I have mentioned the question whether Samuel Carter was or was not alootwan
of Mrs. Clarke ; the only inference which was necessary to he
,:i
cannot be deemedk likely to have sulfered any circumstances ant"
practices of corrukttion, or even of negligence, to have passed deduced was, that this young man had procured his commiszlon ir
I.
71