The Sun.
London, England, 1809-03-16 00:00:00

. . ,
..
-=,v whoM Mrs. Ctarke's evidence i.vas-Cerroberafek
was Miss Taylor. Hit. Right; How.. Friend near
him (Mr. Windham), bad said last night that there ,
was this difference between Mrs. Clarke and .Miss '
Taylor, viz. that the cherther of the fortnei was
bad, but her testimony goodi while the clutimeter,Of
,the latter was good, and her testimony.bad. Prom:.
this distinction he dissented. His Right Horiburable
`t:.!ieod was of opinion that Miss Taylor had,been
tntoreci; that she had rehearsed her part before she
• • appeared at the Ear. He. (Lord 'l'.) did not believe
to—he believed her evidence to be perfeCtly correct.; 11
he believed she had not been.totored ; he believed
that she had not rettearsed 'her pact. HA she ber:p
littered, she would have learned more; she would
have been taught 'a tale,whieltwould have better an-
kwered the purposes of her instructors. Had she
rehearsed' a part, it would have been a part of more
idtportance. While ha admitted, however, ibather
evidetite was in his opinion free flolll,ltlSpiCiOn; he
rontended,,that- it by no means went to convict the
:auks of York of corruption. " How-did French
.behave to you, darling ?" could not, in his Mind,
. 'he .perieried to mega " How does he pay you ?"
if the Duke of York was corrupt, be either made
1V1.,. iss Taylor a party to his corruption„or he did not.
11 ire did make her a party, was it .credible that thi.s. .
tvZs the only phrase of the kind which Miss Taylor
. leeolleaed his, Royal Highness to haVe used in her
presence ? If he did not make her a party, .was it.
credible that he should have uttered even :the single. •
phrase before a female, in whom he placed no confi-
dence, and who, for ought be knew, might, and pro-
, bably would, relate what she had heard ? Bistaltho'
Miss Taylor's evidence did not gciso tar as to convict
the Duke of York of corruption, it convided him
of permitting Mrs. Clarke to interfere with his offi-
cial duties, and to recommend her friends to his no-
tice as Commander in Chief. He would proceed,
' , however, to the next evidence that bad been ad-
duced in support of the charge of corruption, Which
was the large establishment at Gloucester-place, and
the dedudion, that as Mrs. Clarke evidently expended
.six times her allowance,' his Royal Highness ought to
have known that she must have'llad recourse to im-
proper Praaices. This he coeld not anew. In judging
of the charatSters of others we must "not always be '
guided by 'our own. .A• banker or a merchant who-1
kept regular accounts Would, perhaps, not. easily un- .
demand how the Duke of York could, be so irregb-
lar; but for his part he would rather prove his Royal
highness guilty of extravagance-than corruption ;
.he
would rather prove that his Royal Highness conceived '
be was running in debt` than that lie was aware of
the stratagems of his. mistress. Nor was this in the,
;lightest degree improbable. The establishment at
Gloucester-place was certainly very splendid and very.,
magnificent, and if pecuniary affairs had gone on.
smoothly and regularly, it might haVe been urged
that his Royal Highness ought to have known that
such splendour and such magnificence Could' not be ,
tnaintained with the sums which Mrs. Clarke re.-
caved from him. But what was.tbe fact ? That his
I,t°3'al Highness frequently saw Mrs. Clarice in great
l'i'tress—shat she found site was compelled to pawn
her jewels•s-that there were repeated executions in
the hou,e—that she told hint several times that she
was in danger of complete deitrutiioil. Under such
circumstances how could his Royal Highness, ima-
gine that she resorted to undue means to-support '
tier establishment, when if was continually evident
to bite •
that the expellees of that establishment
were
not defrayed. If any one should say that the
e of York ought to has e been more regular in his
payments, and that he exought to have seen that the
establishment were
of the
in Gloucester...place
actually ddfrayedl he would readily admit the
Justice of the observation.. But the fad was, that his
u '
A
)al Highness had never paid any attention to his
Own pecuniary affairs; and
therefore could not be
ex cacti •
. P to attend much to the pecuniary' affairs of
soother, 14
~--g believed bins profuse, but he did not.
teileve rum corrupt. He acquitted him wholly Of
, •corruption, of participation in corru • f con-
omit, or o
ivance
ii!.
~ at corruption 3 but he believed him to be
-algal); guilty and deeply criminal in allowing Mrs.
viarke to interpose with his official duties ; in
permitting her to make recomMendatione to hint
to which he listened,, and by this permission, to
allow her the semblence at least of his authority.
T ; . he corroborated evidence of this 'fad was to him
conclusive ; it was spootaneous ; it was unpreme-,
ditated;' it was not intencledth bes breught forward ;
it was toend by accident, but it' afforded the most
convincing proof of the existence of the crime. With
Teak& to French's Levy, it must be all Owed by all
that it was a Most ruinous bargain for the plablic—it
Was Obtained withoutapy statement'ofcircurnitances
Without any military' reeemmendation—without any
IT:due, inquiry into the circumstuices of the case.—
hat was the fair dedutlion ? That it . originated in
'another recommendation, and when connected with
the other testimony it was clear that that recoils-
Inendation was 'Mrs. Clarke's. As' to the case of
' br. O'Mara, the way in which 110 Royal I-ligbnetss
bad permitted a matt who professed to have 'a call
from God, but who listened, to the dilates of Marn-
rnon—who professed to be 'a Minister of.perity, but
who was the base 'attendant on an adulteress, at the
recommendation of that adulteress to approach him
for tbepurpose'bf being introduced to his Father,
,
I i Slid with the further' view of procurino° a Bishopric,
"'as most strongly to be reprobated. lii this ad his
t 41`)Yal Highliess forgot. his duty, his rank, and his
Situation. In the case of Kennett it was also evi-
,lecilt that his Royal Highness the Duke of York had
‘,l4cired his influence improperly, with a view to ob•
1 for a titan with whom ha was ' negociating a
r;711.1 a post under Government ; and,in the case of
.edderton W• 'd Government
that lei had given him.a
ds evi t.,
Pa '
pilasters) • the recommendatioit of Mrs.
, li on
vibe
Norway 't he 'Conclud of Isis Royal_ High-
, nests '
'. . as it regarded General Clavering less reprehen-
sible. lii his letter to Mrs. Clarke on the subjeat,
he desired her to tell General Clavering that, there
, Would be Ito use in her applying fur a regiment for
him, became it was not 'intended to raise any neW
I l'eghlichts, but only second battalions to the existing
I, e)rPs. What was the evident deduaion ?
,Why,
I That if it had been intended to raise any 'new regi-
, ~t,-silents, Mrs. Clarke might have applied ! If his,
lI
, toYal Highness had .tione his duty, instead of the
gnawer which he made to her, he should have said,
Tell Clavering that this is a
point on which you
efannot interfere; for that however great. my love
31 YOU)I never allow you'*to Meddle in militias, mat-
. • sera," But his Royal,,Highness bad not done so, and
roltt this, as well as from the other. .circuinstances

5