The Sun.
London, England, 1809-03-11 00:00:00

i

r

1 sufficient proof. For his part, he was convinced
I that the Klieg (God bless him !) could not do better
than, have a 8311 in the chief command of his army.
It would be well before coining to a decision on the
subje& before them, for the House to consider, that
if the% agreed to the resolution proposed iw the
Right Hon. Gentleman on the floor (Mr-Bankes),
they'would remove froM the service of the State one
of ifs most able, and distinguished servantst merely
because his mistress had been engaged in four tcan-
saelions of, which be • had no knowledge. The
'light Hon. Gentleman's amendment went to state,
'that it would be prudent in his Royal Highness to
resign ; but he would say that it was not prudent to
the House of CemMons to listen to a popular out-
cry. They ought not to be moved by external cir-
cumstances, which naturally arose from what had- ,
fallen out in the course o&' the inquiry, and! the
.
cry of corruption being raised on points not untie':
the cognizance of the Houee. •-The idea .of thou-
sands squandered on women of an infamous des- •,
• eription; thousands earned by the sweat of peoples
brows, was a very natural topic for declamation and •
popular impression, but was the House to adopt
peoceedines on such a clamour, and to say that his
;Royal Highness was guilty 'of corruption, because
an outcry of this kind .was raised, to determine that -
lie was unfit to hold the chief-command of -the
army ? Without such a popular clamour, no man,
in that House would have • thought that this was a
Proper course. Let them then speak out manfully,
nod give their own opinions without bias; and 'as
none could say that from this clamour they were in;
eluted to believe the' Duke of York unfit for the
command, never let them recommend a measure
for his dismissal. He concluded by thanking the
House for the attention with which they had listen-
ed to him during the time he had occupied in stating
Iris opinions on this important question..
Mr. LEACH said, that he could not concur either
i. with the oi iginal
by Address or the Amendment pro-
posedthe Right Honourable /Gentleman (Mr.
Rinkes). He could not agree with them, because
they neither convicted nor acqeitted the Cotemander
in. Chief of the corruption with which he was
charged, or of the knue ledge of the existence of
corrupt practices, and yet they addressed to remove
Lim from the chief 'command of the army. He ,
would beg Leave to take a short view of the
question as it appeared 'to him, and to state-to the
House the material• points which operated on his,
Hind, to the complete exclthion "of such a deduc-
. lion as .either, that the Duke of York had a corrept•
participation or knowledge of these transaetionse—
l'he Duke of York could not he convicted, but upon
the testimony of Mrs. Clarke; a testimony which
• in his opinion, could not for a moment be Credited,
where her interest was involved, •He would :thew
first, that her evidence was oontradided by other and
unimpeachable witnesses. redly, that she, in metier
instances, contradicted herself; and esily, that her
testimony, was irreconcileable truth and proba•
Why: In the first place then, she was contradia-
ed by Mr. It. Knight, who related a conversation
that passed between Mrs. Clarke and .him ;in Sep-
*ember, only a feW weeks before he was called to the
:Lari and which, Irvin' he nature, could not he sepee
Posed to escape the reco:iettion of either the one or
the Other of the parties. This was a direa and :Ina-
pehle euittradiCtion, as would be seen by reverting
Ik) tli9 minutes of evidence. (Here the Hon. Gent.
read Part or the, evidenceuf Mr R. 1
Knight and Mrs.
Cle e m
rke in No. 1. elihe • -1. Gentleman minuses.) e lee _ouourebete
(Mr. Whitbread), whose brilliant speech
had last night made enel --a an impression Ott the
Hou,e, seemed to think that there was' no cone
tradidion in this, because Mrc Clarke had de-
nied that she inten4ed to 'expose: the Doke of York
in the way how done, 'which Mr. It. Knight un-
derstoood, and stated to the House t 6 'be a general
assertion, 'that' she' would exPese the Duke. He
sh.ewed that such was not the true beerihg of the
Pamoges, and that •the contradi<<liay wai'poSitive and
irrecu
neileithle.. 'They were Ale!, 'dikeEtly at issue on.
the point, whether Mrs. Clarke deiited the transac-
,t_ion to be kept seeret from the Duke of York or not.
, Ihe next contradielion he had to notice' was, that bee
tweet Mrs. Clarke and 'the Hon. Gentleman who
beought forward these charges. From a peiusal of
the evidence (which he read to the House) it ap-
peared that Mrs. Clarke in her examination en the
Wedneeilaye stated, in the first instance, that she had
seen Mr.Wardie uti t lie precielieg day (Tuesday), but
imonediatelyrecolleeting to what sect) an tiCk HOW iedg-
Illent would expose her,un being asked if she was sure
of that ? she (tiredly replied; that she had not seen hint
that day, end that she had been at home all that' dn.
le opposition to this, it was. in the evidence of the
lion. Gentleman stated, that he saw her three times
dureligthatday—the first time in the morning, about
'or ie., o'clock, when he rode out with tier in her
carriages..-again, about three o'clock, when he staid
with her Mesta halt an hour--and a third at 'night.
Thus, on Wednesda) , this witness posaively denied
• , a lad, which had taken place beyond the possi. •
lathy of being forgotten. utt, the preceding day.—
' The tic et coneedietion appeared in her testimony
contrasted with that of Mr; Ellis, Not onlyelid she,
state that she never knew Mrs. Favery by any other
amts, but also that she never visited Iter. at 'Mr.
• ; whereas it was clear, tom the testimony of
That very respeolable witness, that she not only re-
,
eornenended Favery to hiM as a servant, 'under the
fame of Faequhar, but that she visited her so Ire-
quently thathe
viuppesed they were needy related
to each
other. .From all these circumstance-se he
Could not think flea Mre. Clarke was a 'witness to
11
-ejeVed'ori any point Where her own interest was
, concerned..He had now to state where her eeidence
• ,
was contradidory in itself, and in- this he would,
not trouble the House with more than one poiut.—
' In the' case of •Dowler she had derritd that she bad
seen that person more than twice since •his return
from the Continent, concealing from the coenteittee
that she had* met anti slept: with him
hotel. It Was said, a eight at Reid's
that she might naturally desire not
to mentioh thise but was it necessary for her to de-
by having seen liirte at-all ? a matter copnthed most
intimately with the evidence, and caValated to give
• le'linnm,Y• a value Whicledid not pieperly .beiong
to it. The third part. of her teethnony on which he
tied hi comment was, its utter improbebility. She
asserted, that the Duke of York told her she had
, more ietieence than the (-Queen, ano that if she was
'clever she needed.. not ,to want for money. Was
Mete ILI the cotietry pme the
bulto of••V'ork So base as to utter a sr-wheel-it of this
inn., It could not the case; and nu 11130 inc-
e. •