to his direction. The investigation was completed about the 8th of May, 1805, and I had the details of it laid before the Duke of York; the consequence was, that his royal highness came to the resolution of putting an end to his connection with Mrs. Clarke, and he requested me to communicate his resolution to her. The separation was a measure which I so much approved—which I felt to be so material to the interest and credit of the duke, that I was induced to overlook any consideration of unpleasantness, and to accede to his royal highness’s request. I saw such a disclosure of her character in the report, that I thought it totally inconsistent with his royal highness’s honour any longer to continue the connection.—It appeared, indeed, in this Report, that she pleaded her coverture, in defence to an action for goods which she had obtained by representing herself as a widow. Upon my interview with her, I discovered still further proofs of her incorrectness. Although it turned out that she was married at Pancras, she said that she had been married at Berkhampstead. At Berkhampstead also she stated that she had been born, that her mother’s name was Mackenzie, and her father’s name Parker. But although I had the register of Berkhampstead examined, for forty years back, no such name was to be found. I took occasion to put many questions to Mrs. Clarke in the course of this interview, and I came away from her with the impression that the facts mentioned in the Report I have alluded to were correct. She had stated that her husband was nephew to Mr. Alderman Clarke, the Chamberlain of London, which statement proved to be unfounded. In announcing to Mrs. Clarke the Duke of York’s resolution to separate from her altogether, I informed her, by his royal highness’s authority, that if her conduct should be correct, she would be allowed 400l. a year; but for this there was no bond or written obligation whatever. It was merely an annuity, which his royal highness should be at liberty to withdraw, if the conduct of this lady should not be correct. From the time of that communication I have not seen Mrs. Clarke until she appeared at the bar this night. I have stated, I think, all that relates to the transactions in which my name has been used. Upon recollection there are some other points—I received a letter in June 1808 from Mrs. Clarke, which is, no doubt, that to which she has alluded this night. That letter, I believe, still is in the custody of the gentleman who conducted the examination. Indeed, I endorsed the date and transmitted it to Mr. Wilkinson immediately after I received it. The knowledge I have of Mr. Wilkinson I have stated to the Committee; of the other person, Taylor, mentioned by Mrs. Clarke as an acquaintance of the Duke of York’s, I have no knowledge whatever. I hope I have explained myself satisfactorily to the Committee. If I have not spoken quite intelligibly, I shall be ready to give any further explanation in my power by answering any question that may be put to me. I think it proper to add that the threat of an action for crim. con. was made in 1805, that the inquiry immediately followed, and that the separation took place in 1806.—He did not know whether the annuity promised Mrs. Clarke had been paid her or not, as pensions or matters of that sort formed no part of the financial concerns of the Duke of York which were under his administration. Those concerns to which he had to attend elated to certain claims, for the discharge of which his royal highness had appropriated a proportion of his annual revenue, to manage which Mr. Coutts and he were appointed trustees. This proportion was originally but 12,000l., but it was now raised to between 26 and 30,000l. a year, out of which 4000l. were annually applied to the liquidation of debt due by his royal highness to the public, on account of the loan advanced to him under Mr. Pitt’s administration. To discharge this and other claims, his royal highness had, highly to his honour, set apart as much of his income as, consistently with necessary expenditure, could be possibly spared.
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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 than that of the general rules of the service produced the grant of leave to exchange; that the Duke’s approbation was given on the 23rd of July 1805, that the King’s signature was affixed to it on the 24th, and that the exchange was gazetted on the 30th.
Ludovick Armor, a footman of the Duke of York, said that he was a foreigner; that he had lived eighteen 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. Lowton, and by Mr. Wilkinson, and that he had given them the same answer.
I leave the evidence of Mr. Adam and Col. Gordon, as I find it. The character which Mr. Adam gives of the lady is very bad indeed; but one cannot help regretting that he should have been the instrument of offering to such a person an annuity of 400l. a year, on the part of the Duke, while the latter was accommodated with so large a loan out of the public money.
If what Ludovick Armor says be true; namely, that no other servant of the Duke ever went to Mrs. Clarke’s, and that he never took a note to change from that house, what Mrs. Clarke says about sending the note to change must be false. That is quite clear. But, bare justice to the fair annuitant compels us to observe, that this falsehood, if we set it down for one, must have been a mere freak of fancy; for, it would, I think, be impossible to assign, or conceive, any reason for her stating it. Of itself there was nothing in it, either good or bad. To have said, that she merely showed the Duke the money would have answered full as well for all the purposes of accusation and of crimination. It is quite impossible to guess at any end she could have in view by telling such a falsehood, except that of bringing forth Ludovick Armor; or of affording a chance of being exposed as a false witness. If, therefore, she be a false witness, a fabricator of false accusations, we must, I think, allow her to be as awkward an one as ever appeared at any bar in the world.
After the examination of Ludovick Armor, Mr. Wardle examined Mr. Adam, which examination led to a very novel scene, namely, the reading of an anonymous letter in the House.
Mr. Wardle asked Mr. Adam whether he had a son, and was answered in the affirmative, adding, that he was Lieut.-Colonel of the 21st regt. of foot. Being asked at what age he was made a Lieut.-Colonel,
Mr. Adam said, that he would answer that question; but the House, he hoped, would allow him to make some previous observations. General Sir Charles Stuart, the friend of his early life, asked him, whether any of his five sons had an inclination for the army. There was one of them fourteen or fifteen years of age, who he thought had a strong tendency that way. The general said, that by the rules of the service he was permitted to appoint him to an ensigncy. He was accordingly made ensign. His regiment was in Canada, and as he was so young he did not join immediately, but was first sent to Woolwich for education. As this question had been asked him, he hoped it would not be considered as unbecoming in him to say of so near a relation, that he distinguished himself extremely. A second commission was given him by Gen. Stuart, in a manner equally gratuitous. When the great Abercomby, likewise the friend of my early life, was sent to the Helder, he went under him at the age of sixteen, as a volunteer. The House would pardon him, as it was impossible for him not to feel strongly, he must state his merits. He landed in a hot fire, and conducted himself so as to command the applause and thanks of all who surrounded him. He was present in every active engagement during that expedition. He commanded a body of men of the number generally committed to a lieutenant. They were from the Supplemental Militia, and required a great deal of management, and it was universally allowed that he conducted them well. When he returned, he was, without any solicitation of his (Mr.
