very well what became of them.
Being questioned as to the circumstances of her pecuniary embarrassments, while in Gloucester-place, she says, that when the tradespeople could not get money from her, they pressed for places; and that, though they renewed their pressing for money, when they could not get places, they were always well pleased to trust her, because, in the end, they were sure to make her pay handsomely for it.—Being questioned as to the time when she began to be pressed for money, her answer is: “About half a year after my connection with his royal highness began. I never applied to him; till I found myself distressed; and, then he told me, that I had more interest than the Queen, and that I should use it.”—Being asked: “Was the Duke acquainted with any of your transactions, respecting the disposal of commissions, &c.?” Her answer is: “With the whole of them.”
The reader, after having made an estimate of the expenses of an establishment, or rather, double establishment (including town and country) like that above described; after duly weighing in his mind the effect of charges made upon calculations of such manifest risk, as well from final probable loss as from almost certain long delay; after having well considered all the consequences of the observations of servants, respecting the manner in which their mistress got her money, as well as the consequences of a total want of check or control, whether as to quantity, quality, price, or diposal: after thus estimating and thus considering, the reader will be the better prepared for hearing the matter which Mr. Perceval brought forward, upon this part of the subject, on Friday the 17th instant, and which, according to the fullest report that I can find of his speech, was stated in the following words:—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer, before proceeding to the letters brought up by the select committee, said, he had a few observations to offer in answer to a question which had been put to him a few nights since, by an hon. gentleman under the gallery (Mr. Cripps), with respect to the amount of the expense furnished by the Duke of York, for the establishment in Gloucester-place.—As far as he could obtain information, no accurate account of that expenditure could be got; but so far as he had been able to procure any items, he would now inform the House.—By the drafts in the House of the Duke of York’s banker, it appeared that 5,551l. had been paid to the person who was always employed by his royal highness, to receive the money intended for Mrs. Clarke. Beyond that (as his royal highness authorized him to state to the committee) his royal highness frequently gave her personally other and considerable sums, of which, however, he had kept no memorandum. Mrs. Clarke had stated at the bar, that her allowance of 1,000l. per annum, was paid in drafts. With regard to those drafts from the banker, if the House thought it necessary to have any proof, they might examine the servant, to whom they were uniformly paid at the banker’s. This servant then took the money to the Duke, who put it under a cover, sealed it, and sent it by the same person to Mrs. Clarke. Besides this, there were tradesmen for furniture, wine, jewels, and the plate (with which the House was already acquainted) to make the total amount of 16,760l. from Jan. 1804 to May 1806. Here the right hon. gentleman, if it was necessary, might be called to prove the facts he now stated, on the authority of his royal highness, at the bar of the House.”
Reader; impartial reader, does not this strike you as a very novel procedure? However Mr. Perceval, who came into office to protect “our holy religion,” may console himself with a statement of the Duke of York having expended 16,760l. upon a concubine, while, in addition to all his immense salaries and pensions, he was borrowing 54,000l. from the minister out of the taxes raised upon us; however consoling this may be to Mr. Perceval, does it not strike you, that the producing as evidence, facts stated upon the authority of the party accused, is something new, quite new, in English jurisprudence? Have you ever seen, or heard, of any thing like this before, either in parliament, or in any court of justice? Is this the way in which any of us are treated, when we are tried? If there happen to be more than one judge upon the bench, do we ever see any of them pulling papers out of his pocket, and, in contradiction to evidence given before the court, state so and so, upon the authority of the person under trial?
But, reader, why was this statement kept in petto, till the last moment? Why was not the bare word (for it is no more) of the Duke taken before, and opposed to the declarations of every witness, in every stage of the proceeding?
In short, why all this time taken up in inquiry? Why not have asked the Duke, at the beginning, whether there was any truth in Mr. Wardle’s charges, or not? and why not have produced a short note from him to satisfy us all, that the thing was false from beginning to end?
Nevertheless, the report (in the Courier newspaper of the 18th instant) says, that Mr. Canning said, that the “Chancellor of the Exchequer,” Mr. Perceval, “was enabled to prove, on the most unquestionable authority, that the Duke had furnished Mrs. Clarke with the 16,760l.” So that, after all this work, the Duke’s word is the best authority!
Mr. Fuller is reported to have spoken thus:—“What would the House, or the public, wish for more, than that 16,000l. should be spent in two years on such a baggage as this. For his part, he thought it might have been seen from the shuffling way in which she answered the first six questions put to her, that they ought not to have proceeded with this silly and foolish inquiry.”
In the last part of his observations, Mr. Fuller was right enough, if the Duke’s word is to be opposed to the evidence against him. Not only not more than six questions; but no question at all should have been put to Mrs. Clarke, if the Duke’s word is to be opposed to her evidence.
Mr. Beresford, however, is reported to have observed, upon this very novel procedure, that “it was needless to think, that, by shutting their own eyes, the House could also shut the eyes of the public;” and never did he make a truer observation in his life.
Mr. Perceval was then examined thus:—Question: “Do you know if his royal highness paid any, and what sums, towards keeping the house in Gloucester-place, besides 1,000l. a-year allowed to Mrs. Clarke?—Answer: I know nothing of the 1,000l. a-year but from the witness at the bar. From the paper I now hold in my hand, I see, that from the 11th of January, 1804, to the 18th of June, 1806, 5,551l. has been paid in drafts (as the certificate of the Duke of York at the bottom states) for the use of Mrs. Clarke. The payments to the tradesmen are also verified by the certificate, and to the best of my recollection and belief.”
Lord Folkestone objected to this hearsay evidence in favour of the accused, when it had uniformly been rejected, if attempted to be used against him.
They now desisted; and they still left it, as the reader will receive it, the bare word of the Duke of York against the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, corroborated by the magnitude of the establishments in Gloucester-place and at Weybridge.
Mr. Cripps, however, whose question appears as naturally as can be, to have produced that “diligent inquiry” from Mr. Perceval, that led to this curious procedure, was, it appears from the report of his speech, wonderfully well satisfied with the account of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
“Mr. Cripps thanked the right honourable gentleman for the information he had given him. He would not have made the inquiry till the end of the present investigation, had he not been aware that very strong impressions had been made on the public mind, from the belief that Mrs. Clarke was supposed to support her expensive establishment on the allowance of 3000l. for three years. The answer was most satisfactory, and whatever might be the issue of this inquiry, it must be a great consolation to his Royal Highness to know, that without it, it never would have been known to the public in the manner unfolded by Colonel Gordon, in how excellent and regular a manner every thing was conducted in the Office of the Commander-in-Chief, so highly to his honour, and so productive of benefit to the British army.”
Aye, aye, Sir! It was not necessary for you to state, that you were fully aware of the strong impression made on the public mind by Mrs. Clarke’s evidence, though, if I forget not, some one or more did say, that she shuffled in such a manner, that
