Bridgeman states, that he recollects Pierson’s bringing a note to be changed, about July 1805, and that Pierson said it was a note of 100l., but that the note was not changed.
Mrs. Favourite, the housekeeper of Mrs. Clarke, is asked: “Did you ever give Ludovick a note to get changed?” Her answer is this: I did; but I cannot say what was the amount of the note. I gave it him; he went out and brought me the change. I brought up the change to the bed-chamber, where his royal highness and Mrs. Clarke were. In short, they were in bed.”
Such is the evidence upon this case, and now let us see what it amounts to; let us examine into the quality of the separate parts; see how those parts correspond with each other; and how far the criminatory evidence is contradicted by the exculpatory.
First (repeating, for a little, some former observations of mine), it is proved, that Dr. Thynne, who had, for several years, attended in the house of Mrs. Clarke, pointed out to Mr. Knight an application to her as the effectual and speedy way of obtaining the Duke of York’s approbation of an exchange between two field-officers of the army, which exchange had already been applied for in the regular way, and had, as yet, at least, not been obtained: Second, it is proved, that Dr. Thynne did make the application to Mrs. Clarke, and that he promised her 200l., in case the exchange should take place: Third, it is proved, that the exchange did, in a few days afterwards, take place: Fourth, it is proved, that Mrs. Clarke, in consequence of the exchange having taken place, did receive from Mr. Knight the said sum of 200l. All this is proved without any of the testimony of Mrs. Clarke. Mrs. Clarke, if the Duke had a knowledge of the bargain, must be looked upon as an accomplice; and, accomplices are not usually allowed to be sufficient witnesses to produce legal conviction; but, when their evidence is corroborated by strong circumstances, and especially, when, as in this case, they are in no danger themselves, such evidence is invariably taken to be good. She states, that she immediately applied to the Duke; that he said one of the parties was a bad subject, but that the thing should be done; and she further states, that when she had received the 200l., she told the Duke of it, and, in his presence, sent the note to be changed by one of his own servants, whose name she does not recollect. If we believe her here, the case is complete. But, we must now take a view of the opposing evidence, beginning with what has been said as to her general character. Mr. Adam represents her as a woman, who, upon former occasions, had told contradictory stories, and, in particular, relating to her being a widow, and to the place of her marriage. She had, it is asserted, stated herself to be a widow, had contracted debts under that character, and had afterwards, in a court of justice, got rid of the debts by pleading her marriage. Through the whole of the evidence there is no proof of her having herself represented that she was a widow, except in the case of a court-martial, where she had been called as a witness, and of this she gives the following explanation. Being asked: “Have you not sworn yourself to be a widow?” She answers: “His royal highness, a very short time since, when I sent to him to ask him to send me a few hundred pounds, sent me word, that if I dare speak against him, or write against him, he would put me into the pillory, or into the Bastile. He fancies that I swore myself to be a widow woman when I was examined at a Court-Martial. But the Deputy Judge-Advocate had more feeling than the gentleman who has examined me now; he told me I might say anything out of the Court which it might be unpleasant to me to swear to; I told him it would be very improper for me to say that I was a married woman, when I had been known to be living with the Duke of York. I did not swear that I was a widow; I said it out of Court, and it was put into the Court-Martial Minutes as if I had sworn to it, but it was not so. The Judge-Advocate, to whom I told it, is at the door, and I think he had better be called in; I know now what he is come for.”
This explanation of Mrs. Clarke is not at all contradicted by the evidence of the Deputy Judge-Advocate, Sutton, who was called in on a subsequent day. He was asked, what passed at the Court-Martial concerning Mrs. Clarke’s being considered a widow; and he answered thus: “Having been directed to summon Mrs. Clarke, he applied to the agent of Captain Thompson, who returned her as a widow, of Glouton Lodge, Essex. In consequence of such a description he administered the usual oath to Mrs. Clarke, who answered every question put to her, and upon that charge Captain Thompson was acquitted. Was sure he took the description from the Attorney, and that no interrogatory was put to her whether she was a widow or not.”
Thus, then, she did not swear herself a widow, and that imputation against her falls to the ground.
There is one witness who says, that her servant did, indeed, represent her, upon one occasion, as a dashing, or gay, young widow; it appears, that she was trusted under the presumption of her being so; and, it is probable enough, that she wished to be so thought, for the purpose of obtaining credit, as well as for other purposes; but, there is no proof of her ever having represented herself as a widow, except in the case of the court-martial.
As to the charge relating to the place of her marriage, being asked: “Was it true or not, that you were married at Berkhampstead?” She answers: “I tell you I told it him laughing; and I told the Duke I was making a fool of him when I said that; for which his royal highness said he was very sorry, for that he was entirely in Mr. Adam’s clutches.”
To say the truth, there is very little in these allegations against her as a witness in this case. She would, from the nature of her situation, naturally wish to keep from the world the real facts relating to her family connections. To own poor relations; to lead our acquaintance down into our origin, and to the low scenes whence we sprang, is not common; nor is it at all uncommon for people, even of unimpeachable veracity, to be weak enough to use all the arts of disguise in such cases.
During the examinations, it has been proved, I think, that she did pass, amongst some persons, for Mrs. Dowler. One witness says, that she called herself Mrs. Dowler; and she says, over and over again, that she never so represented herself, except in jest. There is little doubt of her having been looked upon, by some few people, as Mrs. Dowler; but, then, these two circumstances should be kept in view: first, that, with much pains to get at the fact, no one can be found to say, that, even when she was thought to be Mrs. Dowler, any letter ever came to her in that name; or in any other name than that of Mrs. Clarke; and, secondly, that this charge of calling herself Mrs. Dowler is manifestly at war with the other charge of calling herself a widow.
Much affected stress has been laid upon her having asserted, that she said she had seen Mr. Dowler twice since his return from Portugal, when it now appears, that, besides that twice, she had not only seen him, but slept with him, at Reid’s Hotel, in St. Martin’s Lane; and, as the twice had also been stated by Mr. Dowler, his general veracity, too, is impeached upon the same ground. But, I put it to any man, to any human being, whether, in such a case, the third time would not, by him, have been kept out of sight as long as possible? When asked how often they had seen one another, they said twice; so they had; the answer was true in words, but it was false in meaning, because the meaning was that they had seen one another no oftener than twice. There was deception in the answer; there was a moral offence in it; yet, is there one man or woman in the whole world, who would not, in such a case, have been strongly tempted to commit that offence? The fact clearly appears to be this: that Mr. Dowler, who seems to be a very clever man, has, for years, been her paramour; that, in his society, she has sought for a compensation for the drudgery and the disgust and loathing experienced in the society of the Duke; and that, accordingly, upon the very first night of his return from Portugal, she flew to his embraces; a circumstance which human nature, which the decency retained even by the lowest of prostitutes, bid her, as long as possible, abstain from stating to the world.
Another observation upon the general complexion of her testimony is this: that, in several instances, where her assertions have been contradicted by others; and particularly in the cases of Ludovick and General Clavering, proof has afterwards been brought of the truth of her evidence, and of the erroneousness, not to call it wilful falsehood, of theirs.
She has been called, “impudent baggage, infamous woman,” and the like; and it has been much dwelt upon, that she had threatened vengeance
