to general character, there can be no doubt, that a woman like Mrs. Clarke is not to be believed so soon as a woman of perfectly virtuous character. But, then, we must consider, that, whatever degree of turpitude we, on account of her way of life, attribute to her, must be shared by her keeper, by the person, whose society she so long dwelt in. If we conclude that her mind has been vitiated, her morals destroyed by such a course of life; bare justice bids us also conclude, that his mind and his morals have undergone the name degree of ruin; and, of course, that whatever we, on this account, take from her credibility, we must, on the other hand, add to the probability of his doing that which is vicious.
It appears, as I once before observed, that Mrs. Clarke did tell Mr. Robert Knight, that she would expose the Duke, unless she could bring him to terms; and, indeed, she does not deny this, nor could she possibly have any intention of denying it, because she knew, and said, that Mr. Adam had her letters to the same amount, which letters are inserted below, Ref. 008 and which letters, she must be quite sure, would not fail to be brought forth against any denial of her having threatened the Duke with an exposure. To an enraged woman (though, by-the-bye, to suppose her enraged we must suppose her ill-used); to an enraged woman, we may, as I before observed, allow a pretty large portion of vindictiveness; and, indeed, unsupported by other evidence, I should have no hesitation in saying, that she was not to be believed. Yet, I cannot help stating a case, bearing strongly upon this point, as to the principle of evidence, which case occurred at the last Quarter Sessions held at Winchester.
Three men were indicted and tried for breaking into a barn and stealing wheat out of it. The only witness, to speak to the fact itself, was a common prostitute, who, at midnight, had crept into a heap of straw, in the yard, to sleep. There were two women of her acquaintance, at the house of one of whom she had since resided, who gave evidence of some suspicious conduct of the prisoners, with respect to their tampering with the witness to get out of the way. But, there was, on the side of the prisoners, evidence going far towards proving an alibi with respect to one of them; another witness was brought, who said, that one of the prisoners having accused the girl of giving him the foul disease, she said, she would be up with him. It was proved, too, that when before the magistrate, she had said, that she would swear to but one of the three prisoners. Yet were they, upon the positive testimony of this one witness, and she a common prostitute, found guilty of the charge for which they had been indicted; and, I well remember, that the Chairman, Mr. Borough, a very clever man, and a lawyer of great experience, observed to the jury, that, though some allowance was to be made for the general character of the principal witness, yet her immoralities, of the sort alluded to, ought not to be considered as sufficient to cast any great degree of discredit upon her testimony, in a case where those immoralities could be supposed to have had little, or no, influence upon her conduct. Indeed, if evidence like this were rejected, how could crimes be punished? In, perhaps, four cases out of five, great guilt is established by the mouths of persons, in some degree, guilty. Vice punishes itself. If accomplices are not to be accusers; if their evidence is not to be taken, is it not manifest, that there is an end of that great check upon crimes; namely, the fear of being betrayed?
Submitting these more general observations to the consideration of the reader, I now return to the case immediately before us, bearing in mind, that the only question, which we have, in this case, to settle in our minds, is, whether the Duke of York did, or did not know, that Mrs. Clarke was concerned in, and took money for, the effecting of the exchange between Knight and Brooke.
We have her positive declaration, that he knew of all her proceedings in this way, which declaration is strongly corroborated by the Duke’s own letters, wherein he so familiarly speaks to her of the requests of General Clavering and Dr. O’Meara, bidding her tell the former that he is mistaken in the ground of his application; and we have her declaration as to his knowledge of her practices in this case in particular.
Now, opposed to this, we have the testimony of Mr. Robert Knight, upon whose evidence, as thus opposed, I have only to repeat my former observations.
Mr. Knight, who after the exchange got acquainted with Mrs. Clarke, says, that she desired him, to keep the matter a secret, and that she expressly gave as a reason for this, her fear of the consequences, if it should reach the Duke of York’s ears. This statement Mrs. Clarke positively denies. Which are we to believe? Mrs. Clarke, who took the bribe, or Mr. Knight who gave the bribe, and who first tendered the bribe? Character, here, is quite out of the question. People may say what they will about Mr. Knight’s having been a member of the honourable House. So have many others that I could name. We here see Mr. Robert Knight as a briber; and, the parties being, in this respect, upon a level, we must decide between their opposite assertions upon the internal probabilities of the case.
Mr. Knight was asked, what part of the transaction Mrs. Clarke wished to have kept a secret; and whether it was solely the money part of it; he answered that the whole transaction might be concealed from the Duke. This question was put so often, and the reports in all the newspapers so exactly correspond with respect to the answer, that there is very little probability of its being incorrect.
Now, then, let it be remarked, that Mr. Knight went to thank Mrs. Clarke for the use of her influence in the case of his brother’s exchange, having before paid her 200l. for that influence; and, was it probable, that Mrs. Clarke should express to Mr. Knight a wish, calculated to make him believe, that she had not at all interfered in the matter with the Duke of York? Nay, Mr. Knight himself says, that he looked upon the thing as having been done by her influence, and further, that she took credit to herself for it; but, how could she, if she pretended that she had induced the Duke to do it; how could she, at that same time, have the folly to express a wish, that her having had any hand in the business might be kept from the knowledge of the Duke; kept from the knowledge of that very person, who, if her claim to Mr. Knight’s 200l. was not fradulent as well as corrupt, must have known that she was the cause of the exchange? Will any one believe that Mrs. Clarke would say, “It was I who prevailed upon the Duke to permit of your brother’s exchange; but for God’s sake, don’t let the Duke know of it.” Why, there is a manifest absurdity in the supposition. It is a thing too preposterous to be believed. That she might, indeed, desire Knight not to blab; not to talk of the transaction for it to reach the Duke’s ears through third parties; this is likely enough, and this she herself admits may have been the case; but to suppose, that she expressed a fear of the Duke’s knowing of her having been the instrument in the business: to suppose, that she expressed such a fear to the very man with whom she was taking credit to herself for having obtained the grant from the Duke, is an absurdity too gross to be for one moment entertained by any man in his senses.
As to the evidence of Ludovick about the getting the note changed, I before made these observations:—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.
These observations occurred to me before I had seen the examinations of Pierson and Mrs. Favourite; but, they have now put the matter beyond all doubt, that Ludovick’s memory, though refreshed by questions, before he came to the house, put to him by the Duke, by Mr. Adam (one of the judges in this case), by Mr. Lowten and by Mr. Wilkinson, did, upon this occasion, fail him.
Colonel Gordon’s evidence has in it nothing positive.
