one day and said she lived then in Park-lane?
Did you ever live with her in Tavistock-place?—I never lived with her at all.
Did you never sleep in the house?—Yes, frequently.
Do you know that any body lived with her, but her husband?—Yes.
You took her then for a modest decent woman?—She lived with her mother, and I knew nothing then to the contrary.
What is your father’s name?—The same name as mine.
His Christian name?—James.
Where does he live now?—I should rather be excused answering.
A Debate intervened here, of which I shall give the report, from the same paper.
Lord Folkestone said, that the whole of the learned gentleman’s examination appeared to be for the purpose of catching the witness tripping. As to any reference to the investigation, he could see none in the question which the witness expressed her unwillingness to answer.
The Attorney-General defended the propriety of his examination. A person was produced, of whom no person knew any thing, unless that she was the sister-in-law of a very questionable witness. In such a case, was not inquiry into the character and connections of such a witness necessary? Would not much of her character for credit, depend upon a knowledge of the situation of life in which herself and her connections moved? (No! no! Order! order!) He by no means insinuated, that poverty or humility of life was to be construed into objections against the validity of statements, where the persons making them had uniformly supported a good character; but he had still a right to contend, that when persons wholly unknown, except by the good accounts they gave of themselves, were brought forward upon serious inquiries, he or any other member had a right to inquire into every circumstance of their previous life, and of their connections.
Gen. Stewart begged to say one word, viz. that if there was one member who took up more of the time of the Committee by numerous questions, it was the Noble Lord (Folkestone) opposite.
Lord Folkestone. If he had taken up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, he would feel extreme regret. At the same time that he could not surrender his own opinion, that the Attorney-General’s examination did not at all bear upon the point. Indeed, from his own observations, it was obvious that the only thing he pretended to know about that witness, he could not know, namely, that she was the sister-in-law of Mrs. Clarke, as he asserted, but which she denied.
Sir G. Warrender supported the propriety of the questions put by his Noble Friend (Folkestone)—they were, in his opinion, of the most vital importance.
Mr. Sheridan trusted, that unless the Attorney-General felt the absolute necessity of the question, he would not trespass on the private feelings of the witness by continuing to press it.
The Attorney-General. I must repeat my question. Where is your father now? I do not know.
Mr. Perceval. Does the witness mean to rest her credit upon the veracity of that answer?
Mr. Brand. There may be circumstances of real and serious difficulties, where it would be inconsistent with the best feelings of the heart, and a violation of parental duty, not to deny the residence of a father. The question may be a legal one, but he trusted, other motives of equal urgency would operate on the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to press it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer conceived, That honourable gentleman had assumed difficulties, which he had no right to do. He could only attribute the disinclination of the witness to state certain circumstances, to her anxiety to evade that discovery, which would be fatal to the credit of her testimony.
Mr. Wilberforce had a strong objection to the manner in which the question was put, it appeared like BROWBEATING THE WITNESS. He by no means attributed such an intention to his right hon. friend, although a system may be contracted from legal habits. He recommended that the answer of the witness should be left to the opinion which the Committee would subsequently pronounce.
Mr. Kenrick stated, that he had heard from another person, that the person to whom the question referred, had been arrested within a few hours.
Mr. Yorke justified the question, as put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every means should be exerted to ascertain the character of the persons produced in support of those accusations. If such vigilance was not exercised, street-walkers from off the Strand, would probably be introduced at the bar of that House to criminate the character of the Duke of York.
Examination resumed.—When did you see your father last? About a fortnight ago.
Where did he live last? At Chelsea.
In what street? I do beg to decline answering.
For what reason? I do not like to tell so large an assembly where I live.
What objection can you have to tell where yourself and sister live, representing yourselves, as you do, to keep a boarding-school? I stated my reasons before.
What fears have you from so large an assembly? They will find me to be poor, and will therefore doubt my veracity.
Mr. Perceval. Be assured your veracity will not be doubted on account of your poverty. I live at No. 8, Cheyne-row, Chelsea.
Do you and your sister keep a boarding-school? My sister and I do.
The Attorney-General. Did you often see Mrs. Clarke in company with the Duke of York? Yes.
How often? I cannot recollect; three weeks seldom passed but I did.
How long have you kept the boarding-school? Two years and a half, altogether, in Kentish-town and Chelsea.
When you were at Kentish-town, where did your father live? I have an objection to say any thing about my father.
Where did witness live at the time she heard his royal highness speak to Mrs. Clarke about Colonel French? Cannot positively say; but that it was before she went to live at Kentish-town.
Where did you live before that? At Islington, to which place we went from Bayswater.
What part of Islington? Dalby-terrace.
Do you know Mr. Wardle? Yes.
How long? Two or three months.
At whose request do you attend here to-night? At Mrs. Clarke’s.
Did you ever see Mr. Dowler at Gloucester-place? Yes.
Did you ever see him in company with the Duke of York? No.
Did you ever hear from Mrs. Clarke, that she introduced Mr. Dowler to the Duke of York as her brother? No.
Do you believe your father’s affairs to be in a state of embarrassment? Yes.
Mrs. Hovenden (who is proved to have been a regular trader in commissions and the like) being called on a subsequent day, respecting the affair of Col. Shaw, and being incidentally asked about Miss Taylor, states, that she saw her once with her brother Capt. Taylor; that of her own knowledge, she can say nothing of Miss Taylor’s reputation; that she did once say, that she should not return her visit,
