test as to what this unpleasant thing was, she says: “Being hearsay, I believe, I should not tell what I hear. I know nothing of myself.” She was then asked: “Of your own knowledge of Miss Taylor, would you believe her evidence?” She answers: “I declare I do not see how I can answer such a question as that. It is mere matter of opinion. I cannot say.” Being asked how her delicacy permitted her to visit Mrs. Clarke, she answers, that she did not visit her; she went to her on business.
Mr. Whitbread observed here, that, from what he had seen of the two ladies, he should be inclined to ask Miss Taylor her opinion of Mrs. Hovenden.
Pierson, the butler, is asked, whether he recollects to have seen Miss Taylor at the house in Gloucester-place? He states that he saw her there very frequently, and that she dined there often; but, that he does not recollect her dining there when the Duke did.
Thomas Walker, late coachman to Mrs. Clarke, saw Miss Taylor frequently at Gloucester-place.
Mrs. Favourite, the housekeeper, states that Miss Taylor very frequently visited at Gloucester-place, and when the Duke of York was there.
There is no need at all of adding Mrs. Clarke’s testimony to that of this crowd of witnesses, as to the fact of Miss Taylor being upon terms of intimacy at Gloucester-place, and of her being frequently there at the same time with the Duke; but, as Miss Taylor’s evidence is of such vast weight; as it goes to the very vitals of this case, and, indeed, by corroboration, of all the cases, we must not omit a record of the following occurrence, which took place on the 17th instant:—
Mr. Wardle stated, that he had that morning received a letter from Miss Ann Taylor, complaining of the conduct of another witness, which he asked permission to read. The hon. gentleman then read the letter to the following effect:—“Sir, I understand that Mrs. Hovenden, on her examination at the bar of the House of Commons, stated that she had not returned me a visit I paid her, in consequence of some imputation upon my character. In contradiction to that, I have to state that she visited me twice; once at Bayswater, and again at Dalby-terrace. She also said, she would not intrust me with a child of hers, but yet she sent her niece, of 14 years of age, to visit me. I am, &c. Ann Taylor.”
Mr. William Smith begged leave to recal the attention of the Committee to the letter produced by an honourable member, and signed “Ann Taylor.” If there was any proceeding in the course of this business, marked with peculiar and unmerited harshness, towards an individual, it was in the treatment this poor unprotected girl had met with. (Hear, hear, from several members.) There could be nothing more unjustifiable. The only shadow of disgrace that attached to this girl’s conduct, as far as fell within the knowledge of the Committee, was her knowing such a—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to order. The hon. gent. was, in his opinion, pursuing a most disorderly course. He might, if he pleased, call the witness to the bar to disprove any evidence that had been given which she conceived to be inimical to her, but he could not enter into the discussion of the hardships she had undergone. If he had been inclined to do this, he ought to have done it at the time she was examined, when the impression was fresh in the minds of every one, and not at such a distance of time, when it was likely to provoke reply, and retard more material business. For if the hon. gent. was allowed to go into this argument, those who were accused of imposing the hardships complained of would have an equal right to defend themselves, and thus the time of the House would be consumed.
Mr. Smith contended that, the letter being read, he had taken the most proper time to ask if any proceedings were to follow upon it.
Why, Mr. Perceval, this was “material business;” it was by far more material than the inquiry about the alleged forgery! Aye, or the statement about the sums, which the Duke says he expended upon Mrs. Clarke’s establishment! Aye, a vast deal more material than either. Mrs. Hovenden, the regular trader, was called upon for her opinion of Miss Taylor’s credibility; if what Miss Taylor now states be true, that which Mrs. Hovenden stated even respecting her opinions of Miss Taylor, is false; and, Sir, the people are, I can assure you, all alive as to the credibility of Miss Taylor.
Having now stated the substance of the oral testimony, it only remains to be observed, that Colonel Gordon came again, with an abundance of documents, and most clearly proved, that with respect to the levy of French and Sandon, all was PERFECTLY REGULAR again in the books at the War-office, and in the office of the Commander-in-Chief. The reader is, indeed, told, by Sandon, one of the principals, that he made a bargain with Cockayne to give Corri 200l. for an introduction to Mrs. Clarke, and that a bargain was made with Mrs. Clarke to give her a sum in cash, and a guinea a man, for the letter of service; he is told by Corri that he got the 200l.; he is told by Dowler that he saw French and Sandon give Mrs. Clarke some of the money; he is told by Grant, the agent to the levy, that French and Sandon told him, that they paid her in all 1,700l.; he is told by Mrs. Clarke that the Duke granted the letter of service upon her telling him that she was to have money for it from French and Sandon; and, lastly, he is told by Miss Taylor, whose character and credibility remain unimpeached, that she heard the Duke say to Mrs. Clarke, that he was continually wearied by French about his levy, who was always wanting something more to be done in his favour! that she then heard the Duke ask Mrs. Clarke, how French behaved to her, and upon Mrs. Clarke’s replying, “Middling, not very well,” the Duke said: “Master French must mind what he is about, else I will soon cut up him and his levy too.” All this the reader is told by witnesses, for the far greater part, unwilling ones. If he regards the regularity of Colonel Gordon’s books as sufficient to destroy all this evidence, then he must acquit the Duke; but if he does not, he must conclude that the Duke is guilty.
With the above cases (enough, probably, for one week’s reading) I shall, for the present, content myself, especially as there appears to be fresh matter still coming forward, connected with some of the other cases.
In my next I shall continue the analysis, and never quit it till every case is fairly before my readers, and safely placed beyond the power of oblivion, or of misrepresentation.
There will also be to be performed another task of this sort, to wit, an analytical view of the conduct of the House of Commons, upon this important occasion. It will require much time and patience to go over the whole of the proceedings, draw together and to put upon record, the conduct and sentiments of the different members who have taken part in the discussions. Yet, this is absolutely necessary to be done.
In the meanwhile, there is one particular debate, which has arisen, incidentally, out of these proceedings, and which debate calls for immediate attention, as involving statements and principles of a general and very interesting nature. I would beseech the reader to bear in mind, that it is not merely the conduct of the Duke of York that is now before the public, but that system of corruption, of which the facts, now brought to light, now dragged out by the hair of the head, after having been discovered by accident; that system of corruption and of public robbery, of which these facts are but a mere specimen. This the reader should always bear in mind. He never should, for one moment, lose sight of this object. He should have it continually before his eyes.
The debate, to which I have alluded, and which I shall give as I find it reported in the newspapers, relates to the treatment received by Mr. Wardle from the House, at the outset of, and during the investigation.
On the 15th instant, at the opening of the day’s proceeding, Lord Folkestone said:—
“I do most sincerely hope, that this House will remember, and that the country will never forget, that my hon. friend (Mr. Wardle), and happy am I in calling him my friend, was not allowed the course of proceeding in this investigation which he had originally determined upon, but was forced into the line of conduct which was recommended by the personal friend, and professed adviser, of the accused. I believe, upon reference to any former parliamentary proceedings, or, indeed, upon a review of all the forms and
