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 no one could possibly believe a word that she said. We can have no doubt, Sir, that you are satisfied, because you say so; but, it does not follow, that we should be satisfied by so easy a method.
And why, Sir, digress? why fly off from this soul-comforting statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and draw us after you, into observations upon the “excellent and regular manner,” in which Col. Gordon shows “every thing is conducted in the Office of the Commander-in-Chief?” What has he shown, Sir? That the dates of recommendations and of appointments and commissions are regularly entered, and that letters are neatly copied into books? Why, Sir, we know, that this office costs us, including the salaries and pensions of the Duke, hundreds of thousands a year; aye, hundreds of thousands; and, there is nothing there done, as far as appears from the evidence given to the House, that might not be done, and full as well too, by any four or five of the five hundred persons, who, by an advertisement in the newspapers, offering them 150l. a year a piece, would be induced to offer their services before next Saturday night. This is my sincere opinion, and, if it can be shown to be erroneous, let it be done.
But, be this as it may; what has the regular keeping of books in the Duke’s office to do with Mrs. Clarke’s sale of commissions? what has it to do with the establishment and the vile traffic in Gloucester Place? This “regularity” did not prevent the officering of Samuel Carter, the concubine’s foot-boy, as we shall see anon. Oh! this will never do. This is poor work. If Colonel Gordon can bring proof, from his books or his boxes, that all that has been proved has not been proved; why, then, this able Colonel may be said to have afforded “great consolation” to his royal employer; but, if he cannot do that, it is even to undervalue the sense of the Duke to suppose, that, from what the Colonel has done, or can do, he will derive any consolation.
Before we return to our case, a remark or two is, by this digression, justified, and even called for, with respect to the evidence of all the military officers, and indeed, almost all the witnesses that have been called.
In courts of justice, the evidence of a brother, a father, or a very close friend, is always received with some portion of allowance for partiality. Persons, known to be in any-wise dependent upon the parties, are heard and believed with similar caution. There is no doubt, that my neighbour, or a stranger, is a better evidence for me than my own servant. The officers of the army are not the servants of the Duke of York; but, it is perfectly well known, that they are much more dependent upon him than any servant, considered merely as such, can possibly be upon any master. The worst I can do to a servant is to turn him off; but, the Commander-in-Chief can, with the approbation of the King, at any moment, without reason assigned, not only turn any officer off, but, by that very act, strip him of his rank in life, and of the means of obtaining even bread to eat. My discarded servant can go to another master; but, there is no other master, no other service for the cashiered officer to go to. For this reason, amongst others, it doubtless was, that Sir Francis Burdett wished it to be enacted, that no officer should be discarded without being so sentenced by a court martial; a law the more necessary, because the office of Commander-in-Chief was held by a son