In the course of his examination he produced an answer of his to a letter from Col. Knight (which answer was dated 21 June, 1805), requesting leave to exchange, the answer stating that the Duke had no objection to the exchange, and that, when an eligible successor could be recommended, the request would be taken into consideration.
Col. Gordon also produced the following document contained in a letter from Greenwood and Cox, the agents of some of the parties, which document bears date 1 July, 1805.
BROOKE’S SERVICES. Cornet, 8 Dns. 29 June 93 Lieut. 83 F. 7 Oct. 93 Capt. Ind. Co. 14 Dec. 93 —— 96 25 Mar. 94 Maj. 13 Dec. 94 Placed on half pay Mar. 98 Bt. Lt.-Colonel 1 Jan. 1800 Maj. 48 24 May 1804 Cancelled 9 June 1804 Maj. 56 5 Jan. 1805
Greenwood
Cox
23 July, 1805
23 July, 1805. H. R. H. does now approve of this exchange.
C. L.
cannot be acceded to, H. R. H. does not approve of the exchange proposed.
Sir:
By direction of General Norton, we have the honour to enclose a form, signed by Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Brooke of the 50th regiment, to exchange with Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards, together with a copy of a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Knight, stating, that he is satisfied with the security given for payment of the regulated difference between the value of the two commissions; and being informed the counterpart of the exchange has been sent in through the Agents of the 5th Dragoon Guards, you will be pleased to submit the same to Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of York.
We have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble Servants, Greenwood & Cox.
N.B.—Mark well, reader, the words in Italics, were, in the original produced, written in PENCIL!!!
Ludovick Orramin (who was called on a later day) a footman of the Duke of York, said, that he was a foreigner; that he had lived 18 years with the Duke; that no other of the Duke’s servants ever went to Mrs. Clarke’s; that he used to go there at eight o’clock in the morning to take the Duke’s clothes; that he never saw Mrs. Clarke at her house but once, when he went to take a favourite dog for her to see; that the Duke was not then there; that he is quite certain that he never was sent by any one, from her house, to get any note changed. In his cross-examination, he repeated these assertions; he said, that no other servant of the Duke was permitted to go to Mrs. Clarke’s; he asserted of his own knowledge, that no other of the Duke’s servants ever went there. He said he had been asked (previous to his coming to the House of Commons) the same question about the note, by the Duke, by Mr. Adam, by Mr. Lowten, and by Mr. Wilkinson, and that he had given them the same answer.
David Pierson (who was called on a day after Orramin had given his evidence) was butler to Mrs. Clarke in 1805, and is now butler to the Hon. Mr. Turner. He states, that he recollects in 1805, the Duke going to Weymouth and Mrs. Clarke to Worthing; that, about that time, which was in hot weather, he saw Mrs. Favourite (Mrs. Clarke’s housekeeper) bring down a bill, in the morning, and Ludovick going out and getting it changed, and coming back and giving it to Mrs. Favourite again, and she took it up stairs; that he does not know the amount of the note; that the Duke was up stairs at the time; that he is not certain whether the Duke was up or not; that this is the only note he ever recollects Ludovick’s getting changed.
Pierson, in a second examination, recollects, what he had forgotten before, that, on the night that the Duke of York went to Weymouth, about 11 o’clock at night, he himself was sent out to get a bill changed; that he went out and got it changed; that he brought the change to Mrs. Clarke, who said it was all right; that the Duke of York was present both when he got the bill from his mistress and when he brought the change; that he got the bill changed at Byfield Bridgeman’s; and that, to the best of his recollection, it was a bill of 100l.
Mr. 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