position that she possessed all the influence over the Duke of York that was generally attributed to her? Would any man have believed such a circumstance, if this letter bad not been produced? What could have sent the protestant hierarchy of Ireland, bearing a recommendation from the Archbishop of Tuam, but the persuasion that she could effect all that her agents asserted? A learned gentleman stated, that he had a list of twenty-eight instances in which Mrs. Clarke's testimony was contradicted. One of these related to her declaration that she had never represented herself as a widow. By whom was her evidence, impeached? Why, by Mr. Nicholls; in his opinion, a most impeachable evidence himself; for it must be in the recollection of the house, that this most worthy evidence came into possession of a number of most important documents, for such they turned out to be, belonging to Mrs. Clarke, and that he, dishonestly, or at least illegally, withheld them. They might be papers affecting her life, and yet he would not suffer her to peruse them. The right hon. member had spoken much of Mrs. Clarke's dexterity; but what dexterity could have enabled her to produce such incontrovertible proof of all she had stated respecting Gen. Clavering's application to her? Did the know, at the time she first mentioned him at the bar, that this letter was in existence. Dexterity! one ounce of nature was worth five thousand weight of dexterity. He had often seen rude nature bring an evidence through, but he never saw that effected by what was called dexterity. Of this nature Mrs. Clarke disclosed a genuine and fine trait. When Clavering's letter was produced to her at the bar, a smile of joy beamed upon her countenance. She saw with a glance that every thing she asserted respecting this man was confirmed, and that in one point at least her truth was unquestionable. But it was said that she represented herself as Dowler's wife, and that he acquiesced in the imposture. Was she on this account to be deprived of all pretensions to veracity? Let them recol-' lect their youthful days. Let them lay their hands on their hearts, and say whether they have not sometimes made a wife of some one that was no wife at all. Nicholls was the chief evidence to this fact; and yet upon a pinching question being put to him, what kind of exhibition did he make? He was asked whether he ever sued Dowler for the debt contracted by Mrs. Clarke. What was his answer? Never. This shewed that no imposition had been practised on him, and that if even ́ Mrs. Clarke represented herself as the wife of Mr. Dowler, that he did not believe her assertion. As to the other witnesses that were produced in corroboration of Nicholls's evidence, Reid, the master of the hotel, the waiter, and the porter, and the incidents of carrying the wine to this and that place, they made for. nothing. They did not prove that Mrs. Clarke ever really represented` herself as the wife of Mr. Dowler. If, instead of being such a case as it was, this were a case affecting life and death, so help him God, it would not affect him! Another evidence was brought to support that of the four evidences he mentioned. It was that of Mr. Few, auctioneer. Now what did he prove? Why nothing more than this; that in a conversation with her, she talked of her late husband-that he perceived one morning a cocked hat in the window, and that he was told by the maid that his mistress was a gay widow, and that she had been at the masquerade the night before. And was such a flimsy circumstance as this to shake the whole evidence she had given at the bar of that house? It also appeared that on a court mar tial she had been described as a widow, but there was no proof that she was ever examined to this point. This was the only case upon which the learned and respectable member made any observations; the remaining 27 continued untold. But it was said that her evidence was contradicted by Mr. R. Knight. He had the honour of being long acquainted with this gentleman, and entertained a great respect for him; but he could not help thinking that in some instances he had been led into an over-statement of the case. When Dr. Thynne was asked whether he understood from Mrs. Clarke that he was to keep the transaction à secret from the Duke of York; he replied, that" that was a matter of "surmise." Mr. R. Knight stated that Mrs. Clarke told him she would expose the Duke of York: but was there any evidence to shew that she meant by this threat that she intended to expose him at the bar of that house; or was it not rather such an exposure as that threatened in her letter to his hon. friend (Mr. Adam)? That this was the impression at the time upon Mr. Knight's mind was evident from this, that according to his own statement, he requested, "if she was going to publish her memoirs, he hoped she would spare his brother." Mr. Knight had stated, that she requested of him that the business should be kept secret from the Duke of York, and every one must believe him. He had no doubt that she did make some stipulation of this kind with that gentle man. But was it to be inferred from this, that the Duke of York knew nothing about it? But if, as the right hon gentleman said, the mill was going every day, is not this a precaution she would naturally have recourse to? If she said, the eyes of Gordon were upon the Duke of York, and the eyes of Greenwood upon her, was it not natural, that she should take every possible pre caution, that it should not come round to the Duke of York through a third person; particularly after the injunction he gave her, to take care what hands she got into. With respect to her connection with Dow ler, and to her passing the night with him, was it surprising that she should deny it? Whatever the right hon. gentleman may think of women of her unfortunate class in society, they were not always whol ly void of sentiment and delicacy. But was this reservation of hers, & most justifiable one he would contend, to shake an evidence, which was otherwise unimpeachable? It was there she was said to have hatched the conspiracy with Dowler to overthrow the Duke of York. The occasion, he would admit, was favourable for doing it; but the presumption was, from the whole tenor of the evidence, that she bad formed no such plan. He bad weighed every step she had taken, and where her evidence was unsupported, he did not believe her; but the presump tion was excessively strong when it appeared that such influence had been used. But it was said it was miraculous, that in 10,000 instances of promo tion only these few should have occurred, in which there was a deviation from the fair and honourable course. Was it not, he would ask, more miraculous, that the son of a King, possessing immense patronage, scattering benefits around him, able, as it appeared, to secure the adherence of a party in that house, should be called upon to answer for his conduct? Was it not surprising that his hon. friend should have the courage to stand up as his accuser in that.house, to bring forward these scintilla of evidence, as they at first appeared against him? When an unhappy creature was brought up for trial in the criminal courts, it was a common excuse to say, "This is my first offence, I was ne ver convicted before; but this was not admitted as an excuse. A learned gentleman has expressed, his astonishinent that the Duke of York should have so committed himself, He was equally astonished, but there was the damning proof that he had 60 committed himself! It was not in evidence that he was particularly acquainted with the 25001. Mrs. Clarke appears to have received, but the house, must agree that he had a general knowledge of the corruption. Notwithstanding the advantages that this inquiry, must produce to the country, he could not help feeling for the Duke of York. It was to be regretted that he had not adhered to his agreement with Mrs. Clarke; that he did not pay her the annuity which he promised when he discarded her. Why, for a paltry 5001. suffer such letters, such trash as had been read in evidence, to be brought forward? Why not purchase these follies by the punctual discharge of the engagement to which he was pledged? Why allow a volume of nonsensical letters to be sent into the world, which he must wish, for all the world, to get back again? The right hon. gentleman seemed to place great reliance on the statement which he had delivered in, respecting the expences of the establishment at Gloucester-place. But what did this amount to?. The account was confirmed by Mrs. Clarke, and her statement agreed with that furnished by the Duke to within 5001.; a small fraction, as she would state it. It was said that the Duke was careless about money, and to prove this, a learned gentleman related an anecdote that he heard from the preceptors of the two royal brothers forty years ago. They said that they found it impossible to instil into the minds of the young princes proper ideas of the value of money. This was a subject on which it was not very surprising, that, VOL. V. even with the assistance of the Archbishop of York and others, they should not imbibe very accurate notions. But, however adverse the Duke of York might have been in his infancy to the acquisition of this species of knowledge, it was of imperious necessity that he should have since obtained it. He was at the head of a great establishment, through which, though not a great deal, some money must pass. But when his royal highness saw, from day to day, the most sumptuous and expensive dinners. served-when he saw these elegant carriages drawn forth, in which he sometimes condescended to ridewhen he viewed the profusion that prevailed in every part of the establishment in Gloucester-place-and when he considered that he only contributed so much to the support of this luxury and extravagance, it was impossible that he must not have known that they were suppor ted from other channels than those that flowed from him. It was indeed said, that Mrs. Clarke had frequently received sums which she applied to take her diamonds, those dearest objects of female vanity, out of pawn. It was very probable she did. Where such boundless profusion and inconsiderate extravagance prevailed, it was natural that considerable distress should follow. But for what purposes were those trinkets pledged? Were they not to support the establishment? Had the applications from Mrs. Clarke to the Duke of York been made i● favour of persons who were mostly known to her, the practice would admit of some excuse. ple" do give a commission to Thomson; he is my brother." It is quite natural that she should do so; the application would be perfectly excusable. Well, well, don't teaze me, it shall be done; but let the application be made in the regular way." There would have been nothing improper even in this. Any For exam man, in the Duke of York's situa tion, could hardly have refused acceding to such a request. But what would the house say, when they found an Irish clergyman step for ward? What should have been the answer of the Duke of York, when he received an application in favour of such a man? Should it not have been," If this man, this Dr. O'Meara, is an acquaintance of your's, he is not fit to be a member of the church; he is a disgrace to his saered profession; I will not interfere for him." But there was something in the nature of the promise that was made, to further his view of gratifying his ambition of “ preaching before royalty," that must induce a suspicion that something was given for the introduction. The same arguments would apply to the cases of French and Sandon, Elderton and Clavering. The application in all these instances was first made to Mrs. Clarke. He would now advert to the case of the exchange between Colonels Knight and Brooke, in which so much was demonstrated that he could not bring himself to suppose that a doubt could remain on any mind respecting the corrupt nature of the transaction. It was completely proved that Mr. Robert Knight, a person not unacquainted with the ways of the world, had paid 2001. to Mrs. Clarke on account of his brother. There was no doubt of the money having been paid, and that it was paid in consideration of the influence employed by Mrs. Clarke to effect the desired exchange. This was confirmed by the evidence of Dr. Thynne, a most respectable man. He was of opimon that this exchange was brought about by the influence of Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Knight, indeed, gave an opposite opinion, and yet he was deluded into a belief that she procured it. There was another evidence of which the right hon. gen tleman had fallen foul; he meant Pierson. This man had not, to be sure any brains to knock out; but the right hon gentleman endeavour. ed to extinguish his light. Dr. Thynne had proved that he gave the names of Knight and Brooke to Mrs. Clarke, on a slip of paper; and it was in the evidence of Mrs. Clarke that she delivered this identical slip of paper to the Duke of York. The payment of the 2001. was also proved. Next comes Pierson, and he proves that a note, he could not recollect whether a note for 1001. or 2001. is given him to get changed. It appears afterwards, that the me mory of Pierson was not quite clear as to the value of the note; but this was not material. It is, how ever, made the foundation of a charge against him, of being concerned in the conspiracy. The very circumstance, of his not being posi tive as to the amount of the note, is sufficient to acquit him of the impu tation. Pierson, though extremely stupid, was not quite so stupid, if Mrs. Clarke desired him to say it was a 501. note not to say so. A greater degree of recollection was required from this man than from the Duke of York, or Mrs. Clarke. But whatever might be thought of Pierson's evidence, there was nothing in it to bear out the charge of a conspiracy; that was completely blown up. He was, if the right hon. gentleman pleased, a stupid witness, but he was no conspirator. The structure built on this foundation was false. The right hon. gen tleman endeavoured to prove a con spiracy where there was none. The next case he had to consider, was that of Major Tonyn. It ap peared from evidence, that a sum of 5001. was deposited in the hands of Mr. Gilpin, an army-clothier in the Strand, a most respectable man, and one whom he knew very well. This was done in consequence of the application of Sandon, who was now expiating his offences in New gate, to Donovan. This was to be the price of Mrs. Clarke's influenceof that influence which was supposed not to exist-of that influence, the existence of which Sandon had the effrontery to say he doubted, though he had paid Mrs. Clarke SOOL. in consideration of it, after his friend French went to Ireland. He well knew, when he paid this 8001. that there was to nuineness? If he had, he must say, be a quid pro quo. Mrs. Clarke's patronage was the quid. He would now say a few words respecting the note about Tonyn, which in his conscience he considered as affording in disputable evidence of the Duke of York acceding to some wish which Mrs. Clarke had communicated to him respecting Tonyn. If this note was swelled into an importance, which neither now nor at any other time be considered as due to it, it arose from the extreme agitation, the extraordinary circumstances, and the something like theatrical effect with which it was brought forward. He had been one of the depositaries of that secret, and he thought that the note was as dead as Homer. The Duke of York solemnly protested that it was a forgery; and when in consequence of the confession of Sandon it was proved to be alive, and was brought forward, he confessed that he did view it with the utmost astonishment. He looked at it again, and again, and again. He collated and compared it with the letters of the duke, and the result of his operation left not the smallest doubt upon his mind that it was written by the duke. But when Col. Gordon gave his evidence at the bar respecting it, he was convinced. This conviction was strengthened by the evidence of General Hope, who said he thought there was a shade of difference; and it was rendered as firm as a rock, by the testimony of his hon. friend (Mr. Adam), who said, that he could perceive no difference. And what were the means by which it was endeavoured to shake this evidence? Why they brought forward Mr. Towne, and a parcel of such trash as he had never before beard in his life. It was impossible to conclude but that Sandon received the note from Mrs. Clarke, and that she had no hand or interest whatever in forging it. Had the hon. gentleman any doubt of its ge that he was not to be convinced by one from the dead. For himself, he had not the smallest doubt of its genuineness; he was as firmly persua ded, as that he stood on the floor, that it was written by the Duke of York, and that it was the answer to some application respecting Tonyn, The witnesses called from the Bank and Post-Office to disprove it, verified it beyond the possibility of a doubt; even Mr. Bliss, who had shewn himself the most dubious, confessed that he had no doubt till he had seen the hand-writing of Mrs. Clarke; but that was, in his opinion, so little founded, that he thought the note established in the clearest manner. And what did it prove? No less than that Major Tonyn's business was suspended, and for a time stopt in its progress. The right hon. gentleman had said, it dove-tailed no where; but nice as it might be in that particular, it was impossible to cast it out of the case, or expunge it from the evidence in which it made so very prominent a figure. The right hon. gentleman had said, that Mrs. Clarke had influence over his royal highness--he might well say so: this note had incontestibly proved it; and yet the right hon. gentleman had triumphantly asked, was it given for favour or corruption? He (Mr. Whitbread) could not say what others thought of it; but for his own part, he should prove by his vote what opinion he had formed of it. The next witness that had been attacked was Miss Taylor. The right |