Q. You have heard the account which the last Witness has given of the part you took in this transaction; will you give your own account of it? A. I wish to state to the Committee, in answer to the question put to me by the honourable and learned gentleman over against me, that, I believe, in the year 1789, I was first desired by his Royal Highness the Duke of York to look into some concerns of his. From that time to the present period I have continued my attention to those concerns, and I have continued it upon the gund that I stated the other night to the House; namely, that it is not professional, that it is not attended with any emolument whatever, but it has been perfectly gratuitous on my part. I felt it a duty, when engaged in it, to discharge all of it, and every part of it, with as much fidelity and accuracy and attention as I could. It came to my knowledge, late in the year 1805, that the husband of the person who has been examined at the bar, threatened an action for criminal conversation against the Duke of York: it was necessary to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and it fell to my lot, from the communications which I had had upon other subjects with his Royal Highness, and from the intercourse which had constantly and invariably subsisted (if I may use the expression) between his Royal Highness and myself, that I should give directions for those enquiries. In the course of these directions, and in the matter that was laid before me in consequence of the investigation, I had reason to believe, that the conduct of the person who has been examined at the bar had not been so correct as it ought to have been, and that it had a tendency to prejudice his Royal Highness's interests, not his character in a military point of view, or in a public capacity, but his interests and his name with regard to money. This led to further inquiry; and I conceived it to be my duty to intimate the result of these things to the Duke of York: I found the Duke of York not inclined to believe that there could be any thing wrong in that quarter, and that he continued of that opinion almost to the last, till the very close of the connection; and that the connection, as the facts will shew, closed in consequence of his conviction, that that investigation had disclosed the character of the person who has just been examined. The transactions of a pecuniary nature, which, as I have stated, had no relation to any thing like the subject of this inquiry: these transactions came to be brought more directly home to his Royal Highness's attention by a fact which I could state, if it were fit, according to the rules of evidence; but it would be stating hearsay evidence, and that hearsay evidence of the party whose conduct is the subject of inquiry; I state it merely to make my evidence intelligible. I then directed the inquiry more at large, and bad an accurate investigation made by employing Mr. Lowten, an eminent Solicitor, who employed Mr. Wilkinson, as the person that he generally gets to superintend business, until it is brought forward in proper shape, he not having leisure for those parts of his business. By Mr. Wilkinson, to whom the person at the bar alluded, these investigations were completed; and when they were completed, they were, I think, either upon the 6th, 7th, or Sth of May, 1800, submitted, in detail and in writing, to his Royal Highness, accompanied with the proofs: it was an unpleasant task, because it is not pleasant to state to any person that which is contrary to their inclinations and their feelings; but it was a thing that I thought I was bound, in the discharge of tuy duty to the Duke of York, to do exactly in the manner in which I had received the information. This information was considered. In the course of it, his Royal Highness wished that I should have an interview with the person who has just been examined; I accordingly agreed to have that interview, because I considered that no unpleasantness that might afterwards, or at the time, arise to myself, should prevent me from following up the business, and extricating was equally incorrect with the other. In a few days after this, his Royal Highness's mind being made up to separate himself from this person, I was again asked by his Royal Highness, whether I had any difficulty in undertaking the communicating to her his determinatión. My being to wait upon her was announced in a short letter from the Duke of York to her: and I accordingly, from the same motive which I have already stated, and feeling it to be a duty, as I had commenced the transaction which was to lead to this, not to finch from any personal inconvenience, or any unpleasantness which might arise at the time, or in future, to make the com Extricating that royal person from the person with whom he was at that time connected. Upon the score of those representations, I had this interview: it was an interview not of very long duration; but, of course, I conducted the conversation to those points which led me to discover how far, with perfect accuracy, there was truth or falsehood in the information which I had obtained in the manner I have stated. It had been represented to me, that this person had defended an action as a married woman, having obtained the property for which the action was brought in the character of a widow. Investigation was made with regard to the place of her marriage; and it was found she was married a minor at ́munication; I made the communicaPancras. She had represented, at different times, that her mother was of a family of the name of Mackenzie; that her father was named Farquhar; that they lived in the neighbourhood of Berkhamstead, and that accounts would be had of the family there. The Berkhamstead Register had been examined with that view, and it was examined with accuracy for forty years back. In the course of the conversation I had with her in the first interview, I took occasion to ask her where she was married; and she stated to me, seriously and distinctly, that she was married at Berkhamstead. I then took occasion to put some questions with regard to the register at Pancras; and I took occasion likewise to state what I knew with respect to the registers of births, burials, and marriages at Berkhamstead; and from the impression it made, I came away with a conviction in my mind, that those facts which had been stated to me upon the investigation I had directed, were correct and true; because no doubt remained upon my mind from her demeanor and conduct upon that occasion. She stated seriously that her marriage was at Berkhamstead. She likewise stated, in that conversation, that her husband was a nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke, now the Chamberlain of London. I know, from the same investigation, that that tion, and I accompanied it with this declaration, that the Duke of York thought it his duty, if her conduct was correct, to give her an annuity of 400l. a year, to be paid quarterly; that he could enter into no obligation in writing, by bond, or otherwise, that it must rest entirely upon his word to be performed, according to her behaviour; and that he might, there fore, have it in his power to withdraw the annuity, in case her behaviour was such as to make him consider that it was unfit it should be paid. That was the nature of the proposition which I made, and no other. The conversation lasted for a very short time. I left the lady, and I have not seen her from that time to the present moment. These circumstances seem to me in the narration, all that is necessary to be stated with respect to that part of the transaction in which my name has been so frequently used. There are, however, two other matters, the one in which my name was used when it was first introduced, and the other respecting a particular person, upon which I wish to state the facts to the Committee. I did, at some time in the year 1808, receive a letter, I think the 11th of June; I will not be quite sure about the date, but I think it is marked in my own hand, the 11th of June, 1808, which is the letter which has been alluded to. I am not in possession possession of the letter, I gave it into the same custody that had the papers which constituted the investigation I have stated; that letter I shall state nothing of the contents of; I only mean to say, that letter is in a situation to be produced, and, I suppose, from what has passed, there will be no necessity for any thing more. The other fact to which I wish to speak, is with respect to the persons whom I employed. With respect to Mr. Wil kinson, the Committee have already heard the manner in which he has been employed, and those who know him, know his capacity for that employment. With regard to the other person, of the name of Taylor, I can only say, that I never happened to see that person in the whole course of my life. If, in what I have stated, in which the facts only can be considered as evidence, but which I have endeavoured to make intelligible by connecting circumstances, any thing has arisen for any question to be put to me, I am most anxious that all, or any gen tleman in the House should call upon me to answer it. The separation took place upon the 11th of May, 1806; the transaction, which has been examined, took place in July, 1805. (By the ATTORNEY GENERAL.) Q. At what time did his Royal Highness separate from Mrs. Clarke? A. In May, 1806. Q. Did you guarantee the payment of this annuity? A. Never; the Duke of York was at perfect liberty to withdraw it when he pleased. (By LORD FOLKSTONE.) Q. What was the nature of the promise contained in the letter? A. I wrote no letter; his Royal Highness sent a short note, merely mentioning my intention to wait on her. (By the ATTORNEY GENERAL.) Q. Did she appear exasperated at your communication? A. Greatly; she said she should see him again. Q. Did you know that she had any intention of explaining to the Duke of York? A. I do not know; but believe she thought she could prevail upon him again. GWYLLYM LOYD WARDLE, Esq. exa mined by the ATTORNEY GENE RAL. Q. Had you only one short conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of to-night's inquiry? A. That is a difficult question to an swer exactly, there are such a variety of cases I have talked over with her from time to time. I do not know exactly the time when I talked this case over with her. I had heard of it before; and, in short, got out of her more than she told me voluntarily. She attacked me very warmly with respect to another case which I mentioned, and I believe she spoke generally of the whole. When the matter was talked over between us, I took my pen and ink, and entered every thing which passed in a book. I do not believe that I have altered any part of what I entered. I believe I never had but one pointed conversation on this case; whether, in speaking of other cases, I have touched upon that, I cannot say; the case has remained in that book ever since; and I took a copy the other day, from that book, of what I had written. Q. What you stated to the House, was what you had collected from Mrs. Clarke ? A. What in part I had collected from Mrs. Clarke, and in part from other quarters. Q. Did you state to the House any thing as having passed between Mrs. Clarke and those persons who were immediate agents in this transaction except what you collected from her? A. I fancy, a good deal. I know some points; but I believe a good deal of the main points were stated from the book, which I had written, when I had conversed with her upon the subject. Q. Did Q. Did she state to you that this passed on the 25th of July? A. No, she did not, certainly. I do not think she was at all aware of the positive date. I remember, at the time of the conversation, she mentioned the circumstance of Lord Chesterfield's christening, and seemed guided by that; that his Royal Highness was going down to that christening; and, by that, she made out the period to be in July, when the transaction took place. Q. Upon what authority did you state; with particularity, that this took place on Thursday the 25th of July; this agreement for the 2007. ? A. She, upon taking note of that christening, and taking note of the Gazette also, was positive then in her assertion (I remember perfectly well) that the thing was proposed on the Thursday, and done on the Saturday; that was her positive assertion, from the first to the last; and that it was that led me to state it. Q. I understand you to have stated, that she did not state it to be on the 25th? A. She did not in the first instance; the Gazette was found, and the moment it was looked into, she was so positive as to the Thursday and the Saturday, that no doubt remained upon her mind. Q. Have you a particular recollection, that it was at last brought to the Thursday, the 25th of July? A. I have really no further recollection; I have no other guide. Q. Do you remember that it was the Thursday preceding the Saturday on which the Gazette was published? A. I do not know how to make the matter clearer; these were the two points that guided me in my assertion; if I was wrong in my assertion, it was a blunder arising from that. Q. Is the Committee to understand, that, while Mrs. Clarke and yourself were seeking to fix the day on which this transaction took place, the Gazette was found; and, that finding the date of that, and considering the time which had preceded it, you fixed the date on which the offer was made, to be on the Thursday preceding? A. I mean merely to assert, that, from the evidence Mrs. Clarke gave me, and from the information I got from the Gazette, I fixed it must be on the very day I mentioned. I had no other guide to go by, of one description or another; and I do not see that I am to stand here, however willing I may be, after the heavy examination which that witness has gone through, which, I believe, many gentlemen may think with myself, must tire any gentleman. I do not feel disposed to submit to the same sort of discipline; she never did, to the best of my recollection, give me any other date than that I have mentioned the christening of my Lord Chesterfield; and I remember her stating, that the thing was petitioned on the Thursday, and done on the Saturday; more than that I really do not recollect on the subject. Any question which I can answer, I shall be willing to answer; but I do not know how further to answer that. I afterwards inquired, and ascertained, when that christening was; and, from that and the Gazette, I mentioned the date, which I thought was correct; whether it was or not, I cannot state. MR. WHITBREAD spoke to order. He did not think it was regular or usual for a member, bringing forward a charge, to undergo an examination to disclose where and how he received his information. The SPEARER observed, that it had been determined, in more instances than one, that no member had a right to examine another, except in a committee of inquiry. In this case the House was in that situation, and it was proper that any member, who co give any information, information, or throw any light on the subject, should be examined: for instance, a member, Mr. Biddulph, had been directed to attend in his place this day, for the purpose of being examined, and if he did not attend, the House would consider it their duty to send for him. MR. CANNING-"I wish to be informed if the honourable gentleman intends to answer the questions put to him or not?"-(A loud ory of Chair! Chair!) MR. PERCEVAL said it was not the intention of his learned friend (the Attorney General) to put questions to impeach the veracity of the honourable member, but for the purpose of comparing the com munications which he had received from Mrs. Clarke, with the evidence which she had given, with a view to impeach her veracity, MR. WARDLE-"I do not know how to answer-she never did give me any date but that of the Gazette.” MR. WHITBREAD thought that the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) was precipitate in putting the question which he did to Mr. Wardle, as he thought his fatigue afforded a claim for further time. The ATTORNEY GENERAL resumed his examination. Q. Did you refer to the Gazette in the presence of Mrs. Clarke? A. (by Mr. Wardle) Not that I recollect. Q. Was it communicated to her? Q. Did you take away those papers alluded to by Mrs. Clarke, without her consent? A. I did. She did not give her assent, but I did it in a kind of jocose manner. She said that they related to a friend of hers, Mr. Donovan, whom she did not wish to be touched. There were one or two other letters of light moment. I have them now in my possession. Q. Then Mrs. Clarke had been in the habit of communicating her letters to you? A. She had; but nothing relative to this case. Q. Were they relative to the Duke of York? A. No. Q. To whom then? (By MR. CANNING.) Q. Did Mrs. Clarke ever state to you that she informed the Duke of York that she wished to go into the country, and that this wish might be gratified without any expence to his Royal Highness, as she had received a loan of 200l. ? A. No; she informed me, that she told the Duke of York, that she had received the 2007. for the exchange, which sum would be adequate to the expence of the excursion. Q. Did you receive other information than from those persons examined this night? A. I did, from several other persons, as I have already stated. (By MR. WILBERFORCE.) Q. What did you suppose Mrs. Clarke meant, when she told you that she did not wish a certain person to be touched? Did it imply that there were persons to be touched? A. I believe that she meant only what she expressed. Q. Had Mrs. Clarke made particular applications to you for the papers that you carried away ?· A. She did, and seemed angry that |