HC Deb 03 February 1809 vol 12 cc330-5

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined, as follows:

(By the Attorney General.)

Have you the letters to which you referred on a former evening? I wish instate that I have a letter dated Sunday morning, June 19th, without any year; it is indorsed in my handwriting, June 19, 1808. I hare another letter dated Saturday morning, without any day of the month; I have not, I observe, put any indorsement of the day of the month or of the year upon that letter, but it will appear that that of the 19th of June 1808, was the first, and that dated Saturday was the second letter. When those letters were the subject of examination on a former evening, I wished to be possessed of them in order to have produced them. I had it not in my power to produce them then, not supposing that such a subject would be alluded to; I have now produced them.

[The following Letters were read.]

Sir; On the 11th of May 1806 you waited on me, by the desire of his royal highness the Duke of York, to state h. r. h.'s intention of allowing me an Annuity of 100l. per annum. H. r. h., by his promise, is now indebted to me 500l. I have written repeatedly, but of no avail. H. r. h 's conduct towards me has been so devoid of principle, feeling, and honour; and as his promises are not to be depended on, though even given by you; I have come to the determination of making my intentions known to you, for the consideration of h. r. h.; and thus it is:— I so licit h. r. h. to make the Annuity secure for my life, and to pay me the arrears immediately, as my necessities are very pressing (this he knows.)— If h. r. h. refuses to do this, I have no other mode for my immediate wants, than to publish every circumstance ever communicated to me by h. r. h. and every thing which has come under my knowledge during our intimacy, with all his letters; those things amount to something serious: He is mote within my power than may be imagined. Yet I wish for h. r. h.'s sake and my own, that he will make my request good, as I know full well I should suffer much in exposing him in my own mind; yet before I do any thing publicly, I will send to every one of h. r. h.'s family, a copy of what I mean to publish. Had h. r. h. only have been a little punctual, this request had never been made. One thing more: should h. r. h. throw up his protection to my boy (for I thank him much for the past) I hope he will place him on the foundation of the Charter-house or any other public school: the child is not accountable for my conduct. You will please then, Sir, to state this communication to the Duke of York; and on Wednesday I will send to your house, to know what may be h. r. h.'s intention; which you will please to signify by a letter to

"Your most obedient, humble servant,

"M. A. CLARKE."

"Sunday morning,

"June 19.

"His royal highness must feel, that his conduct on a late affair deserves all this from "me, and more."

"William Adam, esq.

"Bloomsbury-square."

"Private."

Indorsed

Mrs. Clarke,

19 June 1808.

"11, Holies-street,

"Cavendish-square.

"Sir: On Wednesday, finding there was not any answer to my letter, I am led to enquire, h. r. h. the D. of York, thinks proper not to make good his promise given by you, and that you encourage him in it.— I have employed myself since, in committing to paper every circumstance within my recollection during the intimacy of h. r. h. and myself. The fifty or sixty letters of h. r. h. will give weight and truth to the whole. On Tuesday I have promised to give these up, if I hear nothing further after this last notice; and when once given out of my own possession, it will be impossible to recall. It is to gentlemen, and not any publisher, they will be committed; and those gentlemen are just as obstinate as h. r. h., and more independant: they are acquaintances of your's; and to relieve my wants, in pique to others, will do what the Duke will not: however, he has it all within his own power, and so he may act as he pleases.

"I am, Sir, Your most obedient,

"M. A. CLARKE."

"Saturday morning.

"William Adam, esq.

"Bloomsbury-square."

Were those the two letters that the witness alluded to in her examination? They must have been the two letters that she alluded to, because I am confident I never received any other letter from the witness, unless that I received a very short note of a few lines; I rather think I did, but I am not possessed of that.

Did h. r. h. ever betray any apprehension to yon as to any thing which the witness could communicate respecting h. r. h.? Never at any time, or on any occasion.

Did you communicate the contents of these letters to b. r. h.? I did.

Did you show the letters themselves, or state the full contents of them? I shewed the letters themselves, and h. r. h. perused them in my presence.

After you had communicated those letters to h. r. h., and shewn them to him, did he betray the slightest apprehension of any thing the witness had in her power to communicate? Not the slightest.

Did h. r. h. deny that there was any tiling that could be published against him? I cannot be precise to the words which h. r. h. might have used; but I can say with confidence, that h. r. h. expressed himself as not at all apprehensive respecting any thing which could be published.— I wish to state, that the boy referred to in Mrs. C.'s letter is not any boy of the D. of York's.

The Attorney General

then desired the proper persons to ascertain whether Mr. Few was in attendance. He stated that his object was to contradict that part of the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, in which she had said that she never represented herself as a widow, while she lived in Tavistock- place. He believed, he would prove that she had represented herself to the tradesmen in the neighourhood as a widow, and had obtained credit as such, and afterwards pleaded her coverture to avoid payment of her debts.

Mr. Beresford

thought it quite needless to go any farther in the contradiction of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, as she had been sufficiently contradicted already, to prove that she was a person unworthy of belief. Indeed, what the house had heard from herself was almost, if not a together, enough for this purpose. He had suffered great pain in seeing a witness of such a description standing at the bar of that house, and examined with respect to the conduct of his royal highness. Mr. Knight, a most respectable gentleman, had already contradicted her, and he was in hopes that the house would see no further occasion for proceeding in examining into private amours. Almost every member in the house must be convinced that this was a character unworthy of credit, and it was excessively unpleasant to go on with any thing farther about her. It might be thought that he took a great deal upon himself, in advising the hon. and learned gent. as to the course he should pursue. But he considered it as a degradation to the house to proceed farther into the history of this infamous woman, for so he must call her.

Mr. Adam

stated his wish to explain a circumstance adverted to in one of Mrs. Clarke's letters, in order to prevent any misconception. The child alluded to in the letter was not a child of the duke's. It was also his duty to state, that this child had long been under the protection of the duke of York, and and was actually so at the time the letter was written, as the letter itself implied, which was nearly two years after the separation had taken place.

Mr. Fuller

said, that he hoped every examination would be proceeded in that the case could possibly admit of, as it was of importance that this subject should be probed to the bottom. This, he was convinced, was the foulest conspiracy that ever was set on foot against the Son of the Crown, (a laugh) and indirectly against the Crown itself. He desired, that the evidence might proceed, and expressed his hopes, that an honourable man would he fully acquitted by his honourable countrymen.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that the discussion was undoubtedly an unpleasant one, but though it was un- pleasant, yet the house could not shrink from it as it was brought before them. If he were called upon to give his opinion, even as the case stood, he could have no hesitation in saying, that the evidence of this witness was not to be relied upon. But though the hon. gent. (Mr. Beresford) had heard enough to make up his mind on the subject, could he be sure that the impression made on his mind was exactly that which was made on the mind of every one If, therefore, Mrs. Clarke had said, that she had never represented herself as a widow, and if it could be proved that she had so represented herself, and got credit upon that ground, it was certainly a very important circumstance, and still more so, if, upon payment of her debts being demanded, she had turned round and represented herself as a married woman. There was, besides, another fact, which it was very material to ascertain. His hon. and learned friend could prove, or imagined he could prove, that this woman, who had said that her husband was engaged in no business, did live with her husband who was a mason with three children. All this ought to be produced for the satisfaction of the house, and he hoped that it would have its full force, because the corpus delicti in this case depended entirely on her evidence. There was no doubt, that money had been given, but the question was, whether h. r. h. knew of that circumstance, and had been prevailed upon by her influence to grant promotions and exchanges in the army. This depended entirely upon her testimony, and therefore it was material to shew, in the most satisfactory manner, that her evidence was unworthy of the least credit.

The Attorney General

said, that in the evidence which he adduced he always looked at the distinct point under consideration. The subject here was the conduct of h. r. h. the Duke of York, with regard to the army; and the particular question was, whether he had conducted himself corruptly in granting commissions with a view to put money in the pockets of those whom he wished to favour. That there were persons about him, as almost always happened in such cases, who represented themselves as possessed of influence; and that there were dupes credulous enough to believe them, and to waste their money, he had no doubt. No witness had attempted to fix any charge upon h. r. h. but Mrs. Clarke; and if the cause had been before a jury, the judge would immediately tell them, that it could not stand a moment upon the testimony of such a witness, even from her own admissions. But this course would not answer here, and it was his duty to attack her credit by other testimony. It was only to that end that he adduced the evidence which he was now about to call. It was not unimportant to prove that this woman had given false testimony. This was a painful duty to him; but it was a duty which ought to be undertaken by some member of the house, and he thought that his official situation called upon him to take a leading part in the investigation. He also stated, that it would be proved by col. Gordon, that the exchange had been ordered before Mrs. Clarke got the money.

Mr. Few and Mr. Munn were then called, but neither of them were in attendance.

Sir Francis Burdett

observed, that this was a very unpleasant duty; but it was the duty of the house to do justice by the country as well as by the duke of York. He thought gentlemen ought to remain from discussing the merits of the case till the evidence was printed and laid before them. Before they called their witnesses, they ought to allow the hon. gent. to proceed with his charges, and finish them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that after the hon. gent. had finished this charge, it was understood that the answer was to be given, and the house had before acted upon that principle, by calling col. Gordon, Mr. Adam, and the hon. gent. himself who had brought forward the charges. The witnesses now called upon were summoned, not with a view to the whole of the charges, but to give their testimony upon that which was now closed.

The Attorney General

then desired Ludo-wick Orramin to be called. Mrs. Clarke, he observed, had said that she was sure the duke of York knew she got the 200l. because his servant had been sent by him to get it changed. Now he would shew that only one servant belonging to the duke of York ever attended him at Gloucester-place, and he had never gone out to get a note changed.