her colleagues. Wardle learnt from the conversation that, after the list of promotions had been arranged by the Duke, Mrs. Clarke, who often acted as his amanuensis, added names, and that he, being entirely without suspicion, signed the papers without examining them. It may here be mentioned, as proof of the connection between Wardle and Mrs. Clarke, that an upholsterer, Francis Wright, brought an action against him in July 1809 for furnishing the lady's house, and secured a verdict for a very considerable sum. Wardle publicly protested his innocence, and in the following December he proceeded against Mrs. Clarke and Wright for conspiracy, but failed to establish his case.

Considering the terms on which he was with Mrs. Clarke, it is necessary to search for a reason why he, of all people, raised the issue of the illicit sale of commissions in the House of Commons, where he sat as member for Okehampton. If he felt it was his duty to have the matter ventilated, it would have been natural, as well as more wise, in the circumstances, to have put up some one else to see it through. The only possible explanation is that he had quarrelled with Mrs. Clarke, or been dismissed by her, and was anxious, regardless of his reputation, to be revenged on her.

Anyhow, Wardle brought up the matter in the House of Commons in January 1809, after which there was nothing for it but to wash the dirty linen in public. "Peter Pindar" did not exaggerate the scandal that ensued when he wrote his "Epistle to Mrs. Clarke":

Heavens, what a dire confusion beauty makes!

The Horse Guards tremble, and old Windsor shakes.
Like bees, the mob around St. Stephen's swarms;
And every street and alley feels alarms :

Men, women, coaches, gigs, each other jostle;
And thou the cause of all this horrid bustle !

Hotels and tap-rooms sound with mingled din,

And every coffee-house is on the grin.

From morn to eve, from eve to midnight dark,
Naught strikes the ear but "Duke and Mistress Clarke !
Nay, too, the parrot and the simple starling

Cry from their cages naught but "Duke and Darling."

At the beginning it looked as if the Duke had been more sinned against than sinning, and that the worst that could be said against him was that he had been careless. The King, indignant as he was, while deploring the " disgraceful connection" into which his son had entered, expressed his conviction that the Duke was innocent of any misconduct in his official capacity. The Duke's partisans at first felt sure that he would come out of this lamentable business without a stain on his character. They reckoned, however, without Mrs. Clarke, who, having nothing to lose, and, according to her own statement, a great deal to gain, gave away the game.

"The Duke of York's business has taken a very unpleasant shape," Earl Temple (afterwards created Duke of Buckingham) wrote on February 9. "The woman has taken a decided part against him, and tells everything she knows, a great deal that she does not know, and much more than the Duke can repel. The temper of the House is decidedly in the Duke's favour; this, added to the bad character of the principal witness, will certainly bring him off upon the most material points of the charge; but nothing can wipe off from the public mind the first impression of connivance, at least, which the bad character of the woman only tends to strengthen and confirm. In short, whatever the issue of the specific charges brought, I see plainly that the Duke is lost in public estimation. The woman is very clever, and completely foiled Sir Vicary Gibbs, the Attorney-General, in a very severe cross-examination of

three hours. William Adam made matters worse, by stating that the Duke had given her an annuity of £400, contingent upon the correctness of conduct. Will not his enemies say, and can his friends deny, that the annuity was hush-money, to continue so long as she held her tongue, and to cease the moment she began to talk? the payment did cease. All this is very bad, and at the present moment very mischievous."

Mrs. Clarke was completely mistress of herself, and absolutely undismayed when she appeared before the tribunal. Asked by the chairman, somewhat brutally, under whose protection she was now, "At present, sir, she replied, "I believe I am under yours." In her account of this episode on her life she wrote with the most brazen cynicism.

"I am of opinion that there is not a person in England at all acquainted with the proceedings of the House of Commons, with respect to the Duke of York, and my connection with Colonel Wardle and his party, who is so credulous as to believe what Colonel Wardle has lately endeavoured to make the people of England credit as a divine revelation: namely, that I incurred the exposure of myself, children, and family, together with abuse, anxiety of mind, and fatigue of person, during my examination in Parliament, from a purely patriotic zeal to serve the public," she said. "If there should be such a person in the country that indulges in such an opinion of my patriotism, he must be the most insane and weak man that ever lived. If I were to tell the same gross falsehoods which has issued from the immaculate Colonel Wardle, and compliment myself upon having appeared against the Duke of York, without any motives of interest beyond the gratification of serving the public, I am sure the intelligent reader would consider QL

me a most impudent hypocrite, and with great justice, for if I had not been well satisfied of receiving the remuneration agreed upon not all the Jacobinical parties in Europe should have introduced my letters and my person to the notice of Parliament.'

The House of Commons, by 278 to 196 votes, acquitted the Duke of York of any corrupt practices. At the same time, though it was established that he had derived no pecuniary benefit from the sale of commissions, it was generally accepted that he had been cognisant of what had been going on. Spencer Perceval, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and shortly to be Prime Minister, declared, in an impressive speech: "I will stake my reputation upon it, that it is impossible that, after the result of the enquiry, any suspicion can attach to His Royal Highness." Public feeling, however, ran so high that it was considered advisable by the Duke and the Government that he should resign the office of Commander-in-Chief. He was succeeded by Sir David Dundas, but, when Dundas retired two years later, he was reappointed by the Prince Regent. The matter was raised in the House of Commons by Lord Milton, who moved a vote of censure on the Government for permitting the appointment, but this was defeated by a large majority.

Certainly Mrs. Clarke told the truth when she stated that she was not "a most impudent hypocrite." No woman has ever shown more effrontery: this effrontery was, in fact, part of her stock-in-trade. In the years following the enquiry she published a scandalous volume, the full title of which runs: "The Rival Princes; or, A Faithful Narrative of Facts relating to Mrs. M. A. Clarke's Political Acquaintance with Colonel Wardle, Major Dodd, etc., etc., who were concerned in the Charges against the Duke