The Clarke Scandal—Biography of Mrs. Clarke—Her levées—Her
scale of prices for preferments—Commission of the House of
Commons—Exculpation of the Duke of York—His resignation—Open sale
of places—Caution thereon—Duels—That between Colonel Montgomery and
Captain Macnamara.
IT WOULD be utterly impossible, whilst writing of things military, of
this part of the century, to ignore the Clarke Scandal—it is a portion
of the history of the times.
Mrs. Mary Ann Clarke was of humble parentage, of a lively and
sprightly temperament, and of decidedly lax morality. She had married
a stonemason named Clarke, who became bankrupt; she, however, cleaved
to him and his altered fortunes, until his scandalous mode of living
induced her to separate from him, and seek a livelihood as best she
might. Her personal attractions, and lively disposition, soon attracted
men’s notice, and after some time she went upon the stage, where she
essayed the _rôle_ of Portia. There must have been some fascination
about her, for each of her various lovers rose higher in the social
scale, until, at last, she became the mistress of the Duke of York, and
was installed in a mansion in Gloucester Place. Here the establishment
consisted of upwards of twenty servants. The furniture is described as
having been most magnificent. The pier glasses cost from 400 to 500
pounds each, and her wine glasses, which cost upwards of two guineas
apiece, sold afterwards, by public auction, for a guinea each.
[Illustration: MRS. CLARKE.]
She kept two carriages, and from eight to ten horses, and had an
elegant mansion at Weybridge, the dimensions of which may be guessed,
by the fact that the oil cloth for the hall cost fifty pounds. The
furniture of the kitchen at Gloucester Place cost upwards of two
thousand pounds.
[Illustration: MRS. CLARKE’S LEVÉE.[77]]
These things swallowed up a great deal of money, and, although the
Duke had a fine income, yet he had the capacity for spending it; nor
only so—could contract debts with great facility, so that the money
which he nominally allowed Mrs. Clarke (for it was not always paid),
was insufficient to provide for such extravagance, and other means had
to be found. This was done by her using the influence she possessed
over the Duke, and getting him to grant commissions in the army, for
which the recipients paid Mrs. Clarke a lower price than the regulation
scale. The satirical prints relating to her are most numerous. I only
reproduce two. Her levée was supposed not only to be attended by
military men, but by the clergy; and it was alleged that applications
had been made through her both for a bishopric, and a deanery, and that
she had procured for Dr. O’Meara, the privilege of preaching before
Royalty. But it was chiefly in the sale of army commissions that she
dealt, thus causing young officers to be promoted “over the heads” of
veterans. Certainly her scale of prices, compared with those of the
regulation, were very tempting, resulting in a great saving to the
recipient of the commission.
MRS. CLARKE’S PRICE. REGULATION PRICE.
A Majority £900 £2,600
A Captaincy 700 1,500
A Lieutenancy 400 550
An Ensigncy 200 400
[Illustration: MILITARY LEAP FROG; OR, HINTS TO YOUNG GENTLEMEN.]
I have no wish to go into the minute details of this scandal, but on
January 27, 1809, G. Lloyd Wardell,[78] Esq., M.P. for Oakhampton,
began his indictment of the Duke of York, in this matter, before the
House of Commons; and he showed that every sale effected through Mrs.
Clarke’s means, was a robbery of the Half Pay Fund, and he asked for a
Parliamentary Committee to investigate the affair; this was granted,
and Mrs. Clarke, and very numerous witnesses were examined. The
lady was perfectly self-possessed, and able to take care of herself;
and the evidence, all through, was most damaging to the Duke. Mrs.
Clarke is thus described in the _Morning Post_ of Friday, February 3,
1809: “Mrs. Clarke, when she appeared before the House of Commons, on
Wednesday, was dressed as if she had been going to an evening party,
in a light blue silk gown and coat, edged with white fur, and a white
muff. On her head she wore a white cap, or veil, which at no time was
let down over her face. In size she is rather small, and does not
seem to be particularly well made. She has a fair, smooth skin, and
lively blue eyes, but her features are not handsome. Her nose is rather
short and turning up, and her teeth are very indifferent; yet she has
the appearance of great vivacity of manners, but is said not to be a
well-bred or accomplished woman. She appears to be about thirty-five
years of age.”
[Illustration: THE PRODIGAL SON’S RESIGNATION.]
The Duke took the extraordinary course of writing a letter to the
Speaker of the House of Commons, whilst the matter was _sub judice_, in
which he asserted his innocence; and, foreseeing what was to follow,
gave out that for the future he meant to be a very good boy, and that
he would retrench in his expenditure, in order to attempt to liquidate
his debts.
The House eventually found that there was nothing in the evidence to
prove personal corruption, or criminal connivance on the part of His
Royal Highness; but, although thus partially whitewashed, the public
opinion against him was too strong, and he placed his resignation, as
Commander in Chief, in the King’s hands.
Places were openly bought and sold, although it was known to be
illegal, such advertisements as the following being common—_Morning
Post_, June 14, 1800:
“PUBLIC OFFICES.
“A YOUNG MAN of good Connections, well educated in writing and
accounts, and can find security, wishes for a Clerkship in any of the
Public Offices. Any Lady or Gentleman having interest to procure such
a situation, will be presented with the full value of the place. The
greatest secrecy and honour will be observed.”
So common were they, that it was found necessary to issue notices on
the subject. Here is one:
“_Custom House, London, December 7, 1802._
“WHEREAS Advertisements have, at different times, appeared in the
Newspapers, offering Sums of Money for the procuring of Places, or
Situations, in the Customs, inserted either by persons not aware
of the serious consequences which attach upon transactions of this
nature, or by persons of a different description, with a view to
delude the ignorant, and unwary: The Commissioners of His Majesty’s
Customs think it necessary to have it generally made known that, in
addition to the punishment which the Common Law would inflict upon
the offence of bribing, or attempting to bribe, any person entrusted
with the disposal of any Office, the Statute passed in the fifth and
sixth year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, inflicts the penalty
of incapacity to hold such office in the person purchasing, and the
forfeiture of office in the person selling; and that in case any
such place or situation, either shall have been, or shall hereafter
be procured, or obtained, by such Corrupt means, they are determined
to enforce the penalties of the Law, and to prosecute the offenders
with the utmost severity. And they do hereby promise a Reward of One
Hundred Pounds, to any person or persons who will give information and
satisfactory proof, of any place or situation in the Customs being
so obtained, so that the parties concerned therein may be proceeded
against accordingly.”
Duels were most frequent, so much so, as not to excite any interest
in the student of history of that time, for it is difficult to pick
up a newspaper and not find one recorded. The reasons are not always
given, but it did not take much to get up a duel; any excuse would
serve. As an example, let us take the duel between Colonel Montgomery,
and Captain Macnamara, at Chalk Farm (April, 1803) in which the former
was killed, and the latter wounded. Lord Burghersh, in giving evidence
before the coroner’s jury, said: “On coming out of St. James’s Park
on Wednesday afternoon, he saw a number of horsemen, and Colonel
Montgomery among them; he rode up to him; at that time, he was about
twenty yards from the railing next to Hyde Park Gate. On one side of
Colonel Montgomery was a gentleman on horseback, whom he believed was
Captain Macnamara. The first words he heard were uttered by Colonel
Montgomery, who said: ‘Well, Sir, and I will repeat what I said,
if your dog attacks mine, I will knock him down.’ To this, Captain
Macnamara replied, ‘Well, Sir, but I conceive the language you hold is
arrogant, and not to be pardoned.’ Colonel Montgomery said: ‘This is
not a proper place to argue the matter; if you feel yourself injured,
and wish for satisfaction, you know where to find me.’” And so these
two poor fools met, and one was killed—all because two dogs fought,
and their masters could not keep their temper!
[Illustration]
[Illustration]