the Clause, which he was charged with having violated, "That the Freedom of Speech, or Debates and Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament," was not intended to check the encroachments of a despotic King upon the Liberties of the People, not to screen their Representatives from the People's animadversion? In proof that this was its meaning, we refer you to the last Clause in the same glorious Bill, which states, "That no Declarations, Judgments, Doings or Proceedings to the prejudice of the People in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter in consequence or example." We ask whether your Honourable House have not converted one Clause "to the prejudice of the People," and by depriving a British Subject of his Liberty, without a Trial by his Peers, acted with a Vigour beyond the Law?" We also beg leave to state to your Honourable House our opinion, that it is not only the Right but the Duty of every Representative to lay before his Constituents the motives of his public Conduct, and appeal to them for their sanction and approbation. Impressed with this conviction, we learn with sorrow, that Sir Francis Burdett, for a statement of his opinions to his Constituents, has been dragged from his family and home, by an order of your Honourable House, and conveyed by an Army of Soldiers to the Tower. Whilst the utmost stretch of power is exercised upon those who, in our opinion, are not merely innocent, but deserving of the gratitude of their coun try, we observe with concern and mortification that the highest State Delinquents incur not even so much as your censure. Lord Castlereagh, an acknowledged trafficker of Seats in your Honourable House, is politely excused, and kindly forgiven. Your Honourable House has refused even to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Perceval, the First Minister of the Crown, though charged with conniving at practices" at which our ancestors would have startled with indignation," because those practices "are as notorious as the noonday sun."-These, and other grievances, imperiously demand us to call for a thorough Reform of the House of Commons. We therefore humbly, but urgently pray, that, as a preliminary step, you will immediately order the liberation of John Gale Jones, and Sir Francis Bur dett, and then lend every assistance in your power to the latter, towards the attainment of a complete Reform in our Representation. We are confident that we utter the sentiments of millions of Britons, when we appeal to the noblest feelings by which man can be actuated, the love of his fellow men, when we address ourselves to the cool dictates of your unbiassed judgment, when we call upon you, for the preservation of your own dignity, to grant us a radical Reform. -We believe that the happiness of the Nation, and the salvation of the Country, depend upon it. Only let the House of Commons be the fair Representatives of the people, and we are persuaded that they will have no occasion to complain of the violation of their Privileges; for their Privileges and our Liberties would ever accord. Around such a House of Commons, the People of England would rally with enthusiasm and rapture; they would unite with them in one Common Cause, and be ready to shed the last drop of their blood in their protection and defence. LIVERPOOL PETITION. To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom. The Humble PETITION of the undersigned INHABITANTS of the Town and NEIGHBOUR HOOD OF LIVERPOOL. Sheweth,-That in the year 1793, his Majesty, by the advice of his then Ministers, engaged in a war against France for the purpose of curbing the power of that country, and circumscribing its limits.That, in the prosecution of the said war, various military expeditions have been planned and conducted, by successive administrations, which expeditions have almost uniformly failed in accomplishing the objects for which they were undertaken. That in proof of this assertion, your Petitioners beg leave to call to the recollection of your Honourable House the Expedition to Flanders in the year 1793-the descent upon Quiberon Bay in 1794 the Invasion of Holland in 1799the Attack on Constantinople in 1807— the Expedition to Egypt and Buenos Ayres in the same year-the disgraceful Convention of Cintra-the Campaign of Sir John Moore in Spain-and the retreat of Sir Arthur Wellesley, after the victory at Talavera, where he left his sick and wounded to the mercy of the enemy. the Commander of the Expedition to Buenos Ayres, no individual, either Minister or General, has been brought to punishment, as being accountable for the losses and misfortunes which have befallen the British Arms. That on the contrary, the plan and conduct of one disastrous Expedition after another, stands vindicated on the Journals of your Honourable House; and that nothing appears there to deter his Majesty's Ministers from again wasting the blood and trea sure of the country, as they have lately done in the Expedition to Walcheren. Your Petitioners further beg leave to And they particularly beg leave to call to the recollection of your Honourable House that his Majesty's present Ministers did, in July last, fit out an armament of a magnitude unexampled in the annals of this Country, for the purpose of taking the City of Antwerp, and destroying the ships and stores which might be found in that port and that the said armament returned home without effecting the object of its equipment, and having its numbers miserably thinned by a disease, the certainty of the occurrence of which seems to have been known to every body-his Majesty's Ministers alone excepted. Your Petitioners further beg leave to re-state, that they are humbly of opinion, present to your Honourable House, that in considering the foreign policy of the different administrations who have managed the war with France, they find, that whereas, on our entrance into the said war, all the great powers of Europe were in alliance with us, they are now arranged on the side of the enemy; and, that the general result of the present long protracted hostilities is, that, notwithstanding the most gallant exertions on the part of his Majesty's fleets and armies, the limits of France, instead of being contracted, are greatly extended, and that her power, instead of being checked, reigns paramount throughout almost the whole of Europe. Your Petitioners, moreover, beg leave humbly to state, that their feelings on the above-mentioned subjects are greatly aggravated by the scandalous system of Peculation, which has of late years been disclosed, and by the profuse expenditure of public money, which has occasioned the grievous weight of Taxation under which the nation now labours. Your Petitioners do humbly conceive, that a long train of misfortunes, such as we have enumerated, and the consequent diminution of the relative strength, and political influence of the nation, must be imputed as matter of blame, either to the commanders employed to execute the mea-victed of the two-fold offence of offering sures of Government, or to Ministers, who, by the unskilfulness of their plans, have lost attainable objects, or by their folly and obstinacy have wasted the efforts of the nation on objects which are unattainable. And yet your Petitioners are compelled to state, that save in the case of that this impunity of the planners and conductors of disastrous enterprises, and the consequent repetition of such enterprises, is no otherwise to be accounted for, than by the mode in which many of the Members of your honourable House obtain Seats therein; and especially by the introduction into your honourable House of numerous Placemen, Pensioners, and dependants on the Minister for the time be ing, whom your Petitioners humbly conceive to have an obvious interest, in forbearing to condemn, when condemnation would remove from office, those to whom they look up for fortune and influence.— Your Petitioners further beg leave to state, that this their opinion has of late been strongly confirmed, by the open defence of the system of Parliamentary corruption, which, during the last Session of Parliament, was set up in your honourable House, and which drew from your Speaker the memorable remark, that the practices so defended, were "practices, at the mention of which our ancestors would have started with indignation and disgust."Your Petitioners have been still more strongly confirmed in the opinion above stated, by the fact, that lord Viscount Castlereagh, a Member of your honourable House, was, in the said Session, con East India patronage in barter for a Seat Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent Garden :-Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall-Mall, LONDON:-Printed by T. C. Hansard, Peterborough-Court, Fleet-Street, VOL. XVII. No. 251) LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1810. 929] SUMMARY OF POLITICS. MRS. CLARKE.- -This lady has, at last, after long menacing, published her book, entitled the RIVAL PRINCES, than which a more flagrant catch-penny never issued from the shop of a low and greedy bookseller. The two Volumes, which are sold at 18 s. do not contain so much print as two news-papers; and, more than one half of the matter consists of the history of the Upholsterer's bill and of the two trials, of all of which the public was before in possession.The objects of the publication are evident enough; namely, 1. To get money; 2. to take vengeance upon Mr. WARDLE, Major DODD, and every other person, with whom the writer felt herself offended. The first object will, to a certain extent, be accomplished; but the latter certainly will not, the fulshood as well as malice of the writer being visible in every page.-My name is introduced into this work; and, when I have remarked upon the assertions connected with it, the readers of the Register will, at any rate, be able to form a pretty tolerably correct opinion as to how far the bare word of Mus. CLARKE, unsupported by other evidence, is to be relied upon. -She says of me, that I became the determined for of the Duke of York because he refused to dine with me, in a party which was to have taken place at her house. She tells a long story about the invitation and about putting it off, and about explanations, not one word of all which is true. -In this, as in other cases, she lays hold of a single fact, perfectly insignificant in itself perhaps, and upon it she builds her romantic story.The truth, as relating to this matter, is, that Mr. ROBERT KNIGHT, at whose house I was dining, with Mr. Wm. Scott and others, in the winter of 1806, asked me if I had any objection to dine with him at Mrs. Clarke's, whom he spoke of as a very pretty woman in Gloucester Place, and this was the first time I had ever beard of her. After he had explained to me who and what she was, I agreed, at the end of much entreaty, to be of the party, if Mr. Wm. Scott would. Mr. Scott [Price 18. -[930 agreed; but, before the day came, Mr. Scott being at my house (then at Parson's Green), I begged of him, in consequence of my wife's objection to my dining at such a place, to tell Mr. Knight, that I declined going. So that all the whole story about the "cards of invitation," and about her "putting the party off," and my being disappointed" and "angry" on this account; all this is pure invention, as Mr. Wm. Scott would, I am certain, at any time, testify, if it were necessary.She further says, that an "explanation" of this took place, when I saw her at Westbourne Place, last year. So it did; but here there is a want of memory equal to the force of imagination so visible elsewhere; for, at the time and place here mentioned, she reproached me with not having dined with her in Gloucester Place, and I defended myself by telling her what was the real impediment, whereupon she observed, that, if that was the case, I should have some indulgence for others who submitted to petticoat government.-As she appeals to my Lord Folkestone, whọ was present at this interview, it is certainly her memory must have failed her; for, she would hardly have knowingly and uselessly exposed herself to the certain contempt of even one person. It is a very just remark, that those who make free with facts should have good memories; and this is particularly neces➡ sary, when time and place are of any con sequence. Mrs. Clarke says, that my hostility, as she calls it, to the Duke of York, arose from the Duke's refusal to dine with me. Now, in the first place, how was I to know of this refusal? She does not pretend, that she ever had any intercourse with me in her life. How, therefore, was I to know of the Duke's refusal? But, it is useless to reason about what is, by undeniable facts, proved to be false. By referring to the Volumes of the Register, it will be perceived, that the far greater part of my writings against the Duke of York took place in 1804 and 1805; whereas the invitation to dine with Mrs. Clarke took place late in the month of February 1800. These dates it is impossible for her to explain away. They con 66 (93% year, 'till the 2nd day of June. So that most complete, of falsehood, proceeding here again is proof positive, proof the either from a deliberately wicked mind, which it may, it shews that her bare word or from a total want of memory. Be it is worth nothing at all. And, then, ob tain proof positive, complete proof, that what she says about my motives in attacking the Duke of York is false; and, it is very fair for me to conclude, as in sincerity I do believe, that what she says about the motives of others is equally false. In other cases the pray Comm cult to come at; but more diffithink, that it is very fair to consider this as a criterion of her veracity; and that, as I said from the first, in the case of the Duke of York, that her evidence alone, unsupported by any other, ought not to be taken, especially when given against any one, on whom she manifestly thirsted for revenge, as was the case during the investigation, and as is equally the case now. her objects; but her vindictiveness is not She has changed less active now against Mr. Wardle, Major Dodd, Sir Richard Phillips and others, than it was against the Duke of York.Another of her statements of motives will, I think, satisfy the reader as to her correctness in this wav. -That, when I went to see her, along with Lord Folkestone, in" Westbourne Place (I never saw her but that time in my life), I said very civil things to her, because she was then the key-" stone of Mr. Wardle's fame. She it was that says, During the Investigation" that Lord Folkestone took me to see her; and that, then, while she was of so much use against the Duke of York, and the key-stone of Mr. Wardle's fame; it was then, and for that cause, that I praised her; and that I have abused her since I found that she was no longer doing what she was then doingHere again she is overset by dates. She should keep a journal; or, she should endeavour to strengthen her memory. Is there no patent medicine for impotence in the recollecting faculties ?— This is a very plausible story of hers, and all hangs together very nicely, 'till the reader is told, that the day, on which Lord Folkestone took me to see Mrs. Clarke (I never saw her but once) was the third day of June, 1809, almost three months after the Investigation was ended; above a fortnight (as will be seen by her own letter, p. 103, Vol. II.) after she had come to an open rupture with Mr. Wardle; and two days after Wright, her Upholsterer, had made his demand upon Mr. Wardle.And yet, observe, she positively asserts, that it was during the investigation and while she was serving the views of Col. Wardle, that I went to see her and to say civil things to her! ————I never was in London, during the Investigation. I was not in London, that serve, that, in the whole of the book, there is nothing alledged against any body, where the allegation does not rest solely upon her bare word; for, as to the letter of my Lord Folkestone, it contains opinions merely, which opinions are conditional, the true; and, I am satisfied, that his lordship has condition being, that what she had said was now found it to have been as false as these her assertions relating to me.—I think, one more instance. that this might suffice; but I will give in the trial of the action brought by It relates to the brief Wright. She says: "Mr. Cobbett having got wind of the impending danger of his friend's popularity, made some through Mr. Waithman, that he had seen "inquiries upon the subject, and hearing, "the Colonel's Brief, which evinced an of support in his Weekly Register, but unspotted case, he gave him his assurance "of expressed a desire to see a fair copy of "it, which Mr. Corfield immediately pre pared with all necessary omissions, and "Wardle sent it off to Botley. Cobbett " and Waithman being impressed with a "belief that this Brief contained the whole "transaction, and it in no way impeached "the character of their friend Wardle, as a gentleman, and a man of honour, they predicted the most favourable result to his "cause. As the trial approached, and "as Colonel Wardle's fears gradually made "him unfold circumstances that were not "touched upon in the briefs, which had "been prepared expressly to preserve his cha"racter with Cobbett and Waithman, Mr. "Corfield began to see a little more into "the real situation of his client, and adhardly think it possible, that any person "vised accordingly.". One would a string of falsehoods. Yet, I solemnly in the world could sit down and pen such declare, 1. that, so far from making any inquiries about Wright's action, I never heard of it, as far as I recollect, 'till I saw an account of the trial; 2. that Mr. Waithman never wrote to me, or spoke to me, upon the subject in his life; 3. that I never expressed any desire to see the brief; 4. that, the copy of the brief which trial) was a copy, which had been in court was sent me (and that not 'till after the with Mr. Wardle. At any rate, there is no proof, nor the semblance of proof, to the contrary; and yet, it is stated, in the public prints, that Mr. Dodd's brother of and that contained the notes in the hand writing of the counsel.These are specimens of Mrs. Clarke's veracity. In fact, the whole book, with the exceptions of here and there a fact, is a romance; a thing officers, that is to say the officers of Artillery, pure invention. Here and there a fact has been laid hold of, such, for instance, as my having been at Westbourne Place with Lord Folkestone; that is true; but all the circumstances engrafted on it are false, though stated with so much confidence. And, why should not this be the case with regard to those stories, which are related of others, and which, indeed, have the word false written upon their front? The stories about a mistress kept by Mr. WARDLE, and another visited by MAJOR DODD, are, I am satisfied, wholly groundless.As to the DUKE OF KENT, there is not, in this book, the glimpse of a proof that he had, either directly or indirectly, any hand at all in stirring the inquiries against the Duke of York. Here are letters from all sorts of persons; but, under the hand of no one, except that of Mrs. Clarke, do you see any thing relating, in the most distant manner, to the Duke of Kent. This ac cusation against the Duke of Kent has been hatched, like all the other accusations. It rests solely upon Mrs. Clarke's word; her bare word; which is, indeed, now become bare enough. -I have read this book through with great attention; and I do not find, that, except as far as Mrs. Clarke's mere assertion goes, it contains any thing that can, in any sound mind, injure any body; and, as to the chief objects of her malice, Messrs. WARDLE and DODD, not a shadow of proof is there, that either of them ever did or said any thing dishonourable; nay, any thing at all improper, or unbecoming them. -It has been asked, by some per"How can you account for this "active and eager interference of Major Dodd, unless you suppose, that the Duke of "Kent set him on ?”— -There may, indeed, exist a doubt upon this point; a suspicion may exist; but, surely, here is no proof. Great men, in general, ridicule the idea of making them responsible for what their secretaries do, even in their of fices; and, where, then, is the justice of making the Duke of Kent answerable for what his Secretary did out of his office, and out of his house? I have known some thing of Mr. Dodd for ten years past; and I should suppose him to have followed the dictates of his own mind in co-operating son3: have made a declaration, that they will not associate with him, and this upon the ground of Mrs. Clarke's charges against him. The least offensive part of this declaration is its injustice, though that is offensive enough. But, the baseness of it is beyond all description. What, then! They thought Mr. Dodd was down, did they? They, at least, saw him marked out, and closely pursued; and, like the herd in the forest, they not only declined to defend him; but actually pitched on him in a body. I should hope, that this report is not true. I have witnessed a great deal of baseness in my time; but, I do not know that I ever even heard of any thing quite so base as this, especially when the profession of these persons is taken into view.There has been much talk about the Letter of Lord Folkestone, as if it was, at least, a proof of great folly. I see, for my part, no such proof in it. I would not have written to Mrs. Clarke; but, what would have been very foolish in a man, situated as I am, might be very natural in a man situated as Lord Folkestone is. It was a letter written without much thought; but, I believe, that if the kept women, the strumpets of fashion, could all be induced to publish their correspondences, there would appear a hundred letters more foolish for one less foolish than this.- -The use, which Mrs. Clarke makes, or would make, of this letter, is a clear proof of her want of foundation for any charges against the Duke of Kent, Mr. Wardle and Mr. Dodd; for what does the letter of Lord Folkestone contain, with regard to them? Why, an expression of bad opinion; but, then, that bad opinion is expressly grounded upon what she had told him! The letter does, in fact, contain nothing more than conclusions drawn from premises furnished by herself; and, she has the impudence to publish these conclusions as corroborating the truth of those premises. Lord Folkestone has now publicly retracted the bad opinion, as he did privately long ago; and Mrs. Clarke expresses her curiosity to know what it is that can have altered his lordship's opi nion. Only the finding that it was founded upon her false assertions; that is all. He obtained, so early as about Christmas last, complete proof that what she had told him |