Commons Sitting of 15 February 1809

IRISH PECULATORS.
Sir J. Newportwished to ask the right hon. secretary for Ireland, whether or not any steps had been taken for the criminal prosecution of the late collector for Cork, in consequence of his embezzlement of the public money?
Sir A. Wellesleyanswered, he did not understand that any steps had been taken for his prosecution: he was now, however, in gaol.
Sir John Newportthen gave notice, that he should, on Friday next, move for leave to bring in a Bill to constitute Embezzlement of the Public Money by any collector or agent entrusted with the receipt thereof, a felony, without benefit of clergy.

STAMFORD WRIT.
Lord Hennikerrose to call the attention of the house to the subject of a motion made by an hon. gent. yesterday, for a writ to issue for the election of a member for Stamford, in the room of gen. Bertie, now a peer of the united kingdom. But first, he moved that the act be read which explained the cases wherein members should be deemed to have vacated their seats.—[It was read accordingly.]—The noble lord then observed, that although he was sure the motion of the hon. gent. last night for the writ in question to issue, was made with the worthiest motives, yet it appeared to him that his zeal was rather premature, as such a motion could only be warranted by a thorough conviction of the fact that the hon. general had really vacated his seat; by a letter in his hand from gen. Bertie, it appeared that that hon. member was not himself conscious of having vacated his seat; neither did he appear, under the meaning of the act now read, to have done so, by any thing stated in the motive assigned for the hon. gent's motion. It was true, indeed, that gen. Bertie had ground to consider himself as next heir to the noble title of Lindsey, and consequently a peer of the united kingdom, and might have received his summons under the great seal to assume that title; but, then he was not summoned to take his seat as a peer of parliament, which was necessary, in order to vacate his seat in that house,
656
where peers of Ireland and Scotland, not of the upper house of parliament, might sit as members. Besides, so far from being actually in the possession of the title of Lindsey, it was necessary for the hon. general to go into the investigation of records for 160 years, in order to prove his claims. He, therefore, concluded by a wish lo put some motion for withdrawing the writ, or annulling the order of yesterday.
Mr. Madockssaid, that he was not aware of the circumstances now stated by the noble lord, when he made his motion for the writ yesterday. It had been communicated to him, that gen. Bertie was come to the title, and summoned to the upper house, and therefore feeling that the light of election and representation was the privilege of the electors of Stamford, he had moved for the writ.
The Speakerrose to stale, with leave of the house, what occurred to him on the subject. It was usual with the house to give credit to the statement of any of its members which met with no contradiction, and therefore when the hon. member stated yesterday as a fact the circumstance which was the ground of his motion, and no objection was made, the house, as a matter of course, agreed to it, and the order was made accordingly. But now that the house was better informed upon the subject, it would be competent for them to amend the proceeding by an order to supersede the writ. Something similar had occurred in the case of gen. Egerton, the presumptive heir to the duke, of Bridgwater.—The writ was ordered to be superseded.

MAJOR COVELL.
Mr. Whitbreadstated to the house his wish to attract its particular attention for a very few moments. Although he had no distinct proposition to make, he still hoped for its indulgence, as his object was to do justice to the character of a very meritorious officer, whose feelings were wounded in consequence of some part of the examination of colonel Gordon, last night, in the committee. He alluded to Major Covell.—That respectable officer was that day introduced to him, and during the short period of his interview, expressed the apprehensions he entertained, lest from what appeared in the papers of the day, an impression might go abroad injurious to his character. He then presented to him the paper which he (Mr. W.) held in his hand. It was a letter from major-general Leith, expressive of the high opi-

657
nion which that officer entertained of the meritorious services of major Covell, an opinion not expressed alone in general terms, bat justified by a reference to his abie conduct in commanding the 76th regiment, in the late masterly retreat of the British army, under tile lamented sir John Moore.—Major Covell was anxious that he should state these circumstances to the house, to protect his reputation from any unmerited aspersion. In answer he (Mr. W.)did assure him that not a doubt existed in the breast of any member of the Committee, relative to his meritorious character and conduct, nor was there any symptom manifested by any person of a wish to cast the remotest suspicion upon cither. An irrelevant examination had been gone into, in which colonel Gordon was reduced to the necessity of an answer referring to him; but such examination was subsequently expunged from the minutes of the committee.—I do hope, said Mr. Whitbread, that the house will excuse this tresspass upon its attention, and that it will perceive that the sole object is to satisfy the feelings of a distinguished officer, (hear! hear!) apprehensive of undeservedly suffering in the estimation of his country, from the tendency of certain questions, put by a Committee of this house. I now beg leave, without either comment or observation, to read the following letter from major-general Leith to sir Thomas Musgrave:
"No. 10, Cork-street, Burlington-street, 14th Feb. 1809.
"SIR—Having had the honour to command a Brigade in Spain of which the 76th regiment formed a part, I trust you will pardon my addressing you on a subject of a regimental nature, which the interest I feel in a corps that has faithfully served under my orders, and justice to major Covell, who commanded, have principally prompted. It is due to major Covell to state, that the late much regretted lieutenant colonel Symes, from having been employed on other duties and ill health, commanded the 76th regiment but one day in the field, near Logo, where he was obliged to relinquish it; previous and subsequent to that period major Covell paid the greatest attention to his charge, and I had hoped, that under the circumstances of the vacancy occasioned by the death of lieutenant colonel Symes, he would have received the vacant commission. I apprehend it was not known to the Commander in Chief, that during the whole of the arduous retreat of the late army major Covell had charge of the regiment, and without disparagement to lieutenant colonel Shaw, it could not fail to be a circumstance of a depressing nature, to find that offi-
658
cer, who was a subaltern in the 76th regiment, after major Covell had been five years a captain, now placed over him in the regiment.—In the anxious desire which I feel for the promotion of an old and respectable officer, I have to hope you will acq.uk me of the most distant supposition that the interests of the 76th regiment are not perfectly attended to by you as its natural guardian. And believe the respect with which I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, &c. &c.
"JAMES LEITH, Maj. Gen. "General Sir Thos. Musgrave, Bart."
Sir Arthur Wellesleywished permission to say a few word? in consequence of what was stated in the letter just read. He had the honour of knowing both lieut.-colonel Shaw and major Covell, and of both he had a very high opinion. But notwithstanding the suggestions in that letter, he did not think it at all surprising that lieut.-col. Shaw, who in 1804 was a lieut. colonel, should be appointed to a regiment in preference to major Covell, who was not promoted to his majority until 1807. He himself had known col. Shaw in the 70th regiment so long back as the year 1787, and, from his services in India with the 76th, that officer had claims for promotion in that particular regiment. It was under the conviction of such claims that he thought proper to recommend the appointment to his royal highness the Commander in Chief, conceiving it probable that lieut. colonel Symes would have been allowed to sell his lieutenant-colonelcy. That sale the Commander in Chief did not allow; but, when col. Symes was changed to a garrison battalion, the appointment of col. Shaw took place.
Mr. Whitbreadhad, in reply, only to impress upon the house, that major Covell had been thirteen years a captain, and then purchased his majority.
The Speakerthen interfered, as there was no question before the house.

CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.
Mr. Leachreported from the Committee, appointed to inspect certain Letters which were delivered in to the Committee of the whole house, appointed to investigate the Conduct of h. r. h. the Duke of York, and to report to the house such of them, or such parts of them, as may be relevant to the matters referred to the consideration of the said Committee of the whole House. The Report was as follows: "Your Committee have inspected the several letters referred to them by this honourable house; and, in pursuance of their instructions, they have selected those letters inclosed

659
in a bundle marked A. But they beg leave to remark, that they do not wish it to be understood that all these letters afford direct evidence applicable to the subject now made, or any which may hereafter become the subject of inquiry; but your Committee do not conceive themselves authorized to judge whether these letters are admissible evidence."
Lord Folkestonenow rose to move the order of the day for the house to resolve into a Committee upon the Inquiry respecting the Conduct of h. v. h. the Commander in Chief. But first he hoped to be indulged with the liberty of a few observations, in consequence of what had passed last night. He felt it unnecessary to say any thing with respect to himself, or the part he had taken in this proceeding; but he hoped the house would do justice to the motives and conduct of the hon. gent., whom he was happy to call his lion, friend, but who had been more than once stigmatized, in the course of this enquiry, by the appellation of the accuser. His hon. friend, he would say, had not been fairly dealt by: for in the arduous and important task he had undertaken from an imperious sense of public duty, he had not been allowed to proceed in the mode he himself would have chosen, but was forced to adopt the line suggested by a learned gentleman in that house, who was the avowed friend and adviser of the party accused. He believed this was the first time when, on any similar proceeding, the person bringing forward a charge for the sake of public justice was refused the liberty of choosing his own mode of conducting his proceeding, and forced to adopt the line pointed out by the friend and adviser of the accused. His hon. friend had been obliged to go on day after day, without interval or respite, tinder the fatiguing exertions inseparable from the duty he had undertaken, up to the very moment when he (the noble lord) seeing him oppressed, and sinking under the task by mere fatigue of mind and body, had come forward to his assistance. His hon. friend, in the side he had taken, was allowed no such assistants as a Low-ten, or a Wilkinson. He was obliged to do the whole duty, and seek evidence where he could find it. The noble lord trusted it would never be forgotten in that house, that it would be held in everlasting remembrance by the country at large, that his honourable friend had been obliged to follow up his duty, under
660
threats repeatedly held out to intimidate him. Menaces had been frequently uttered, that infamy would attach to him if he failed in his pursuit. But, nevertheless, his honourable friend had gone on, day after day, in spite of such menaces, and performed his public duty, as became a member of that house. Having stated thus much in behalf of his hon. friend, there were some other points to which he had now to call the attention of the house, in respect to some papers to which he had alluded yesterday, and the particulars of which he did not think he was bound to conceal from the house. As to any attempt at stigmatizing, the motives by which he was actuated, he felt the most perfect indifference. In addition to the proofs in the hands of his hon. friend, a clue to other documents had been given him by a gentleman who did not wish to be brought forward; but who stated that he had seen in the possession of a person in the city some papers of an important nature, chiefly affecting the D. of York. Those papers, he said, were in the hands of a person who did not wish to produce them. He did not name the person, but left it for conjecture to find him out from the mere suggestion of a remote clue, that he was the solicitor to a banker, whom he named, and that they had come into his hands in consequence of a bankruptcy. There were several bankers of the same name; but he (Lord F.) undertook the inquiry, and found out the solicitor, called on him, and asked him if he had the papers? He said he had. He was then asked whether he would produce them? He answered, that he wished not to do so. His reason was asked: and he answered that he did not wish to appear at the bar of the house of commons, lest he might be looked upon as an informer, or his name held up to the public coupled with some of the persons who had been examined there. Some pains were taken to obviate his objections; but he said he was afraid the right hon. gent. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his connections, might injure him in his professional pursuits; indeed, his principal apprehension seemed to be of professional injury. He was asked, if it was a matter of etiquette in his profession, in cases of bankruptcy, not to produce such papers; and he answered, 'No' but said, that as the matter was taken up as a ministerial question [No! no! no! from the Treasury bench] he was afraid to produce them, as the

661
consequences to his family might be injurious, and he should be ruined in his profession. This case, to the noble lord's own personal knowledge, was not the only one in which important evidence on this subject had been kept back on similar grounds, for he knew of several officers in the army who could offer very important evidence, in support of the charges, but who could not be induced to come forward, avowedly through the apprehension that they would, in consequence, suffer severely in their professional pursuits, and be ultimately ruined.—It was early in the morning of this day when he had last seen the solicitor. Inquiry was made whether the papers were then in his possession; and he answered 'No,' frankly declaring that he had purposely put them out of his possession, that he might assign that as a reason for not producing them. He was asked whether they were destroyed; the reply was, that they were not; for he had handed them over to a friend. He had left the noble lord with a promise, that he would immediately consult a learned gent. the late Solicitor General (sir S. Romilly) to whom he would submit the business, take his advice how to act, and acquaint the noble lord with the result at a quarter past three that day. The noble lord said he attended at the time and place appointed: but instead of the man, he found a note from him, stating that his learned friend was professionally engaged before the Master of the Rolls, and lie could hot see him, but would take a speedy opportunity of consulting him, and would act according to the advice he should give him.—The noble lord said, he felt it his duty to communicate these circumstances immediately to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to move for the production of these papers, and the attendance of this solicitor, for which he had already moved. As he had not seen those documents, he could not say they would bear directly on the case of the army; but as the disposal of places under government had been frequently mentioned in the course of this inquiry and as he understood the papers in question bore directly upon that subject, he hoped there would be no objection to their production. When they should come before the house, he should suggest that, as in the case of the letters produced last night, a select Committee should be appointed to examine them, and report their opinion, touching the matter contained therein.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the noble lord had been particularly strenuous in calling on the house, and on the country, to hold the way in which the hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle) had been treated in opening this business, and the way in which the noble lord himself had been treated, yesterday, in everlasting remembrance. If so, he (Mr. Perceval) hoped it would also be held in correct remembrance. The noble lord was correct in saying, that it was the anxious wish of gentlemen on that side of the house, out of regard, not to their own feelings only, but to those of the royal Duke, that every thing should be as fair, open, and public as possible. But did it from thence follow, that the mode of proceeding, which had been followed, had been forced on the hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle)? Except the noble lord himself there was not a dissentient voice in that house against the mode of proceeding which had been followed. The plan adopted, therefore, was not one pressed on the hon. mover (Mr. Wardle), or on the house, by his hon. friend (Mr. Adam), or himself, but was one on which there was not a contrary opinion, but in one or two instances, in the house. A gentleman behind him had opposed the mode adopted for the very reason, if he at all understood the opinions of the noble lord and the hon. mover of the Inquiry, that they would have supported it, namely, that it was too public a mode of investigation, not, as it was now insinuated, that it was calculated to obstruct public justice. If his memory, however, did not fail him, the hon. gent. himself had not stated, that he wished for a select committee, but only for a committee. The noble lord had indeed proposed a select committee; but no reluctance had been shewn by the hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle) to the mode of proceeding since adopted. It had not been pressed on him reluctantly, but had been acquiesced in by the unanimous and consentient voice of the house. Was it then fair conduct to be observed towards any member of that house? Was it fair towards the house of commons itself—that they should be represented as guilty of harsh, improper, and unparalleled conduct towards the mover of the accusation—or should be held up to the public as impeding, what every one was more anxious than another, to investigate and bring to light? If they were to be tried for such an offence, it was only necessary for their acquittal, that their conduct should be fully

663
known! There never was a case in which more fairness, or a greater desire to afford every assistance in the investigation of truth, manifested itself. It was no wonder, therefore, that his feelings were excited when he heard the conduct of their proceedings so arraigned. He could not forebear, however, referring to one proof of the approbation of the hon. gent. himself (Mr. Wardle) of the whole of the conduct of the cause. During the whole of the proceedings there had not been a single division. Not a single proposition, had been insisted on by the hon. gent. (Mr. Wardle), and in which he persevered, which had not been conceded to him, or in the negative to which he had not acquiesced, by waving a decision upon it. The noble lord would not take it amiss that he, (Mr. Perceval) declared his conviction, if there was a member of that house who would not acquiesce in any thing of which he did not approve, without pressing the question to the only moan by which its merits could be properly decided on, the noble lord was that person. In addition to the feeling which naturally attended an adherence to what a man thought right, the noble lord would here have had the peculiar pleasure of holding up his boasted minority, however small, to the applause and admiration of the country—a gratification of which he would not willingly have deprived himself, had a favourable opportunity presented itself. The noble lord had also complained that things were not allowed to take their natural course, but that the business had been pressed forward with unbecoming rapidity. He did not recollect any instance of this kind. It was but fair that in so momentous charges, no delay should take place, but the hon. gent, himself could not have forgotten that on one occasion, when one day seemed more convenient to the hon. mover than another, the more remote day, because the more convenient to him, was fixed on. As to the charge of infamy attaching to one party or another,—all that was meant, or had been said, was, not that infamy must attach either to the hon. gent. or to the royal personage; but that, if the accusations were false, and a conspiracy should be found to exist, infamy would attach to those who had been the cause of stigmatizing his royal highness; and if the gentlemen, who brought forward the accusations, should be found to have too easily lent themselves to an unprincipled conspiracy, that they would not, by their con-
664
duct, have added to their own credit. As to the unfair attack of which the noble lord complained, he was ready to say now what he had said last night, namely, that the noble lord was very right in not referring to any particular case, until he knew whether or not he could produce the papers. But there had been no stigma whatever cast upon the noble lord. He certainly knew the solicitor to whom the noble lord had referred, but he must beg leave to decline the recollection of having done him any favour; at least, if he had, the gratitude of the person obliged was stronger than his own memory; but the noble lord had forgotten to tell, that when he called upon him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the morning, he had expressly hoped that no sense of obligation in the solicitor to him, would prevent the papers being produced, and the affair investigated. But the noble lord had gone very far indeed, when he slated that information of officers competent to give it, had been refused, for the fear of government's displeasure. It was easy for any man to see that this was an attempt to create prejudice in the minds of the people. It was a most unfair and ungenerous assertion. The noble lord, however, went too far in stating that there were various instances in which the investigation had been obstructed in this case. He would not put it to the noble lord's everlasting recollection, but he would put it to his candour, to say what impression such a statement was calculated to make on the public mind? What, then, would be said, not that there might be charges, which if gone into might implicate the character of the royal person alluded to; but that there was something which prevented the sifting the charges to the bottom, and that many others could be adduced if required. Would it not be equally fair and candid to suppose, as the hon. mover must have felt, that the investigation into some of the charges at least did not support him in his original statement, that those which remained unopened were of this description, and would be found equally defective? He submitted to the noble lord, if it would not be better, before moving for a Select Committee, similar to that which had already been appointed, to try what the summons of the house would do, and if he himself could not in the mean lime procure the inspection of the papers. He was sorry to have delayed the house, but it was impossible for him to have re-

665
retained silent after what had fallen from the noble lord.
Lord Folkestone,in explanation, stated, that with respect to the new cases, he did not say that they were numerous, but that this was not the only one which could not he proceeded in from want of evidence, arising from the cause he had assigned. As to the charge of infamy, he repeated, that it had been asserted that infamy must fall somewhere—on the accused, if guilty; on the accuser, if he could not substantiate his charges. [Hear! hear!]
Mr. Adamsaid, that it was customary in the house to give to the different members the character which belonged to them: to a baronet the appellation of "the worthy baronet"—to a member of the learned profession that of" the learned gent."—and to the unprofessional members of the house that of "the hon. gent." It was most irregular and unjust to use any descriptive epithet but such as he had mentioned. He complained, therefore, in the strongest manner, of the term "professed adviser of the Duke of York," used towards himself by the noble lord. If the noble lord had said, that to the suggestion of "a learned gent." the line of conduct adopted by the house was owing, he should have had no observation to make; but when it was to go forth to the public that he, a member of parliament, acted in a parliamentary proceeding as the professed adviser of the Duke of York, he had reason to complain of such an expression, and endeavour if possible to counteract its tendency. He begged the house would excuse his calling their attention to a subjection wholly personal; he owned he was actuated by the most serious feelings on this subject. He was anxious in the most solemn manner to repel the imputation which that appellation might cause.—He knew how unpleasant it was to the house to listen to personal observations, but it was important to him that he, whose life had been passed in the discharge of a variety of public duties, should endeavour to preserve the character which he trusted he had acquired without touch or stain. He was not aware that on any occasion he had failed in the discharge of the various obligations which had from lime to time been imposed upon him; whether during? his parliamentary life of above twenty-five years, or in the private concerns of his family, exposed as he had been to encreasing pressure, to the res angustœ domi; by winch, however, he had never
666
been tempted to deviate from the strict line of political or moral integrity. Although the hon. gent. by whom those charges were originated had intimated that the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate them would accord with his opinion, he had not thought proper to move for such a committee. An hon. gent. opposite had suggested proceeding by a parliamentary commission; with those two exceptions, he did not recollect a dissenting voice against the course ultimately adopted by the house. He appealed to the house, whether there had been the least interruption to the most free and unrestrained enquiry. With respect to himself, he was in the judgment of the house, whether he had ever said or done any thing that gave a colour to the appellation of "professed adviser of the Duke of York." He hoped that the country would be satisfied that this matter, which had been introduced publicly, had been conducted openly, and in a manner that was in the highest degree honourable to the house of commons.
Lord Folkestonedeclared, that he certainly had applied the epithet of "learned" to the learned gentleman; but at all events he was sure that when he called him the "adviser of the Duke of York," he did not mean to cast any imputation on his integrity.
Mr. Calcraftblamed the noble lord for the censure which he had chosen to pass on the house, and for the assumption which he had chosen to make in stating that his honourable friend, in the charges which he had brought, forward, had been supported by himself alone. Had that hon. gent. been so deserted as his noble friend described him to be, he should not have wanted his aid; but having on a former occasion, upon an inquiry into the conduct of the Medical Board, witnessed that hon. gent.'s ability, he should have thought it highly indelicate had he thrusted himself into his councils unasked and uncalled for. That hon. gent. had evinced the utmost manliness and delicacy in standing on the ground on which he had chosen to stand, single and unsupported. He had rested his character on the event, and the event would justify him; but it was not becoming any member to arrogate to himself peculiar praise on this occasion. The noble lord ought to give credit to others for acting on principles similar to those on which he had himself acted.

667
With respect to the noble lord's panegyric, he thought he had read it in some publication; if not, perhaps he might yet do so. He could not, however, but be of opinion, that it would have proceeded with more propriety from any other lips than his own.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he had not meant to pass a panegyric on himself: he had been misrepresented. All he alluded to was the assistance that he might have rendered his hon. friend out of that house.
The House then resolved itself into the Committee; Mr. Wharton in the Chair.
Mr. Wardlesaid, as he had understood that some suspicions had been sent abroad relative to the authenticity of the D. of Y.'s letters, whose writing had been only spoken to by Mrs. Clarke, he now wished to have the matter put beyond doubt.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he did not believe the writing had been denied in that house, and that when any hon. member brought forward a letter in the house, he generally substantiated it by as good evidence as he could produce.
Mr. Wardlewished to have the two letters of Samuel Carter to Mrs. Clarke read.
Mr. Leachsuggested the propriety of proving the hand-writing.
Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Do you know the hand-writing of Samuel Carter? Yes, I do.
Do you know that to be his hand-writing? Yes, I do.
Is that also [another letter] his hand-writing? Yes, and that also [a third letter.]
Have you ever seen him write? Yes, I have, many times.
Do you know the hand-writing of gen. Clavering? Yes, I do.
Have you ever seen him write? Yes, I have, many times.
Do you know that [a letter being shewn to the witness] to be his hand-writing? Yes, it is. [Three other letters being shewn to Mrs. C] These also are gen. Clavering's hand-writing.
Is that the hand-writing of baroness Nolleken? [a letter being shewn to the witness] Yes.
Is that also? [another letter] It is.
Did you ever see the baroness write? Yes,
I have; and that also [a third letter] is her hand-writing.
Did you ever see Mr. Elderton write? There re three Mr. Eldertons.
Did you ever see the Mr. Elderton write by whom those letters are subscribed? Yes; I got him a pay-mastership in the 22nd Light Dragoons; these three are all his hand-writing; it
668
is the eldest Mr. Elderton. Before I leave the house I beg leave to say, I never in my life told Mr. Nicholls that I was married to Mr. Dowler, and that the D. of Y. would send him abroad, nor any thing of the kind. I rather think he has been bribed by Mr. Wilkinson.
[The following Papers were read: Letter from Samuel Carter to Mrs. Clarke.—Letter from the same to the same, dated 2nd Oct. 1804.—Letter from the same to the same, 4th Jan. 1803.—Letter from gen. Clavering to Mrs. C, 30th June, 1804 (No. C.)—Letter from the same to the same, 5th Sept. 1804 (No. 43.)—Letter from the same to the same, 28th Sept. (No. 36.)—Letter from the same to the same, 11th Nov. 1804 (No. 67.)—Letter from the same to the same, 12th Dec. 1804 (No. 44.)]
"20th Sept. 1804. "Hon. Madam; I wrote to the Inspector general (Gwynn) for leave of absence on the "14th, but received no answer, which has "thrown me into a great dilemma, having "this morning been put in orders to hold "myself in readiness to do duty in a day or "two. The adjutant informs me, if I have "not my regimentals ready when called "upon, I shall be put under an arrest. Per"mit me, madam, to hope that your good-"ness (which I have experienced so often "in the greatest degree possible) will extri"cate me from so unpleasant a situation, "by obtaining me leave of absence speedily."Hon. Madam, the favour of a line would "tend to disperse those fears which have "been some time prevalent with me, which "was occasioned by your silence, (viz.) that "some part of my conduct has offended "you: from gratitude, I say with energy, "God Almighty forbid. Accept, madam, "the sincere thanks and acknowledgments, "of your grateful servant, SAM. CARTER."
"Note. Having wrote to h. r. b. for "leave, I received an answer, directing me "to apply to the Inspector General." "Mrs. Clarke, 18, Gloucester-place, "Portman-square, London."
"Isle of Wight, 2nd Oct. 1804. "I was extremely sorry at not having had it in "my power to wait until you came in from "the baron's, in order to thank you for the "kind benevolence I have ever experienced "from you, and which has made so deep an "impression on my heart and mind a not "to be erased by time. Hon. madam, I "have still to beg the continuance of that "benevolence; for, having placed me in a "situation which requires a great number of "expensive things at first, and notwithstanding having laid out my money with the "greatest economy, I find it inadequate. I "have now the offer of a barrack room, "(which will save the expence of lodgings) "but I have no cot, or any money to buy "one; neither have I any to subsist on till

669
"the 24th. If, madam, you will extend "your kindness toward me once more, it "will ever be gratefully remembered by, "madam, your sincerely thankful servant,
"SAMUEL CARTER."
"Hon. Madam, I have set the things "down which I bought, by which you will "see the state of my purse.

£.

s.

d.

"Belt and Feather

1

8

0

"To Sword and Sash

6

3

0

"Gorget and Sword-knot

1

8

0

"Paid Lewis

7

0

0

"Do. Laundry Maid

0

10

6

"Do. Taylor's Bill

2

3

0

"Trunk

1

11

6

"Gloves and Stockings

1

2

0

"Silk Handkerchiefs

0

14

0

"Round Hat trimmed

1

14

0

"Watch from pledge

2

3

0

"Boots and Shoes

3

10

0

"Expences down

2

5

0

"Borrowed at Depôt

6

2

6

"To Jacket and Trimming

4

5

0

"Total

£.41

19

6

"Mrs. Clarke, 18, Gloucester-place."
"Clarendon Transport,
"Spithead, 4 Jan. 1805."
"Hon. Madam; Impelled by my dreadful si"tuation, and my perfect knowledge of "your goodness, I trust you will pardon the "liberty of addressing you again.—Since my "last, the embarkation has taken place, and "I am now on board in a situation not to "be described. You can form a better idea "of it than in my power to express. I have "no stock for the voyage, neither have I "any money to purchase those little things "which are absolutely necessary. I have "to keep watch four hours every night, and "have nothing to eat but salt meat three "times a week, and water to drink, the rum "being so bad, 'tis impossible to drink it.— "Your goodness to me has ever been such "as leaves not the smallest doubt that you "will not suffer me to starve in the situation "you have been pleased to place me, and "which is such as will ever tend to make me "the most grateful and happy of beings.—"Should, madam, you be induced to take "into consideration my wretched case, and "by a little pecuniary aid save from every "thing that is horrible, it will be an act wor"thy of yourself, and imprint that upon my "heart which will never be erased. I am, "madam, your grateful servant,
"SAMUEL CARTER."
"Be so kind ns direct the letters to be "left at the Post Office, Portsmouth."
"P. S. We shall lay at Spithead this fort"night.—Having received orders to sail to "Cork this morning, I have opened the let"ter, in order to pray you would direct to "Cork, but we only stay there 24 hours, as "the convoy is appointed."
"Mrs. Clarke, 18, Gloucester-place."
"Bishop's Wallham, 30 June, 1804." "My dear Mrs. C.; Where your note of Wed"nesday has been travelling, as it only arrived here this morning, I have no notion, "and it had not reached Conduit-street at "five o'clock Wednesday afternoon, when "I quitted town. The disappointment is "provoking, as I particularly wished to have "seen you. But we must console ourselves "in the hope of more fortunate times. "Very truly your's, H. M. CLAVERING." "Mrs. Clarke, 18, Glo'ster-placc."
"Bishops Waltham, 5th Sept. 1804," "My dear Mrs. C.; You mention that h. r. h. "did not comprehend my proposal; my "idea was this; the Defence Act, Article "30, states 'that men to be raised by that "'act, are not compellable to serve out of "'the United Kingdom and islands imme"'diately attached." And in 32, 'that they "'shall not remain embodied for more than "'six months after the peace.' We have "already experienced the fatal necessity of "disbanding corps at an apparent conclu"sion of war, and the mischief arising from "holding out temptation to men to extend "their services.
"My proposal then was to raise a battalion for general and unlimited service, by "the voluntary offers of a stipulated num"ber of men from each regiment of militia, "at a certain bounty, in the same manner "as some of our regiments were augmented during the last war. The battalion to be solely officered from the half pay list, by which government would at once acquire a certain effective and well disciplined force, whose services they can to any period command, the half pay be lightened, and the militia colonels have no reason to growl, since it is determined that their establishment is to be reduced, towards which the men so volunteering would conduce.
"Should an opportunity occur, do submit the plan to h. r. h., without arguing too strongly upon it, as he must be tired to death with proposals; and as I would not appear, even through so circuitous a channel, to trespass on his patience, when so recently under an obligation for my present appointment.
"If you approve of dry reading, get the "Defence Act to refer to, and do commu"nicate all the good things in the good town.
"Always very truly your's,
"H. M. CLAVERING."
"28 Sept."
"My dear Airs. C.; I shall not pursue the partridges on the first of September: on the contrary, propose being in London in the course of the morning, and beg you will send me word at the Prince of Wales' Coffee-house, whether you can receive me in boots about six, or later, if you please. Very truly yours, H. M. CLAVERING."
"Mrs. Claike, 18, Glo'ster-place."
"Bishops Waltham, 11 'Sot. 1804."
"My dear Mrs. C.; The purport of this is to thank you for your attempt to serve me, though unsuccessful, the inclination being the same. On Sunday next I propose being in town, if possible, for one day only. Can you so contrive that we shall meet? Your's very truly, H. M. CLAVERINO."
"Mrs. Clarke, 18, Gio'ster-place."
"Bishops Waltham, 12 Dec. 1801."
"My dear Mrs. C.; There is a strong report, that some new regiments are about to be raised, which, tho' incredible, I will be obliged to you to ascertain the truth of, and to acquaint me soon as possible— W. O. left me this morning for town, to return again next week. Very truly yours,
"H. M. CLAVERINC."
"Mrs. Clarke, 18, Glo'ster-place.
Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was again called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Through what influence did you get the pay-mastership for Mr. Elderton? The D. of Y. obliged Mr. Greenwood to give it, very much against Mr. Greenwood's wishes.
Was it any military matter upon which the baroness Nolleken wrote to you? No, it was not.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, that many questions had been asked during the enquiry on subjects not merely military, as in the case of Dr. O'Meara, and he did not see why the usual course should now be slopped.
Mr. Buthurstsaid, that if the application from the baroness Nolleken related to a civil appointment, it could not possibly be admitted as evidence on an inquiry which was purely of a military nature.
Sir G. Warrenderwas still of opinion, that the question was as proper as many others that had been put in the course of this investigation.
Mr. Leachobserved, that Mrs. C. had already answered that the appointment solicited by baroness Nolleken was not a military one, and as the present investigation was merely military, consequently the question was not a proper one to be pressed.
Lord Folkestonewas forcibly struck with the objection started by the learned gent., and therefore thought, that with a view to discharge the duty they owed the public, the Chairman should be instructed, on the breaking up of the Committee, to move for an enlargement of its powers.
The Witness was again called in and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
In consequence of the baroness Nolleken's letter, did you apply to the D. of Y. upon the subject of that letter? Yes, I did, but I do not know what that subject is; there are several wishes the baroness had, that I applied about; I shewed all her letters to him.
You have stated, that the D. of Y obliged Mr. Greenwood to give the paymastership to Mr. Elderton much against his consent; how do you know that? H. r. h. told me so himself; and very likely Mr. Greenwood will say so too.
Look at those letters again, and say whether they are all written by the same person? Those are her letters (No. 41 and 119): when she was ill her eldest son wrote for her; I should rather think this (No. 127) is her eldest son's writing.
(By Mr. Leach.)
Did you ever see the eldest son write? Yes, I think I have; but I cannot be positive as to his hand-writing; only I know the baroness has frequently told me that she had ordered her son to write to me when she has been ili.
(By Mr. S. Bourne.)
Is the letter which you say was written by the son of the baroness, one of those which you just said was written by the baroness herself? Yes, it is one of those; but you will allow that I had not a moment to look over it; and another thing, those letters have been taken without my consent, and I have not looked at them myself; I had sent them down to be burned, and never thought they would come forward again, and this is near a twelvemonth since.
Do you mean by the eldest son of the baroness Nolleken, Mr. Le Maitre? No, Gustavus Nolleken.
Have you ever seen him write? Yes, I have seen him write, I think; but I cannot be positive as to his hand, any further than I said before, that he used to write his mother's notes.
Do you mean to say that those letters were written only twelve months ago? No; I suppose there are dates to them, to shew when they were written.
Do you know the hand-writing of any other son of baroness Nolleken? No; I was acquainted with the two sons, but I do not know the writing; the youngest son was in the Guards, and was very seldom with his mother; the other was always with his mother, and a great deal with me.
Then you cannot positively state that this is the hand-writing of any one sou of the baroness Nolleken in particular? No, I cannot; perhaps it is the baron's writing; he used to write to me.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
In short you do not know whose hand writing it is? I hardly looked at it; I know pretty well

673
what the subject is, and whence it came; the baroness wanted a pension of400 l. a year, and, if I recollect right, that is the letter about it.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Leachobserved, that it was for the Committed to decide whether the letter was evidence; and until the Committee should so decide, that it was improper for the witness to state the substance of it. He therefore should move that the last answer be expunged, as, if the letter should be decided to be evidence, it would be read as such.
Sir T. Turtonwas of opinion, that the answer ought not to be expunged.
Mr. C. Adamsthought, that, as the letter had, amongst others, been referred last night to a Committee, to ascertain which related to the business then in a course of investigation, and had been produced by that Committee, he could not see why it should not be read as evidence.
The Chairman,referring to the Report of the Committee, staled, that the Committee, had not given any opinion, whether the letters are now, or were hereafter, to be considered admissible evidence.
Mr. C. Adamsconsidered them as admissible evidence.
Sir T. Turtondeclared that unless some understanding should be come to about it, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the question for expunging the last answer, if the hon. member should persist in pressing it.
The answer was allowed to remain on the Minutes.
[The following Papers were then read: Letter from Mr. Eldertou to Mrs. Clarke (No. 63.)—Letter from, Mr. Elderton to Mrs. Clarke, 3d Dec., (No. 49.)—Letter from Mr. Elderton to h. r. h. the Duke of York, 17th April (No. 112.)—Letter from the baroness Nolleken to Mrs. Clarke, (No. 119.)—Letter from the same to the same, dated Thursday, 5 o'clock (No. 41.)]
"My dear Madam; Nothing but the pardonable anxiety which I naturally feel for the welfare of a child, should induce me to presume to trespass upon you at present. You know my boy Charles, he is a fine youth, with a finished education. His appointment to a Cadetship in the infantry for Madras was confirmed this morning, and I shall engage him a passage on board the Ocean, which will sail from the Downs in about five days. Charles must leave town for Portsmouth, and go on board on Wednesday next. Do you think, my dear Madam, that h. r. b. the D. of Y. will condescend to honour him with letters of
674
recommendation to lord William Benthick, Governor of Madras, and to major general sir John Francis Craddock, k. b. the Commander in Chief there; desiring them to exchange him from the infantry, and place him in the cavalry?
"If you wilt confer upon us both the very great favour of soliciting h. r. h., to deign to confer upon us this distinguished obligation, it wilt for ever remain deeply engraven upon the grateful hearts of Charles Elderton, and of, My dear madam,
"Yours very sincerely.
"Friday 18 Jan." "H. ELDERTON."
"I hive this moment received a summons to attend Mr. Greenwood, who has heard from Scotland, and desires me not to make any preparations for a voyage. I fear all is over in that quarter, but I shall know to-morrow, and will immediately afterwards wait upon you.
"Mrs. Clarke, J8, Glo'ster-place."
"21 Portman-street, 3d Dec."
"My dear Madam, I fancy you arc (and I sincerely hope you ever will remain) a perfect stranger to anxiety, otherwise I think you would not hive left town on Friday, without first gratifying me with a reply to my last. Perhaps you will have the goodness to introduce the subject to the notice of h. r. h. on Monday evening, and so enable yourself to oblige me on Tuesday morning with such an answer as may serve to guide the conduct of Your faithful servt. H. ELDERTON."
"Mrs. Clarke, 18, Glo'ster-place.
"Sir; It is infinitely beyond the power of language to convey to your royal highness an adequate idea of the extent of my gratitude for the great favour which you have deigned to confer upon me, in confirming the leave of absence granted to me by sir Robert Abercrombie. Your royal highness has raised me from the most profound despair to happiness, and I shall never cease to bless your royal highness for your gracious condescension and goodness towards Your royal highness' most devoted servant, H. ELDERTON."
"17 April.
"His Royal Highness the Duke of York, "&c. &c. &c.
"Gloucester-place, Sept. 22."
"My dear Madam; I am this moment favoured with your very kind letter; this fresh mark of your friendship gives me great pleasure. I hope the change of air has perfectly restored your health, and that I shall have the satisfaction of seeing you return to town in as good looks as ever. My dear Baron, with his best respects to you, begs you will have the goodness to assure h. r. h. of the deep sense of gratitude he feels for the Duke's gracious remembrance of him, and thinks with you

675
"that his majesty would be more liberal to him than Mr.—if he dare presume to judge from his majesty's goodness to him for; these forty years past, on every occasion. I hope the weather has been as fine at Margate as in London; it has, thank God, quite restored my health. I flatter myself you will favour me with a visit on Wednesday, any time most agreeable to you to name; for, be assured, I enjoy very sincerely the pleasure of your society, exclusive of the gratitude I shall ever feel for the kind interest you take for me and mine. Adieu, my dear Madam. Believe me yours most truly,
"Mrs. Clarke, "M. NOLEKEN."
"Royal Hotel, Margate, Kent.
"Dear Madam; I see by the papers, that the D—was with the king yesterday morning, and that Mr. Pitt had a private audience of his majesty, I therefore indulge a hope that my request may have been thought of; do then, my dear Madam, inform me in what state of forwardness it now stands, when and by whom toy letter was given, and how received. Pardon my giving you the trouble of answering me all these questions, but the very kind part you have taken in this business, assures "me you will pardon me, and think it but "natural I should feel anxious in a matter "of so much consequence to me and mine. "A thousand thanks for the carp you were "so good as to send me yesterday, and with "my kindest wishes, be assured, My dear "Madam, I remain most sincerely, your "most obliged, M. NOLEKEN."
"Thursday, five o'clock."
"Mrs. Clarke, 18."
The Chancellor of the Exchequercalled the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that the letter which had been just read, purporting to be from Mr. Elderton to the D. of Y., was without a seal. It had probably been enclosed in a cover to Mrs. C. to be sent to his royal highness or not, as that lady pleased, but it was found in the custody of Mrs. C. herself.
THOMAS WALKER was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did you live with Mrs. C. in Gloucester-place, as coachman? Yes.
Do you recollect a footman there, of the name of Samuel Carter? Yes.
Was Samuel Carter in the constant habit of waiting at dinner, while he was there? Yes, he was.
Do you know Miss Taylor? Yes, I do.
Have yon frequently seen her in Gloucester-place? Yes, I have.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Do you recollect and know whether Sam. Carter was in the habit of going behind the carriage? Yes, he did.
Were you head coachman at Gloucester-place r I was.
How many horses did Mrs. Clarke keep; Sometimes six, sometimes eight.
How many carriages? Two.
Never more? No more at one time,
Do you know who provided the keep for the horses? Mrs. Clarke.
Did she pay the bills? As far as I know, she did.
Were they paid through you? No, they were not.
(By Mr. Yorke.)
Did Samuel Carter wear a livery? No, he did not.
How do you know that Samuel Carter ever waited at table? I waited at the same time.
Did you ever wait at table when the D. of Y. was there? I did.
Did yon wear a livery when you waited at table? I did not.
(By Mr. C. Adams.)
When Samuel Carter went behind the carriage, did he go behind the carriage without a livery? Yes, be did.
Had Mrs. C. any livery for any of her servants? Yes, the footman.
Did you wear a livery when you drove the carriage? I certainly did.
(By Mr. Sumner.)
Do you know with whom Sam. Carter lived before be came to Mrs. C.? I understood he was along with captain Sutton.
Did you ever see him at Mrs. C.'s when he was capt. Sutton's servant? I did not.
When you said he was along with capt. Sutton, did you mean that he was capt. Sutton's servant? I did not.
When he lived at Mrs. C.'s, did he dine with the other servants? He did, for any thing I knew.
Did you dine with the other servants? I did not.
Were you upon board wages? Yes, I was.
Did you ever hear whose son Samuel Carter was supposed to be? I never did.
How many more servants did Mrs. C. keep? Sometimes six, sometimes seven.
You have stated, that you waited at table; do you recollect Miss Taylor dining there when you waited at table? I recollect when h. r. h. and Mrs. C. dined together, there was another lady.
Do you know who that other lady was? I do not.
Do you mean that you do not know or do not recollect? I do not recollect.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Do you know Miss Taylor? I do now.
You have staled before, that you know Miss Taylor; are you certain that you ever saw-Miss Taylor in Gloucester-place? I am certain I have.
(By Sir J. Sebright.)
What did you understand Samuel Carter was to capt. Sutton? I never beard what he was.
You do not know that lie was not a servant? I do not.
How long have you lived with Mrs. Clarker About three years.
With whom do you live non? With Mrs. Clarke.
(By the Attorney General.)
When did you first live wish Mrs. Clarke? At the tune that h. r. h. came to Gloucester-place.
Have you lived with her continually ever since? I have not.
When did you leave her? After Mrs. Clarke left Gloucester-place.
When did you return to her service? About six weeks ago.
You did not live with her at any time between her leaving Gloucester-place and six weeks ago? A little while after she left Gloucester-place.
Did Samuel Carter very frequently go behind the carriage? Not more than once or twice.
How long had Samuel Carter lived with Mrs. Clarke? I think about a twelvemonth, to the best of my knowledge.
WILLIAM M'DOWALL was called in and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did you live with Mrs. Clarke as footman, in Gloucester-place? Yes.
Do you recollect the name of the other footman that was there at the same time? His name was Carter; by the name I cannot say any further.
Did you and the other footman, of the name of Carter, do your work together? Yes.
Do you know Miss Taylor? I know a lady of the name of Miss Taylor, but I cannot recollect her, there are so many of the name; I cannot say that I know any thing particular; I know the lady that used to go down to Weybridge of that name; that is all I can say.
Do you recollect that Miss Taylor being in Gloucester-place as well as at Weybridge? I cannot say; I have known a lady of the name of Miss Taylor that used to call there, but I cannot say that I should know her.
Do you recollect the lady whom you speak of as Miss Taylor, the lady that was at Weybridge, being at Gloucester-place? Yes, I do by that name.
Do you recollect Miss Taylor ever being at Weybridge when the Duke of York was there? I cannot say, the Duke of York might be there; but I cannot speak to that, for the reason, because I do not know it.
Were you in the habits of going to Weybridge with your mistress? Yes.
Did you ever see the Duke of York there? Yes, I cannot say but I did.
You also state, that yon have seen Miss Taylor at Weybridge; can you recollect whether you ever saw Miss Taylor at Weybridge at the time the Duke of York was there? I have told that before, that the Duke of York might be at Weybridge, for any thing that I know.
(By Lord Palmerstone.)
Was Carter employed in any other manner, except waiting at the table? Yes, he was employed as a servant; when I went into the house he acted as a servant, as far as I know.
Did he dine with the other servants? Yes.
(By the Attorney General.)
Did Carter act in the same capacity as a servant, as yourself? I suppose so; he did the work along with me, that is all I can say.
Do you live now with Mrs. Clarke? No, I do not.
Are you in place now? Yes, I am.
With whom? With Mr. Johnson.
What year did you live with Samuel Carter at Mrs. Clarke's? That I cannot recollect; I cannot say, justly.
On the motion of col. Vereker, the witness was ordered to withdraw.
Col. Verekerstated his object to be to call the attention of the committee to the state in which the witness had come to the bar. The witness appeared to be drunk, and in such case it became the house to make an example of such a person. [A cry of Move! move!)—On the question being put that Mrs. Favery be called in,
Mr. Sumnerexpressed his surprise that the committee had not resorted to some proceeding on the suggestion of the hon. member. [Hear! hear!] At all events, if it was the opinion of the committee that the witness was drunk, he was of opinion that his evidence ought to be expunged from the minutes.
Mr. Bathurstadmitted that it must have been obvious to every gentleman, particularly those who sat near the bar, that the witness had taken more liquor than he ought. But he had given his evidence as clearly as any other witness who had been examined at the bar; and he thought it beneath the dignity of the house to take any notice of the state in which he was.
Mr. Sumnerthen moved, that the evidence of the last witness be expunged from the minutes. This was the more necessary, as the Committee seemed agreed

679
that he was drunk, and lie had been suffered to withdraw without any censure.
Sir T. Turtonbegged the hon. gent. to reconsider his motion, as it was a question upon which the committee might be called upon to divide. He admitted that the witness was in a state indecorous for a person at the bar of that house. But his evidence was not material enough to require so strict a measure as that of expunging it from the minutes.
Mr. W. Smithwas not surprised at the feeling manifested by the hon. gent. for the dignity of the house. But there was n great difficulty in drawing the line for the interference of the house in animadverting upon such impropriety. He hoped that the hon. gent. would be influenced by what had fallen from the hon. baronet, and wave his motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that if the question was as to the punishment of the individual, it would be desirable to take into consideration the time he had been summoned. But he thought that the whole of what they desired might be attained without expunging the evidence, by an entry upon the minutes that the witness was, at the time of his examination, in a state of intoxication.
Mr. Dennis Browneunderstood the course to be pursued by the right hon. gent. to be, that a minute should be made of the state of the witness when he gave his testimony. There could be no objection to such a course, when it was recollected that the witness had been ordered to withdraw from the bar intoxicated, by the motion of an hon. member (loud laughter.) He repeated that the witness was intoxicated, and unless the Committee should agree to the entry upon the minutes (if that circumstance, he should vote for the motion for expunging the whole of that witness's evidence from the minutes.
Mr. C. Adamsstated, that though the witness was in a state of intoxication, he had given his evidence in a clear and intelligible manner.
Mr. Whitbreadstated, that the evidence, if left on the minutes, would speak for itself.
Mr. Sumner,acceding to the proposition of the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged leave to withdraw his motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that the Committee was in a state in which they ought to decide whether the evidence was or was not to be allowed to
680
remain, without some particular notice, upon the minutes. If the witness was competent to give consistent and satisfactory evidence, he should not have been ordered from the bar whilst under examination by a member; and if he was in such a state as to require his being removed from the bar, then his evidence ought not to be suffered to remain on the minutes without the entry which he had suggested.
Colonel Verekercontended that it was obvious to every member about the bar, that the witness was in a state of intoxication. In such a state his testimony would not be admitted in any court of justice, and ought not therefore to be admitted in that, the highest judicial tribunal.
Mr. Ellisonsaid, if ever he had known any thing of the rules of evidence, he had lost it since the commencement of this inquiry. It had been said that the witness was drunk, but that he could not observe. The witness had not given as flippant, answers as other witnesses had, who had not been suspected of being drunk. At all events, it was beneath the dignity of the house, whose conduct was now before the country, to take any notice of the circumstance.
Admiral Herveyhad attended to the evidence, and the witness did not appear to him to be in a state to preclude him from giving testimony.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that, if it was the opinion of the Committee that the witness was not intoxicated, he ought not to have been ordered to withdraw before he had been fully examined.
Mr. D. Browneeither argued, that the witness was drunk, or he was not drunk; if he was drunk, his evidence ought to be expunged; if not, he ought to be again examined.
Mr. Fuller,as there seemed to be such a variety of opinions on the subject of the state of the witness, thought that the best way would be to have him in again, and thus to give him fair play.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that if the witness was to be called in again, he should be examined only as to his previous sobriety; without adverting to what he might have drank since he withdrew.
[The Witness was again called in and examined.]
(By Mr. Wardle.)
What year did you live with Samuel Carter

681
at Mrs. Clarke's? I told you I could not recollect.
Was it in the year 1808? I cannot recollect; I cannot call it 10 my memory; I can guess very nigh it, though.
What do you guess? I cannot say justly; I can tell the year partly.
What was the year? I told you before I did not recollect; and I cannot say the date, for I do not remember it, and therefore it is of no use for me to say the date.
You have said you know the year partly; state whether you can at all recollect the year? No, I cannot.
Was it four years ago? Yes, rather more than that, I believe.
Was it six years ago? If I could recollect the date, I then should have no occasion to say I did not know it.
You do not know whether it is three years ago or six? I do not know indeed, I have said that before.
Did you wear a livery when you lived with Mrs. Clarke? Yes.
Did Samuel Carter wear a livery at that time? No, he did not wear a livery during my time.
When did you quit Mrs. Clarke's service? You ask me a question, which I cannot answer, because I cannot recollect the time; I never took an account of the time I left the house.
At what time did you get your summons to attend this house? I did not set that down even, I forgot that even; I know what day I got the notice to come.
At what time did you get the notice to come here? I cannot justly tell the hour.
Was it to-day or yesterday? I received the notice to attend the house, and I paid that respect to attend the house accordingly as I was ordered.
When did you receive the notice? I received it on Monday, and I received one this afternoon.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Colonel Verekerappealed to the Committee, whet her lie was not borne out of his first assertion, and desired his evidence might be read, which was accordingly done, when there was a general cry of "go on."
Mrs. MARTHA FAVERY was called in and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did you live with Mrs. Clarke as housekeeper, in Gloucester-place? Yes.
Do you recollect a footman there of the name of Sam. Carter? Yes.
Was Sam. Carter in the constant habit of waiting at table on the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke and her company? Yes.
Do you know Miss Taylor? Yes.
Was Miss Taylor in the habits of being often
682
in Gloucester-place with Mrs. Clarke and the Duke of York? Yes.
Do you recollect any thing with regard to a note being changed, just before the Duke went to Weymouth, and Mrs. Clarke to Worthing? Yes, I do.
State what you know about that.—I know that the Duke's servant came in the morning, and I gave him this note, hut I do not know the number of it, nor what note it was, and he returned again about eleven o'clock, and gave me the money; I took it up stairs, and then the Duke was in the bedroom, and Mrs. C.: in short, they were in bed.
Do you recollect who that servant was? A German, Ludowick.
Was Sam. Carter in the habits of sharing the duty of a footman with the other man? He cleaned the knives, cleaned the plate, attended the carriage, and waited at table on h. r. h.
Was not the house in Gloucester-place to your knowledge kept at a great expence? It certainly was; there were sometimes two men cooks, sometimes three men cooks.
Do you mean that those cooks were on any particular occasion of dinners, or when do you mean that there were two or three men cooks? When there was a particular dinner there were three men cooks, or sometimes more; Mrs. C. always wished to have her dinners go up in the best manner, to please h. r. h., and if there was any dinner found fault with by h. r. h., she would have another.
Have; you often known Mrs. C. distressed for money during that period? She never could pay her debts properly after the first quarter; people were tearing me to pieces for money, and saying that I kept it.
(By the Attorney General.)
When did you first live with Mrs. C.? When she went to Gloucester place.
Had you known Mrs. C. before that time? Yes.
How long had you known Mrs. C.? I lived with her before she went to Gloucester-place; I have known her these ten years; more than that.
How much more? I cannot exactly say how much more.
Have you known her 20 years? No, I have not known her 20 years.
Where did you first know Mrs. C? I knew her at Hampstead; I went to be a servant to her there.
Did you not know her before that time? Yes; I went about six weeks after she was married, to live with her.
After she was married to Mr. Clarke? Yes.
Did you live with her from that time till she went to Gloucester-place? No, I lived with her three or four times since; I went away and came back to her.
Who first recommended you to Mrs. C.? The paper.
Do you mean by an advertisement? Yes.
Did you know nothing of Mrs. C. till you saw that advertisement? No, I did not.
Did you live with her at Gloucester-place? I went with her to Gloucester-place; from Tavistock-place to Gloucester-place.
Then you lived with her in Tavistock-place? Yes, I did.
Where did Mrs. C. live before she went to Tavistock-place? I do not know, I did not live with her all the time.
Do not you know where she lived all that time? No, I was in the country with another family.
With what family were you in the country? I am not obliged to answer that.
Yes, you are.—It was a family who are dead.
Who were they? One Mr. Ellis.
Where did he live? In the city.
What part of the city? He was a carpenter.
In what part of the city? I really do not know the name of the street, I cannot recollect it, it is so long ago.
How long did you live there? Two years.
If you lived two years in the same street, you must know where they lived? It was not in the same house, it was in lodgings.
Where were the lodgings? I cannot tell.
In how many different places did they live while you were with them? They had different apartments; they kept shop in one part of town, and had apartments in another.
What part of the town did they keep a shop? I cannot recollect indeed; I was at Brighton and Margate with them, and in different parts about.
What other parts besides Margate and Brighton? I was at Ramsgate, and many little places about, that I did not think about.
Was it upon parties of pleasure the family went to Margate and Brighton and Ramsgate? No, they were all ill, the mistress and children and all; they went for their health, I suppose.
They went to these different places for their health? I suppose so, I cannot say what they went for particularly; I do not know their concerns.
Then why do your suppose they went for their health, if you know nothing about it? I should think so, if they went to those places.
How many did the family consist of? Four.
Mr. and Mrs. Ellis? Yes, and two children.
Any servant but yourself? No.
Who was left in the shop while they were absent? I cannot say, I am sure I do not know.
You say they kept a shop at one part of the town, and had lodgings in another? Yes.
In what part of the town was the shop? I really do not know; I did not concern myself with the shop, I never went there.
In what part of the town were the lodgings? In some of the streets near Cheapside, but it is out of my memory entirely; when I leave a place, I never trouble it again.
You have said that they lived in more places than one in London; what other place can you recollect besides the street near Cheapside? I
684
really cannot recollect any thing at all about it; I do not know any thing about it.
In how many differed lodgings did they live in London, while you were with them? I cannot say; they left me till I went to Brighton; I went to Brighton with the children.
Did they live in two, three, or tour different lodgings? I cannot answer that question indeed.
Did you go to Brighton with the children without Mr. and Mrs. Ellis? Yes, I did indeed.
Did Mr. and Mrs. Ellis come to you there? Yes, they did.
How long did they stay there? I believe we were there about three months.
Where did you live at Brighton? I will tell you as nigh as I can, opposite the sea; but I do not know the name of the street, though I was there.
When did you go to Margate? Really I cannot tell you such a question as that, I do not keep that in my head; I do not know.
Where did they live at Margate? In the High-street.
Are Mr. and Mrs. Ellis dead? Yes, so I heard.
And the children? I do not know, I never inquire alter them.
What reason had you for not chusing to mention this family? I have no reason at all, I answer as nearly as I can recollect.
Do you know capt. Sutton? I did, hut he is dead; he has been dead two years, I believe I can recollect that.
Was not Samuel Carter supposed to be his natural son? I cannot tell.
Did you never suppose that? No, I cannot tell what other persons supposed.
Carter did not wear a livery? No.
(By Sir R. Williams.)
You have stated that there was a very expensive establishment in Gloucester-place; did h. r. h. at any time give you any money to defray the expenccs of that establishment? He never gave me any in his life.
Did any body belonging to him? No, nor any body belonging to him.
(By Colonel Vereker.)
Where did Mrs. C. live when you lived with her first? At Hampstead.
Was that prior to your living with Mrs. Ellis? It was before.
Then how comes it that you recollect the place you lived in with Mrs. C., and do not recollect where you lived with Mrs. Ellis afterwards? Because I lived longer with Mrs. C. than I did with those people.
Did you not live two years with Mrs. Ellis? Yes, I did.
Do you mean the committee should understand, that you do not recollect where you lived two years with Mrs. Ellis? No, I do not; I was at Brighton, Margate, and Ramsgate, and other places; and I suppose they were like a

685
great many people, in debt, and went about in consequence, if I must tell the truth; but it is not the thing to tell family affairs.
You have said Mrs. Ellis kept a shop in one part of the town, and lodgings in another; now you tell the committee you were living about all the time; how do you reconcile that? They may go about, his wife may, and he may keep out of the way, or stay at home; I cannot tell how they manage those things.
(By General Phipps.)
Are you not related to Mrs. C.? No.
Do you mean to deny that you are Mrs. C.'s
sister? I do; I am not Mrs. C.'s sister.
(By Mr. Harbord.)
Did you pay any of Mrs. C.'s servants wages? Yes, I did.
What were the wages you paid to Samuel Carter? I really cannot say what I gave him.
Did you ever pay Samuel Carter any wages? I have given him money a great many times, when he has asked for money to buy himself shoes and things he wanted.
Do you recollect whether there was any agreement made for wages? No, I do not.
(By Mr. Herbert.)
You have stated, that you were housekeeper to Mrs. C., and superintended a very large establishment, and had two or three cooks at particular times; what number in general did you superintend, and have to provide for? I am sure I cannot say; there wore always very elegant dinners went up, and what they could not do, came from the pastry-cook's; there were four men in the stable, a butler and two footmen, two conks, a laundry-maid, a house-maid, a kitchen-maid, and another little girl that worked at her needle, and myself, and a charwoman to wash one day in the week.
You have mentioned that there were very considerable embarrassments happened, and that you have been applied to for money, and have been supposed to keep it instead of paying the different creditors; did you tell her of those distresses, and apply to her for money; and if so, what answer did you get? I did inform her; she said that h. r. h. had been very backward in his payments to her, and I must put the people off, and accordingly I did as site said.
Did Mrs. C. ever mention to you that h. r. h. said that lie would give or had given her sums of money, to pay those debts? No, I never heard that.
Did you never mention to Mrs. C., that you wished her to ask money from the D. of Y., to pay those debts? Yes, I did.
What was the answer Mrs. C. made? She said all would be paid as soon as she had it from his royal highness.
Were not many of those debts paid? A great many were paid.
You have stated, that you applied to Mrs. C. telling her that she owed certain sums of money, to get it from the D. of Y.; do you know from
686
your own knowledge that many of those debts were afterwards paid? Some of the debts were paid while he was there; I have paid the baker, and I have paid the butcher twice.
Then upon your application, desiring Mrs. C. would apply to the D. of Y., have you often found debts paid? Yes, I have found many of the debts paid.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did you know capt. Sutton, by sight? Yes.
Had capt. Sutton only one leg? Only one leg.
(By Mr. Beresford.)
Do you know what regiment he was of? No, I do not, I am sure.
Do you still live in the service of Mrs. C.? Yes.
Have you had any conversation with Mrs. C. on the subject of this investigation, since it commenced? No, I have not.
You have said, that you paid the servants wages while you lived with Mrs. C.; how many men servants did you pay wages to? The coachman, his name is Parker, and William M' Dowall; I believe she paid Peirson herself; and the stable-man and the boy, four men in the stable, I always used to give the money once a week, or once a fortnight, to them; there were in all, five in the stable, and three in the house.
Were they all servants on standing annual wages? Yes, they were all yearly servants; and there were two servants at Weybridge, a gardener and a cook.
(By Sir James Graham.)
You have stated, that there were sometimes two and sometimes three men cooks for particular dinners; do you mean by those particular dinners, that they were dressed for a large company? No, we never had a large company: this was first when Mrs. C. went into that house.
Those dinners were dressed merely for two or three persons? Yes, for h. r. h. as far as I know, in particular.
Not for any other company? No.
(By Mr. Wilberforce.)
You went with Mrs. C. when she first went to reside in Gloucester-place? Yes, I did.
Do you know who the tradesmen were who furnished the house in Gloucester-place? No.
Who furnished the upholstery? It was somebody in Bond-street: Oakley.
Do you know who furnished the china and glass? Mr. Mortlock, in Oxford-street.
Do you know who furnished the house with grates? Mr. Summers, and Rose, in Bond-street.
Do you know what silversmith furnished the plate? Birketts.
Do you know any of the other tradesmen with whom Mrs. C. dealt? Parker's, in Fleet-street, she had something to do with.
Who was the wine-merchant? I really do not know; I believe h. r. h. used to send it, but I do not know; he used often to send it, I know.
(By Mr. Spencer Stanhope.)
Did you ever pay any money on account of wages, to any of these men cooks? Yes, I gave them a guinea a day, each of them, but I cannot recollect their names.
Did you consider that as payment for that day, or as in part of annual wages? Only for the day.
Were you in the capacity of own maid to Mrs. C., or was there any other? I was own maid and housekeeper together.
Do you know Mr. Dowler? T have seen him.
Have you seen him frequently? Yes, I have seen him frequently.
Have you seen him frequently in Gloucester-place? Yes, I have.
Do you know or not, whether he staid the night there? Never, I am very sure of that.
(By Mr. Wilberforce.)
Did you at any time convey any messages to the tradesmen employed to furnish the house in Gloucester-place? Yes, for any thing that was wanted.
Concerning the manner in which it was to he done, and what articles were to be sent in? Yes, Mrs. Clarke's order.
Did the tradesmen seem willing to send in articles merely on Mrs. C.'s authority? They sent what she ordered, as far as I know; sometimes they would not.
Did you use any arguments to them to induce them to send in articles, if they appeared unwilling so to do? No, I did not; I said when she had money she would certainly pay them, nothing further than that.
Did they tell you they looked to a better paymaster than Mrs. C, or any thing of that kind? They have asked me, whether h. r. h. had settled with her, and given her money; and I said no, as soon as she had it, she would give it to them.
(By My. Beresford.)
Was capt. Sutton.in the habit of visiting at Mrs. C.'s? Yes, she knew capt. Sutton.
Was he in the habit of visiting at Mrs. C.'s? Yes.
Was he in the habit of visiting at Mrs. C.'s before Sam. Carter came to live at Mrs. C.'s house? Yes, he was.
When he came to visit Mrs. C. was he not in the habit of bringing Sam. Carter as a companion? I do not know; be brought him with him, certainly.
When Sam. Carter came with capt. Sutton, was he in the habit of going with him into the parlour? No.
(By the Secretary at War.)
When Mrs. C. first resided in Gloucester-place, what number of servants had she at that time? Sam. Carter was the first that went there when I went; there was a coachman and two footmen, and a butler and a postillion; there were four men in the stable; she had them immediately as she got there.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did you ever see Carter after he got a commission in the army? No, I do not think I ever did.
Do you recollect whether Sam. Garter got a commission in the army while he was in Mrs. C.'s service? Yes, and went to Deal, to join his regiment.
He left Mrs. C.'s service for that reason? Yes.
And you never saw him afterwards? No.
(By the Attorney General.)
What was your name before you were married? Favery, that is my real name.
Are you a married woman? No.
Did you ever hear Mrs. C. say why she applied for a commission fur Sam. Carter, more than for any other foot-boy in her service? No.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
By what name was Sam. Carter known to h. r. h., by the name of Sam., Samuel, or Carter? We used to call him Sam.
Was he known by the name of Carter, to h. r. h.? Yes, he was known by the name of Carter.
Did Carter appear to you a person of superior manners and education to persons in that situation? I do not know, he was very well.
Did any of the servants dine with you in general at the same table, when you lived with Mrs. C. in Gloucester-place? Yes, I sat down to dinner with them all.
(By Mr. Wilberforce.)
Can you mention any body else who was in the habit of going to the tradesmen about the articles to be furnished to the house in Gloucester place? I never went, I sent a servant always, and Wm. M'Dowall has been to Oakley's in Bond-street, and to Rose and Summers's, and to different tradesmen.
Do you know any body else who went? Peirson used to go.
You did not know any agent or steward, or any person of that description, who used to go? No.
Do you know whether a person of the name of Taylor used to go? I am not sure whether he went; he might be sent by Mrs. C, he was not by me.
Do you know any thing of his going? No, I do not.
(By Sir R. Williams.)
When you lived in Gloucester-place was Mrs. C. in the habits of receiving visits from other gentlemen besides the D. of Y.? Yes, several people came.
Gentlemen? Yes, gentlemen came backwards and forwards.
Did you ever know that any of those gentlemen were considered as opulent? I really do not know.
You have stated that you were in the habit of dining with all the servants; of course the

689
coachman was one of that number? Yes, he was.
Do you remember a capt. Wallis visiting there? No, I never remember such a name.
[The Witness vas directed to withdraw.]
GWYLLYMLLOYD WARDLE, Esq. attending in his place, was examined,
(By Mr. Lockhart.)
In folio 132, of the printed Minutes of the Evidence, there appears a Letter written by Mrs. C. to Mr. Donovan, in which is the following expression, the date of the letter is Jan. 28th, 1809: "I must be candid, and tell you, "that in order to facilitate some negociation, "I had given him a few of your letters: in one "you speak of the queen, in another the two deaneries." Did Mrs. C. give you any letters in order to facilitate any negociation? I never had any negociation with Mrs. C. about letters in my life; I do not know what she means by the expression of a negociation.
Are these the letters which she stated you had taken away from her? I took some of Mr. Donovan's letters in the way I have before described, which I have produced to this house; but what she means by negociation I do not know.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Had you any other letters of Mr. Donovan's from Mrs. C., or are those the very letters which she so positively stated you had taken away from her? I had some other letters from Mrs. C. of Mr. Donovan's, which she gave me, and I examined him as to those letters in this house.
For what purpose did Mrs. C. give you those letters? I really do not know for what purpose she gave them to me; I asked her to give them me, and I examined him upon them in this house.
Have you never asked Mrs. C. what she meant by that expression in her letter? No, I do not think I did; but I never did have any answer to it, if I had; I remember the expression striking me when I heard it read.
(By Mr. Spencer Stanhope.)
When Mrs. C. delivered these letters to you, did she mention any thing about any negociation as affecting one or more deaneries? I never heard of any negociation about any deanery, except what these letters contain.
Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and a letter from Mr. Elderton to h. r. h. the D. of Y. being shewn to the witness, she was examined.
(By Sir T. Turton.)
Do you recollect that that was one of the letters that you delivered to Mr. Nicholls, to be burned? Ye?, they were all delivered to be burned.
Do you recollect that was one of them? I cannot recollect that that was one of them; except what I burned myself, I gave the rest
690
down to be burned, and they positively assured me they were burned.
Do you remember how that letter came into your possession? I suppose I may be allowed to read it before I give my opinion.
[The Witness read the letter.]
To whom is that letter addressed? To the Duke of York.
How came that letter into your possession? I had it to shew the D. of Y., I suppose, as I had many other letters; and, after he read it, it was left in my possession. This man was arrested after he had his appointment, and I had solicited for leave for him.
Then I understand you to say, that that letter was addressed to you; by whom was it addressed to you? By Mr. Elderton, or else his wife; by Mr. Elderton, addressed to me, to deliver to the Duke.
Then I understand you to say, that the letter was inclosed to you in another by Mr. Elderton; is that so? Yes.
And that in consequence of your receiving it, you delivered it to the D. of Y.? I am positive that I shewed it him, to let him know that the man was grateful.
Did the D. of Y. return it to you? After he had read letters, they used to be left upon the table, and I ought to have destroyed them.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Did not you understand that Sam. Carter was a natural son of capt. Sutton? No, I did not; people have said so, but lie told me to the contrary himself.
Did not capt. Sutton take care of his education? Capt. Sutton always had the boy about him; he had several, and Sam. was one; he had been very strongly recommended, I believe, by Mrs. Fitzherbert, but they denied that at one time.
Did capt. Sutton educate the boy? He was not well educated till he came to me; he used to go to school, while he was in my service, every leisure hour.
Do not you know that capt. Sutton took care of his education? I know that he took some pains to instruct him in his leisure time, he was a very good boy.
Do you know what regiment capt. Sutton was in? He formerly was a lieutenant in the grenadiers; I believe he was avoluuteer, where he lost his leg.
You are not certain what regiment he was in? No; he was deputy fire-master at Woolwich, and had been an esteemed friend of the Prince of Wales and of the D. of Y. for 12 years, but nearly died for want, except through me.
(By General Norton.)
Did you consider Carter in a light above the rest of your servants? Yes, I did, for he was very faithful to me.
In what year did Mr. Elderton get the Paymastership of the Dragoons, that you spoke of? I cannot tell, but it was before general Simcoe died.
You do not remember the year at all? No, I do not.
During your residence in Gloucester-place, did you ever make any return of the Income Tax? No, I believe I did not.
Were you ever assessed either for your horses, carriages, or men servants? Yes, I was.
Then you recollect the number? I used to forget the greater number of them when they were put down, conceiving they had been paid for before through the Duke, or otherwise.
(By Mr. Lockhart.)
Look at that letter; [the letter to Mr. Donovan, of the 28th Jan.] that letter speaks of delivering some letters to Mr. Wardle, in order to facilitate some negociation? I sent that letter to Mr. Donovan.
Did you give these letters to Mr. Wardle, in order to facilitate any negociation? Yes; not the letters that col. Wardle ran away with, but letters of field officers to recommend two or three lieutenants to companies, they were to give more than the regulation, 3 or 400 l.; I understood from Mr. Donovan that Greenwood was to have some part, Froome another, himself a share, and me; these young men were to pay, I think, 400 guineas over the regulation, and that it was the last job Greenwood was to give Froome, that it was to complete a very old promise of the D. of Y.; Mr. Donovan told me he must have the recommendation of a member of parliament or a general officer, to cover himself.
If you refer to a passage in your letter, it will appear that the letters you allude to were, one in which Mr. Donovan speaks of the Queen, and in the other of two deaneries? Those were the letters col. Wardle took away, and which I told him were in his possession; that letter I think mentions as far as that. [The passage in the Letter was read.] I had not given him those letters, he took them, and what I gave col. Wardle to facilitate was the other three, the lieutenants for the companies, and he has two or three of them now, and gen. Clavering the other; and when I represented one of the young men as Mr. Sumner's nephew or cousin, I believed it, because Mr. Donovan had told me so, and declared it in every way possible.
How could, the delivery of any letters whatever to Mr. Wardle, facilitate any negociation? I thought that they might, because he told me that he could do it by men that were not in the opposition, because I knew that a man on that side would not do to recommend to the D. of Y. any military man.
Who told you so? Colonel Wardle.
What sort of negociations did you think the delivery of these letters might facilityáte? To get a letter of recommendation for the young men, the same sort of recommendation as gen. Clavering was to give me for Sumner.
You have stated, that the Paymastership procured for Elderton was previous to the death of gen. Simcoe; what circumstance makes you say it must have been previous to the death of gen.
692
Simcoe? I believe it was gen. Simcoe's regiment, I know he had been applied to on the subject.
Are you quite positive that these letters spoken of, are the letters Mr. Wardle ran away with? Yes.
(By Sir J. Sebright.)
Did the D. of Y. ever tell you at any time, that he had been informed by any person of your having received money by getting appointments in the army? No, no one dare tell him so.
(By Mr. Greenough.)
Did the D. of Y. ever inform you by what means the commissions you state to have been so irregularly obtained, were made to appear regular in the books of the office? No, he did not state to me that circumstance, only that he would take proper care and have them all right, and the subjects he always thought were proper when they were proposed.
GWYLLYM LLOYD WARDLE, esq. attending in his place, made the following Statement:
I wish to say, that I am now aware what Mrs. C. means by her negociation: the letters that I before alluded to her having received from Mr. Donovan, and my having examined him upon them in this house, were sent to her by Mr. Donovan, as I understood, for the purpose of her getting them signed by a general officer, or a member of parliament; she stated having sent one of them to gen. Clavering to be signed; the other three or four, I forget which it was, I got from her, she gave them to me; I remember her stating at the time, that if I could get a member of parliament to sign them for her, it would be just what Mr. Donovan wanted; I said my friends were in opposition, and opposition men would not do; I kept the letters ever since, and till this moment never could make out what she meant by the term 'negociation.'
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Have you any objection to deliver in those letters, from which you examined Mr. Donovan at the table of this house? They are all on the table of the house.
Are those letters on the table of the house which Mrs. Clarke wished you to get a member of parliament to sign?—No, I think not.
In giving this answer Mr. Wardle was called to order, by sir G. Hill, in consequence of lord Folkestone's whispering something in the ear of the hon. member.
MF. Whitbreadrose and observed with much warmth, that his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle) was perfectly in order, that no irregularity whatever was committed, for it was perfectly consistent with the rule of parliamentary evidence, for one member to make communications to another hi course of examination.
Lord Folkestonedeclared, that what he communicated to the hon. member was perfectly innocent, and moreover that his hon. friend had finished his reply before he made the communication.
Mr. Whitbreadcontended, that it was neither indecorous nor inconsistent with parliamentary rules for members to make communication to such as were close to each other.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbelieved it was the general feeling of the committee, that no individual was at liberty to suggest any answer whatsoever to any interrogatory that was put in the nature of evidence to another member. He conceived that no member in the committee had any superior advantages in this respect over any witness, who gave evidence at the bar of the house. Surely it would never be maintained, that a witness placed in that situation, and labouring under any difficulty or embarrassment respecting the answer to be made, ought to receive any assistance. Neither did he apprehend that any member of parliament was entitled to receive any suggestion from another, when he was called upon in his place to give his evidence on any question.
Mr. Windhamknew of no principle recognized by parliamentary practice, by which a member was restrained from both giving and receiving communications and informations from another during the discussion of any question. On this ground he perfectly justified the conduct of the noble lord, and especially as he afterwards declared his communication to be perfectly innocent; he, therefore, thought the hon. baronet was premature in calling the hon. gent. to order.
Mr. Canningwas proceeding to animadvert with a considerable degree of warmth on the observations, which an hon. member (Mr. Whitbread), had made relative to the prerogative which a member of parliament had over any other witness giving his evidence, when the right hon. gent. was called to order.
Mr. Whitbreadrepeated and explained his former observations with respect to the right which every member in the house had of communicating information to another. He did say what the right hon. secretary stated, that a member had a right to derive any benefit from the suggestion of another when examined in evidence during the pending of a question, but that question being answered, he was no longer restricted.
Mr. Canningconfessed he had misunderstood the meaning of the hon. member, for he at first did conceive the hon. gent. made an essential difference between a member of parliament in giving his testimony, and an ordinary witness at the bar; and he was the more satisfied in this case because the noble lord had declared, that what he communicated was perfectly innocent.
Mr. Whitbreadprotested that he never did lay down such preposterous doctrine.
(By Mr. Beresford.)
Are there any letters on the table of the house which Mrs. Clarke gave to you, to procure the signature of a member of parliament? I thought they had been given in, but if they are not, I certainly will lay them on the table.
Have you any objection to lay on the table every letter which you got, either by violence or otherwise, from Mrs. Clarke?—I have no objection to lay upon the table the letters in question respecting those officers who were to have been so recommended, and all the letters that I had regard to in the statement I made to the house.
Have you any objection to lay on the table every letter which you got, either by violence or otherwise, from Mrs. Clarke? I wish the answer I have given to be repeated.
Are there any letters in your possession, relative to the inquiry before the house, as to the D. of Y.'s conduct, which you have taken from Mrs. Clarke, or which she has given to you, which you object to lay before the house? I know of none such, I have no information which with propriety can be laid before this committee, which I would withhold from them.
Are the letters alluded to in the letter of Mrs. C. at present on the table of the house? No, they are not.
(By Mr. Lockhart.)
When did you receive the letters from Mrs. Clarke, which she mentions, in her letter of the 28tb Jan. to have been delivered to you? I have no memorandum, I cannot speak to the time.
CHARLES GREENWOOD, esq. was called in and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Is Mr. Froome now in your office? No.
Did not Mr. Froome succeed to the situation of one of your clerks that has lately left you? No.
Did not Mr. Froome come to town for the purpose of supplying the place of that clerk? Mr. Froome came to town to settle some old accounts of mine as treasurer to the Royal Military College, and not at all to take the place of that clerk.
Has he settled those accounts, and if so when did he leave you? He is settling them now.
Where does he transact the business? Very near my office at Charing-cross.
(By General Loftus.)
Are you agent to the 22d regiment of dragoons? No.
Or ever was since it was raised? I think not, but I cannot positively answer to that fact.
Do you recollect any difference between you and the D. of Y. wherein the Duke applied to you to appoint a paymaster to that regiment? Certainly not.
Is it within your power or that of any agent to appoint a paymaster to any regiment? The power rests ill the colonel to recommend the Secretary at War, who makes the necessary inquiries as to the securities, and then makes out the appointment for the Commander in Chief to lay before ins majesty.
In fact the Commander in Chief can have nothing in the world to do with it, more than to lay it before his majesty? I never understood that he had.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Do you know Mrs. Clarke? I do not know her by sight.
Did you ever write to her? I recollect one note I did write to her.
Do you know a Mr. Elderton? I did know him.
No disagreement ever happened between you and the D. of Y. respecting appointing Mr. Elderton a paymaster? No, certainly not.
Did the D. of Y. ever apply to you to appoint him? Never; the Duke mentioned him to me as a man that would call upon me about a paymaster-ship, and said that I might make inquiries about him, but never recommended him.
What was the occasion of that note which you mention having written to Mrs. Clarke? It was in answer to a note she wrote to me, to desire my interference with h. r. h. about a brother, I think be was, of hers; she called him captain Thompson, that had been in the cavalry.
Do you recollect the date of that note? It was not long ago; I do not recollect the date at all; I should think within a month or six weeks.
Do you recollect, either in that note or by message, stating to Airs. Clarke, that you were sorry she had got acquainted with Mr. Finnerty? Never.
Did you ever send any message to Mrs. Clarke by Mr. Taylor of Bond-street? Never.
How long was Mr. Froome in your office before the first time he and you parted? I really cannot recollect; but he has left my office for, I should suppose, four or five years, I cannot recollect particularly, it was at the time I discovered he was trading in commissions that I discharged him.
Is not Mr. Froome on the half-pay? I believe he is.
Is he a captain on the half-pay? No, I think only a lieutenant.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
How did you send that note which you wrote to Mrs. Clarke? I sent it by Mr. Taylor I think.
Mr. Taylor the shoemaker? Yes.
Are you acquainted with Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland? I knew her some years ago.
How many years ago? I should think six Or seven years ago; I have seen her since.
Have you seen her often since? No.
Have you seen her lately? No.
How lately have you seen her? I do not think I have seen Mrs. Sinclair these two years.
On what occasion did you last see her? Mine was a visit of civility, I believe, I had no particular object in it.
Did you call upon her? Yes.
Have you kept up your acquaintance with her from the first origin of that acquaintance? I have very little acquaintance with Mrs. Sinclair; I do not suppose I ever saw Mrs. S. a dozen times in my life.
What led to that acquaintance? I believe that the first acquaintance I had with Mrs. Sinclair, was from hearing a friend of mine speak of her.
Did you become acquainted with her through any intimacy between the D. of Y. and her? I Certainly was acquainted with her more from that circumstance.
Then you are aware she. was intimate with the D. of York? I am aware that the D of Y. knew her; I am not at all aware that the Duke was intimate with her.
What was the general character of that lady?
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to this mode of examination, and the witness was ordered to withdraw.
A conversation of considerable length took place, whether Mr. Greenwood should be further examined on this point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Beresford and others, contended that he ought not to be examined as to the general character of a lady who was not before the house, and whose credit ought not to be impeached when it was not in question on the present subject. It was on the other hand insisted on by lord Folkestone, Mr. C. Wynn, Mr. Windham and others, that, as it appeared her recommendation had been attended to by the Duke of York, it was proper and necessary the witness should disclose what he knew to be her general character; and it was at length decided, after lord Folkestone had agreed to withdraw his last question, that the witness should again be called in.
[The Witness was again called in and examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Do you know of any connection ever subsisting between the Duke of York and Mrs. Sutherland? I have heard that there was.
Has any fact ever come to your knowledge which enables you to state, of your own knowledge, that such a connection ever had existed? I have heard Mrs. Sinclair herself say so.
Did you ever hear Mrs. Sinclair state that she was with child by the D. of Y.? Yes.
Did you ever know of a house being hired at Hamburgh for Mrs. Sutherland to lie in? No.
Do you know of any measures that were taken to hire a house for that purpose? No.
Can you to your own knowledge speak to Mrs. Sinclair having got a troop from the D. of Y. for a friend of her's? Certainly not.
Did you ever correspond with her on the subject of a troop that she had applied for? No, I think not, it is so long since; to the best of my knowledge not.
Can you speak positively to that fact? I can speak positively to never having had any conversation with the D. of Y.
Do you recollect writing to Mrs. Sinclair upon any military matters? I recollect she wrote to me relative to a son of the late gen. Debbidge, upon the subject of promotion, which I did not apply for; and I think she wrote to me about obtaining leave of absence for him, which, being in the natural course of my business, I think I did obtain for her; but I cannot speak with certainty.
State whether of your own knowledge Mrs. Sinclair was given to understand that that officer was promoted through her application? Certainly not.
(By Mr. C. Adams.)
You have stated, that you sent a note to Mrs. C. by Mr. Taylor; who is Mr. Taylor? A shoemaker, in Bond-street.
How happened it that you employed such a messenger? She sent him to me.
Had you ever any other communication with Mr. Taylor? I have seen Mr. Taylor several times on other business.
Is Mr. Taylor your shoemaker? No.
Have you ever had any correspondence by letter with Mr. Taylor? No.
(By Sir J. Sebright.)
You have stated in the early part of your examination, that the Commander in Chief told you that Mr. Elderton would probably call respecting a Paymastership, and requested yon to make inquiries; did you make any inquiries? Yes.
What was the result of those inquiries, and was he appointed to the Paymastership? The result of those inquiries was, that I put him down in my list as a candidate for a Paymastership.
Was he appointed to a Paymastership? Upon a vacancy happening in sir Robert Abercrombie's regiment, thinking him a very proper man for the appointment, I wrote to sir R. Abercrombie about him, and he recommended him to the Secretary at War. May I beg leave to correct an answer I have just given, respecting my correspondence with Mr. Taylor: there were two or three question I thought it necessary to put to him: knowing he had paid some money on the D. of Y.'s account for Mrs. C. I put three questions to him, which he answered satisfactorily; if that is to be called a correspondence, I have had correspondence with him.
(By Sir R, Williams.)
Do you know of any large sum of money being paid by the D. of Y. to Mrs. C. during her residence in Gloucester-place? No large sums ever went through my hands to Mrs. C. nor any sum whatever.
(By Mr. C. Adams.)
You admit that you have had some correspondence with Mr. Taylor, when did that correspondence take place? A few years ago.
You do not recollect at any other time having had any correspondence with Mr. Taylor? No, certainly not.
Did you send an answer to Mrs. C. by Mr. Taylor, in consequence of the letter having been brought by him? Certainly.
(By Mr. Macdonald.)
You stated that you recommended Mr. Elderton to sir Robert Abercrombie for Paymaster; had you any knowledge of Mr. Elderton previous to the D. of Y.'s mentioning him to you? I believe he had applied to my office for a clerkship, but I am not quite clear as to that, point; I made several inquiries in consequence of h. r. h.'s recommendation.
(By Sir A. Wellesley.)
Were the inquiries which you made satisfactory? They were satisfactory in the first instance, but some time afterwards, on further inquiry, I was by no means satisfied, and I wrote to sir R. Abercrombie to that effect.
What inquiries did you make that caused dissatisfaction? I made some inquiries, besides a representation I had from Bristol, where Mr. Elderton had lived, of some improper conduct there.
What was the consequence of these discoveries you made respecting Mr. Elderton? Representing the same to sir R. Abercrombie, in order to stop the recommendation.
What was the effect of that communication? It was delayed for a time; afterwards, to the best of my recollection, Mr. Elderton wrote himself, or got some friend to apply to sir R. Abercrombie, and sir R. Abercrombie afterwards recommended him to the Secretary at War.
Do you know what those recommendations

699
were, or from whom they came? I really do not.
Were the objections removed solely by the recommendation of sir R Abercrombie? I believe entirely.
After those objections had been made, did any conversation take place between the D. of Y. and yourself upon the subject? Certainly none.
(By Mr. Abercrombie.)
How do you know that any subsequent recommendation was made to sir R. Abercrombie? I think I have letters from sir R. Abercrombie to prove that.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Have you brought with you the documents respecting the proposed exchange between col. Knight and col. Pleydell? Yes, I have them in my hand.
[Colonel Gordon delivered in several papers, which were read: —Letter from Messrs. Collier. —Answer to the above. —Letter from col. Knight, dated June 19th, 1805. Letter from col. Gordon to col. Knight.]
"C. L."
The Com. in Chief cannot accede to the request of these officers. Lt. col. Pleydell must remain in the regiment to which he has been posted.
"Refused."
Messrs. Collyer have the honour of transmitting col. Gordon the Memorials of majors Knight and Pleydell to exchange. Park-place. St. James's,
27th May 1805.
Horse-Guards, 28th May 1805. Gentlemen; Having laid before the Commander in Chief your note of the 27th instant, I am directed to acquaint you in reply, that h. r. h. cannot accede to the exchange therein proposed, between major Knight of the 5 Drag. Guards and Bt. Lt. Col. Pleydell of the 59th Regt. of Foot; and lieut. col. Pleydell must remain with the corps to which he has been posted. I am, Sir,
(Signed) J. W. GORDON.
"The inclosures in your Letter are herewith returned.
"Messrs. Collyer.
"H. r. h. has no objection to his receiving a difference, and when an eligible successor can be recommended, h. r. h. will take it into consideration.
"No. 35, Maddox-street,
"Hanover-square, June 19, 1805.
Sir; H. r. h. the Commander in Chief not having acceded to my exchanging with
700
lieut. col. Pleydell, I fear my motives for wishing to return to the infantry may have been misrepresented to h. r. h. —I therefore take the liberty of stating them to you, and request the favour of you to submit them to the consideration of h. r. h. —I am desirous of returning to the infantry, with a view to receive back the difference, to enable me to arrange some pecuniary concerns which press upon me at this moment; and in case h. r. h "should be graciously pleased to acquiesce, I intend to solicit the further indulgence of a temporary retirement upon half-pay for the recovery of my health, which is much impaired by a service of 20 years in the West Indies, in Holland, in Egypt, and elsewhere; and as I do not mean to solicit h. r. h.'s permission to receive the difference between full and half-pay, I flatter myself h. r. h. when my health is re-established, will consider my past services, and allow me to return to a service which I never can quit for a moment without the deepest regret. —And in case h. r. h. should have no person in view to succeed me in the 5th Dragoon Guards, I humbly beg leave to submit the name of brevet lieut. colonel Brook of the 56th regiment, (an old cavalry officer) who has written to me on the subject. I have the honour. &c. H. R. KNIGHT. To col. Gordon, Major 5th Dragoon Gds. &c. &e. &c. and Bt. Lt. Colonel."
"Horse-Guards, 21st June 1805. Sir; Having laid before the Commander in Chief your letter of the 19th instant, I am directed to acquaint you, that h. r. h. has no objection to your exchanging to the Infantry, receiving the difference; and when an eligible successor can he recommended, your request will be taken into consideration. I have, &C.
(Signed) J. W. GORDON."
"Bt. Lieut. Col. Knight, 5 D. Gds.,
"35, Maddox-street, Hanover-square.
Are you acquainted with major Turner? I was acquainted with him.
What was the period of your acquaintance with him? I think it was in the year 1808.
When was the last time that you saw him previous to his tendering his resignation? I cannot recollect the precise day, but it was a very short time before he gave it in, he called upon me, and stated his intention of so doing.
Did he solicit any other situation? No, I cannot recollect that he did.
Did he request to be put upon the staff of the army serving in Spain? I do not recollect that he did; it is very possible that he might, but I do not recollect that he did.
Did he state to you the reason for which he intended to resign? Yes, he certainly did.
What were those reasons? Major Turner called upon me, and told me, it was his intention to give in his resignation, and retire from

701
the army; I expressed some surprize at this, having had some previous acquaintance with him, and told him, I think, that he had better consider of it before he took so decided a step. I think Major Turner told me, he had got into some unfortunate scrape with a woman, and it was necessary for him to quit the service; the exact words I do not recollect, but that was the tenor of the conversation that passed between us. There was very little more or less.
Did he state the nature of the scrape? No, he certainly did not; but I have some recollection, that he was about to do it, and that I stopped him, as my custom is, not wishing to enter into the private affairs of officers more than is necessary.
Did he state the name of the lady? I am pretty confident he did not.
When the application was made for the exchange between col. Knight and col. Pleydell, were the usual inquiries made, and were they acted upon? This is rather an embarrassing question. I should answer it in this way; that the Commander in Chief did not think col. Pleydell a proper officer to be placed at the head of a regiment of cavalry.
(By Mr. Creevey.)
Is it your belief, that upon a complaint made from any quarter against any officer who was soliciting either for exchange or resignation, that complaint being, that the officer had behaved dishonourably by a lady, that would lead to an inquiry on the part of the Commander in Chief? That would depend very much upon the mode in which the complaint was made; the complaint in question stated, that the general knew all about it; inquiry was therefore made of the general before any decision was given upon it.
Did it ever come within your knowledge that any resignation had been stopped, or any proceeding taken at the Commander in Chief's office, in consequence of an anonymous letter? I cannot exactly say that a resignation had been stopped; but this I can say, that all anonymous letters are invariably attended to.
Is it not the invariable practice of the Commander in Chief to forward all anonymous letters, conveying complaints or any circumstances attached to the army, to the generals commanding the districts or the officers commanding regiments, concerning which complaints may be conveyed in those anonymous letters? I have already said that anonymous letters are always attended to, and are sent for inquiry in their proper course; they happen almost daily. [The witness was directed to withdraw.
General ROCHFORT was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Do you recollect a person of the name of Sam. Carter, that lived with capt. Sutton? I do.
Do you happen to know whether Samuel
702
Carter was reputed to be the natural son of capt. Sutton? I always understood that he was.
Did he live with him as such? He lived with him as such, as it appeared to me.
You knew captain Sutton? Very well.
He brought him up as his son? Yes, he did, to the best of my knowledge.
Did he give him a good education? I believe the best education he could; he was very capable of educating him himself, and I believe he took a great deal of pains with the boy.
Was he in the habit of dining at capt. Sutton's table? I cannot tell; I never dined with capt. Sutton at his house.
When did capt. Sutton die? I cannot exactly say; two or three years ago, I believe.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Lord Folkestonestated, that Duff, one of the parties whom he had that evening mentioned to the house, as having papers in his possession, which came into his hands through the medium of one Kennett, in the city, had, since he addressed the house, called him into the lobby, and informed him, that he was willing to deliver up the papers. He had seen some of them, which he had communicated to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who concurred with him in thinking they were worthy the observation of the house. The person who had them, having mentioned it would be inconvenient to him to attend that evening, he had dispensed with his further attendance. He had accordingly promised to bring him the papers to-morrow morning, and he would call the attention of the Committee to them at their next meeting.
The house being resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again to-morrow, which was ordered.