CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.

HC Deb 16 February 1809 vol 12 cc704-63

Lord Folkstone

moved the order of the day for the house to resolve into a Committee on the inquiry respecting the Conduct of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief.—The house resolved accordingly.

Lord H. Petty

said, that at the request of a very respectable solicitor resident in Lincoln's-inn-fields, named Tyndale, he felt it necessary to state, that he was not the same who had been examined at the bar in the course of this inquiry, and he was ap- prehensive that without such explanation his name might be confounded with that of a man with whom he had no interference nor connection whatever, and that he was ready and desirous to verify the fact at the bar.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he saw no danger of mistaking the gentleman for the other, who stated himself to live at Chelsea.

Lord Folkestone

now rose, and said, that before he proceeded to call in the witnesses, it might be deemed convenient to put the Committee in possession of the particular subject to which he meant to examine the first witness, Mr. Duff, the solicitor, who attended in consequence of the order of the house yesterday, with some papers he had to produce. Those papers, he understood, came into the hands of Mr. Duff, in the year 1804, in consequence of his being solicitor to the statute of bankruptcy, against a man named Robert Kennett, who had formerly been an upholsterer in Bond-street, and afterwards lived in Lincoln's-inn-fields, in the profession of a tooth-ach curer. A proposition was sot on foot by h. r. h. the D. of Y. to raise for his use the sum of 70,000l. or 80,000l. by way of annuity, and this Mr. Kennett undertook to forward the views of h. r. h., in consideration of provision being made for him by a respectable situation under government; upon the success of his undertaking, was to depend the success of the negociation for the loan. Accordingly, application was made by h. r. h. to Mr. Pitt, to earl Camden, and others, to procure Mr. Kennett a situation at home or abroad, and particularly one which happened just then to be vacant in the West Indies. A secretary to the D. of Y. acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Kennett's letter, proposing the terms of this negociation, the receipt of which he acknowledges in another letter, but in this he expressed no disapprobation of Mr. Kennett's proposal; and it would appear upon the face of the letter, that the success of the D. of Y., in obtaining the situation, would depend upon the loan. He should adduce the letters before the Committee, and particularly that of col. Taylor, to which he alluded. He then moved that Mr. Duff be called to the bar.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

did not mean to oppose the motion of the noble lord; but at the same time it did not appear to him that the evidence, or the papers now proposed to be produced, had any connexion with the subject, respecting which the Committee were instructed to inquire, namely, the conduct of h. r. h. in his capacity of Commander in Chief. They had no relevancy whatever to the manœuvres of Mrs. Clarke, or the stories with them connected, nor any relation to military business. However, he had no wish that any paper should be withheld that in any degree might throw light upon the general case; and he therefore abstained from any resistance of the noble lord's motion, rather from a wish not to be thought desirous of stifling any information respecting the whole subject in agitation, than from any relevancy the motion had to the question before the Committee.

Lord Folkestone

could not exactly understand the right hon. gent.'s meaning; by his phrase, the manœuvres of Mrs. C; but if the suggestion hi (lord F.) had offered to the house last night, had been adopted, namely, an additional instruction to the Committee to enlarge their inquiry into the general conduct of the D. of Y. in other respects, the Papers now moved for would be highly relevant.

Mr. Creevey

stated, as there might be some doubt to which of the baroness Nolleken's sons the evidence of Mrs. C. given at the bar yesterday applied, he had been requested by Mr. Le Maitre, her son by the first marriage, to state that he had no intimacy whatever with Mrs. C. He was in waiting, if the house chose to examine him on this point.—This the house did not think necessary.

Mr. ARCHIBALD DUFF was called in, and examined.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

What are you? A Solicitor.

Do you know any thing of Robert Kennett? I am a solicitor to the commission of bankruptcy against him.

At what time did that bankruptcy take place? Some, time in the year 1803.

In consequence of being solicitor to that commission of bankruptcy, have certain papers relative to this inquiry come into your possession? In consequence of the bankrupt's papers having been seized by the messenger under the commission, I have become possessed of certain letters, which I have now in my pocket.

Produce those Papers. [The witness produced them.]

When did those papers come into your possession? I cannot ascertain the time; sometime, I think, about the latter end of 1805, or sometime in 1806.

Have they been in your possession ever since? They have.

Are those all the papers in your possession relative to this business? They are all the papers which I have been able to find among the bankrupt's papers, in which, in any manner, the name of' b. r. h. the D. of Y. is mentioned.

Did you at any time state that you believed there was a paper in your possession which you could not readily put your hand upon? I stated last night to lord Folkestone, while I was in attendance at this house, that I believed there was a paper which I could not readily put my hand upon; but to-day I communicated to lord Folkestone that I had every reason to believe that that paper was not in my possession, and that the recollection of that paper must have arisen from one of the bankrupt's letters, which is now in the clerk's hand.

Do you mean by not being in your possession, that that paper did not exist, that there was no such paper? I stated to lord Folkestone then, as I now do, that I believed there was no such paper.

Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of Kennett? Perfectly well.

Look at those papers, and see whether any of them are the hand-writing of the bankrupt Kennett r No. 2 is his hand-writing.

Look at No. 12; is that the hand-writing of Kennett? No. 12 contains two papers; one is Kennett's hand-writing, and the other is not.

What are those papers? They appear to be respecting appointments at Surinam, which have resulted from the surrender or that colony.

Is that the paper which is Kennett's handwriting? Yes.

Do you know whose hand-writing the other is? I do not.

Is No. 14 in the hand-writing of Kennett? It is.

Is No. 17 in the hand-writing of Kennett? No. 17 contains two papers; one is not in the hand-writing of Kennett, the other is.

What is the paper which is in the handwriting of Kennett? That which is in the hand-writing of Kennett appears to be an application from him to Mr. Greenwood, for Mr. Adam's address in Scotland.

Do you know whose hand-writing the other paper is? No.

Is No. 18 the hand-writing of Kennett? Yes, it is.

(By Mr. N. Vansittart.)

You have stated, that there was a paper which you have not in your possession, and which you believe not to exist; to your knowledge, was such a paper ever in existence r I was led to believe that such a paper had existed, from a distant recollection of having read the paper some time ago; but upon referring to the papers again to-day, and the place in which I found them, namely, the bankrupt's desk, I am satisfied that no such paper ever was in my possession, and that the only circumstance which could have led me to that belief, was the bankrupt's letter, No. 10, and so I stated to lord Folkestone to-day.

Is the Committee to understand that you believe that paper never to have been in existence? I believe it never did exist.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

What business was Kennett? Kennett was formerly an upholsterer in Bond-street; he was, at the time when the commission was issued against him, living in Lincoln's-inn-fields, and carried on, or pretended to carry on, the business of tooth-ach curer, curing the tooth-ach by smelling a bottle.

Did he ever obtain his certificate under that commission? Certainly not.

Did he pass his last examination under that commission? He did, after a vast number of examinations, and numerous delays.

Do you know what is become of Kennett now? I know not; I saw him about a month ago.

Do you know any thing particular that has occurred to Kennett since the commission of bankruptcy? I know what his lordship alludes to, but I wish the question was more particular, and not so general.

Did he ever stand in the pillory? He was prosecuted by order of the lord chancellor, at the instance of his majesty's attorney-general, for a conspiracy to defeat that commission, and cheat his creditors; under that prosecution he was found guilty and put into the pillory.

Had he been a bankrupt before the bankruptcy to which commission you were solicitor? He was.

State the dates of both bankruptcies. I cannot with precision.

Can you state the date of the second bankruptcy with precision? To the best of my recollection, the 23d of April, 1803.

Can you state in what year the first bankruptcy took place? I think (but I cannot charge my memory with precision) in the month of January, 1801.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

EDWARD TAYLOR, esq. a member of the house, attending in his place, was examined.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Will you look at No. 3, and state whether that is col. Taylor's writing? Yes, it is.

Is No. 6 col. Taylor's hand-writing? Yes, it is.

No. 8? Yes, it is.

No. 9? Yes, it is.

No. 10? Yes, it is.

No. 13? This is not his hand-writing.

Does it purport to be? It is written in his name; but it is not his hand-writing.

No. 20? The note is; there is an inclosure in it, which is not.

Mr. ARCHIBALD DUFF

was again called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

Whose hand-writing is-No. 13? I do not know.

It is not the hand-writing of Kennett? It is not.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. attending in his place, was examined, as follows:

Look at No. 4, is that your hand-writing? Yes.

No. 5? It is not my hand-writing; but it was written at my dictation.

No. 19? This is my hand-writing.

The right hon. CHARLES LONG, attending in his place, was examined, as follows:

Have you ever seen Mr. Adams, once private secretary to Mr. Pitt, write? I have.

Can you speak to Mr. Adams's hand-writing? I can.

Look at No. 11. That is not his handwriting, it purports to be a copy.

Is No. 15 your hand-writing? No. 15 is my hand-writing; No. 16 I cannot speak to.

WILLIAM HUSKISSON, esq. attending in his place, was examined by the Committee as follows:

Will you look at No. 21? I have frequently seen Mr. Chapman write, and, to the best of my belief, this is his hand-writing.

[The following Papers were read:]

No. 2. "The principal sum of 70,000l. to be advanced to h. r. h. the Duke of York, by way of annuity, (at ten per cent.) either in one or two parts, as shall be approved by h. r. h in the following manner, viz.

The said sum or sums to be charged on the Oatlands, and all the adjoining estates, manors, &c.

The purchaser to nominate any two lives (in order to save insurance.)

His r. h. to be at liberty to pay off the principal sum or sums any time after three years, (in the usual way) either by giving six months notice, or paying six months in advance.

The annuity to be payable quarterly, either by an assignment of the exchequer order, or an undertaking from the trustees of the said order to pay the same."

No. 6. "Lieut.-col. Taylor presents his "compliments to Mr. Robert Kennett, and "begs to acquaint him that h. r. h. the D. of "Y. has not any objection to writing to Mr. "Pitt respecting the application which sir Ho-"race Mann has made in his favour.

Oatlands, Sunday, 22d July, 1804."

No. 3. "Lieut.-col. Taylor presents his "compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is directed by h. r. h. the D. of Y. to request he will call upon Mr. Adam, in Lincoln's-inn-fields, upon Wednesday morning next.

Oatlands, July 29th, 1804.

Addressed,—Robert Kennett, esq. 13,Mooreplace, Lambeth."

No. 5. "Mr. Adam's compliments to Mr. Kennett, and means to see him on Tuesday evening, before which he cannot be in town.

Lincoln's-inn, Thursday."

Addressed,

"Mr. Kennett."

No. 4. "Mr. Adam is sorry that his business elsewhere detained him yesterday. He will be glad to see Mr. Kennett here to-day at eleven o'clock.

Lincoln's-Inn, Thursday morning, 2d Aug."

Addressed,

"Mr. Robert Kennett,

13, Moore-place, Lambeth."

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

Have you ever seen sir Horace Mann write? I have seen sir Horace Mann write very often.

Will you look at No. 7, and state whether it is sir Horace Mann's writing? I will certainly admit that it very much resembles tire hand-writing of the hon. baronet; but though it docs so resemble it, it is not the usual mode of that hon. baronet's signing his name, for it is signed "H. Mann," and Ivory frequently correspond with him: he signs "Hor. Mann."

Do you believe that to be the hand-writing of sir Horace Mann? It has something of the character of the hand-writing of sir Horace Mann.

Do you or not believe that to be sir Horace Mann's hand-writing? I certainly believe it is.

Will you look at No. 16; is that sir Horace Mann's hand-writing? I do not think it is; I believe it is not.

[The following Papers were read.]

No. 7. "I shall rejoice sincerely at your success, if it can be an object with you to obtain a situation in such a climate. The channel you mention may be more efficacious than the exertion of my interest, which I will strenuously renew if it is necessary, when I see a prospect of success.

Your's faithfully.

H. MANN.

Margate, July 22d."

Addressed:

"Robert Kennett, esq. No. 13,

Moore-place, Lambeth."

No. 8. "Oatlands, July 16th 1801."

"Sir, I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday, which I lost no time in laying before the D. of Y. I am in consequence directed to request you will have the goodness to call upon Mr. Greenwood, in Craig's- court, on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock, h. r. h. having desired him to communicate with you on the sub-ject of your letter.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient, humble Servant,

H. TAYLOR."

No. 9. "Lieut. col. Taylor presents his compliments 10 Mr. Kennett, and begs to ac-quaint him, that having called this morning upon Mr. Pitt's private Secretary, for the answer to b. r. h. 's application in his favour, he has been promised that it will be sent in the course of the day if possible, and he will forward it, as soon as received, to Mr. Kennett.

Horse Guards, Thursday morning."

Addressed:

"Robert Kennett, esq., &c."

No. 10. "Lieut.-col. Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is directed by the D. of Y. to transmit to him copy of a letter from Mr. Pitt's private secretary, in reply to the application which h. r. h. made in Mr. Kennett's favour for the collector-ship of the customs at Surinam, which answer h. r. h. regrets is not conformable to his wishes. Col. Taylor would have sent it earlier, had he not been absent from London, when it was sent to the Horse-Guards.

August 7th, 1804."

No. 11.

"Downing-street, Friday, 3d Aug. 1804.

My dear sir;—I have not failed to state to Mr. Pitt the wishes of h. r. h. the D. of York, communicated through you, that be would nominate Mr. Kennett to the office of Collector of his majesty's customs at Surinam; and I am directed to request that you will submit to h. r. b., that, desirous as Mr. Pitt must at all times be to attend to b. r. h.'s commands, he is fearful that, from prior en-gagements, he is so circumstanced, as not to have it in his power to do so on the present occasion. I am, &c. (Signed)

Addressed: W. D. ADAMS."

"Lieut. col. Taylor."

SURINAM.

No. 12.

"The following appointments have resulted from the surrender of this colony; viz.

Sir C. Green, to be governor and commander in chief.

Capt. Drummond, 2d bat. 60th regiment, brigade major.

Capt. Campbell, 66th regiment, commander of fort Zelandria.

Capt. Maxwell, R. N. harbour master.

G. Chalmers, esq. collector of the customs.

Laur. Donovan, esq. comptroller of ditto.

J. Bent, esq. army agent, and contractor for prisoners.

— Pringle, esq. colonial secretary.

R. Ross, esq. private secretary.

D. Monro, esq, resident commissary.

R. A. Hyndman, esq. resident paymaster.

Lieut. Rowan, 61th reg. aid-de-camp.

Lieut. Imthurn, 2d battalion 60th regiment, military secretary, Vendue master at a per centage, on the same footing as at Demerara."

The right hon. CHARLES LONG, attending in his place, was examined as follows:

Do you recollect ever writing a letter, of which No. 15 purports to be a copy? I have no recollection of it; it is very likely I might have written such a letter; it sloes not appear to be a very accurate copy; it is dated "Bromley Park;" I never dated Bromley Park, but Bromley Hill.

[The following paper was read: No. 15, Letter from Mr. Long.]

No. 15.

"Bromley Hill, Kent, Aug. 30th.

Sir;—I am sure Mr. Pitt would have been very happy to have attended to your request respecting Mr. Kennett, but I know, upon the application of the D. of Y., he was informed that the office of Collector had been appointed to. As to the other office, having received a letter written by the desire of h. r. h. the Duke, I made enquiry respecting it, and I do not find that there is any such office as Assistant Commissary and Agent for Prisoners, (or Commissary General as it was called in the Duke's letter) to be appointed from hence; the Commissary General in the W. Indies, Mr. Glassford, recommends such deputies as he finds necessary for conducting the business of his department, and they are usually appointed by the Treasury in conesquence. The office of Agent for Prisoners I conceive to be under the direction and appointment of the Transport Board.

Believe me, sir, most faithfully your's,

C. LONG."

(To Mr. Long.) Can you state to whom the letter just read was written? It appears to be in answer to that of sir Horace Mann's, but I cannot state whether it was so or not.

[The following papers were read.]

No. 17.

"R. Kennett will be obliged to Mr. Greenwood, for Mr. Adam's address in Scotland, and if he can inform him about What time he will return.

Saturday morning."

Address.

"W. Adam, esq. Blair Adam, N. Britain."

No. 19.

"Blair Adam, 4th Oct. 1804, Scotland.

Sir;—I wrote to Mr. Greenwood, who would probably signify that I had received your's, and would go forward with the business as soon as I returned to town; I now (in case of your not being at a certainty) write to yourself, to say, that I shall desire to see you as soon as I return to town, which will be in the middle or soon after the middle of this month. I am, sir,

Your obedient humble servant,

WILLIAM ADAM."

Addressed:

"Mr. Kennett, 13, Moore Place, Lambeth."

No. 20.

"Lieutenant-colonel Taylor encloses, for Mr. Kennett's perusal, a letter from Mr. Chapman, and is very sorry to find from it that the situation of Vendue Master is disposed of. Mr. Chapman has been out of town, which accounts for the delay, in regard to the receipt of the information now given.—Should Mr. K. wish to see col. T. he will be here to-morrow between three and five o'clock.

Horse-guards, 22d Nov. 1804."

No. 21. "(Private.)"

"Downing-street, 22d Nov. 1804.

"Dear Taylor;—Lord Camden desires me to request you will express to the Duke of York his great regret, that the office of Vendue Master of Surinam was disposed of before you communicated h. r. h.'s wish in favour of Mr. Kennett. Believe me, very sincerely your's, JAS. CHAPMAN.

I should have given you an earlier answer, but have been out of town."

Addressed:

"Lt. col. Taylor," in an envelope, "To Mr. Kennett, &c. &c."

Lieut. Col. TAYLOR, was called in, and examined.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Look at that letter. (No. 8.) Is that your hand-writing? Yes, it is.

Peruse the letter, and state to whom it was addressed. I believe to Mr. Kennett, from what I have heard of this business; there is no address.

Peruse No. 13, and state to the committee, whether yon ever wrote the letter of which that purports to be a copy? I believe I did.

Peruse No. 18, and state whether you ever received the letter of which that purports to be a copy? I think I did.

Have you the letter which you received, of which you believe that to be a copy? I have not.

Do you know what is become of it? I believe I destroyed it.

It appears as if this was a draft of two distinct letters; do you mean that any letter you have received contained both those letters, or only one of them? I can only speak from memory; I think the transaction was in 1804; it is impossible for me to charge my memory accurately respecting it; I have kept no papers upon the subject.

Which of the two letters do you think you received a copy of? There is one of the letters I can read with difficulty; it is erased, and there are pencil marks in it; I believe them to be two distinct letters.

Did you receive both? I believe I did, I can only speak from memory.

You destroyed both that you received? I am confident I destroyed all I received.

One of these appears to have part written in pencil and part in ink; can you charge your memory whether that which you received had that written in pencil or that written in ink? I cannot charge my memory.

[The following Papers were read:—No. 13. Note from col. Taylor to Mr. Kennett.—No. 18. Rough draft of two letters from Mr. Kennett.]

No. 13.

"Col. Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is extremely sorry that he could not wait, as the Duke's carriage was waiting for him. He is directed by h. r. h. to say, that he will apply for the situation of Assistant Commissary General, &c. &c. at Surinam, but that he will lie able to do it with more effect, if sir H. Mann will write to h. r. h. recommending Mr. Kennett.

"Robert Kennett, esq. &c. &c. &c.

"Horse-Guards, Aug. 15th.

"No. 18.

"Sir, Moore Place, Lambeth,

I called Sept. 16th, 1804.

"I did myself the pleasure of calling on Mr. Greenwood yesterday, respecting the loan to h. r. h. and of my intention to write to Mr. Adam, which I did by last night's post, wherein I requested Mr. A. to say if I could forward the business in any way previous to his returning to town.

I beg leave, Sir, also to observe, I was with the gentleman yesterday, in the city, and I still respecting the business of Surinam, and who flatter myself with the possibility of gelling the still hoping if possible, to be yet favoured with appointment of C. the appointment of the collectorship, (in preference to any other) and in the event will he that h. r. h. wishes. advance to any amount the situation in particular (of army agent, &c.) being of trivial emolument, adequate to the risque of the climate."

"Sir; With all due reference and respect to h. r. h. the D. of Y. for his application in my behalf of the appointment of Army Agent, &c. at Surinam but as the emoluments of it are but trivial, adequate to the risque of the climate, (and the short time it may be in our possession) I beg leave to decline accepting it. Permit me Sir, to observe,

As there is yet a probability of succeeding to the appointment of without presuming

Collectorship of the Custom,^* I hope I may the A

have preference, but as I believe there is no A

warrant made out for it—but in the event

Sir, in that case, that is inevitably disposed of, allow me to h. r. h.'s patronage for A

solicit the situation of Vendue Master, at A

a per centage, on the same footing as at Demerara.

Addressed:

Lieut. Col. Taylor, &c. Oatlantls."

State to the committee what you know of the transaction respecting which, in your first letter, No. 3, you desired Mr. Kennett to call upon Mr. Greenwood.—As far as I call recollect, Mr. Kennett wrote to me at Oat hinds, a short note, stating that he had something to propose to me for the advantage of h. r. h. the D. of Y. and desiring that I would see him; I am not quite certain whether I appointed him there or in Loudon, but I think at Oatlands. Mr. Kennett mentioned to me I think then, or in a note (I cannot charge my memory exactly, having kept no notes,) but I think he verbally mentioned to me, that he could procure for h. r. h. the loan of 30 or 40,000l.; and as far as I recollect that was all that passed then, except that I said I should submit it to h. r. h. the D. of Y. and let him hear further from me upon the subject.

Do you recollect the date of this conference with Mr. Kennett? I do not.

State it as nearly as you can? I really cannot recollect.

Do you recollect the year? I do not recollect the year, I was told of it coming here.

Do you mean to state that this was the first step in this transaction? Yes, it was.

That Mr. Kennett volunteered his services? He did.

Did yon inform the D. of Y. of this application of Mr. Kennett's? I did.

What was the result? I was desired to refer Mr. Kennett to Mr. Adam.

Do you know any thing more which took place respecting that transaction? At that time, or subsequently, Mr. Kennett mentioned to me that he was very much supported by sir Horace Mann, with whom he had been long acquainted; and he told me, that sir Horace Mann had desired him to say he should feel very much obliged to me, if I could use my influence with the D. of Y. to assist him in obtaining a situation. I am not certain whether that was in his first verbal communication or in his second.

Was the second communication long after the first? No, very shortly.

Between the first and the second, do you know whether Mr. Kennett had seen Mr. Adam? I believe not.

What passed at that second meeting? I really cannot state exactly what passed; I cannot charge my memory with the particulars.

Did you state to the D. of Y. when the offer of the loan was made by Mr. Kennett, that sir H. Mann would be much obliged to the Duke if he could procure for Mr. Kennett a place? Mr. Kennett's communication respecting sir H. Mann was subsequent to the offer of the loan; the offer of the loan had been communicated to h. r. h. previous to the communication respecting sir H. Mann.

Are you certain that the communication respecting sir H. Mann was at the second meeting? I am almost certain, as far as I can be from recollection.

Are you certain that it was after the first conversation with Mr. Taylor? I have stated that it was subsequent to the first.

Do you mean to state, that you are not certain whether it was at the second or some subsequent meeting? Yes, it certainly was not at the first.

Did yon ever state that communication respecting sir H. Mann's wishes to the D. of Y.? I did.

How soon after Mr. Kennett had informed you of that wish of sir H. Mann's, did you mention it to the D. of Y.? I think, almost immediately.

You do not know what interval there was between the offer of the loan and that communication respecting sir H. Mann's wishes? I really cannot say.

Was the negotiation of the loan ever concluded? I believe not; but I do not know; for h. r. h. has not been in the habit of employing me in his money transactions.

Do you know any thing more of that negociation about the loan? Mr. Kennett called upon me several times, and wrote to me occasionally; but it is very difficult for me to recollect what passed upon the subject, from the time that has elapsed; but as far as I recollect Mr. Kennett mentioned to me repeatedly that he had seen Mr. Adam: he complained of Mr. Adam's delay; and at one time he said he really began to think that h. r. h. and Mr. Adam were indifferent about the loan, from having been put off so often as he had been.

State to the committee what you know with respect to the steps taken to procure Mr. Kennett a place, and the correspondence with Mr. Adam and others upon that transaction? In consequence of Mr. Kennett's communication to me, particularly that in which he mentioned, that, sir H. 'Mann was very much interested in his favour, I stated to h. r. h. the D. of Y. Mr. Kennett's wish to obtain an office; those offices were specified by him; I do not recollect what they were, and h. r. b. authorized me to write to Mr. Long upon the subject; I do not recollect writing any other letter; I probably have, but I cannot charge my memory, having had no reference to papers.

Were the two letters of which you have read the copy, (No. 18.) shewn to the D. of Y.? I cannot recollect, but I believe not.

Was the substance stated to the D. of Y.? I dare say it was.

Have you any doubt that it was? I have no doubt that I did state it to the Duke; not that I can positively say that I did; but I probably did.

Was it in the regular course that you should slate it to the Duke? I certainly should have stated it to the Duke if I received such letters, believing the communication to be intended for him.

Do you know whether Mr. Kennett ever obtained any appointment? I understood not.

What was the situation about the D. of Y. which you filled at that time? I was private Secretary to h. r. h.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.]

CHARLES GREENWOOD, esq. was called in, and examined.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Do you recollect Mr. Kennett coming to you? I do.

State to the committee all you know respecting that transaction.—I know very little about the transaction, further than Mr. Kennett's calling upon me, I understood by the D. of Y.'s commands, communicated by col. Taylor; I heard what he had to say, but I considered it a wild proposal, and did not much attend to it.

When was this? I really cannot recollect the time.

What was the proposal which you state to have been a wild proposal? Avery large loan, and without any thing required but personal security; that was the proposal to the best of my recollection; I may be mistaken.

To what extent was the loan? To the best of my recollection, 30,000l.; I am not at all clear upon it, but J think it was so.

Did Mr. Kennett state to you, that he wished for any thing else in consequence of the advance of this sum of money, besides personal security? I understood his object was to obtain some appointment for a friend.

What sort of appointment? I do not recollect.

Do you know who that friend was? I do not.

Do you mean an appointment under government? I concluded so; upon recollection, I doubt whether it was not some appointment in the West Indies that was his aim.

Did you state this conversation to the D. of Y.? I stated the substance of it.

What was the Duke's observation? I do not think that h. r. h. gave much attention to it, but said it might be enquired into, or something to that effect.

Do you know whether it was inquired into? I rather think that col. Taylor or Mr. Adam, I am not clear which, had directions to inquire about it.

Do you know, of your own knowledge, any thing more about it? I really do not.

Did you ever see Mr. Kennett upon the subject afterwards r He called upon me two or three times.

What passed upon those occasions? Repeating his offers, and I paying very little attention to them.

Did he at each lime repeat his application for a situation under government? I do not recollect that he did.

Are you certain about it? He might have possibly stilted his wish for an appointment under government more than once; I cannot be certain of it; but in general, the conversations were very short with me.

Did you communicate those conversations to the D. of Y.? I do not think that I did, all of them.

Did you communicate some of them to the D. of Y.? I remember telling the D. of Y., that I did not think it was a proposal that could be of any effect.

Did you ever state to the D. of Y. his wish to obtain the situation under government? I believe I did.

Did Kennett ever apply for a situation under government for himself? Not to my knowledge.

Always for a friend? I always understood him so.

Are you certain that he so stated it? I am certain that understood him so.

Did you know who Mr. Kennett was? I heard that he had been in trade in Bond-street.

Did you know what profession he carried on at that time? No.

Did you know where he lived? No, I rather think he lived somewhere beyond Westminster-bridge, but I do not know where.

Did you know that he had been a bankrupt? I do not know that for certain, I knew lie had been in trade, but whether he had failed or not, I do not recollect.

Did you ever inquire into this man's character? I had heard an indifferent character, I did not inquire about him.

Did you state the result of those inquiries to the D. of Y.? I believe I stated that he was a man not to be attended to; I think so.

Are you not certain that you did so? I think it must be so, because it was my feeling.

You have no doubt that you did so state? I have no doubt that I did.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Lieut. Col. TAYLOR was again called in, and examined.

(By Mr. Huskisson.)

Pending the transaction with Mr. Kennett, which you have mentioned, did you make any enquiry respecting his character? I did not, he was only known to me from sir Horace Mann's recommendation.

Did any friend of youths state to you any thing he knew of him? In the course of his visits to the Horse Guards, where he came three or four times, more or less, he was met by a person who asked me whether I had long known him; I stated to him that I only knew him from sir Horace Mann's recommendation, and from his communications to me subsequent to that. He then told me, that he had formerly known him; I think he said he had been a stock-broker, but I am not certain; but I am certain that he said he had failed, and that there were circumstances attending his failure which were not to his credit, and he cautioned me against him.

Did you communicate to h. r. h. the D. of Y. this information? I did.

What passed between yourself and h. r. h. in consequence of your making this communication? H. r. h. ordered me in consequence, to drop every further application in his favour.

Is there any other circumstance connected with the communications you held with Mr. Kennett that you can recollect, and which is material to this inquiry? I cannot say I recollect any other.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Do you recollect when that information was given you, respecting Mr. Kennett? I do not, it was after I had had several communications with him, as I have before stated.

Had you any communication with him afterwards? None that I recollect; I might have some verbal communication with him, but none that was material, certainly.

From whom was it you received this information? I was desired by the person giving me the information not to name him.

When you first saw Mr. Kennett, did be come recommended by sir Horace Mann? He did not.

Did you see him frequently before he was recommended by sir Horace Mann? I think it was the second time that he mentioned the interest sir Horace Mann took in his favour, and I think he brought a letter from sir Horace Mann to me.

Did he bring that letter in consequence of any wish expressed by you that he should bring some recommendation before you would enter into a negotiation of this sort? He did not, the recommendation from sir Horace Mann was spontaneous.

Did you not know that. Mr. Kennett had been a bankrupt? I did not, I knew nothing of Mr. Kennett till I received that information.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. attending in his place, was examined.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

State to the committee what you know of this transaction.—When this transaction was begun to be stated by Mr. Duff, and that he mentioned Mr. Kennett, I had not, at first, the most distant recollection of such a transaction ever having taken place; but as Mr. Duff went on and stated some circumstances, the recollection of such a transaction recurred to my mind, and the circumstance of my two notes and my letter having been put in my hand, has made that recollection still more accurate, as far as it is possible for me to call that accurate at all which rests in recollection at so long a distance of time. I remember to have seen Mr. Kennett on the business of this proposed loan, and upon that only; nothing, as far as I can recollect, was ever stated to me by him but that; and the first impression I now recollect that I had of it was, that it would not turn out a loan that could be entered into. I apprehended that soon after my first interview, if I had more than one with him in the month of August, I must have left town for Scotland, and, consequently, have known nothing of what was proceeding, if any thing was proceeding in the interval; and I can only account for the last letter, the letter written from Scotland, in ibis way; that previous to my departure from my residence there, I had been considering the different matters I was to enter into, probably, when I returned to town, and amongst the rest had written upon that subject. I do not recollect ever to have seen Mr. Kennett after my return; at the same time I think it is probable that I may have seen him, but the loan was put an end to, and all intercourse with Mr. Kennett was put an end to without any thing being clone. I think it right to say, that I knew nothing at all of Mr. Kennett when he first called upon me, or any thing; respecting his character. This is all I can call to my recollection.

Did you make any enquiries respecting the character of Mr. Kennett? I have no doubt that I must have made enquiries, though I cannot recollect them; and I think the information which col. Taylor mentions, must have been communicated to me.

Do you mean that it was communicated to you by col. Taylor? I can only say that I presume it was, but I cannot speak from any certain recollection.

You cannot say whether you heard it from col. Taylor? I cannot say positively whether I heard it from col. Taylor.

Nor can you recollect when you heard it? I cannot recollect when I heard it, but I think it must have been after my return from Scotland, in October, 1804.

What was that information? That he was a person not at all likely to accomplish the object, and a person of the character which hat been alluded to by col. Taylor.

G. L. WARDLE, esq. (having delivered in some letters,) was examined.

(By Mr. Lockhart.)

Are the letters which you have now delivered in, the letters which are alluded to in Mrs. C.'s letter of the 28th January? I presume they are; they are the letters of the officers she was to have got recommendations for; I know of no other letters, and I possess no others.

State with as much accuracy as you can, the time when you received these letters from Mrs. C.? I have no memorandums enabling me to state the date precisely.

In what year was it? It was within the last two months.

Are they the letters stated to have been delivered to you with a view to facilitate some negociation? Yes, I suppose so; they are letters of recommendation of officers for promotion, which I understood from Mrs. C were sent to her by Mr. Donovan for her to get further recommendations upon.

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. was examined.

(By Mr. Charles Adams.)

Were yon consulted as to whether the annuity to Mrs. C. should or should not be paid? No, I did not know of its having ceased to he paid.

Then the committee are to understand you did not advise the non-payment of the annuity? Certainly I did not.

Was it known to you that the Duke refused to pay this annuity? I knew it in no other way than by the communications which I had with h. r. h., as well as I can recollect at the time I received those letters from Mrs. C, which have been laid upon the table of the house.

Do you know the reason of such refusal? I did not know the specific fact or facts that was the cause of the discontinuance of the payment of the annuity, but I know in general from the same source, I mean from conversations with h. r. h., that the annuity was discontinued in consequence of an impression upon his mind, that Mrs. C.'s conduct had not been such as to fall within the condition upon which the annuity was originally granted; when I say originally granted I do not mean to have it inferred that there was any regular grant of the annuity, but that I was desired to state, at the time that I communicated to Mrs. C. that h. r. h. was not to see her again; that she was to receive a quarterly sum in the manner that I have stated in my former evidence, 100l. a quarter.

Did the discontinuance of that annuity arise at ah from the Duke's knowledge of her interference in military promotions? I had no reason to believe that h. r. h. was at all acquainted with any such interference at the time the annuity was discontinued. I wish to add, that the annuity was an annuity, the payment of which, as I have already stated in my evidence, did not fall within any fund of h. r. h.'s that was under my administration. I hope the committee did not think it improper I should go on to state, that this matter may be clearly and distinctly understood, which was a little misunderstood on a former night, notwithstanding the manner in which I endeavoured to express myself in the early part of this proceeding, that that portion of h. r. h.'s income which lie retains for his own expenditure in his family, on his property, and in whatever other mode his expenditure is applied, is not in the least within the province of my trust or knowledge; that all that is within my trust or knowledge is that sum which has been appropriated by h. r. h. towards the payment of the interest and the liquidation of the principal of those debts.

(By Sir James Graham.)

State, if you can, at what time, and by whom the impression was made upon h. r. h.'s mind to which you have referred? I certainly do not know by whom it was, made, nor do I know at what time it was made. I have already stated the time at which I first became acquainted with it, or nearly so.

Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and examined.

(By Mr. Lockhart.)

Are these the letters which you delivered to Mr. Wardle, in order, as you stated in your letter to Mr. Donovan, to facilitate some negociation? [The letters delivered by Mr. Wardle being shewn to the Witness] Yes, these are the letters.

When did you deliver these letters to Mr. Wardle? Soon after I received them from Mr. Donovan.

When did you receive them from Mr. Donovan? I do not recollect.

The letters appear to be all dated in the beginning of the year 1808, had you them in your possession from the time of the dates until you delivered them to Mr. Wardle? I cannot exactly say.

Look at the letter, and say whose handwriting it is? [A letter being shewn to the witness] I do not know.

Look at that letter (No. 2) and say whose hand writing you believe that to be? I do not know the hand at ail.

Look at the letter (No. 3) and say whose hand-writing you believe that to be? I do not know.

These letters purport to be certificates from officers; did you give these letters to Mr. Wardle with a view to his procuring the signature of any member of parliament as an additional recommendation, not knowing whose handwriting the Original recommendation was? I gave another to gen. Clavering, and he took the precaution of enquiring at Mr. Greenwood's, or the Adjutant-general's. I believe it is one of those I gave to gen. Clavering, that signed "Ross."

These letters purport to be certificates from officers; did you give these letters to Mr. Wardle with a view to his procuring the signature of any member of parliament as an additional recommendation, not knowing whose hand-writing the original recommendation was? Yes, Mr. Donovan told me they were all correct, and that they were the officer's recommendations in a proper manner.

Did Mr. Donovan tell you they were the hand-writing of the respective officers whose hand-writing they purport to be? Yes, he did.

Do you now know the hand-writing of the person who wrote either of these letters? No, I do not.

Do you know the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan? Yes, I have had a great many letters from Mr. Donovan.

Look at that letter and say whether that is not the handwriting of Mr. Donovan? I think that looks very like it, but I would not take upon me to say it is, when it is signed "William Wallace;" I think it looks very like it.

At the time you received that letter, did you conceive that the body of the letter was of the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan? No, I certainly did not, nor should I without looking at it again. I would not think that a man would presume to put another man's signature; and I am not sure that it is his writing now, but it is very like it.

Was the only reason for your not supposing it to be the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan at the time that you received it, that the signature was the signature of another person? I never made any remarks upon it at all; perhaps I did not read it.

Did you put letters into the hands of a member of parliament to procure his recommendation, those letters being original recommendations themselves, without reading them r Yes, I should, because the person would take care that it would be proper before be got anything done, as gen. Clavering did; he went to ascertain the writing, and found it to be correct, as he told me.

Look at both the letters signed "Wallace." [They were both shewn to the witness.] One is only a copy of the other letter? Mr. Donovan has copied this letter; I suppose you perceive that; if you read them, they are both the same.

When did you receive the copy, and when did you receive the original? I cannot tell; here they both are; I can tell nothing further than that.

Did you receive them both at the same time? I cannot tell.

The letters are not merely a copy; one is addressed at the bottom, and the other is not: General Leigh is left out in one.

Which is the original? That I will leave to the honourable house to find out; but the other is addressed on the outside to gen. Leigh, that is the only difference; what is at the bottom of one is on the outside of the other; it is only half a sheet of paper, that he could not put it upon the back perhaps.

How do you know that Mr. Donovan has copied the one from the other? Because it appears from looking at them; I think that the looking at them would convince any one.

You have now no doubt of one of these letters being Mr. Donovan's hand-writing? No, I think one is his hand-writing perhaps; it is very likely; I do not know.

(By Mr. Huskisson.)

Are these the letters which you state yourself, in your letter to Donovan of the 28th of Jan., to have put into Mr. Wardie's hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiations? Yes, I think they are: but gen. Clavering had one; I do not know what is become of that.

Are these all the letters you put into Mr. Wardie's hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiation? Yes.

And to which you refer in your letter of the 3,8th of January? Yes.

Explain to the Committee in what manner you conceived these letters in Mr. Wardle's hands were to facilitate a negotiation? He told me lie would get some recommendation from some members of parliament.

Mr. Wardle told you that he would use those letters for the purpose of facilitating this negotiation, by getting the signature of some members of parliament? Yes, he did, and he has made a different use of them; I dare say he never tried.

Then you were led by Mr. Wardle to expect he would accomplish the object for which you put these letters into his hands, that of facilitating a negotiation from which you were to receive some pecuniary advantage?? Yes, but I find now he was only laughing at me; it was only to get into the secrets of Donovan and myself.

(By Mr. Hanbury Tracey.)

What was the reason assigned for the nonpayment of the annuity, or was there any reason assigned? There was no reason whatever assigned.

Do you recollect what the conditions were upon which the annuity was to be paid? No, there were no conditions at all; Mr. Adam promised faithfully, both to me and to my lawyer, to see it punctually paid. I believe you are going to call in Mr. Reid; it is quite unnecessary, for I do not deny any thing Mr. Reid said about sending me wine.

Why, if the letters now produced are the letters you delivered to col. Wardle for the purpose of facilitating some negotiations which relate to army promotions, do you describe one of them, in your letter of the 28th of January, as referring to two deaneries? In my opinion it did not refer to any such thing.

[Mrs. Clarke's letter to Mr. Donovan, of the 28th of January, was read.]

Those are the letters he took away.

Can you state nearly the total amount of the different sums that were paid on your account by the D. of Y., during the period you continued under his protection? I knew nothing at all about it, what he paid.

Do you recollect whether your coachman in Gloucester place, was on board-wages? He lived in the house till he married, and then he was on Board-wages.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer,

See if Mr. Reid is in waiting.

Mrs. Clarke.

Why, sure, you are not going to send for him.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The witness may be assured that I would not call Mr. Reid if it was not necessary.

Mrs. Clarke.

I beg to ask, whether it is necessary for Reid to be called in while I am here; may I not take the sense of the honourable house upon that; (A laugh.

[Mr. Reid not being in attendance, the witness was directed to withdraw.]

G. L. WARDLE, esq. was examined.

(By Mr. Huskisson.)

Did Mrs. C. put any letters into your hands, avowedly for the purpose of facilitating the negotiation, and stating that to be the object? She put them into my hands, and said, she wished I would get them signed for her; but till she made known the circumstance last night, I really did not know what she meant by the term negotiation.

What answer did you make to this proposal? Really, I believe, I said my friends were on the wrong side of the house, or some answer of that description, and that very little more passed; and I took the letters, and kept them ever since.

Then if you stated that your friends were on the wrong side of the house, what led you to make that statement, not understanding what she meant by facilitating the negotiation? Certainly, when I heard her note read, I had not the most distant idea of what she meant, nor had I till I heard her state the circumstance last night.

Were the letters she put into your hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiation, the three letters you have delivered in this evening, or the letters referred to in her letter to Mr. Donovan of the 28th January? I believe the letters referred to in her letter of the 28th January were on the table of this house at the time she wrote that note, or very nearly so; I had the letters she refers to in that note a long period before that letter was written; I had the letters respecting the deanery and the queen, I believe, long prior to my having those I have delivered in to-night.

Then the Committee is to understand, that the letters referred to in Mrs. C.'s letter to Mr. Donovan of the 28th of Jan., as having been put into your hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiation, were not the letters described by Mrs. C. in her letter to Mr. Donovan? I should conceive it impossible, for I had them a long period before, and I believe they were upon the table of this house at the time she wrote that letter.

Were you aware that one of those letters which you delivered in this evening was in the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan? I certainly was not, I hardly ever looked at them till today; I perceived that one was a copy, but I never attended to it at all.

[The following extract from Mrs. C.'s evidence was read.]

"Explain to the committee Hi what manner you conceive those letters in Mr. Wardle's hands were to facilitate a negotiation? He told me he would get some recommendations from some members of parliament. Mr. Wardie told you that he would use those letters for the purpose of facilitating this negotiation, by getting the signature of some members of parliament? Yes, he did; and he has made a different use of them; I dare say he never tried."

(By Mr. Lockhart.)

Is that statement which has just been read true? I have before stated, that when Mrs. C. gave me these letters, I said, that my friends were on the wrong side of the house, or something of that kind; and I really do not recollect that any thing further passed upon the subject.

Did you make the promise which Mrs. C. has stated you made? I certainly did make no direct promise; I gave her that sort of answer, which I have a dozen times repeated to this Committee.

Did you make any promise whatever, direct or indirect? I have answered that question frequently; I never said more to her upon the subject than I have stated to the house.

(By Mr. Croker.)

Is Mrs. C.'s statement true or false? Really after I have most positively stated all that passed upon the subject, I should think the honourable gentleman is as equal to draw the conclusion as I am myself, it depends so much upon the impression at the moment, and my actions at the lime. I was anxious to get the letters; that I made any direct or positive promise, I am not at all aware; by my taking the letters away site might draw that conclusion, but I have not the least recollection of such a promise having been made by me.

Can you positively state to the house that you did not give Mrs. C. reason to believe when you left her, that you would carry into effect her wishes as far as was in your power? I have before stated, that I do not recollect making her any promise whatever.

(By the Attorney General.)

Did you, directly or indirectly, promise Mrs. C. that you would comply with her request? Whether or not my taking away the letters, and making her the answer I have before repeated, might indirectly lead her to suppose I would do it, is more than I can say.

Mr. Bathurst

begged to observe, that when one of their own members was called on to give evidence in his place, he stood in the same situation as any other witness. No witness in a court of justice would venture to make his statement and then tell the judge and the jury to draw their own conclusions, in a similar case. He therefore was of opinion that the honourable member was bound to answer the question.

Mr. H. Martin

contended, that, the question was merely a repetition of a question that had been several times answered. Did the hon. member mean to ask whether the general statement of Mrs. C. was false? The right hon. gent, who had just sat down appeared to him to have fallen into a misapprehension respecting the practice as to evidence in courts of justice; for unquestionably it would be a sufficient answer to a repetition of a question in any court of justice, to say that the question had been already answered by the witness.

Mr. Bathurst

denied that the question of the hon. member had yet been answered.

Mr. Whitbread

agreed with the right hon. gent., that the question, "Whether the statement of Mrs. C. be true or false," had not yet been answered; but the question had been put in a shape which appeared to be pressing hard upon a member of that house. His hon. friend had often declared what he had said to be, that his friends sat on the wrong side of the house. It was possible that Mrs. C. might understand the words of his hon. friend to imply the promise she stated. She and his hon. friend might have a different understanding of the conversation that passed on the occasion. But though he admitted that the question "true or false," had not been answered in a direct shape by his hon. friend, he contended that it had been repeatedly answered in substance.

Mr. Wardle

had no hesitation to answer the hon. member's question if he had known how. He was certainly anxious to get the letters, and had already stated all that passed; bat it was impossible for him to say what might have been the impression upon the mind of Mrs. Clarke.

The Attorney General

observed, that there could be no doubt of the propriety of the question. Mrs. C. had stated that the hon. member had made her a promise, and the lion, member denied that he had made any direct promise. The next question, therefore, to ask, was, whether the hon. member had made to her any direct or indirect promise, and, surely, there could be no offence in that.

Mr. Wardle

again stated, that he had no objection to answer that question. 'He never had made Mrs. C. any positive promise, and had already informed the house of all that he had said upon the occasion.

Mr. Croker

declared that he had put it in that particular form from a feeling towards the hon. gent. During the examination this night, and fast night, he had observed that questions had been put in an indefinite form, to which answers had been given that did not prove satisfactory to any body. To avoid all ambiguity, therefore, he had put the question in a direct shape, in order to afford the hon. member an opportunity of giving an answer. It was the hon. member who had the conversation with Mrs. C, and it was he, therefore, that was competent to draw the conclusion.

Mr. Barham

thought that it was more a question of conclusion than of fact, and the hon. gent. could not be called on not only to give his own opinion, but his opinion of the opinions of others.

Mr. Croker

said he had done his duty in putting the question, it was for the hon. gent, to answer it as he thought fit, and the Committee to require what appeared to them necessary.

Mr. Wardle.

I was anxious to get the letters, but made no direct promise that I am aware of.

Mr. Reid

was called for, but was not in attendance.

Mr. Beresford

rose to put a few questions to the hon. member (Mr. Wardle,) whilst the Committee was at a stand waiting for the witness.

Lord Folkestone

rose to order. He thought the proceeding which had just taken place, of the most indecent description. The witness who was under examination had been ordered to withdraw at his instance, because he thought it would not be proper to call in the other witness while she was still at the bar. That suggestion had, however, been over-ruled, and Mr. Reid was called for; but when it was found that he was not in attendance, the gentlemen opposite had resorted to a kind of interlude, in a course of indecent examination of his hon. friend, in order to eke out the time till their witnesses should arrive. He must add, that it was no improper representation of the whole to call it a highly indecent, improper, and indecorous proceeding.

Mr. Beresford

replied, that the representation made by the noble lord of his conduct, was neither a faithful, just, nor a true representation. He had not communicated with any body about him as to the questions he had to put, and had acted solely upon a sense of his duty, thinking the time lie rose the most convenient to put his questions 1.0 the hon. member. Unless the Committee should stop him, he should, if not then, at least before he left the house, put those questions to the hon. member.

Lord Folkestone

disclaimed any idea of accusing the hon. member of having com- municated with others. It was the whole tenour of the examination that he complained of.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

begged to otter an observation on the censure which the noble lord had thought proper to cast upon some persons, whom he chose to consider as a corporate body, in bestowing that censure for the course that the examination had taken. The object he had himself in view in calling in Mr. Reid was, that, as Mr. Reid had given evidence as to the female who passed at his hotel as Mrs. Dowler, and it was impossible he could stale her to have been the witness at the bar, he might, by appearing with her at the bar, be enabled to ascertain that fact. Upon inquiry, however, it was found that Mr. Reid was not in attendance, and whilst the Committee had to wait for his appearance, he was himself prepared to make that statement, to which he proposed to call the attention of the Committee after the case was closed on the other side. Mr. Reid had been sent for, but in the mean time several members thought proper to put questions to the hon. gent., out of which had arisen that debate which incurred the censure of the noble lord, and in which he had himself taken no part. He could assure the Committee, that no individual had communicated with him on the subject of the questions that they had put, and which called down the animadversion which began with him singly, and was afterwards extended to others. As Mr. Reid was not yet come, if the Committee would permit him and the other gentlemen upon whom the noble lord's censure had fallen, and would consent to let the matter rest here, he was prepared to state a fact which had been ten or twelve days in his knowledge, and which had been communicated to several gentlemen upon both sides of the house. He had reserved the communication of this fact till the case had been closed, and if the Committee should be of opinion that the circumstance ought to have been communicated earlier, the fault was entirely with him. His r. h. had wished him to make the statement earlier to the Committee, and consequently he alone was culpable, if it had been improperly withheld. The fact he had to state was, the suppression of testimony as to one of the charges which had been brought before the Committee, namely, that with respect to major Tonyn's case. It appeared by the minutes, that a sum of mo- ney had been lodged by capt. Tonyn to be paid to Mrs. C. and Mr. Donovan in the event of his promotion taking place. It appeared, also, that after some time, capt. Tonyn became impatient, and demanded his security back in May or June. (Here the right hon. gent, referred to the parts of the Minutes of the Evidence of Mrs. C. and capt. Sandon relative to that part of the transaction.) The important suppression to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee was in the evidence of capt. Sandon. But before he mentioned the circumstance, he should state to the Committee the manner in which be received the information. On Saturday se'nnight a letter had been delivered to him by col. Hamilton, from his learned friend opposite (Mr. Adam), acquainting him that col. Hamilton had an important communication to make. He saw col. Hamilton a few minutes after he waited on him, and learned from him, what he collected from capt. Sandon, since his arrival in England from abroad. Col. Hamilton was an officer in the Waggon Train, to which capt. Sandon also belonged. On his arrival in England, col. Hamilton learned the stale of things with respect to the charges brought forward in that house, and, amongst others, that respecting major Tonyn's case. Col, Hamilton then sent for capt. Sandon, who stated to him all he knew of the transaction, being all he had stated at the bar of the house afterwards, with the exception of what he had suppressed. Capt. Sandon said, that when major Tonyn became impatient, he went to state the circumstance to Mrs. C, who sent him back to major Tonyn to inform him that she had received a Note from the D. of Y. respecting his case, which Note was shewn to major Tonyn by capt. Sandon. The Note was, "I received your Note, and Tonyn's case shall remain as it is." This Note was intended to shew that the person to whom it was written had influence, and, in consequence, major Tonyn consented to let his security remain. When major Tonyn was gazetted, capt. Sandon was directed to shew him another Note, purporting to have been written by the D. of Y., and stating, "Tonyn will be this night gazetted." The former Note capt. Sandon shewed to col. Hamilton, and said, that he thought it would be the best course to destroy it. Col. Hamilton, on the contrary, strongly dissuaded him from destroying so material a part of the evidence. The other Note had been given to major Tonyn by capt. Sandon, but was not afterwards given back. Col. Hamilton mentioned the matter to his learned friend, and, by his advice, went to capt. Sandon, when he obtained a copy of the Note, and again repeated his injunction to the captain not to destroy the Note. He understood that capt. Sandon, when he came to London, proposed to see Mr. Lowten, agent for h. r. h., and also to wait on Mrs. C, in order to his being examined by each. His learned friend had sent col. Hamilton to him, and followed soon after himself. It appeared to him, as he trusted it would to the Committee, that his learned friend and himself should instruct col. Hamilton as to the course which capt. Sandon should pursue. They recommended that he should not submit to be examined either by Mr. Lowten or Mrs. C, but keep himself clear of all interference on either side, until he should come to the bar, but above all things not to destroy the paper. These were the instructions which had been given to col. Hamilton. It would also strike the Committee, that his communication ought to have been made to h. r. h. the Commander in Chief. But whatever might be the result of the investigation then pending, neither he, nor his learned friend, as members of parliament, could, consistently with a sense of duty, make themselves the depositaries of this secret. As it had been communicated to them, they felt they were bound to make it public. The communication of the circumstance had been made to the Commander in Chief late on Saturday. His r. h. utterly denied all knowledge of the matter, and declared the Note to be a forgery. The Commander in Chief came shortly after to his house with his learned friend, and restated with the strongest conviction, upon the best efforts of his memory, that he had no knowledge of the matter, and that he wished it to be sifted to the bottom. As to the fact of the Note relating to the appearance of major Tonyn'sname in the Gazette, h. r. h. could not be so positive. He could not state that he might not have written such a Note, in answer to a Note which might have been addressed to him; he could not call the circumstance to mind. The other Note, however, h. r. h. most positively denied having written. His learned friend had stated what passed between col. Hamilton and capt. sandon, who acted as it was wished he should. He told col. Ha- milton that he would come here, and, as he did, tell the truth, but that he had destroyed the Note. When they found that the Note had been destroyed, they ceased to have any communication with capt. Sandon, and hit him to come to the bar, and state what case he should think proper. He had come to the bar, but had suppressed this important feature in his evidence, which, whether the Note were a forgery or not, ought to be communicated to the Committee, in order that, if a forgery, the authors might be detected and punished, and, if not, that it might have its due weight in the pending investigation. He had thought it his duty to make this communication to the Committee; and, if there was any impropriety in having delayed it till this period, the fault was his, though he had reason to suppose it ought to have been brought out in the examination of evidence at an earlier period of the inquiry.

Mr. Adam

observed, that his right hon. friend, who just sat down, had stated this most important circumstance with so much correctness, clearness, and accuracy, that little more remained for him than to corroborate his statement. The learned member then briefly recapitulated the several facts mentioned by the former speaker, and stated, that in his interview with the Commander in Chief, h. r. h. distinctly and clearly disavowed ever having written such a Note. On the day subsequent to the interview, col. Hamilton mentioned to him the destruction of the Note. It was then agreed between him and the right hon. gent., that they should both make communication of the circumstances to certain gentlemen on each side of the house. The right hon. gent, had done so to his side, and he to a noble lord (H. Petty), an hon. member near him (Mr. Whitbread), and another.

Captain HUXLEY SANDON was called in, and examined.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

You were examined the other day on the subject of major Tonya's promotion; did you on that occasion state all the particulars you recollected of that transaction? To the best of my recollection I did.

You did not keep back any important fact? No, not that I recollect.

You stated that major Tonyn was dissatisfied with the delay; that you observed to him, that he had better wait for a few days, for that you thought in all probability lie would be gazetted; and, after arguing the point for a little, he said, for two or three gazettes it does not signify; let the business go on; and if I find I am gazetted in a week or ten days, the business shall be as it originally was? I believe that was what I mentioned.

And that was what then passed? That is what I can bring to my recollection.

That is all you can bring to your recollection? Yes.

Did it pass in those words? As nearly as I can recollect.

Do you recollect any of the arguments you used to persuade major Tonyn to think that this friend of yottr's had an opportunity of influencing the Duke? Not particularly; I told him I thought he had better wait two or three gazettes, and most probably he would be gazetted; indeed I had reason to suppose that it would: that was all that I can recollect.

Did you inform Mrs. C. of Mr. Tonya's inclination to withdraw his money? Yes, I did; I waited on Mrs. C. which I related before, and told her he was dissatisfied at the delay, and desired he might have his memorandum again, which was for the 500 guineas.

Do you recollect what passed with Mrs. C. upon that? Mrs. C. said he was a shabby fellow, but she wanted money, and begged that I would desire him to stop for a few days, and most probably he would be gazetted.

That is all that you can recollect that she desired? That is all that I can recollect she desired.

You are quite sure of this? To the best of my recollection.

Recollect yourself thoroughly that you may not be taken by surprise; will you now continue to state, that, to the best of your recollection, this was all that passed? I think it is all that passed, that is my opinion. Do you recollect whether there was any paper shewn to major Tonyn in the course of that conversation? A paper, how do you mean?

Was there any paper shewn to major Tonyn? Mrs. C. gave me a note that I should shew to him.

Then you did not state all that passed? I took her note to say that he had better wait.

A note from Mrs. C.? Not immediately a note from Mrs. C. to him; she said, shew him this note, that he had better wait. He doubted that; he doubted that I had any body that I could apply to, he doubted my ability to get the situation.

Then you did use some other arguments than those you stated in your evidence by the production of this note? I merely said I thought this was the business. I did not mention who it was that was the interest; I said I had a paper which would shew that probably he had better wait; merely to say, that he had better wait.

What was the note to say, that major Tonyn had better wait? That I cannot recollect, I cannot charge my memory what it was.

Do you recollect from whom the note was r From Mrs. Clarke,

A note from Mrs. C. to yourself? Yes, merely to say that if he would wait a little time he would have it.

The note you shewed was a note from Mrs. C. to yourself, to prevail upon major Tonyn to think he had better wait? Whether the note was addressed to me, or to any other person, I cannot say; but it was said, you had better take this note, and shew to him, and let him see, that if he will wait the thing will be carried through.

Your recollection is, that it was to the effect of advising major Tonyn to wait a little while? To wait with patience for a few Gazette days. That is the substance of it? That was the substance of it, as well as I remember.

Did you see Mrs. C. write the note when you called upon her? I do not recollect that I did. You are not sure that you did not? I am neither sure that I did, nor that I did not, she was very impatient about the money.

You have no recollection whether you saw her write the note or not? No.

You are quite sure you received a note from her? Yes, I am quite sure I received a note from her.

Did you see Mrs. C. more than once, to communicate to her the doubts of major Tonyn? I cannot recollect, I cannot call to my memory whether I did see her again.

There was not more than one note? No, I had only that piece of paper which I mentioned. Do yon recollect what you did with the note; did you give it to major Tonyn? That I do not recollect, whether I gave it to major Tonyn, or what became of the note.

You really do not recollect? No, I do not.

Though you are not quite sure whether you saw Mrs. C. write the note or not, are you certain whether it was Mrs. C.'s hand-writing? I cannot pretend to say, I rather think it was.

Have you always stated this part of the case in the same way? I believe I have, I think I have.

Did you never tell any body that this note was a note in the hand-writing of h. r. h. the D. of Y.? Not that I recollect.

Are you sure of that? I am very confident of it.

When did you first hear of these charges against h. r. h'? the D. of Y.? I landed at Plymouth, I think, on the 24th of the month, and in coming from Plymouth to Portsmouth, by accident I took up the Traveller, and there I read these charges.

Do you know col. Hamilton? Perfectly well; I have the honour of being in the regiment with him.

Did you represent to col. Hamilton this part of the story in the way you have represented it now? I certainly asked col. Hamilton's advice bow I should act upon the business, being the colonel of the regiment I belonged to, and I related chiefly what I knew of the business.

What you have stated now? Yes.

Recollect yourself; did you not state to col. Hamilton that the note which you shewed to major Tonyn was in the hand writing of the D. of Y.? I do not recollect that I did.

Could you have done so? I should imagine not.

Are you sure you did not shew him the note? If I had, I certainly should not have forgotten it.

That is not quite an answer to the question? I had not die note to shew.

Did you not either give or permit col. Hamilton to take a copy of this very note that we are talking of? Not that I know of.

You surely must know that fact, whether you gave him a copy, or gave him an opportunity of Citing a copy of this note? I really cannot bring it to my recollection.

If you had not the note in your possession, you surely would be able to bring to your recollection whether you gave him an opportunity of copying it? I rather think there was something of a note.

When was it that you now begin to recollect there was something of a note? It must be when col. Hamilton took the note, or saw the note.

Then he did take the note? He must have seen the note of course, if he took a copy of it.

You told me you thought he did not take a copy of it? I cannot pretend to say whether he took a copy, of it.

Do you mean to say, that there was or was not a note referable upon this subject, which you shewed to col. Hamilton? Yes, I think there was a note.

Was it the same note you shewed to major Tonyn? That I do not recollect; I rather suppose it must have been the note that I did shew to major Tonyn.

Did you tell col. Hamilton that it was the same note? I do not recollect that circumstance at all, whether I did tell col. Hamilton it was the same note.

Your memory, at the first time a question is put to you, is not always so perfect as it is afterwards; do you recollect whether you did represent it to col. Hamilton as the same note you had shewn to major Tonyn? I shewed col. Hamilton the note.

You now recollect that there was a note, and that you shewed it to col. Hamilton? Yes, perfectly.

What is become of that note? I believe the note is mislaid.

When did you see it last? I saw it about six days ago, I think.

A note that you did not recollect to have been in existence when you began your examination, you now recollect to have been in existence six days ago? Yes.

Have you looked for it lately? Yes.

When? Yesterday, and the day before.

This note, which you did not recollect to have been in existence? It is true; could I have f mud it, I should have brought it.

I think you were examined just six days ago f Was it six; I really do not recollect the day.

Did you see that note the day of your last examination? It might be the day after, or the day, but I cannot recollect which.

You have done all you could within these few days to find it? I certainly have.

Are you quite sure you have not actually destroyed it? That I am very confident I have not.

Are you quite sure that you have not said you had destroyed it? No, never did I say that I had destroyed it to any body.

Did you not tell colonel Hamilton that you had destroyed it? No.

That you are positive of? That I am certain of.

Did Colonel Hamilton ever desire you not to destroy it? Colonel Hamilton desired me to speak every thing that I knew, and to shew every thing I had.

Did he not expressly desire you to copy that paper, and not to destroy it? He desired me not to destroy any paper I had.

Did he not expressly desire you not to destroy that paper? Certainly.

Did he not do that more than once? I am sure I do not know; I have not more than once conversed with him.

You had conversation with him at Portsmouth, had not you? Yes, but he did not know that I had this paper, for I hardly knew it myself.

Did not you tell him you had a paper which you might destroy if you pleased? No. You are quite sure of that? Yes. And that he did not advised you upon that occasion not to destroy it? If I had had any idea, I might have destroyed it without telling him; I told him, and he advised me not to destroy it. Where was this? At Portsmouth.

Had he it at Portsmouth? I had not the paper with me at Portsmouth, I told him I thought there was a note in existence.

Upon that occasion he did advise you not to destroy it? He did advise me not to destroy it; he said, do not you destroy a single thing.

When was it that colonel Hamilton took a copy of this paper? I believe it was the day after he came to town:

Do you recollect where you were when he took this copy? It was at the Coffee-house.

At what coffee-house, in what part Of the town? I think it is Southampton-row.

When colonel Hamilton took this copy, did he again remark to you, that you should keep this paper and not destroy it? He desired me not to destroy it.

Did he at no second time desire you not to destroy the paper? Certainly.

Did you see colonel Hamilton again in the course of the same day? I rather think I did. Where did you see him? I saw him at the British Coffee-house.

What did colonel Hamilton say to you when you saw him at the British Coffee-house? It was upon regimental business I met him then.

There was no reference at all to this subject? Nothing to this, I do not recollect a word.

Do not you recollect that he did upon that occasion also desire you not to destroy the note? No, I do not recollect that.

Did he not give you some advice with respect to your conduct referable to these charges? The same advice that he had given me before.

Which was, that you should not destroy the paper? To speak all I knew, and not destroy the paper; but this was in the morning, not at the second time when I saw him at the British Coffee-house; we came into the street together, he went one way, and I another.

Then nothing passed between colonel Hamilton and you upon the subject of these charges at the British Coffee-house? I do not recollect that there was.

Do not you recollect colonel Hamilton advising you not to suffer yourself to be examined upon the subject before you came to the bar of the house? I believe not at that period; he told me, when I was speaking to him in the morning, you had better be quiet upon the subject, say nothing to any body upon the subject, but when you are called, speak what yon know, and do not destroy the paper.

Do you not recollect, that at the British Coffee-house, colonel Hamilton advised you not to submit to examination, but to speak the truth when you came here: and above all things, not to destroy that note? Not at the British Coffee-house.

Did he, at any place subsequent to your meeting with him at the Coffee-house in Southampton-row, in the course of that day? I do not think I have seen him more than three times since I have been in London, and he has been with his regiment at Croydon.

You did see him a second time that morning? At the British Coffee-house.

And upon the occasion of seeing him at that Coffee-house, or your going from that Coffee-house, did he not repeat this advice? I do not recollect that he did.

Do you not recollect stating to colonel Hamilton that you would follow his advice, but that he would be very angry with you, for that since he had seen you last you had destroyed that paper? Never such a conversation took place between us.

Neither at that time or any other? No.

You never stated to colonel Hamilton that you had destroyed that paper? No.

Did you tell colonel Hamilton that there was another paper that you had shewn to major Tonyn, when the promotion was gazetted? I had not another letter, I could not tell him that.

It does not follow that because you had not it, you could not tell him you had had it? I never had it.

Did you tell him you had had it? No.

You did not tell him you had had it, and given it to major Tonyn? No.

When did you see this paper last? I think it is about five or six days ago.

Where? In my own room.

Have you seen it since you were examined last? No.

Are you sure of that? Sure of it.

You stated, just now, you had seen it either the day before or the day after? That was the time I saw it.

Did any body else see it at that time? Not that I recollect.

Have you shewn it to any body else besides colonel Hamilton since you have been in town? No.

Where did you put it when yon saw it last? Among some other papers which I had in my bureau.

You are quite confident you have not got it now? I have mislaid it somewhere.

Did you carry it about with you in your pocket at any time? Never.

Was it with you when you were in Spain? No.

How came it to be with you in the Coffee-house in Southampton-row, if you never carried it about with you? To shew colonel Hamilton.

Had you it with you when you were at the British Coffee-house? No.

Had you gone home between being at the Coffee-house in Southampton-row and coming to the British Coffee-house? Yes.

Where do you live? In Lyon's Inn.

You stated that Mrs. Clarke gave you the note in question? Yes.

(By Lord Temple.)

Did you read the note when she gave it to you? I believe I did.

Was it a sealed note or an open note? An open note.

You stated that you had not the note with you abroad; where did you lodge before you went abroad? At Lyon's Inn.

Did you leave your papers at Lyon's Inn? Certainly.

The note you say was not a sealed note; to whom was it directed? I do not recollect that it had any address.

You surely must recollect when you read the note; did you read it when Mrs. Clarke delivered it to you? It is so long ago I do not recollect; it is five years ago nearly, and I cannot charge my memory whether I read it or not.

(By Mr. Cavendish Bradshaw.)

Were you not to receive some pecuniary consideration from some person or other on the gazetting of major Tonyn? Not a farthing.

Why were you so anxious that major Tonyn should wait a few days in hopes of his being gazetted? To oblige Mrs. Clarke, who wanted the money exceedingly.

Were you confident that he would be gazetted in a few days from the influence of Mrs. Clarke? No; I doubted her influence very much then.

(By Mr. Whitbread.)

Can you, by any possibility, now produce the note? It is not about me.

Can you by any possibility, now produce the note? If I can possibly find it, I will produce it

Is it possible that you should find it? I have searched every where and I cannot find it.

Is it possible that you should find it? I should hope it is possible.

What is the ground of that hope? Having put it among other papers in my bureau.

Is it then in the bureau? That I do not know.

Has any body access to that bureau but yourself? Now and then my wife.

Do you know that that note is now in the possession of your wife or any other person? Not to the best of my knowledge.

Have you given that note into the possession of any body to be kept? No.

Have you given it into the possession of any person to be handed to another person to be kept? No.

Is it or is it not destroyed? Not, to the best of my knowledge.

Have you given it to any person to be destroyed? Never, to the best of my knowledge; I have not destroyed it.

Do you know that it is destroyed? I am pretty clear that it is not destroyed.

If you are pretty clear that it is not destoyed, where did you put it when you last it had? Among some papers in my bureau.

Have you the key of that bureau now about you? No, I believe my wife has it.

What makes you so clear that it is not destroyed? Because I never desired it should be destroyed.

When you say you never desired it should be destroyed, that answer has reference to some other person to whom that desire must have been expressed, if you have desired it; whom do you mean when you refer to some other person, to whom such desire must have been expressed? I know of no other person in the business.

Then what do you mean by saying you never desired it should be destroyed? I was asked if I had desired it should be destroyed, and I said no.

You were asked whether it was destroyed? And I said, not by my desire.

You neither destroyed it yourself, nor desired any other person to destroy it? No.

Then it is in existence? I should hope it is.

(By the Attorney General.)

You say that you put this paper into a bureau with other papers, when did you do that? I believe it was at the time, of course the last time I saw it, which might be five or six days ago.

How long was it before you were examined here before? I do not recollect.

In what room in your house is this bureau, in which you say you put it? It is in my sitting-room; I have but one sitting-room.

Have you searched that bureau for it since? I have looked for it, but could not find it.

Have you examined the papers in that bureau, to see whether it is among them? I have a variety of papers, it may be among them; I have searched, but could not find it.

Do you mean to say you have searched in that bureau for it? Yes.

(By Sir Samuel Romilly.)

You have said that you saw this paper six days ago, was that the same paper which was given to you by Mrs. Clarke? I think it was.

Are you sure that it was? I am very certain that it was.

Did you read it six days ago? No.

If you did not read it six days ago, how are you sure it was the same paper you received from Mrs. C.? It is a remarkable piece of paper, and I could not forget it.

What was there remarkable in the paper but the writing on it? Dirty.

You have said that you saw the paper six days ago, and that you looked for it two days ago, where did you look for it two days ago? Where I had supposed I had put it, in the bureau.

You said that you left it six days ago with other papers in a bureau; when you locked two days ago, were the other papers there? I think they are.

And this paper was the only one then missing? It appeared so to me.

Who had the key of your bureau, between this six days ago and the two days ago? Sometimes myself, sometimes my wife, sometimes it is left in the bureau.

Do you think that if a messenger was sent with you now to your rooms, yon could find the papers? I really do not know.

What do you believe? I really cannot tell; I looked two or three times for it, and I could not find it two days ago; it is mislaid in some place or other.

What reason had you, in the beginning of your evidence this night, for saying you did not believe that such a paper had ever existed? It was a very unpleasant circumstance, and I would have wished to have forgotten it.

What circumstance do you mean was unpleasant? The whole of the business I thought unpleasant.

Why did you, having come to the bar of this house to disclose every thing else you knew upon the subject, think this circumstance particularly unpleasant? I did not think this circumstance particularly, but the whole of it, as I mentioned before, unpleasant.

When you shewed this note to col. Hamilton, and he took a copy of it, did you at that time read it? No, I did not.

When you first mentioned the note to col. Hamilton, how did you describe it? Speaking of the promotion of major Tonyn, I said there was a note in my possession that mentioned something about his promotion.

By whom did you state that note to have been written? I cannot take upon me to say.

Can you take upon yourself to say you did not state it to have been written by the D. of Y.? I never saw the D. of Y.'s hand-writing, and therefore I could not.

Can you take upon yourself to say you did not state it to have been written by the D. of Y.? I certainly could not.

Did you? No, I did not.

Did you state it to have been written in the name of the D. of Y.? No.

In whose name did you state it to have been written? I stated no name.

As you permitted col. Hamilton to take a copy of this note, did you yourself take a copy of it? No; having the original, there was no occasion.

Did you think this a note of any importance? No, I did not.

Was the copy col. Hamilton took of the note a correct copy? I do not know.

Did you read the copy which col. Hamilton took? No.

(By General Phipps.)

Was there any signature to the note? To the best of my recollection, none.

Did you know whose hand-writing it was? No.

Do you know Mrs. C.'s hand-writing? Sometimes.

Was it in her hand-writing? I really cannot take upon me to say.

Did you ever see her write? Repeatedly.

Does Mrs. C. write in different hand-writings, or always in her own? I have repeatedly had notes from Mrs. C., which have been written so differently, that I could not have supposed them to be the same person's writing.

(By Lord H. Petty.)

Have you, either before or after you communicated this note to col. Hamilton, had any conversation or communication with any person whatever respecting that note? Not to the best of my recollection.

(By Sir James Graham.)

Was any person present, six days ago, and two days ago, when you were searching for this note? No.

You are sure there was no person in the room at that time? No, except my wife, she might be in the room.

Had your wife and you any conversation upon this subject? Of course, a great deal, which we have every day.

Did she ever state to you that she had destroyed the note? Never.

Did she ever state to you that she had delivered it to any other person? Never.

Did you ever desire her to take it out of the bureau? Never.

(By Mr. Bathurst.)

How was the copy taken? Col. Hamilton copied it.

Was it compared with the original after it was copied? Not that I know of.

Where did you put it after it was copied? Into my pocket-book.

With other papers, or singly? Singly.

Did you go home from the coffee-house? Immediately.

How did you deposit it in the bureau? By putting it in the bureau.

Did you put it in a bundle with any other papers? Not that I recollect.

Endeavour to answer positively to questions within your own knowledge? I cannot re-collect whether I did or not.

Have you searched all your bundles of papers as well as your loose papers? Generally speaking I think I have.

How can you undertake to say, it is not in your bureau, if you have not searched all your papers? I think I have searched all my papers.

When you met col. Hamilton at the British Coffee-house, you say you did not tell him it was destroyed? Certainly not.

Did you say any thing to him about the note? I had no conversation with him upon the subject.

Then you did not say to him, that "they had forgot the note?" No, "they forgot it."

Any such words as that? No.

What is it makes this particular circumstance of the note so unpleasant to you? It is no further unpleasant than my losing the note; if I could find it I should produce it with the greatest pleasure.

Did not you say, that the reason for your not admitting that you knew of this note, at the beginning of this examination, was, that it was an unpleasant circumstance that you wished to forget? The whole of the business I conceive to be unpleasant, and I was very sorry that I had any thing to do with it.

What is there particularly unpleasant in the circumstance of this note? My having lost it or mislaid it.

How can the circumstance of your having lost it, induce you to deny your ever having had it? From the reason that it was unpleasant throughout the whole.

What is the unpleasantness you conceive in confessing you have lost it, if it be true? I should be very sorry that I had lost it, and I hope I shall find it.

What is the unpleasantness you conceive in confessing you have lost it, if it be true? That is the unpleasant part, that I have lost it.

What is the unpleasant part? That I have lost it.

How can the circumstance of your having lost it, induce you to deny your ever having had it? From the reason that it was unpleasant throughout the whole.

Did you not deny, at the first part of your examination, that you had such a note? I conceived that I had not the note.

Were you asked whether you had not the note now, or whether such a note had ever been in existence? I was asked, in the first instance, whether the note was in existence, or whether a note was in existence, and I believe I doubted it; since which I have recollected it.

(A cry of Withdraw! withdraw! from all parts of the House). The Witness retired.

The Speaker.

Mr. Wharton, upon the present occasion, I conceive the first proceeding is to move that captain Huxley Sandon has been guilty of gross prevarication in the testimony he has given this night at the bar. (Cries of move, move.)

Sir S. Romilly.

I rise, Sir, not to object to the proposition of the right hon. gent. but, as I am anxious to put a question to the witness, I wish to ascertain whether it would be in order after the committee had adopted this resolution. (Cries of move, move!)

The Speaker.

I beg leave to move that capt. Huxley Sandon has been guilty of gross prevarication in the evidence that he has given this night at the bar.

The question being put, was, amidst continued cries of aye, aye, carried nem. con.

The Speaker.

I next move that the chairman do immediately report that Resolution to the house.

The house having resumed and having received the Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, That the said capt. Huxley Sandon should be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.—(Cries of Newgate! Newgate!).

The Speaker

communicated to the house, that in such cases there were two distinct processes to be followed.

Lord Folkestone.

As an amendment to the motion of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I move that the said witness be forthwith committed to the gaol of Newgate.

Mr. Bathurst

wished to know, whether by not acceding to the amendment, the original motion was hazarded?

The Speaker

stated, that there were three modes for the adoption of the house, namely, to commit the witness to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, to deny any access to him, or to send hi in to Newgate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that it was by no means his intention to limit his motion to the dry committal of the witness to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. There were other objects to be considered, such as directing the Serjeant to convey the witness to his lodgings, in order to examine for this Note amongst his papers, and to have him near to the house, in case the committee should feel a wish to examine him on any point which may subsequently arise.

Lord Folkestone,

on those grounds, withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Sumner

recommended the expediency of seizing on all the Papers of the witness, and of taking the wife into instant custody, lest she should destroy the document which was sought.

The Speaker

intimated, that although the precedents of the house empowered it to apprehend supposed delinquents, and to send its officers to make every examination conducive to the ends of justice, still it would consider seriously whether the present was a case to carry such a power into effect.

Earl Temple

considered it a case where the house ought to appoint a Committee for the examination of all the papers of the witness. He believed there were precedents in the period of the South Sea House investigations.

The Speaker.

Such a power was exercised in the reign of Charles 2, when a committee was deputed to examine the papers of Mr. Montague, at Whitehall.^*

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought, that the house should not in the present stage, direct that the wife of the witness should be taken into custody, although it might be expedient to have her summoned.

Mr. Sumner

explained, that his object in recommending such a proceeding, arose out of the evidence of the witness himself, who stated, that his wife had access to the bureau in which this note was placed.

Earl Temple,

conceiving it probable that other papers connected with the issue of this investigation were in the possession of the witness, thought it advisable in the house to depute two of its members, to select and examine all the papers at his lodgings.

Mr. Bankes

considered the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to send his Serjeant at Arms, or his proper officer, as the milder and equally an effectual course.

As the motion to that effect was about to be put, the Serjeant at Arms stated to the House that capt. Huxley Sandon would be glad to be again brought to the bar.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

believed the house would have but one opinion on this application, namely, that it was desirable to have the prisoner again brought to the bar, and he should not be at all surprised to find that he had brought the paper with him. ^* See Cobbett's Parliamentary History, vol. 4, p. 1033. In a few minutes capt. Sandon appeared at the bar in custody.

The Speaker.

What has capt. Huxley Sandon to state to this house?

Capt. Sandon.

I most humbly hope that this hon. house will do me the honour of excusing my prevarication; and I beg to assure them it is not from a bad heart, but a contused head. I am exceedingly sorry I have done any thing to displease this honourable house. I come here to offer every thing in atonement I possibly can, and I hope the house will do me the honour to hear me.

Mr. Speaker.

If the prisoner has more to offer to the house, this is his time.

Capt. Sandon.

With regard to the evidence? Is it to the evidence I am to speak?

Mr. Speaker.

You will offer to the house whatever you think becomes your case and situation.

Capt. Sandon.

I beg pardon of the house for my prevarication, and I beg that the house will do me the honour to excuse my extraordinary behaviour; and will be assured, that all I have, and all I know now I certainly will relate. With regard to the Note in question, it is not destroyed; I have it in my possession at my chambers; if it is required I can go and fetch it; I think I can put my hands upon it: the note that you were speaking of was given me to shew major Tonyn, and to say that his promotion would not go on unless he paid the money. I took the note, and produced it to major Tonyn, with that message. I shewed him the note, with what I mentioned before, desiring him to wait three or four days. I believe he said what I related to this honourable house before, that he would, in consequence of this note which I shewed him. I brought back the note, and I have it now in my possession. He was gazetted, and the 500l. was paid to Mrs. C. and the 25l. to Mr. Donovan. It this honourable house would wish to see the note, I will go and fetch it. As to who wrote the note, I cannot take upon me to say: Mrs. C. told me it was written by the D. of Y.

Mr. Speaker.

Does the prisoner desire to add more?

Capt. Sandon.

I have nothing more to say relative to that; I only humbly hope the house will do me the honour of excusing me the prevarication I made use of.

[The prisoner was then taken from the bar; and the house determined that he should be sent in custody to his chambers to fetch the papers; and that he should be brought before the committee of the whole house whenever they should see fit. After some time the Committee was resumed.]

Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in and examined.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Do you recollect what passed between you and capt. Sandon in consequence of any appli- cation from major Tonyn, expressing his impatience at the length of time that elapsed before he procured his appointment? No; I really do not know, although I have been reading capt. Sandon's evidence just now in the room I have been in.

Do you mean the evidence he gave on a former day when he was examined? Yes.

In the 5th number of the minutes? I believe it is one of the last that has been printed.

You do not recollect capt. Sandon's coming to you at all upon the subject? I recollect that capt. Sandon was employed by major Tonyn; I am confident as to that.

Do you recollect capt. Sandon's at any time acquainting you with major Tonyn's impatience upon the subject? No, I do not, although I have been reading about it.

You do not remember any representation having been made to you by capt. Sandon, that major Tonyn intended to withdraw the deposit he had made, in consequence of delay? No, I do not recollect it; though he might have, perhaps, mentioned it.

Do you recollect having sent any message to major Tonyn by capt. Sandon? I cannot recollect that I did; perhaps it is likely, but it is a long while since.

Do you recollect having sent any paper to major Tonyn by capt. Sandon? What sort of paper.

Any paper? I could speak more positively if it was mentioned what sort of paper.

Any written paper? Of my own writing, or any other person's?

Any written paper? I do not recollect; I was always very cautious of giving any written paper out of my hands.

As far as you recollect, you have not sent any written paper to major Tonyn? I do not think I did, but I cannot speak positively.

As you were so cautious in putting any paper out of your hands, would you not have recollected that circumstance if it had occurred? If he meant to insinuate that there was any writing of the D. of Y.'s, I never did in my life to any one.

You are quite sure you never committed any paper to capt. Sandon, which you represented as the writing of the D. of Y.? I am quite certain, not to any one whatever, except lately, and once to Mr. Manners a few notes.

If you had sent such a paper by capt. Sandon to major Tonyn, is it possible that you could have forgotten it? No, I should not have forgotten any thing of that sort belonging to the D. of Y.

Are you acquainted with Mrs. Hovenden? I was.

(By Mr. Fremantle.)

Do you recollect at any time having received a note from the D. of Y. upon the subject of major Tonyn? No, I do not; there was no occasion for any notes to pass, because I was in the habit of seeing h. r. h. every day, except he was in the country, and that hap- pened perhaps only for a week or ten days in one year.

Did you ever bear capt. Sandon say, that he had shewn a note to major Tonyn which purported to be a note of h. r. h. the Duke of York? No.

You are not aware of any note, purporting to be a note of the D. of Y., being shewn major Tonyn by capt. Sandon? No, I am quite clear nothing of the sort was ever mentioned to me before.

Do you mean to state, that you did not give any note to capt. Sandon which might appear to be a note of the Duke of York? No.

You stated that you sent some notes to Mr. Manners; do you mean to state that those were in the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? Certainly I do.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer).

Did you or did you not send any note to capt. Sandon? I never recollect sending him any note, but more especially any note of the D. of Y.'s, because I should have been afraid of entrusting it to him.

[The following questions and answers were read: "As you were so cautious in putting any paper out of your hands, would you not have recollected that circumstance if it had occurred? If he meant to insinuate that there was any writing of the D. of Y.'s, I never did in my life to any one.—You are quite sure you never committed any paper to capt. Sandon, which you represented as the writing of the D. of York? I am quite certain not to any one whatever, except lately, and once to Mr. Manners a few notes]

How does it occur to you to think that capt. Sandon might have insinuated any such thing? Because I think he might have insinuated any thing; I think he is very equal to it.

If capt. Sandon has presented any note to major Tonyn, purporting to be a note written by the D. of Y., and given to him by you, is it true? I do not think it is, and I am almost sure it is not; perhaps he has written one himself.

During the negotiation with major Tonyn for the majority, was any representation made to you by capt. Sandon, that major Tonyn was tired of waiting, and threatened to withdraw the money he had deposited? I do not recollect it.

(By Mr. Alderman Combe.)

Did you ever express to capt. Sandon a wish on your part that major Tonyn would not be impatient, because you wanted the money which you were to receive upon his success? No, that would be the very reason I should wish him to be impatient.

In the last interview you had with capt. Sandon upon the subject of major Tonyn, did he write any thing in your presence? It is impossible for me to say, it is so long since.

Do you recollect capt. Sandon having read any thing to you in that interview? No, I do not.

Do you recollect a paper being produced before you by capt. Sandon at that interview? I do not.

(By Sir George Hill.)

Did you ever express, here or any where else, that major Tonyn was a shabby fellow, for his impatience in wishing to withdraw his note? No, I thought him a perfect gentleman when Mr. Donovan introduced him to me, and wished him to be made a lieutenant colonel previous to his going to America; I fancy he is in America now.

(By Mr. Brand.)

Had capt. Sandon any and what interest in the success of this negotiation respecting major Tonyn? Yes, I believe he effected it with me; there was no promotion in the 48th regiment, the D. of Y. had stopped it, I think, for two years, and the captain was very eager to get out of it, on that account.

Was capt. Sandon to have any per centage or proportion of the profit arising from the success of the negotiation, and payment to be made upon major Tonyn's success in his application for promotion? I believe that he was, for I have understood from a great many persons, that major Tonyn was a very generous sort of man, and capt. Sandon would not have interested himself so much as he did for him without some reward.

Did you ever understand from capt. Sandon himself that he expected any such advantage? Yes, I did, and from every one that he mentioned to me.

Before you came to the bar of this house, had you any information of the substance of the examination of capt. Sandon before the Committee to-night? Not the least.

[The following Question and Answer were read. "As you were so cautious in putting any paper out of your hands, would you not have recollected that circumstance if it had occurred? If he meant to insinuate that there was any writing of the D. of Y.'s, I never did in my life to any one."]

Why did you suppose that the person proposing that question meant to refer to any writing of the D. of Y.? From what one of the gentlemen said to me.

Do you mean any question which has been put to you since you came to the bar? Certainly.

Which question? The questions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Did you give capt. Sandon any part of the profit you were to receive from the promotion of major Tonyn? I do not recollect that I did, but he used to give himself, I believe, from col. French's money.

You did not give him any yourself? I do not recollect that I did.

You have said, that you understood from capt. Sandon, that he was to derive same profit from the promotion of major Tonyn; state what capt. Sandon said to you upon that subject. Only that my 500l. would be clear, and that where he had his from would be from the other party, what emolument lie was to get by it.

Mr. REID being called in,

Mrs. Clarke.

—Is there any precedent, may I ask, for having two witnesses at the bar of this house at one time? (Loud laughing.)

Chairman.

—I apprehend the Committee will call to the bar what witnesses they please.

Mr. JOHN REID was called in, and examined.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Do you know the witness at the bar? Yes, I do.

Did she ever come to your house under the name of Mrs. Dowler? By no other name.

Is the witness at the bar the person whom you represented as having been frequently at your house with Mr. Dowler? Yes.

Mrs. Clarke.

—Before Mr. Reid leaves the place, I beg leave to say, that I never said I was Mrs. Dowler; he might put what construction he thought proper upon it; it was very proper that he did, perhaps.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

(To Mr. Reid.) Did she ever answer to the name of Mrs. Dowler in your presence? To my servants, I have no doubt that was her answer; upon all occasions whenever I spoke to her, I always, I suppose, said "Ma'am," but if I mentioned any name, it was Mrs. Dowler.

Did you ever hear her addressed as Mrs. Dowler in your presence? Yes, I have.

Did she answer to that address? Yes.

Did. you ever hear her answer to the name of Clarke? I never heard her called by any other name but that of Mrs. Dowler? I never heard her called by the name of Clarke.

(By Mr. A. Baring.)

Did you believe her name to be Dowler? I had not a doubt of it.

And you believed her to be married to Mr. Dowler? I had not any doubt of that.

Did nothing ever occur to induce you to entertain a doubt of that? Never.

You always believed the witness at the bar to be Mrs. Dowler, mid the wife of Mr. Dowler? Yes, I mentioned that before, and I mentioned a very particular circumstance, why I thought so.

( By Mr. C. Adams.)

Have you ever heard Mrs. C. say that her name was Dowler? I never heard her mention her name at all.

Would you not have been afraid of the credit of your house if you had called her by any other name? Good God! I should not have thought of any thing of the kind.

Did any letters ever come to Mrs. C. by any name whatsoever, while she was at your house? Not to my knowledge; they never came under my inspection, they came to the bar.

By whom did you ever hear her called Mrs. Dowler? By all those that spoke to her there; when they came to my house, if they asked for her at all, they asked for Mrs. Dowler.

Did Mr. Dowler ever call her Mrs. Dowler in your presence? Upon my word I could not take upon me to swear it, but I always understood it to be so, and I never had any doubt about it.

By whom did you understand it to be so.? By Mr. Dowler himself calling her Mrs. Dowler.

Did Mr. Dowler and that lady always come there together? No.

(By Mr. Wardle.)

Did Mr. Dowler lodge there at any time? Yes.

And that lady came occasionally? Yes.

Mrs. Clarke.

That was when the bailiffs were after me.

Were there many inquiries made at your house in the name of Mrs. Dowler? I seldom answer any inquiries at all, I leave my wife to do it; and, indeed, it is the business of the barmaid. [Mr. Reid was directed to withdraw.

Mrs. Clarke.

May I speak a word; I merely wish to ask a question of some of the crown lawyers. (A laugh)

[The Chairman informed the witness that could not be permitted.]

(By General Lofftus.)

(To Mrs. Clarke.) Do you know Mrs. Hovenden? Yes, I do.

Was it at the period of time when she was under the protection of Mr. Dowler, brother to the Mr. Dowler who has been examined at the bar? He has no brother.

Were you in the habits of visiting the Taylor family when they lived at Bayswater? Yes.

Do you know Mrs. Taylor very well? Yes.

Do you know Mr. Taylor? Yes.

Did you know there was a Mr. Taylor? Yes, Miss Taylor's father.

Did you ever see Mrs. Taylor write? No, I cannot say that I did.

You never have been in the habits of corresponding with her? No, only with Miss Taylor, and Mr. Dowler dues not know Mrs. Hovenden.

Do you know a Mr. Chance, a stock-broker? No, I do not.

Do not you know that the Mr. Taylor you speak of was Mr. Chance? No, I know he is not; I know he is Mr. Taylor.

Do you recollect a circumstance about two or three years ago, of the Miss Taylor who was examined at this bar, being about to be married to a Mr. Knowles? No, I do not; I know there was a young man paid his addresses to her, I believe a physician, but I do not know that there was any marriage intended; I fancied she had not liked him.

Do you not know that did not go on on account of her name not being Taylor? No, I do not, for I know her name is Taylor, and she has five brothers in his majesty's service, who bear the same name; three in the army, and two in the navy.

Do you know the age of Miss Taylor? No.

Do you suppose her more than five or six and twenty? I cannot tell any thing about her age.

Do you know that Mrs. Taylor is a widow, and not a married woman? No, I do not, because I know her husband.

Did you keep a man cook at the time you lived in Gloucester-place? Yes.

Did you keep more than one? The man generally used to bring his assistant with him; it is a regular thing that when yon have a man cook, that an assistant conies with him.

You did not keep a man cook by the year? No, they staid a very short time with me, any one; his royal highness is very difficult.

[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]

Mr. Beresford

then rose, and said, that he had been addressing the Committee at the time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to introduce by a long statement the fact which had been disclosed to them this night. He should therefore return to the subject that he had been speaking of at that time. The noble lord (Folkestone) had, in a very unparliamentary way, imputed to him motives which he had no right to do. He had said that his object in putting some questions to the hon. gent. was merely a desire to spin out the time till other witnesses arrived. This was stating most unjustly (A loud cry of Order! Order!)

The Chairman

considered that the hon. gent. was not in order.

Lord Folkestone

thought the hon. gent. had completely misapprehended what he meant to state.

Mr. Beresford

would not say more on that point, as he had appeared to the Committee to be out of order. But he would put a few questions to the hon. gent. who brought forward the charges.

G. L. WARDLE, esq. was then examined in his place.

(By Mr. Beresford.)

Have you placed upon the table of this Committee all the correspondence you have had with Mrs. C. relative to the accusations you have brought forward? No, certainly not.

Have you any objection so to do? Yes, most assuredly, I have a very great objection.

Have you any objection to lay upon the table all those letters which you took from Mrs. C.? Those letters are already all laid upon the table; I do assure the hon. gent., I do not know that I have a letter of Mrs. C.'s at this moment by me.

Had the hon. gent. had any conversation with Mrs. Sutherland on this subject?

Mr. Wardle

begged that if the hon. member had any imputation to cast on his conduct he would state, it; at present he did not understand the drift of these questions.

Mr. Beresford

said, that he asked them in consequence of a note he had received from Mrs. Sutherland.

Mr. Abercrombie

said, that if there was any thing in it that related to the enquiry, he ought to read it, and thus have a foundation for his questions.

Mr. Beresford

said, there was nothing in it that at all referred to the inquiry. (A laugh.)

Lord Folkestone

moved, that the question be not answered.—The question was expunged.

Mrs. ALICE CORRI was called in, and examined.

(By Sir James Hall.)

Are you married to Mr. Corri, the music-master? Yes.

How long have you been married? As near as I can recollect, five years next April.

Do you know Mrs. Clarke? Yes.

Do you recollect a conversation that passed between Mrs. C. and your husband, yourself being present, with regard to certain papers which Mrs. Clarke expressed great anxiety to have burnt? Very little.

Relate what, passed upon that occasion, as far as you recollect. I recollect Mrs. C. telling Mr. Corri she was just going to him, that he came very apropos, for that there had been something satirically inserted in the news-papers, something relative to a female Clerk; I cannot recollect the whole of it, not thinking that I should be called here; and she begged if there were any letters, Mr. Corri would immediately burn them.

Were you employed in burning them? Yes, Mr. Corri gave them to me.

Did you actually destroy them all? Not then; I did not destroy any of them at the time; I laid them in a box, and never thought of them till just before this proceeding began; I think last Saturday fortnight or three weeks, Mr. Anthony Corri, son of Mr. Corri, brought a newspaper to us, stating that his father would be called to the house of commons; it immediately then came to my mind, that I had those letters by me, and he advised me to burn them? and he said, I had better not say any thing either to his father or any body else, but to burn them; which I did two days afterwards.

What motive did Mrs. Clarke assign for wishing to have those letters destroyed? I really do not know; I cannot say; I do not recollect it.

Did she not express a fear with respect to the D. of Y.? I have something faint on my memory, but I could not say it positively; for the conversation was directed to Mr. Corri, and I overheard a word or two; I never thought of being called here, and therefore did not pay particular attention to it; I have a very faint idea, but cannot recollect exactly.

Did any thing pass as to the apprehension of the Duke's anger? I have some recollection, but I cannot positively say; it was something of the kind.

(By Mr. Wardle.)

Did you ever peruse the letters that were in your possession? I looked them slightly over before I burnt them.

Are you sufficiently acquainted with the contents of the letters to speak positively as to the subject? I cannot recollect one word that was in them, for I was in a very great hurry, and very much afraid lest Mr. Corri should know that I had disobeyed his command in not burning the letters sooner; and I burnt them as quick as possible.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Captain HUXLEY SANDON being brought in, in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, was examined by the Committee, as follows:

Have you found the paper? I have.

Have you got it with you? The messenger has it, and every other paper that I had, that was connected with it.

GEORGE WHITTAM, esq. was examined.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Where did you find this paper? I found this letter in capt. Sandon's bureau; this is the letter, I understand, I was sent in search of particularly.

Have you any other paper? There were two other letters of Mrs. C.'s in the bureau, which captain Sandon put into my hands.

Any other letters any where else? Here is a bundle of letters of Mrs. C.'s principally; they were in this brown paper, and in capt. Sandon's bed-room; they were taken out of the paper, and I sealed them up.

[Mr. Whittam was directed to withdraw.

(To Capt. Sandon.) Look at that paper, and see whether it is the paper you shewed to major Tonyn? I think it is.

Is that the paper you received from Mrs. C.? Yes, it is.

You received it from her own hands? Yes, she gave it me.

Was any one present at the time? I believe not.

[The Note was read.]

"I have just received your Note, and Tonyn's business shall remain as it is—God bless you."

Addressed,—"George Farquhar, Esq."

Did not col. Hamilton give you the advice which he had given you before, either at the British Coffee-house, or in the street near the British Coffee-house, on your meeting on the Saturday? I do not recollect that he mentioned any thing in the street; in the Coffeehouse he could not, for there were others in the same box; he said, will you come out, and we went out.

Did he not when you went out? We went out together.

In the street did he not say something to you upon the subject? I do not recollect it.

Did he not desire you not to destroy the papers, and did you not say that he would be very angry with you, for that you had destroyed it? Never to my recollection.

What are the other papers which you have given in? They are letters from Mrs. C. to me.

Are they on the subject of major Tonyn's business? Not precisely upon major Tonyn's business; upon the levy, and major Tonyn's business.

What is the reason you denied having possession of this letter? I can urge nothing upon my behalf; and I hope this honourable house will do me the favour to excuse it.

Were you directed by any person to do so? No.

What motive had you for so doing? I had no motive whatever; I am ashamed of myself for my conduct; I could have none.

(By Mr. Simeon.)

When you delivered that letter to major Tonyn, did you deliver it open or sealed? It was open.

(By Mr. W. Smith.)

You have stated that you considered this to be a paper of no importance; if you considered it to be a paper of no importance, assign any possible motive you could have for taking so much pains to conceal its existence? I can urge-nothing.

You must perceive there is a great deal of difference between being able to urge an excuse, and being able to assign a reason; you are not desired to give an excuse, but to assign any probable reason, because it appears that some reason you must have had? I can urge no reason whatever for it.

Were not you conscious that you were telling a falsehood? I have already acknowledged that I am ashamed of what I have done.

Then do you expect the Committee to believe that you came hither and told a falsehood deliberately, which you knew to be such at the time, without having any motive for so doing? I had no motive whatever for doing so, but again beg the house to do me the favour to excuse me for telling them that falsehood.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

When Mrs. C. gave you that letter, did she tell you it was written by h. r. h. the D. of Y.? I do not exactly recollect whether she said it was written by him, but she said it came from him.

Do you know the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? I never saw it in my life, to my recollection.

Did Mrs. C. at any time express any anxiety to recover the letter she had intrusted to you? No, she never mentioned it, and I never heard any thing more about it.

Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of Mrs. C.? Yes.

Does it appear to you that the note in question is the hand-writing of Mrs. C.? No, it does not.

(By Sir W. W. Wynn.)

Have you had any communication with any other person on the subject of the production or non-production of that letter in this place? None.

Who is George Farquhar, esq. to whom the letter is directed? I really have no knowledge who he is.

You stated before, that Mrs. C. was used to write in different hands, do you now assert that? In the letters that are there you will find a vast variation in the hand.

Did you ever see Mrs. C. write? Repeatedly.

Should you know her hand-writing if you saw it? Yes, I think I should.

Do you, or do you not, know who wrote that letter? No, I really do not.

(By Mr. A. Baring.)

In the course of your long acquaintance with Mrs. C., and your communication with her Upon business, did she ever, upon any other occasion, communicate to you a note from the D. of Y.? Never.

She never communicated a note from the D. of Y. on any business but this? Never.

Can you recollect what she said upon communicating this note: whether it was communicated with any caution to take care of it, or not to communicate it to others? No, I cannot recollect any thing of the circumstance.

Did Mrs. C., or any other person, ever desire you to destroy the letter in question? Never.

You have stated that you have seen Mrs. C. write different hands, did you ever, see her write different hands? No.

Then what do you mean to say she writes in various hands? In the letters addressed to me, which are now before the house, there is a variety in the hands.

[The witness was taken from the bar.

Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in; and the Note delivered in by the last witness being shewn to her, she was examined.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Do you recollect ever seeing that paper before? I suppose I must have seen it before, for it is h. r. h.'s writing.

What reason have you to suppose you have seen it before? I do not know how it could have got into that man's possession, unless I gave it to him, and it was a direction I used very often to get from h. r. h., "George Farquhar, Esq."

Do you now recollect having given to capt. Sandon a letter upon this subject? No, I do not, nor do I recollect giving him that; but I think I must have given it to him, because it must have been in my possession first.

Do you always write the same kind of hand? I cannot exactly say how I write, I generally write in a great hurry.

[Two Bills being shewn to the witness.]— Those are the two bills for which capt. Thompson was arrested the other day.

Are they both your hand-writing? Yes, guiding my mother's hand; they were both before the court-martial.

Were they both, guiding your mother's hand? If you will read the minutes of the court-martial, you will see.

Were they both, guiding your mother's hand? Yes, I think they were.

Did your mother hold the pen and you guide her hand, when you wrote both those? It was the general way in which I had done with her, for these four years.

Did you in point of fact, on that occasion, guide your mother's hand when she held the pen? Yes, I did.

And in both of them? Yes, I believe I did; it has quite her sanction.

I do not ask whether you had the authority of your mother to draw these bills in your mother's name, but whether you can now recollect that your mother held the pen while you guided her hand in writing both those drafts? What would be the insinuation if she did not?

You must answer the question. Then I must answer to the best of my recollection: my mother was in the room at each time, and Mr. Manners; you think, perhaps, there is a difference in the hand-writing.

You must answer the question.—I am not quite positive, but I dare say I did, for I knew she was privy to both, and was in the room when both were done; but there was something irregular on the back about the indorsement; perhaps you wish to make it appear a forgery.

I do not aim at any such object, but wish to know whether you can take upon yourself to state that those bills were both written with your mother's hand, you guiding it? I am positive as to one.

Which? I cannot say which; if I had at all been terrified about the bills from any thing improper in them, I should have got them out of the way.

Do you write the same kind of hand when you are guiding your mother's hand as when you write your own? Very nearly, only that I do not write so quick when I am with her; I have done it five hundred times; she cannot write without a guide, not lately; it must be my own writing, because she has very little use of her hand, therefore it is my writing, and not her's.

Does not the fact of your having your mother's hand in your own, while guiding the pen, make a difference in the appearance of the letter? It is very likely that it may, I never attended to it; it has generally been something short where her hand was used, such as signing her name, or half a dozen words.

Look at these, and see if both are not written in that way with the same hand? I really cannot say; I do not see much difference between them; I should rather think this one was the one, if it was either; if I did write it alone, this dated July, that is the quickest writing, it seems as if it was done quicker than the other.

Do you mean to say you do not see much difference between the writing of those two notes? It does not strike me there is a great deal of difference; I have seen the notes before, and I believe made nearly the same observations; and if I was at all conscious of any thing improper in them, I certainly should have paid them before, for I dare say I have had it in my power.

Do you ever write different hands? No, I do not know that I do, I do not pay any attention to it; other people are the best judges.

Is the indorsement of the note that is indorsed, in your hand-writing? No, it was done the same; my mother was by, and I guided her hand.

That is guided too? Yes, it is upon the same bill, and Mr. Manners was by both times, and I believe he was not much better acquainted with the bill drawing up than ourselves, which made something incorrect here; nor was capt. Thompson, to whom he gave them as paymaster.

Have you ever imitated other hand-writing? No; You do not mean that I imitated the Duke of York's?

Have you ever imitated any hand-writing? No, not to make any use of it; I might, with two or three women, laughing, or any thing in that way, imitate a hand, but not to make any use of it whatever; not to send it out ever.

You have done it, to see whether you could do it? I do not know that I have done it, but it is very often, when women are writing, that they might say, come, you write a hand, and see whether it is like any one's hand; I have done it lately; several of us were sitting together, and we were playing at some kind of game; perhaps there might be some bad construction put upon that.

What have you done? I have said, 'is not this like such a sort of hand,' and 'that like Such a sort of hand.'

What sort of hands were you imitating at that time, when you asked, 'whether it was like this sort of hand.' or 'that sort of hand? I do not know; it is very ridiculous to mention here I think. There is a game you play at, you put down a man's name and then a woman's, and where they are, and what they are doing, and then make along roll of it.

Is it a part of the game to imitate the handwriting of the man whose name you put down? No, but it is very likely when you have written a man's name to say, 'it is very like the way in which he writes it himself:' or when speaking of a woman, 'it is very like the way in which she writes her's,' if they should be friends whom you name.

Is it any part of the skill in that game to write the name as nearly resembling the handwriting of the person whose name it is as possipossible? No, I should think not; I wrote, without knowing it, something in the office here, that I was told was very like the writing of a person here.

Whoso writing did they say it was like? They said it was like the Speaker's hand.

Is there any other person's hand-writing that you have resembled? It was accident, I never saw his writing.

Have you never told any body that you could imitate the hand-writing of any one? No, I do not recollect that I have: there was a story went about that I had forged for 2,000l. with the Duke of York's signature, "Frederick," but I never did, I never signed his name in my life, except when he has been there, and we have been trying together, how near I could write to him, and he to me.

You have tried sometimes to see how near you could write to the D. of Y.? Yes, but I never did it but when he was by.

Could you write very near when you tried? I do not know, he is the best judge of that; I believe if he was asked, he would not say I had ever made use of his name in any writing.

In point of fact, when you did attempt to write like him, did you succeed? I am sure I cannot tell.

You know his hand-writing? Yes, he fancied it was a great deal like his signed Frederick; that was all I ever attempted about it.

Do you know a person of the name of Town? Yes, I do, a velvet painter.

Did he ever instruct you in velvet painting? Yes, he did.

Do not you recollect having told him, that you thought you probably might make considerable proficiency in that art, as you made great proficiency in writing, and copying hand-writings? No, I never told him any such thing; you will recollect he is a Jew; it is ridiculou

You are quite sore you never said any such thing? No, 1 should never have said such a thing to such a man.

Did you ever write in his presence? I do not know; he used to be with me a good deal in the morning, when I was learning the velvet painting, and it is very probable I might have been writing to many persons when he was there; besides he was to have got a loan for the D. of Y. from Jew King, but h. r. h. would not have any thing to do with him when he found they were Jews, when Town went to him, but I do not know that it was Jew King at the time; he told me it was a regular gentleman.

Did you ever, in a playing way, attempt to imitate the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? I do not think I did to him.

Not to Mr. Town? No.

Have you to any one else? I do not think I have, but he has seen a great many ladies, when he has been with me in a morning, and if he listened to any of our conversations, and made remarks upon it three or four years afterwards, I cannot say any thing to such a thing; the only question is, to ascertain whether I ever did make use of the D. of Y.'s name; if I had I am sure it would have been against me long before this; perhaps he might have stolen something that might have been lying about the house.

That Town might? Yes, he might very likely.

Some of this writing, perhaps? He might have taken papers away perhaps, and thought they might have been the D. of Y.'s; I believe he had a note of introduction from me to the Duke before he had seen those people about the money.

Did you, in his presence, ever imitate any other person's hand-writing but the Duke's? I do not know that I ever did at all in his presence.

But he may have been in the room when you did this with other ladies, and have overheard you? Perhaps he might; he has been there three or four hours of a morning.

He may have been in the room when you were with other ladies, and have overheard the conversation which passed between yourself and your visitors? Perhaps he might; I did not stick to the painting, and perhaps in the morning persons might call upon me.

[The Note being again shewn to the Witness.]

Look at the seal of that Note; do you know that seal? It is the D. of Y.'s private seal; I dare say I have many like it at home.

What is the inscription upon it? 'Never 'absent.'

Is the motto in French or English? In French.

Who is George Farquhar? There is no such person in existence, I believe; it was one of my brothers; I lost two in the navy, and that was one of them.

(By Mr. Brand.)

You do not recollect to have received that letter which you state to be in the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? No, but I must have received it, because it is addressed to me, and it is h. r. h.'s writing; I do not think he ever wrote to any other person under the name of George Farquhar but me.

Do you recollect having applied at any time to h. r. h., to suspend the promotion of major Tonyn? I do not recollect that I did, it is a long while ago; if it is meant that I wrote that note of h. r. h. 's, I dare say he will not deny it, if it is shewn to him; I have seals that will exactly match with it on other letters of his own.

Do you recollect any application to h. r. h. which could have given rise to an answer similar to that contained in the note which has been read? No, I do not recollect any thing about it.

You do not understand to what the contents of that Note allude? No, I do not: for I have quite forgotten it; I think capt. Sandon must have taken it out of the house without my permission.

(By Mr. Yorke.)

Did h. r. h. at any time leave that private seal in your possession? No; he has that and another that he used to use.

You said that you had several impressions of the same seal in your possession; are those impressions unbroken? No, certainly not.

Are you positive you have no impression of the Duke's seal unbroken in your possession? I do not know; I should rather think not; I was always inclined to read what he sent to me.

Are you positive that you have not any impression of the Duke's seal unbroken in your possession? Do you mean if I had torn the letter, and not broken the seal?

It is not necessary to break the seal to open the letter? I dare say I have many not broken, that you might very easily distinguish to be the same seal as that.

Did the Duke wear this seal to his watch? I do not know, I am sure. I believe not.

Is the reason you have for guiding your mother's hand when she writes, your mother's hand being so unsteady that she cannot write without somebody guiding her hand? Yes; she cannot hold her hand steady at all.

(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

You believe that one of those bills was written by your mother holding the pen, and you guiding her hand? I guided altogether entirely; in fact, it is my own writing entirely whenever I make use of her hand.

The whole body of the bill as well as the signature? Yes; it is my writing more than my mother's.

She held the pen and you guided her hand? I do not know whether she held the pen, but I am in the habit of doing these sort of things, when I want my mother's name, but I never did any thing without her sanction at all.

That is not the question at all.—I do not know what you might insinuate; the bills have been already before the court martial, and I dare say they made as many observations as possible upon them, and if I had been at all alarmed I should not have allowed them to continue so long; but I believe this has nothing to do with the question before the house.

Do you wish this committee to understand that you wrote these bills or your mother? You may say I wrote them.

And her hand was not guided by you? If Her hand is in mine, and I guide, I write it, and not her.

When you guide your mother's hand, your mother has the pen in her hand, has she not? Yes.

And you only move her hand and guide it? How do you know but what I move the pen; if she takes the pen up, I should take it down lower perhaps.

I do not know it, I wish to know it.—Then you shall see us write at any time.

Did you hold the pen or not? I forget; there are the bills, and I forget all about them.

Then you holding the pen, you wish the committee to understand that in so far you wrote both these? As you please.

[The Chairman directed the witness to answer the question.]

I have answered it; that is all difference of opinion.

Then you holding the pen, you wish the committee to understand, that in so far you wrote both these? I fancy I said I did not write them both.

Did you in point of fact write them both, or only one, and did your mother write the other? I tell you it is impossible for her to write.

To what do you ascribe the marked difference in the hand-writing of these two bills? They do not strike me as being very different, but I certainly cannot write so very quick when I am writing with my mother's hand as with my own.

Do you mean to say you do not see any difference in the hand-writing and signature of these two bills? No, if you were to see the difference in my letters; if you see a dozen of my letters, you will see them all different; you would see a difference in each.

If you guide your mother's hand, that hand being so unsteady, must there not be some unsteadiness in what is written under that guidance? No, it is entirely my own writing, although I guide her hand.

Then both these bills are entirely your handwriting? If you please to understand that, you may; but I had the use of my mother's hand, and they are my writing then.

You have stated the signature to the bill of the 20th of May, signed "E. Farquhar," was your mother's writing, under your guidance of her hand, and that that explains the difference in the hand to the signature of the two bills? I did not say it explained the difference in the writing.

You have suited that the indorsement of the bill which is indorsed was made by your mother, you guiding her hand? Yes.

Look at the bills again.— It is no use looking at them, I have looked at them before.

Look at them again; look at the signature of the bill of the 20th of May, and at the signature of the bill of the 15th July, and at the endorsement of that bill, and endeavour to state, if you can, whether they are all written by the same hand? They are all written by the same hand, because they are written by mine and by my mother's.

Can you give no other explanation of the difference in the appearance in that writing? No, I cannot.

(By Mr. Beresford.)

Did major Tonyn lodge in the hands of a third person 500 guineas, 500l. of which, after he was gazetted, went to yourself, and 25l. to Mr. Donovan? I did not state any such thing, for I did not know what Mr. Donovan had; I only stated what I had myself.

What had you yourself? What I said before.

Was that 500l.? Yes.

Was it not natural for you, as you knew you were to receive 500l. to hurry the gazetting of major Tonyn as much as you could? Not if there were any circumstances against it.

Did you not wish that major Tonyn should be gazetted, in order that you might get the 500l.? In the end I did.

If you had written any letters to the D. of Y. on the subject, with that wish in your mind, would it not have been a letter to urge the gazetting of major Tonyn? I do not recollect writing him any letter, nor do I recollect having any answer about it in writing.

If you had written to the D. of Y. upon the subject, would you not have been more likely to have written to hasten the gazetting of major Tonyn than to delay it? I do not know. [The witness was directed to withdraw.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that notwithstanding capt. Sandon, by producing the paper in question, as well as others which might bear on the present subject of investigation, had certainly made some atonement, which might be the subject of future consideration with the committee; yet he could not think, in a case of such flagrant prevarication as he had been guilty of, he should be allowed to escape without a severe notice of his crime in the first instance. He would therefore move, "That for the gross prevarication of which he had been guilty, capt. Huxley Sandon should be committed to Newgate," which was ordered accordingly.—The right hon. gent. then proceeded to state, that it would be impossible to close the Inquiry in that sitting, because he would wish to bring proof, such as could be relied on, as to that Letter being or not being the handwriting of the D. of Y. and that could not be done till to-morrow. When he opened the case of the suppression of evidence, it was under an impression that the Letter was destroyed, and he could not therefore think it necessary to summon col. Gordon, who was the person most likely to prove the D. of Y.'s hand in the most satisfactory manner. He was also of opinion, that the committee could not with propriety, during the present sitting, take into their consideration the papers found in capt. Sandon's bureau, some of which he owned bore upon the Inquiry now before them. He would propose, therefore, that a Select Committee, similar to that which was formed the other night, should now be appointed to inspect those Papers, and report to the house such of them as in their opinion bore upon the present Investigation. That Committee might sit this morning, and make their report in the evening to the committee of the whole house, who would immediately go into the consideration of it.—He moved, therefore, that a Select Committee be appointed to inspect the said papers, and to report to the committee of the whole house, whether any part of them were relevant to the matter of this Inquiry.—Ordered.

Adjourned at half past three o'clock on Friday morning.