Commons Sitting of 17 February 1809

EMBEZZLEMENT OF THE PUBLIC MONEY.
Sir Joint Newportrose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render the Embezzlement of Public Money, by any collector, agent, or other person entrusted to receive the same, felony without benefit of clergy. Not anticipating any objection to the Bill, he felt it unnecessary to trouble the house at any length now. He found, so long since as the 29th of his late majesty, a Bill had passed, to render it felony without benefit of clergy, for any person employed in the collection of public monies in Ireland, to embezzle any sum above 50 l. That Bill, however, had become obsolete, and was not sufficient to answer the objects of this Bill, which was to carry the law further, and to reach the principal as well as the deputy officers entrusted with the receipt of the public money. He therefore moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
The Speakersuggested to the right hon. baronet, that the regular course of proceeding in such cases, was to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better

805
prevention of frauds and embezzlements in such cases, and leave it for the Committee on the Bill to insert the punishment to be inflicted on offenders.
Sir John Newportamended his motion.
Mr. Fosterwished to apprize the right hon. baronet that he had a Bill in contemplation, which he intended shortly to introduce, and which, besides embracing all the objects of the Bill now proposed, would extort much further. He therefore wished the right hon. baronet to postpone the introduction of his Bill until the other should come before the house: if, however, he wished to persevere, there would be no negative to his motion.
Sir John Newportsaid, it would be time enough to withdraw his Bill, when he should find that his objects were answered by the Bill now announced. It had been already provided by a regulation, that no greater sum should remain in the hands of any collector than 300 l., notwithstanding which, it was found that there had been left in the charge of one officer upwards of 30,000 l.; and recently, the collector of Cork, Mr. O'Connor, had embezzled 23,000 l.
Sir Arthur Wellesleyadmited that the collector of Cork had embezzled this sum; but it was the collection of only one week; and he eloped at the moment that a commissioner was sent down to enquire the reason of his delaying his payments.— Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

MR. BERESFORO'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MOIVNING POST.
Mr. Beresfordrose and said, that as he seldom troubled the house, he hoped for their indulgence while he stated a circumstance which regarded their Privileges. If he had asserted any thing in that house respecting any member which he knew to be founded, he should be one of the last to retract his words; and if, on the other hand, any words were imputed to him, which were hurtful to the feelings of any member, and which he had not employed, he should hold it extremely unmanly to omit the first opportunity of satisfying the feelings of such member by a candid explanation. In the Morning Post of this day there appeared a statement of the proceedings of the Committee last night, in which words were imputed to him, reflecting on the conduct of an hon. gent, which he certainly never uttered. The words were these:—"Mr. Beresford, addressing himself to Mr. "Wardle, said, he could not refrain from animadverting on several parts of the
806
hon. member's conduct in reference to him from the commencement of this inquiry. He considered it unhandsome and ungentlemanly. Upon tin's, some smart retorts passed between Mr. Wardle and Mr. Beresford." Mr. Beresford thought it quite unnecessary for him to appeal to the recollection of the house whether he had ever addressed any such words to the hon. gent. In fact, none such were uttered by him: and he should have felt it extremely unmanly not to take the first opportunity of making this explanation, in order to remove any impression which such a publication might make on that hon. gent.'s feelings. It was a gross misrepresentation, and therefore he should move, "That the printer of the Paper in question should appear at the bar to-morrow in the custody of the Serjeant at arms."
The Speakersaid, that the course usual on such occasions was to give in the Paper containing the misrepresentation to be read by the clerk; and then to move that the printer do appear at the bar on a future day.
Mr. Beresfordaccordingly gave in the Paper, when the passage was read by the clerk. Mr. B. then said it was not his wish, from any personal feeling, to proceed to extremities with the printer in this case: he had merely taken up the matter as a gross and mischievous breach of the privileges of the house, lie would rather leave it to their discretion; but, if they encouraged him, he would repeat his motion.
The Speakersaid, if the hon. gent, did not wish to make any formal complaint, it would be best to hold the business over in suspense, in order to see whether the party persisted in statements of the same colour and tendency; and therefore, he suggested that the subject should be further considered on Monday sennight. —Mr. Beresford acquiesced.
Lord Folkestoneseconded this latter proposition, and rose to bear his testimony, in the absence of his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle,) that the words in question had not been used, and that the feelings of his hon. friend were in no respect aggrieved. The noble lord approved of the course proposed to be adopted, and acknowledged the handsome and honourable manner in which the hon. gent, had taken up the subject.
Mr. N. Calvertdid not object to the motion; but at the same time observed,

807
that these things, in general, [were too slightly passed over, and particularly with respect to the liberties taken with the speeches of members of that house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that if an hon. member had brought forward a complaint of this nature, and insisted upon punishment for a breach of privilege, he could not see how the house could refrain from entertaining the subject, and proceeding to punishment. But under all the circumstances it must be allowed, that it was scarcely possible but there must sometimes be mistakes. A paper had been put into his hands this day, in which there was a most complete misrepresentation, with respect to a material part of the statement which he had made to the Committee, in the affair of the Note which purported to be that of the D. of Y. But, as he was aware that this misrepresentation was altogether unintentional, he had not felt sore on the subject.
Mr. W. Smithagreed with what had fallen from the right hon. gent, except in so far as he seemed to consider the pressure upon any particular member as the measure of punishment. A member might feel himself severely aggrieved, and from a proper sense of his own dignity, propose a severe punishment, when the house might see reason to dispose of the matter in a very different way. The person who made the misrepresentation might be wholly unconscious that he did so, and might have no idea of the mischief that might result from it; but, at the same time, had it been thought fit to call the parties to the bar, and to have them such reprimand as the nature of the case might require, he did not see that the parties themselves would have had any right to complain. This, he believed, would not injure the liberty of the press, for which none could be a more strenuous advocate than he was. lie, however, thought the course at present proposed perfectly proper, and fully agreed, that while tile publication of the proceedings of the house were connived at, and he hoped it would always be connived at, unintentional mistakes ought to meet with indulgence.
Mr. Yorkethought that the liberty of the press had of lute been carried to such lengths, and the misrepresentations of the proceedings in that house, both collectively and individually, had for some time been so frequent, that it was time for the house to come to some understanding on the
808
subject. He regretted that he was not in the house when this business was introduced; but from what he understood, he agreed with the last hon. gent, in thinking that the printer ought to be brought to the bar to answer for his conduct. As to the liberty of the press, he himself had been bred up in principles which taught him to view it as the palladium of British liberty; but he thought that from a laxity of discipline in the exercise of that liberty, of late so much licentiousness had crept in, as to call for some effectual check to its progress. He did not feel a wish to introduce any new law or statute on the subject, but merely a vigilant exercise of the laws already in existence. As to the encroachments which had been made upon the privileges of that house by the publication of its proceedings, he was not one of those who wished for any rigorous exertion of their powers in that respect; but he thought, at least, that those who took upon them to infringe those privileges, by publishing the proceedings of the house, should be responsible for their misrepresentations, whether intention. or otherwise. The rules of the house ought not to be violated: trivial mistakes might be passed over, because, otherwise, inquiries would be endless; but where such serious complaints as the present were made, he thought the printer should be called to the bar and punished.
Mr. Whitbreadrose, and said he could not agree with the principle laid down by the right hon. gent, who spoke last, of acting with rigour in the case of an unintentional misrepresentation of what had passed in that house. The mischief arising from such errors was nothing in comparison with the good which the country derived from the publication of the substance of what was spoken by members within those walls. This was not the first time of late that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) had expressed his disapprobation of the licentiousness of the press; but before the right hon. gent, complained of that licentiousness, in respect to the publications to which he had before alluded, it should be proved that they were libels, and unfounded in truth. On the contrary, those publications complained of were productive of the happiest consequences to the country, in promoting inquiries which otherwise would never be instituted. The right hon. gent had said, that the privileges of the house were equal to their own protection; but he never knew from any in

809
stance of the nature now under discussion, wherein those privileges were exerted, that the least good ensued. The right hon. gent, complained of laxity in discipline towards the press of late: it did not appear, however, that the law officers of the crown had been remiss in their duty, if he looked to the numerous prosecutions for libels which were carrying on; nor was it at all evident, that the courts of law had been criminally lenient in awarding their punishments. Mr. Whitbread then expressed a wish, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to obviate a mistake which appeared in his Narrative last night, by the insertion of the word not, would insert the whole of that Narrative upon the Minutes, as he for one was happy to acknowledge that Narrative to be a complete and faithful picture of the proofs he afterwards adduced.
Mr. Yorkedenied that he had ever said that any new laws were necessary to restrain the freedom of the press.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid that he might have misconceived the right hon. gent, but that he understood him both on this and a former occasion to have said something to that effect.
Mr. Bathurstthought the insertion on the minutes of the Narrative alluded to would be an irregular proceeding; but with respect to what had been said of the Liberty of the Press, though he was one of those who wished to support it when genuine, he could not avoid observing the recent notoriety of its licentiousness; and if public bodies allowed their proceedings to be misrepresented, it was impossible to say where that licentiousness would stop. He deprecated the severity with which the hon. gent, who last spoke had adverted, though obliquely, to the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown, and Judges of the land, in prosecuting and punishing libellers. If men were guilty of criminal acts, there were public tribunals in the country to which recourse might be had for justice against them; but if persons were permitted to take vengeance into their own hands, by publishing their accusations in preference, it was impossible to say where the mischief would terminate. This had been the case in some recent libellous publications, the authors of which were the sources whence some gentlemen had derived the grounds of their Charges, and yet they could make nothing of the proofs those persons were able to furnish.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in answer to what had fallen from Mr. Whitbread, said, it would be an irregular proceeding to enter upon the Minutes of the Committee, the whole of the Narrative, by which he had felt it necessary to introduce the complicated circumstances afterwards produced in evidence respecting col. Hamilton and capt. Sandon. Whatever facts were within his own knowledge, he was ready to state if examined, and his answers would be the most regular form in which the subject could appear in the Minutes.
On the question that the debate on this subject should be postponed to Monday se'nnight,
The Attorney Generalrose. He said that an hon. gent, opposite (Mr. Whitbread) had been pleased to declare, that the present law officers of the crown had not been remiss in entering into prosecutions for Libels. That term, well worked up and sent abroad, might produce a very different sentiment in the public mind. Indeed, he himself could not avoid supposing it possible, that by "not remiss" the hon. gent. intended to imply that they had been more than properly diligent. Whether he meant so or not he did not know, but the words were capable of that construction, and would, he had no doubt, receive that construction from some of those, respecting whose conduct a complaint was then before the house. Certainly, what the honourable gentleman had said was not intended for commendation; but he would appeal to every honourable gentleman in the house who had heard of the publications against which prosecutions had been instituted, and who had read a tenth part of the publications against which prosecutions might have been instituted, whether the law officers of the crown could with justice be accused of a disposition to prosecute too frequently. With respect to the judgments of the courts of justice, the hon. gent, had insinuated, and that not darkly, that they were severe. He fully believed, that the learned and upright judges of our courts, who had pronounced their sentences with deliberation and impartiality, would not want able defenders in the house of commons, if their conduct was fairly, properly, and manfully brought forward; but he did not think justice was done them, when general reflections were thus thrown out to be re-published by persons, on the conduct of some of whom their judgment had been passed; avid this under,

811
the authority of the hon. gent, that their judgments had been severe. He had not heard the hon. gent, specify any particular instances of severity. He dared to say that he would not do so; because the hon. gent, knew that if there was a just, legitimate, and constitutional ground of complaint against them, that was not the way in which it ought to be preferred. Their judgments, he was well convinced, would stand the most severe investigation of the public or of any individual, but then that inquiry ought to be definite; it should be marked with precision what was complained of, in order to give those against whom the complaint was made some proper opportunity to defend themselves. They ought not to be driven, as they might be driven, by the way in which the hon. gent.'s speech would probably be introduced in some of the newspapers, either to submit silently to calumny, or to descend to what he was sure they never would descend to; namely, to defend themselves by channels similar to those by which they were attacked.
Mr. Whitbread.I rise only to say that I am ready and willing, if it be consistent with the forms of the house, to state to what particular judgments I have alluded.
Mr. Sec. Canningwas astonished that—
Lord Porchesterspoke to order. He conceived that the house had, for a considerable time, swerved from the object before them. It was perfectly disorderly thus to prolong this debate, or to enter into any examination of the conduct of the courts of justice.
Mr. Secretary Canning,in his own conception, was strictly in order. He had entered the house a considerable time after the commencement of the discussion, but he understood that it began with a complaint on the part of an hon. member, of a misrepresentation of his sentiments in a newspaper of the day; that that occasioned a dissertation on the Liberty of the Press; that that produced a censure of the prosecutions for libels; and that that caused, what it was very natural to cause, a recommendation to the hon. gent, opposite, from his hon. and learned friend, that if he complained of the administration of justice, in that house, to do so, not incidentally, or by implication, but in that grave and serious manner which so important a subject demanded. The hon. gent, had received a very just admonition from his hon. and learned friend, and he had risen to join his admonition.
Lord Folkestonespoke to order. It was certainly very irregular for one hon. member thus to talk of admonishing another.
The Speakerdecided, that as the debate had taken such a turn, Mr. Canning Was strictly in order, and that the noble lord was not warranted in his objection.
Lord Folkestonesaid, that after what had fallen from the chair, he could not but apprehend that he had been misunderstood. He had not complained of the turn which the debate had taken; he had complained of the right hon. gent, having talked of admonishing an hon. member; and that this was not a casual expression was evident, by the word "admonition" having been twice used in a very warm manner by the right hon. gent. Was it regular to permit one hon. member to rise merely for the purpose of admonishing another?
The Speakerwas not aware that he was called upon nicely to measure and weigh every expression that might chance to be used in debate, or that his duty demanded his interference, unless he felt strongly that any personal disrespect was intended.
Mr. Secretary Canningdeclared, that he had never risen with less warmth than he had this evening. He had little or nothing to add to that which he had already said. Whether the hon. gent, complained generally of the administration of justice, or whether, as it appeared by his subsequent statement, he complained of any particular instance of mal-administration, the subject was one which it was perfectly fitting for a member to introduce to the house; but then, he dare not venture to say he would admonish, but he would suggest to the hon. gent, that it ought to be done with the utmost gravity and deliberation, and not incidentally in such a debate as the present. Whenever the hon. gent. might think proper to bring the discussion forward, he had no doubt that the venerable judges whom he accused would find able defenders in that house, amply provided with both the means and the inclination to do them justice.
Mr. Whitbreadassured the right hon. gent, that he should be always happy to hear any thing from him in the way of 'admonition;' in the present instance, however, it was quite unnecessary. He had not accused the Judges of too great severity, but he had said they could not be accused of lenity in their sentences, on those who had been convicted of supporting the licentiousness of the press. He had also said, that too severe judgments would only pro-

813
duce the contrary effect to that which was intended. If he had intended to animadvert on the Judges, he would have done it directly, by bringing forward a charge in the regular manner.—As to the right hon. Secretary, he would doubly thank him, if, as to night, he would always openly state to whom he alluded, and not merely utter an insinuation which left its meaning in doubt.
The further consideration of this subject was postponed to Monday se'nnight.

CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.
The house having resolved itself into a Committee to inquire further into the Conduct of h. r. h. the Duke of York;
Mr. Whartonstated to the Committee, that he, as their Chairman, had received a letter from lieut. col. Tucker on the subject of this Inquiry, which he would beg leave to read to the Committee.—[Here the letter, which will be found at p. 824. was read.]
Sir A. Wellesleyrose for the purpose of paying a just tribute to the talents and services of the officer in question. He had known him particularly well in Portugal, and certainly esteemed him a very meritorious officer. He was the more willing to state this, as he had many communications with that officer's family; and he believed, that at the time col. Tucker was about to be promoted, several applications had been made to him offering him advancement, by money-brokers, which that officer spurned at with becoming contempt. He knew that col. Tucker got his promotions properly, and all by brevet rank.
Earl Templewas happy to add his mite to the applause of the gallant general as to the brother who had fallen, and he was sure the same justice would be done to the living brother. He would afterwards move that the Letter should be entered on the Minutes.
Lord Folkestonewas inclined perfectly to coincide with the opinions of those who had preceded him as to the merits of the two officers; he apprehended the name of Tucker had been placed in the evidence improperly for that of Trotter.
Sir T. Turtonobjected to the Letter's being entered on the Minutes, as it could not possibly be evidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that no objection could be urged except as to the identity of the writing; many letters had been put on the Minutes on as slight grounds.
Mr. Sturges Bournesaid, that one serious
814
charge (that of col. French) was entirely grounded on similar evidence.
Earl Templethought that if the writing was first proved the difficulty would be done away.
This was deferred until some person was to be found who could prove the writing.
Mr. Wardlewished here to read a Letter which he had received from Miss Taylor relative to her testimony:—"Sir—Mrs. Hovenden has chosen to draw some inferences unfavourable to me in her evidence. I have only to say, that she visited me once at Bayswater and once at Dalby Terrace. She has said she would not place her daughter under my care. I do not know whether she would do that or not: but I know she sent her niece, of the age of 14 years, on a visit to me. (Signed) ANNE TAYLOR."—
Mr. Wardle did not desire this to be placed upon the Minutes.
Mr. W. Smithwished to know whether the hon. member intended to found any proceeding upon the letter of Miss Taylor; he thought her case was a peculiarly hard one; he did not see why any shadow of disgrace should attach to her (cries of Hear! and Order!). I should imagine (said Mr. Smith) that when any man rises in this house to advocate the cause of an unprotected female, he should be suffered to proceed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the hon. gent, was proceeding in a disorderly course. If he thought Miss Taylor had been treated severely, he should have noticed it at the time, and not now, after such an interval: if this proceeding was allowed, the consequences would be that those who were accused must defend-themselves, and thus the time of the house would be wasted.
Mr. W. Smiththought that the time of Miss Taylor's letter being read was the most proper for him to make his remark on the subject, and he only wished to know whether any proceeding was intended to be founded on her letter: however, as the house did not seem inclined to entertain the subject, he was not anxious to press it.
Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
I need not ask you whether you are acquainted with the D. of Y.'s hand-writing? I certainly am.
Look at that paper [the short note spoken to by Mrs. C. last night] the outside and the in-

815
side [Colonel Gordon looked at the letter.]—I have formed my opinion upon it.
State to the committee your opinion.—The utmost I can say is, that it bears a very strong resemblance to h. r. h.'s hand-writing, but whether it is or is not I cannot take upon myself to say.
You speak to the inside of the note, when yon make that observation? To both inside and outside.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
Have you any reason to doubt that it is the Duke's hand-writing? I do not think that I can, consistently with my own honour, give a stronger opinion than that which I have already given.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Are those letters the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? I think that is the hand-writing of the D. of Y. [a letter respecting general Clavering]; I am of the same opinion with respect to the other.
I observe that you gave your opinion with respect to the first letter, on a comparison with other papers in your possession, and that you did not compare the two last letters that were shewn to you with those other papers; for what reason did you make the comparison in the one case, and not in the other? The papers with which I compared the first scrap of writing, were letters that I have received from the D. of Y. in 1804, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which convinced me that the D. of Y. varies very little in his handwriting,; I thought it necessary to make a very accurate comparison of the first paper, when so small a scrap of writing was produced to me, and I found that that scrap of writing, as I said before, bore a strong resemblance to the D. of Y.'s hand-writing; in looking over the two last letters, each of which contained two or three pages of writing, I thought it quite unnecessary to make any such comparison.
Was the opinion which you formed with respect to that writing on that scrap of paper, formed in consequence of your knowledge of the D. of Y.'s writing, or merely from the comparison which you made? From both.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
If a letter of the same hand-writing as that which you call the scrap of paper, had been addressed to you, and received by you, should you have hesitated to act upon it? I observe that scrap of paper had no signature affixed to it, I therefore would not act upon it.
(By Mr. Creevey.)
If that scrap of paper had had the D. of Y.'s signature affixed to it, would you have acted upon it? If that scrap of paper had had the signature of the D. of Y. affixed to it, I would | have acted upon it.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
If, in the same hand in which that scrap of
816
paper is written, there had been the signature of Frederick, of the same hand-writing, would you have acted upon it? Unless I saw the handwriting in which Frederick was written, I cannot possibly answer that question.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
General BROWNRIGG was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Look at that paper which will be put into your hand [the short note], and say, whether you believe it to be the writing of the D. of Y. Have you formed any opinion of that handwriting? I think it resembles the D. of Y.'s hand-writing, but I cannot positively say it is his hand-writing. [The letter respecting gen. Clavering being shewn to gon. Brownrigg]. This is certainly like the D. of Y.'s hand-writing, that I have now looked at; but I do not think the address is; the address is not like his royal highness's writing.
Do you believe it is his hand-writing? It is so like his hand-writing, that I should conclude it is; I speak of the letter,dated Saodgate, August 24, 180). [The other letter produced by Mrs. C. was shewn to gen. Brownrigg] This letter is also like the D.' of Y.'s writing.
What is your opinion upon it; do you believe that to be his writing? I do believe it to be his hand-writing; it is so like it, that I conclude it to be his writing; and this letter, dated the 4th of August 1805, is not at all like his hand-writing; I should not suppose it is.
Look at the short note; look over leaf; what is your opinion of that; what do you believe respecting that? My opinion is, that it is not so like the D. of Y.'s hand-writing as the others; it does not resemble the D. of Y.'s hand-writing in the same degree that the others do; there certainly does appear to me a similarity between the Duke's writing and this; yet I cannot speak so positively as to its being his writing as I do to the others; I cannot speak so decidedly.
Is the direction of that note more or less like the D. of Y.'s hand-writing than the direction of the other notes you speak to? I think it is more like it; I think the address appears to be written in the same hand as the inside; the address is written in a better hand, it is written fairer and more distinctly.
From your observation of the hand-writing of the short note, do you or do you not believe it to be the hand-writing of h. r. h.? I certainly do not believe it to be the hand-writing of the D. of Y., that is to say, I could not swear it was the D. of Y.'s hand-writing.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
If the D. of Y.'s signature had been to that note, would you have acted upon it? I really think I should, looking at it cursorily, as I should in reading a short note from the D. of Y., and without having any suspicion that it could not be the D. of'Y.'s hani-w riling, I very

817
probably should have acted upon it, if his signature had been to it.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
In this case, what cave you any suspicion that that could not be the D. of V.'s writing? Because I happened to be in the house of commons last night, and heard this Note made a matter of question in the house; that is my reason.
Are the committee to understand, that you do not believe that note to be the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? I can only repeat what I have before said in answer to the same question; I think I have already answered that question in my last answer but one.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Colonel CORDON was again called in, and examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Did you ever hear that there was any suspicion raised respecting the small note which was lately put into your band, whether it was the D. of V.'s hand-writing or not, before you were examined at the bar upon that subject? Certainly I have.
When and where? The best way for me to proceed is to tell the thing exactly as it happened from the beginning to the end. I think last Saturday week about half past ten at night, the D. of Y. and Mr. Adam called at my house; I had been extremely fatigued and was going to bed; I was undressed; I went in my undress into the room where were the D. of Y. and Mr. Adam; the first word that was said to me was by the D. of Y., and I think the words were these; "Here is a very extraordinary business;" here is a forgery." Upon which Mr. Adam related to me, that capt. Saudon and col. Hamilton had come to town; that col. Hamilton had called upon him, and told him, that he had seen a note of the D. of Y.'s in the possession of capt. Sandon. After some further conversation, more general upon this point and others connected with it, it was determined that I should desire col. Hamilton to call at the Horse Guards the next day at one o'clock, to meet Mr. Adam; I did do so, and the next day at one o'clock the messenger brought word to me that col. Hamilton was waiting in the usual waiting room; Mr. Adam went out to him, and that is all that I can speak as to this note, of my own knowledge.
Do you mean to state, that the suspicion which you had heard of, respecting this note, was an expression of the D. of Y. respecting a forgery? Certainly.
How do you know that this is the same note to which the D. of Y. alluded? I really do not know any thing about it, I never heard of any other note.
Have you ever heard of that note from that time to this? Yes, I have. In continuation of what passed on Sunday, I think, I may state that I went the next day, the Monday or Tues-
818
day, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I had further conversation upon this very note, but I think merely recapitulation of what I have already stated to this committee.
Have you had any other conversation about this note since that time, with any person? I have carefully avoided any conversation upon it; but I think the other evening, three or four evenings ago, waiting in the room above stairs with col. Hamilton, some conversation, very general, arose upon the subject of this note; but it was so very general, so very loose, (for, as I have mentioned before, I carefully avoided interfering in it) that I can only bring to my recollection that some conversation did arise.
Have you had any conversation whatever, respecting that note, but this which you have mentioned?] think I mentioned the subject in strict confidence to gen. Alexander Hope, and also to gen. Brownrigg, perhaps to Mr. W. Harrison, with whom I communicate confidentially; beyond that, f do not think that I have.
What was it that you stated to those gentlemen? I must have stated to them pretty neatly the very same words that I have slated to this committee, as nearly as I can recollect, nor more nor less.
Did you see any copy of this note? Yes, I did.
When was that?—I think it was the same evening that the D. of Y. and Mr. Adam called upon me.
In whose possession was it, Mr. Adam's, or the D. of Y.'s? I think it was in the possession of Mr. Adam.
Have you had any conversation with the D. of Y. upon that subject since that evening? Yes, I have.
When was that? I have had frequent conversations with him upon it.
Detail those conversations as nearly as you can? I think a detail of those conversations would be little more than repetition of the D. of Y.'s assertion, that he thought the thing was a forgery.
When was the last conversation you had with the D. of Y. upon that subject? I will repeat the last conversation, I think, which took place this morning about half past ten o'clock, when I went to the D. of Y. at my usual hour of business; the first word the D. of Y. said to me this morning was, 'As you are to be called upon to answer certain questions in the house this night, I will not speak to you one word upon the subject.' I said, Sir,' I have been told that I am summoned to speak upon the subject of the Note, to prove the hand-writing, there therefore can be no difficulty upon the part of your royal highness in making any communication to me that you think fit, as usual. The D. of Y. I think, said, I can only state what I have stated to you before, I have no knowledge of the thing, and I believe it to be a forgery.
Was that likewise the substance of the other frequent conversations you have had with the D. of Y. upon this subject? Certainly the sub-

819
stance; and, as nearly as I can recollect, the words.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. ANDREW DICKIE was called in and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Yon are a Clerk at Messrs. Coutts's.—I am.
Did yon ever sec h. r. h. the Duke of York write? I have seen him sign his name many times, "Frederick."
Did you ever see him write any thing beyond his name? I have seen him frank a letter.
[The two letters being shown to the Witness] Do you think yourself sufficiently acquainted with b. r. h.'s hand, to be able to form any satisfactory opinion upon the letters shewn to you? It bears a similarity; but without the signature being to it, I cannot speak to its being h. r. h.'s hand-writing.
Major General ALEX. HOPE, a. member of the house, attending in his place,; tin short Note was shewn to him, and lie was examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Have you observed that note? I have; it appears to me like the hand-writing of the D. of York; I at to state whether it really is or is not, is what I cannot undertake to say.
[The letter dated Sandgate being shewn to general Hope] I apply the same answer to that as to the note, only that I certainly should say that I could speak more positively, I think, to that than to the note; but I must always qualify what I say, that it is a shade of difference only, I could not say positively that it is or is not; but certainly the letter appears to strike my mind more forcibly as the hand-writing of the Duke of York than the note. [The other letter being shewn to general Hope] I make the same answer as to the second letter.
(By Mr. Western)
Does that shade of difference, which you state, give you a degree of belief that the letters are the hand-writing of the D. of Y. preferably to that of the note, arise from the quantity of writing there is in the letter, or from any difference in the hand-writing of the note and the letter?—I think it very possible it may arise from the quantity of the writing; it strikes me it seems more like the writing of b. r. h.'s; I do not feel able, certainly, to state the comparison between the characters of the note and letters; I spoke from a general impression, as it struck my eye.
General BROWNRIGG was again called in, and examined as follows:
(By Mr. Grenfell.)
If you had not been in the house of commons last night, should you have had any doubt
820
of that short note being the Duke of York's hand-writing? I certainly should, because I do not think that it is very like the Duke's writing.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
WILLIAM ADAM, esq. attending in his place, a Note was shewn to him, and he was examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
What is your opinion of the hand-writing of that note? I think it is like the Duke of York's hand-writing; but I cannot positively say more than that. [The letters being shewn to Mr. Adam] The letter, dated Sandgate, is, in my opinion, in the hand-writing of the D. of Y.; I entertain the same opinion with regard to this letter, dated from Weymouth, as with respect to the last.
Do you mean tint yon speak more positively to the letters than you do to the note? I do.
(By Mr. Western.)
Have you ever been told by the D. of Y. that the note at which yon first looked was a forgery? Col. Gordon, in his testimony upon that subject, has given a very correct description of what I heard the D. of Y. say.
Did the Duke of York represent to you that note in the same light in which he represented it to col. Gordon, namely that it was a forgery?. When I first made the communication to the fit. of Y. on Saturday evening the 4th February, he declared without hesitation that he had no recollection whatever of such a note, and that it must be a forgery. When I went with him to Mr. Perceval's that evening, he made a, asseveration precisely to the same effect; and afterwards when T went from Mr. Perceval's to col. Gordon's, he made the asseveration at col. Gordon's, which col. Gordon has already given in evidence.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Are those the only Occasions on which the D. of Y. has informed you that that note was a forgery? Of course, t have had repeated conversations with his royal highness upon the matter now depending before the house, and in the course of those conversations, without being able to specify the particular time, h. r. h, has held the same language.
You have stated, that you thought the writing of the note was like the writing of the D. of Y.; do you perceive in the formation of the character of that note, any thing unlike the writing of the D. of York? I cannot say that in the formation of the character, I perceive any thing unlike the writing of the D. of Y.; but from the shortness of the note, and from there not bring a possibility of correcting judgment with respect to hand-writing, by the general appearance of it, which takes place in a long letter, I am incapable of speaking with the same positiveness with respect to that as with respect to the letters.
Mr. ANDREW DICKIE was again called in, and examined.
(By Mr. J. Smith.)
What situation to you hold in Messrs. Coutts' house.? Principal clerk.
Are you not, or were you not in the habit lately of accepting hills for that house? I have been for a considerable time.
Are you not therefore in the habit of observing with great attention upon the handwriting of individuals who are connected with Messrs. Coutts and Company? I am in general, bat there is a clerk in our house who is more conversant in the signatures of the different customers, who examines the signatures before the bills are brought to me to accept.
Is it not occasionally your business to ascertain the genuineness of hand-writing.? No.
Have you ever seen any draft filled up as veil as signed, by the Commander in Chief? I have seen drafts signed by the Commander in Chief, but as to the tilling up, I cannot pretend to say.
[The Note and the Letters being shewn to the Witness.] Do you see any difference in the hand-writing of that note and those two letters, and if you do, what is that difference? There seems a little difference in the note; it strikes me that it is not so like the Duke's, I think, as the others.
Explain in what that difference consists. Being smaller, and not like the others in point of letter-writing.
(By Mr. W. Smith.)
Did you put in the words "not so like the Duke's?" What I meant by that is this; two letters were laid before me, and I am asked whether I conceive them to be the Duke's writing or not; I conceive the note not to be so much like.
Did you insert the words "not so like the "Duke's?" I beg to alter that; not so like as those two letters which were shewn to me, purporting to be the Duke's.
Have you not stated, that yon had never seen so much even as a draft filled up by the Duke? To my knowledge, I have seen b. r. h.'s signature, but I never saw h. r. It. fill up a draft; but I am not the cashier of Messrs. Coutts's house.
Do you conceive yourself competent to say, except in the article of signature, whether the letter is like the Duke's hand-writing or not? I am not sufficiently conversant in h. r. h.'s letter hand-writing.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. BENJAMIN TOWN was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Where do you live? In Bond-street.
In what business are you? An artist.
In what line? A velvet painter.
Are you acquainted with Mrs. Clarke? Yes.
Were you acquainted with her when she lived in Gloucester-place? Yes.
Do you ever recollect having heard her say any thing respecting hand-writing? Yes.
Upon what occasion, and what was it that she said? In the course of conversation she observed she could forge the Duke's name, and she had done it, and she shewed it me upon a piece of blank paper, and I could not-tell the difference between the Duke's and her own.
What, led her to make this observation? That I cannot recollect.
What was your business with her at the time of this conversation? I gave her a lesson that morning in the art of painting.
Have you attended her for any time, to teach her the at of painting? Yes.
Did the observation at all arise out of the painting and the lesson that you were giving? I do not rightly comprehend you.
Did the observation she made to you arise out of the subject that was before you, the lesson you were giving? No, there was writing on the table, some papers.
What led her to make that observation? That I cannot recollect.
Was that all that she said? That was all.
Did you ever see her imitating any handwriting? None but that that I have mentioned before; she shewed me the Duke's writing, which she said it was; I cannot say whether it was or not.
Did she imitate it in your presence? She did.
Had she been drawing at that-time? Yes.
Did she say any thing about her proficiency in the art? No.
Do you mean that she only introduced the observation, that she could forge the D. of Y.'s hand-writing, and immediately imitated it in your presence? She did.
Did you make any observation upon it? Yes.
What observation did you make? That it was a serious matter.
What did she say upon that, or did she say anything? She laughed.
Did she. any any thing? She did not.
(By Sir Thomas Turton.)
You say Mrs. C. produced the signature of h. r. h. the D. of Y.; did you ever see any where else the signature of the D. of Y.? No.
Was the signature at the bottom of a letter, or was it by itself? That which was shewn for the Duke's was on a square piece of paper; what it was I cannot say that was written.
Did you read any part of that writing? I did not.
Are you sure that the signature which you. state to be the signature of the D. of Y. was not written by Mrs. C.? It was shewn to me for the Duke's, I cannot say whether she wrote it or not.
(By Lord Folkeestone.)
What was the word or words which yon believe to be the Duke's signature, which Mrs. C. imitated? She observed that the Duke signed his name three ways, Frederick, York, and Albany; and which of the three I cannot positively say, it was one of those three I am certain.
You are not certain whether it was Frederick, whether it was York, or whether it was Albany? I cannot positively say, but it was one of them.
(By Mr. Sumner.)
What branch of painting do you profess to teach? Flowers, landscape, figures, and fruit.
In your instructions to your pupils, do you ever teach them to draw letters in any particular way, with flourishes and flowers, or any thing of that kind? Yes, I do.
Should you know the writing, if you were to see it, which resembled that which Mrs. (J. wrote in imitation of the D. of Y.'s? No, I should not. The one that she copied from, the one that she shewed me, that she said was the Duke's, I should know if I was to see it.
Did Mrs. C. state that she could imitate the D. of Y.'s signature only, or his hand—writing in general? She only observed his signature.
(By Mr. Barham.)
From the attention to formation of letters in regard to your art, you probably can speak to what sort of hand it was that was shewn to you as the D. of Y.'s; was it a small hand, or large one? It was a small hand.
Was it a nourishing Hand, or a plain one? A plain hand.
You mentioned, I think, that Mrs. C. told you she could imitate the D. of Y.'s handwriting? She did, and she shewed it mo on a square piece of paper.
The word was "imitate?" No, "forge."
Were you much in the confidence of Mrs. C.? No.
You were not at all in the confidence of Mrs. C. when she shewed you how she could forge the Duke's hand? No.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
To whom did you first communicate this fact, of having heard Mrs. C. make use of these expressions? Lady Haggerstone.
At what time? She was taking a lesson.
How long ago? I look upon it to be about three weeks, or more; I cannot say to the time positively; I look upon it to be three weeks, or rather better.
Had any body applied to you, to ask whether you could give this information, or did you, of your own accord, voluntarily mention it first to lady Haggerstone? It was in the course of conversation; she was observing one thing and the other, and she brought up the Duke's affair, the business concerning the Duke; and I suppose lady Haggerstone had mentioned it
824
somewhere, and therefore I was called up to give evidence.
Is it the impression upon your mind, that Mrs. C. had great facility in imitating handwriting? Yes, the Duke's hand, that that was shewn to me for the Duke's.
You have said, that in your presence, Mrs. C. upon a piece of paper, copied the signature, as you supposed, of the D. of Y. which was so exactly similar, that you could not tell the. difference; do you mean to say, you conceived Mrs. C. was equal to imitating hand—writings with great ease? Site copied that extremely well, as I thought; I never saw her copy any other writing.
(By Mr. Bathurst.)
How long is it since you gave any lesson to Mrs. C. the last time? I cannot say, without referring to my book.
Did you and she part on good terms? She is in my debt.
Was there ever any quarrel or animosity between you upon any subject? None whatever.
Did you never question her about paying your debt? Yes.
Had you ever any dispute upon that subject? None whatever.
Has she paid you all that is due to you? No.
Had you any conversation with Mrs. C. about a loan of money? Yes.
State the substance of that conversation to the committee. She said the Duke wished sum of money; she begged of me to inquire of Mr. Abraham Goldsmid, if he would; he said he was no money—lender.
Did you ever say that a person of the name of Jew King was to lend him money? She requested of me to go to Jew King.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. JAMES BREWER was called in, and a Letter being shewn to the Witness, he was examined.
(By Earl Temple.)
Do you know that to be the hand—writing of lieut. col. John Tucker? It is.
You have seen him write? Very frequently. [A letter from Colonel Tucker to the Chairman of the Committee was read.]
Adjutant General's office,
(Public.) Edinburgh, Feb. 12, 1809.
"Sir; Having perceived, with considerable regret, that the name of my lamented brother, who was lately lost in his Majesty's sloop Primrose, has been brought forward by Mrs. Clarke, in her examination before the honourable House of Commons, I trust you will excuse my addressing you, with a view to remove any impression from the public, that either he or myself have obtained our promotion, at any time, through the means of undue or improper influence; for which purpose I hope I may be permitted to state facts without incurring the imputation of

825
presumption or vanity. My brother's military career was commenced in 1790 in India, where he served during the campaign of marquis Cornwallis in that country. He subsequently served in Egypt, as major of brigade to lt. general sir David Baird, through whose friendship and good opinion he obtained the brevet rank which he held in the service: that of major was conferred upon him in consequence of his situation as deputy adjutant general to the forces employed under sir David Baird, at the capture of the Cape of Good Hope; and that of lieutenant colonel was obtained for him by the same excellent officer, on their return from the Cape. He had obtained an effective minority a few weeks prior to his melancholy and lamented fate, having served as assistant adjutant general in Zealand, and as deputy adjutant general to the army under sir Arthur Wellesley in Portugal.
Of his merits as an officer, many distinguished members of the honourable house are able to speak; and, I doubt not, will do justice to his memory and character.
With respect to my own promotion, I can solemnly declare, that I have obtained it in regular regimental succession, by purchase, with the exception of my ensigncy and lieu tenancy, which were given to me, and the brevet rank of lieut. colonel, which I received, in consequence of having been selected by sir Samuel Auchmuty, to be the bearer of his dispatches, announcing the reduction of Monte Video, in South America, by assault, on the 3d of February, 1807. I have had the honour of serving, as a volunteer, on several expeditions, and I feel confident that I have used every endeavour to merit the favours which my gracious sovereign has deigned to confer upon me.
I feel it due to my deceased brother, and to myself, to make this communication to you, being solicitous that my brother officers may not be induced to believe, from the declaration of Mrs. Clarke, that any undue or improper influence has, in the least degree, tended to procure rank to either: and, as my feelings are naturally interested on this unpleasant subject, I earnestly request that you will have the goodness to cause this statement to be made as public as possible. Trusting to your liberality, I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient and humble servant, JOHN G. P. TUCKER, Lt. Colonel.
To the Honourable the Chairman of the Committee, & c. & c"
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, before the Committee should proceed to the examination of the Letters which had been submitted to a Committee last night, to make a statement, which would serve as an answer to a question put on a former night by an lion, member of that House. The question referred to the expence which the D. of Y. had incurred for the
826
maintenance of the establishment for Mrs. C. in Gloucester—place. As far as he was enabled to inquire, no accurate account could be made out of the total amount of that expenditure. There were many items, however, capable of distinct proof, which he had been enabled to collect, the aggregate of which would give the Committee some adequate idea of the actual state of the case. Besides what had been expended for the house and furniture, & c. it had been ascertained, by a reference to his royal highness's banker's bocks, that a sum of 5,570 l. had been paid by drafts for the support of that establishment. He was also authorized to state, that his royal highness had at various times given to Mrs. C. divers additional sums, which he had at present no means of ascertaining, though of considerable amount. No one payment had been paid in Mrs. C.'s name during the whole continuance of her living under the protection of his royal highness. With regard to the drafts upon the banker, that point might be proved by evidence at the bar, or before a select committee if the Committee should be of opinion that it should be gone into: it would appear, from the evidence of the servant who was uniformly employed to take the draft to the bank, and who, when he brought back the money to his royal highness, uniformly waited till his royal highness made it up in packages, or under covers, to be sent by the same servant to Mrs. C.'s house. With respect to the other sums paid by his royal highness on account of that establishment, they could easily be ascertained from the books of the various tradesmen, and other persons who supplied the furniture, jewels, plate,— that had already been so often mentioned in that House, and wine. The whole sum paid from Jan. 1804 to May 1806, was 16,761 l. If the Committee had a wish to go into the question, he was prepared to bring evidence to the bar to prove the statement. (A cry of No! No!) So far he was authorized to state, and he trusted that it would be a satisfactory answer to the question put to him by an hon. member on a former night, and remove any unfavourable impression that might have arisen from the supposition that only 1,000 l. a year was allowed, as stated by the witness at the bar, for the support of the establishment in Gloucester—place.
Mr. Crippsreturned thanks to the right hon. gent, for the attention which he had paid to the question put by him on a

827
former night. Every gentleman must be convinced, that whatever might be the result of this investigation, it was desirable to obviate, if possible, at the outset, the effect of the impression, which might be made by an erroneous representation of the state of the case. First impressions were generally strongest, and it was with a view to prevent the effect of an erroneous impression, that he had put the question he did on a former night. The answer of the right. hon. gent. was as specific as it well could be. As he was upon his legs, he should observe, that however this inquiry might terminate, the D. of Y. would have one consolation arising from it; because, without, the opportunity afforded by it, the unparalleled regularity with which the business of the army was conducted at the Horse Guards, as detailed in the evidence of colonel Gordon, would not have been given to the public.
Mr. Creeveywished to know whether the sum of 5,570 l. was over and above her allowance of 1,000 l. a year, which the Duke of York agreed to pay Mrs. C.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that that sum included all the sums paid by drafts on his royal highness's banker for Mrs. C.'s establishment. As to the other sums which had been paid on the same account, as no memorandums respecting them were to be found, they, of course, were not comprehended in the sum stated; but lie apprehended that the 1,000 l. a year must be included.
Mr. Beresfordobserved, that this was one of the most serious inquiries that had ever been carried on before parliament, or the public. It was not only the impression it made on that house, but on the city and the country in general that was to be considered. It was in vain for them to shut their eyes to any part of the cause, and suppose that thereby they would shut the eyes of the nation. It was competent to any member of the Committee to state what he heard in every part of the town upon the subject, from persons of strong sense and sound judgment. The impression was—(A loud cry of Order! order!)
The Chairmanobserved, that he understood the hon. member to have risen to put a question to the right hon. gent. on the floor; otherwise he was out of order.
Mr. Beresfordsaid, that he had intended to conclude what he had to say with a question; but as he was not suffered to go on, he should put his question—"Do you know that the D. of Y. did pay any and
828
what sum towards keeping the house in Gloucester—place for Mrs. C, in addition to the 1,000 l. per annum?"
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he knew nothing of the allowance of 1,000 l. a year, but from the witness at the bar. He never knew any thing of it from his royal highness. What he had stated, he had taken from a paper which he had in his hand, and which was an account of drafts paid to Messrs. Orramin, Lucas, and Co. for the establishment at Gloucester* place, from January 1804 to May 1806.
Lord Henry Pettyrose to order. He had understood it to be the rule of the Committee, that each witness should answer only to facts within his own knowledge, from which rule the statement of the right hon. gent, was a departure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he had only answered to a question put; and however irregular that question might be, an objection to it would come with propriety from any other quarter.
Mr. Whitbreadadmitted, that the right hon. gent. was not to blame, but insisted, that it was impossible to place his statement upon the Minutes.
Mr. Fullerinsisted that the statement must be placed some where or other. An honourable member had put a question, whether no more than 1000 l. had been allowed for the establishment in Gloucester—place, leaving it to be inferred, that the rest was to be supplied by sinister means. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any common member like himself, came forward with a statement to do away with such an impression, it ought to be placed upon the Minutes, and no honest man could object to it. (Loud cries of Order, order!)
Mr. Crippsdeclared that he had been misunderstood by the hon. gent., as he had put the question in order to obviate any such impression as that alluded to by the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Fuller.Then, sir, any answer to your question is sufficient. (Order, order, order!). Any answer to your question— (Order, order, order!) Any answer to your question is sufficient. (Loud cries of Order, order, order!). Why am I out of order? Why am I out of order? Why not give an opportunity of making known the answers through the same medium as the question?
Mr. Beresfordstated, that his wish had been, when he rose before, to move that the statement of the Chancellor of the

829
Exchequer should be placed on the Minutes, as they were the only true representation of their proceedings.
Lord Folkestonerose to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was called to order by
Mr. Secretary Cunning,who objected to any examination of his right hon. friend, because he had not stood forward as a witness, but merely produced a statement in answer to a question which had been put to him.
Lord Folkestonehad not meant to examine the right hon. gent., though he saw no reason why he should not, if necessary, be examined as well as any other member of the Committee. The noble lord then put a question respecting the amount of some, drafts, and the times at which they were drawn, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, in sums of 200 l. and 150 l. each; and between January, 1804, and May, 1806.
Sir G. Warrenderthought that the course suggested by the right hon. gent., of referring the matter to a select Committee, would have been the wisest.
Earl Temple,in this protracted investigation, deprecated any proceeding, such as the appointment of a select Committee, which would protract it still more.
Mr. Fuller.What would the house or the public wish for more, than that 16.000 l. should be spent in two years on such a baggage as this.—(Loud and incessant laughter, intermixed with cries of Order!) For his part he thought it might have been seen from the shuffling way in which she answered the first six questions put to her, that they ought not to have proceeded with this silly and foolish inquiry.—(Order, order!)—The hon. gent. protested, for some time, against the cry, but was at length compelled to sit down.
A Member observed, that the impression made by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, that the 5,000 l. were in addition to the 10,000 l. mentioned by the right hon. gentleman.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that the 5.570 l. were included in the total sum of 16, 761 l.
Sir G. Warrenderwished to know whether 16,000 l. was the utmost limit of the expence gone to by h. r. h. on that occasion.
Mr. Secretary Canningstated, that when his right hon. friend mentioned that sum, it was only to negative the statement which had been made by the witness
830
(Mrs. Clarke), and which had gone very far abroad, that the Duke did not allow her more than 3,000 l. in three years. The object, however, of the statement was by no means to ascertain what had really been paid, but merely to negative an erroneous statement which had made some impression.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the only reason why he doubted, whether those papers ought to be referred to a Committee, was, that it would be very difficult to bring the matter to any thing; like legal proof. All the proof that there could be of the payment of the 5,570 l. could only be, that such sums had been paid by the Duke's bankers, and that packets had afterwards been sent by the D. of Y. to Mrs. C. Whether those packets did or did not contain the stuns stated, as having been received from the bankers, could only appear by the asseverations of the D. of Y. As that was not legal proof, he doubled the propriety of leaving the papers to a Committee.
After some desultory conversation, it was resolved, that the letters taken at capt. Sandon's lodgings, should, when proved; be read in evidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that, it would be better not to permit the witness (Mrs. C), who was to prove the hand—writing, to read the contents of the letters. It often happened that witnesses chose to read the letters before they would acknowledge their hand—writing, and that at least prepared them for the examination which was to follow.
It appeared to be the sense of the Committee, that the Chairman should admonish Mrs. C., that she was not to read the letters produced to her, but simply to state, upon looking at them, whether or not they were her hand—writing.
Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in; and was informed by the Chairman, that when any letters were put into her hand to ascertain her own hand—writing, she was not to read the contents of those letters.
This is my hand—writing (No. 1.) [Mrs. C. identified other letters, numbered to 41]
Mrs. Clarke.No. 42 is a piece of the D. of Y.'s letter which had come from Dover with his seal upon it; it is directed "George Farquhar," and has the same sort of seal as the note that capt. Sandon had here last night.
[The papers from No. 1 to 42 inclusive, were read.] See page 763.
Captain HUXLEY SANDON was brought to the liar, in the custody of the Serjeant at Anas, and was examined.
(By 1ord Folkestone.)
State to the committee from what motive you, when you were the first time examined about the business of major Tonyn, did not mention the note which von produced last night? I really am extremely ashamed of myself that I did not; and I hope the hon. house will pardon me.
What motive had you for not mentioning that note, when you were first examined at the bar? I really had no motive.
Were you aware that it was a material circumstance to the point on which you were examined? Certainly it was.
Were you not aware that you were hound to give such information as was within your knowledge respecting that fact? I did not understand that I was obliged to give it; I thought if the question was asked me, I was obliged to answer it.
State the reason why you did not mention it on your first examination.—I really do not know how to answer the question.
Why, when you were asked about this note, did you deny knowing what was become of it? At that period the note was mislaid.
Last night did you not know what was become of the note? Not till I went home; it was mislaid.
[The Committee seemed indignant at an answer so contrary to what he gave on the preceding night, and the prisoner was ordered to withdraw.]
Mr. Fremantlethought, that if capt. Sandon was to be examined any further, the Chairman ought to admonish him, that the House could inflict still farther punishment upon him if he continued to prevaricate.
This appeared to he the sense of the Committee, and when the prisoner was again brought in,
The Chairmanaddressed him to the following effect:
"Captain Huxley Sandon; I am instructed by the Committee to remind you of the heavy punishment which has been inflicted upon you for gross prevarication, under the infliction of which you are still labouring; and to inform you, that if you persevere in the same system of gross prevarication, you have not yet experienced all the punishment which can be inflicted upon you by the justice of the house of commons."
Captain Huxley Sandon.—Mr. Chairman; I really do not mean to prevaricate; I am very sorry this hon. house has that idea; I will speak every thing I know; it is my wish, I assure you, not to prevaricate; I will tell every thing I can possibly know.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Do you recollect any conversation which you
832
held with col. Hamilton somewhere in London, since your return to London, when you informed col. Hamilton that the note was destroyed, wherein you used this expression, "they have forgot it" or "forgotten them?" Not upon my recollection, upon my honour; I will certainly say every thing I know; it is my wish and my inclination.
Do you recollect any conversation which you held with col. Hamilton somewhere in London, since your return to London, when you informed col. Hamilton that the note was destroyed, wherein you used this expression, "they have forgot it" or "forgotten them?" No; I never made use of that expression.
(By Sir George Warrender.)
Was it with a view to any emolument or advantage to be derived from the possession of that letter, that you concealed it? No; certainly not.
What was the motive which induced you to conceal that letter from the house, till, by the punishment of the house being inflicted upon you, you, by the fear of that punishment, were induced to produce it? I had no particular motive for keeping back that letter.
Do you then mean to state, that without any direct motive for so doing, you told a deliberate falsehood at the bar? I am sorry to say that I did.
Did you or did you not, at the time of your examination here last night, think that that note was of importance? Certainly I did.
In what way did you think that note of importance? Because it was the note that I presented to major Tonyn, which convinced him that it was the interest I had with Mrs. C. that got him the majority.
Did you know, of your own knowledge, the hand—writing of that note? I never saw the hand—writing, to my knowledge, before.
Did major Tonyn seem to know the handwriting, or did he make any observation upon the note, and what? I do not recollect that he did; I shewed him the note, and at that period he said, then the matter might stand over for two or three gazette days, or a gazette clay or two.
State why it was of importance to you to conceal that letter.—I had no particular reason why I concealed it.
Did col. Hamilton, when you shewed him that note, tell you it was the hand—writing of h. r. h. the D. of York? No, he did not.
What remark did col. Hamilton make upon that note, when you shewed it to him? Previous to my shewing him the note, I told him that I understood it was h. r. h.'s hand—writing; he asked me what kind of hand it was, whether it was a neat little hand, and whether the large T's were made in a particular way, turning over; and when I shewed him the note, I asked him, Do you think it is h. r. h.'s hand—writing? he made me no answer.
Did you apprehend any danger or inconvenience to yourself, from acknowledging that the

833
note was in your possession? No, I did not.
[The witness was taken from the bar.]
Mr. W. Smiththen said, he hoped that capt. Sandon would not be brought again to the bar to give evidence. He had so completely disqualified himself from any sort of credit, that he thought it would be worse than wasting time to ask him any more questions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, lie by no means differed with the hon. gent, who spoke last, as to the credibility of the witness alluded to; but he could wish that he might be permitted to appear once more at the bar, as it might be in his power to give some clue, or throw some light, on the papers which had been so recently put under the consideration of the house, in consequence of his prevarication, and the measures adopted thereon:
Mr. Wardlesaid he wished to obtain the attention of the house to a few observations he was desirous to offer to their attention. It would easily be recollected with what a pompous display of eloquence the right hon. gent. had, on their last meeting, ushered in the statement he had made of a circumstance which he had till then purposely kept back, and which he had then thought proper to bring forward, in an attack upon him, founded on an accusation of his having been guilty of a suppression of evidence. Many and repeated had been the attacks which had been made against him from various quarters since the commencement of this inquiry, and he had endeavoured to treat them all with the indifference which was due to them. That attack, however, which had been made on him by the right hon. gent. In the course of the last night's proceedings, was of a more serious nature than any of the rest, and he would own that he really felt it as most harshly and most unjustly imputed to him. He had deemed it his first and paramount duty, in the prosecution of this inquiry, to carry it on in such a manner as was most likely to attain the ends of public justice, which was solely and entirely the object aimed at, and with that view had refrained from attending to the various and violent attacks which had been made, and the broad insinuations which had been thrown out against him. A time, however, would shortly arrive when he should have an opportunity of answering and repelling those attacks, and of shewing that he had been actuated only by what he thought a due
834
discharge of his duty to his country as an independent member of parliament. Conscious, as he was, of having fulfilled that duty to the utmost of his power, he should content himself for the present with the observations which he had thus thought it incumbent on him to make upon the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he rose for the purpose of saying a few words, in answer to an address to the Committee from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, which to him appeared the most surprising he had ever heard in that house. He appealed to the recollection of the whole Committee, and even to the hon. gent, himself, if he had not, from the commencement of the present inquiry, endeavoured to carry it on in such a manner as, in his mind, to avoid the possibility of such a charge as the hon. gent, had so unjustly brought against him. From the particular situation which he held in that house, he might have placed the conduct of this inquiry on other persons than himself; but in justice to the royal personage who was the subject of it—the son of the revered master whom he served—he thought it would be a more direct and a more striking proof of his respect for the good opinion of his sovereign, and of the public, as well as of that royal personage who now stood accused, to stand forward, and openly and fairly support and defend the innocence of the accused, than to put it into any other hands. In doing this, he had endeavoured to act with every degree of candour and openness; and if he could reasonably flatter himself with any part of his conduct being entitled to the approbation of the Committee, and free from misrepresentation or misunderstanding, it was precisely that which the hon. gent, had thought proper to select as the ground of his animadversion. As to the witness and prisoner who had just left the bar, and had proved himself unworthy of the smallest degree of credit, either from the Committee or any one else, he had never said a syllable which could be construed fairly as tending to support him. He did, indeed, say there had been a suppression of evidence, but he had not the most distant idea of imputing that to the hon. gent., or to Mrs. C., or to any other than himself. As to any attack which, might have been made upon the hon. gent. in the course of this inquiry, he could only say there had been none from him; and he hoped, therefore, that what-

835
ever fault the ban. Gent. might find with what he termed the pompous manner, of his introducing the statement he had made to the house, he would do him the justice to exonerate him from a charge which, as he was perfectly conscious he had not deserved, he would be sorry should be attributed to him either by the Committee, the hon. gent., or the public.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid he had distinctly understood the rt. hon. gent. in the statement he had made last night, to say expressly, that he meant not any thing against his hon. friend, but merely alluded to the witness who was the object of that statement. He could not avoid bestowing on the right hon. gent. his warmest praises for the very manly, open; and candid manner in which he had conducted himself through the whole of this inquiry. He was certain it must have been observed by the whole Committee, and wanted only the addition of his hon. friend's testimony, who had unquestionably misconceived him, to make it complete. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would reflect on what had passed, and he was sure he would come to a very different opinion on the subject to what he had so lately expressed.
Lord H. Pettycoincided in opinion with his hon. friend who had just sat down, as to the open and candid conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the whole of the inquiry, which he thought deserving his warmest approbation, and of which he was sure a misconception only could have drawn to it the animadversion of the hon. gent., who had with equal candour brought forward these charges.
Mr. Wardlesaid, he had certainly felt otherwise the moment he delivered his sentiments; but from what had been said by his hon. friend and the noble lord who had just sat down, and since the very handsome explanation which the right hon. gent. had done him the honour to give upon the subject, he was very happy to say, that what had fallen from him so recently on that, head was merely the effect of misunderstanding.
[The Witness was again brought to the bar, and examined.]
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Have you any recollection how long it was before the appointment of major Tonyn appealed in the Gazette, that you shewed the note you received from Mrs. C. to major Tonya? I think it might be two or three Gazette days; eight or nine or ten days.
Look at that paper, [No. 42.]—I know this paper.
How came that paper into your possession? It rolled up the note that I had to shew major Tonya.
Was it in that state when you received it? Exactly in that state.
Had it no other writing upon it? No, nothing more; it rolled up the note I received from Mrs. C. to shew major Tonyn.
Do you recollect why Mrs. C. gave you that bit of paper to roll up the note? No, I cannot recollect why she did it: let me recollect why, there was some reason why it was given; I cannot positively take upon me to say what the reason was, but there was some reason why the note was rolled up in that piece of paper; there was some reason, which I cannot now really recollect.
Try if you can recollect it.—I cannot recollect; but I am perfectly sure there was some reason why she gave me the note rolled up in that bit of paper; I think, if my memory will bring me through, it was when the Duke was reviewing somewhere upon the coast, and it was to prove to major Tonyn, in some way or other, that that note was written by h. r. h.
Do you mean that the Duke was reviewing near the coast when you shewed this paper to major Tonyn? He was on the coast, I understood, at that period: she had received this letter, which she produced; I do not know whether she did not produce the letter, and read part of it to me, and then she tore off it piece, and rolled up the other, and said, this will convince him that this comes from h. r. h., who is now upon the coast.
How could that letter, not having upon it the Duke's name, convince any body that another letter that appeared to be in the same hand—writing was the Duke's? I really do not remember now; but that he was at Dover or in Kent, reviewing, at the period, I perfectly well recollect.
Do you not recollect that the D. of Y.'s name was upon the frank of the letter at the time it was produced to you? I never saw it.
Was there any thing respecting the seal that was to be observed? Not that I recollect.
Why should you give credit to that cover more than to the note? It is so long since, that I cannot recollect why, but that there was some reason I am certain.
(By General Loftus.)
Recollect yourself how you came to go to Mrs. C.'s on that day, whether by accident, intention, or solicitation.—I should think it was from solicitation.
In what room did you see Mrs. C.? I really cannot say; I used to see her in every room; such as the drawing-room, and the dining-room, and her little dressing-room.
Will you recollect whether any person was present? No, I do not recollect that circumstance.
On what business did you go there on that

837
day? I think it was from her solicitation, that I might go to major Tonyn, to inform him that she had got this paper, or that I was to take the note and shew it to major Tonyn, it came from h. r. h. the D. of Y.; but there are some letters which I gave up to this hon. house, that I think mention something about that very business.
Did you state to Sirs. C, that major Tonyn wanted his security back again, or his money? That he wanted back his memorandum.
What contrivance was it between Mrs. C. and you to keep major Tonyn from recovering that memorandum? I know of no particular contrivance; she desired I would go to him, and speak about the majority.
Then the Committee is to understand, that you went there and had a conversation with Mrs. C. how to manage to keep major Tonyn in temper until this majority could be had, and that you found there a note, purporting to be a note from the Commander in Chief, ready written and sealed? I do not exactly recollect that circumstance; I have related previous to it how I came acquainted with major Tonyn; and when I had the honour of being introduced to major Tonyn, it was on the very demur, when he was tired of the business, and thought the influence I had could not get the matter done, and desired me to get back the security; the consequence was, I informed Mrs. C. of the subject.
And she had a note ready? No, I beg your pardon, not that I recollect, then.
The note was not ready? Not that I recollect.
Then if the note was not ready, how came you to bring it away with you? I do not recollect; she told me she had got a note, and shewed me this note, and desired me to take it to major Tonyn; I of course took it, and told him that it was the interest by which we would obtain the majority; I did not know at that time that was from the Commander in Chief; Mrs. C. gave me the note, and said that he had better wait two or three Gazette days, and in all probability he would be gazetted.
Did you find the note there, and was it sealed or not? When I first saw the note, it was not sealed; it was broken open, the seal was broken.
Was it re-sealed? Not in my presence.
Did you deliver it sealed to captain Tonyn? No, I took it in my hand, and shewed him the note.
Will you undertake to say that there never was a contrivance between yourself and Mrs. C. on any occasion of this kind, to fabricate such a note? Positively never.
You have stated that the Commander in Chief was reviewing on the coast when you received that note from Mrs. C? So I understood from Mrs. C.
How long had h. r. h. been absent from town at that time? I really cannot say.
Had he been three days absent? I really do not know.
(By Mr. Croker.)
There are certain pencil marks and other marks of your's upon the papers which were laid upon the table last night; were those marks and dates the dates of the times that you received those papers? If you will do me the honour of letting me see the papers, I will say for what purpose I put them, to the best of my recollection.
[No. 9 was shewn to the witness.] On that you will find a pencil mark, "17th of August, "1804;" state what that pencil murk means.—This of course must be the date of it; here it is upon the post mark.
Was the pencil the date when you received it? No, it could not be, for here is "August "the 17th."
What is the meaning of this pencil mark? That must be from something of this sort, for here is 17th of August upon the post mark.
What is the meaning of' that pencil mark? I suppose it must be the date of the letter.
Is not that pencil mark your baud—writing? I think it is, but the words "Mrs. Clarke" upon it, are not mine.
[No. 12 was shewn to the witness.] You will observe there is a pencil date upon that letter of the 8th of June, 1804; what does that pencil date mean, was it the day you received the letter? No, this must be wrong, because it is June 9th, and here is "June 8ih," and June the 8th does not look like my handwriting; the word "majority" is*mine.
Has that letter been out of your custody since the time you received it, till last night? No, certainly not.
Then is it possible any other person than yourself could have put that date to it? No, I should imagine not; but still it does not look like my handwriting.
Do you recollect the purport of the note? No, I entirely forget what it is.
[The Note was read.]
Hearing the purport of this note, state how this note, which mentions "a stop to the business," could possibly encourage major Tonyn in the idea of its going forward? The note says, does it not, that it is to go on?
On the contrary, it says it stops, "shall re" main as it is;" how can this note, which speaks of its remaining as it is, encourage this gentleman in the expectation of its going on? It was then going on, and I should imagine it was meant that it should go on.
If you attend to the purport of the note, you will find that it says it shall stand still; what do you understand by the expression in that note, that it is to remain as it is? I really do not understand it, I must confess.
Here there was so general and loud a call of Withdraw! withdraw! that no other questions or answers could be heard, and in a few minutes the messenger was ordered to take the prisoner from the bar.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,

839
before he moved that the Chairman should report progress, it was necessary to consider when he should ask leave to sit again. He had been in hopes that they would have been able to come to a conclusion in the course of the present sitting, but such a mass of fresh evidence had unexpectedly and suddenly come before the Committee, in consequence of searching capt. Huxley Sandon's bureau, in order to find the Note supposed to have been destroyed, and reported by the Select Committee to be referable to this inquiry, as would make it impossible to take it into consideration that night; he thought the Committee might meet on Monday, and that in the interim gentlemen might pause, or take extracts from those letters, and on that day ask leave to sit again at such time as might then be deemed most proper and convenient.
The Chairman then left the Chair, the house was resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and it was ordered that the Committee meet again on Monday.—Capt. Huxley Sandon was ordered to be remanded to Newgate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that it would be necessary the letters he had just alluded to should be sealed, and placed in the custody of some proper person or persons. It seemed, however, difficult to fix in whose hands they should be left, so as to give the members of that house an opportunity of seeing them, and making such extracts as they might severally think proper to make.
The Speakerintimated, that the proper officer to take care of the Papers was the Clerk of the Journals and Papers, and he should be ordered to permit members of the house to peruse and make extracts from them, but no one else.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that an observation had been recently made by an hon. gent., which appeared to him as highly important as any that had been made in the course of this examination, viz. That on a close inspection, the turn and texture of many of the letters in the Note of the D, of York was different from those of the other Letters said to be written by him. He could, therefore, wish that some other persons, such as those of the Bank or Post-office, who were in daily habits of examining different hand-writings for the purpose of detecting forgeries, might also be permitted to see them, and be called on for their opinions before the Committee: and to
840
obviate any objection, it might be ordered that no such persons should be permitted to peruse them, but by an order from the Speaker.
Mr. C. Wynnthought it would be better that such inspection should take place at the bar, and then the Committee might see any impression, which surprize at the difference, if any should be found, might raise on the countenances of the witnesses.
Mr. W. Smithexpressed his opinion that the observation alluded to by the right hon. gent., was highly important, but as it contained a most minute criticism, he thought an examination of the several letters at the bar, would be too brief and sudden for the gentlemen inspectors to form that decided judgment which was necessary. He should therefore prefer the proposition of the right hon. gent.
Lord Folkestonesaid, he was sorry this had not been mentioned sooner before the Committee, because he thought the more letters written by the D. of Y., which they had to compare with the Note, the better able they would be to form a decided opinion as to the difference. It had been proposed that Mrs. C. should produce a bundle of the Duke's letters which she had in her possession, but that not being agreed to at the time, there would not now be an opportunity of having an inspection of those letters along with the others.
Mr. Mellishsaid, he had carefully perused the note and the two letters, and en a comparison, perceived a great difference in the turn and formation of several of the letters, which made him doubt their being of the same hand-writing.
It was then ordered, that all the papers alluded to should be lodged in a box, and delivered into the custody of the clerk, and that they should remain in his custody, but that at particular hours, viz. from eleven to three, they should be shewn to members of the house, and to such other persons as should be authorised by an order of the Speaker.