Commons Sitting of 3 March 1809

PLYMOUTH DOCK POLICE BILL.
The house having resolved into a Committee upon the subject of the Plymouth Dock Police,
The Attorney-Generalproposed that the chairman should move the house for leave to bring in a Bill for establishing a new Police for Plymouth Dock, for the purpose of preventing depredations upon the King's Stores. The learned gent. observed, that the king's shipping lying in the river Tamar, which divided the counties of Devon and Cornwall, facilities of escape to offenders were by that circumstance afforded, against which it was highly necessary to provide, in consequence of the number of the offenders, and the extent of the depredation. With this view, the Bill proposed the constitution of a local police or board of magistrates, who should be in constant attendance, and who, by having a certain proportion of the two counties subject to their authority, might be enabled to guard against the evil complained of.
Mr. Curwenwas always, upon constitu-
1148
tional grounds, jealous of the erection of boards of this nature, because they served to increase the patronage of the crown, which was already so enormous, and which was so systematically advancing, that in time scarcely any man could escape its grasp; because they involved an augmentation of the public burthens, which he hoped speedily to see retrenched, or the public would have reason to despond indeed; and also, because they interfered with the authority of the independent magistracy of the country.
The Attorney-Generalassured the hon. gent. and the committee, that he would be the last man to interfere with the privileges, or even, if he might add, the prejudices of the magistracy, to whom he felt the country owed so much, and particularly from the circumstance of their services being gratuitous; but the establishment of a local Police was in this instance essentially necessary, and when he stated that the suggestion of that necessity proceeded from an honourable gent. on the other side of the house, the member for Plymouth, (Mr. Tyrwhitt) he supposed the suspicion of any desire to extend government patronage by this proposition would be obviated.
Mr. Tyrwhittcorroborated the statement of the Attorney General; and explained the necessity which called for the Bill.
The motion was agreed to, the house resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to bring in the Bill.

GENERAL CLAVERING.
Mr. C. W. Wynnrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the house to the conduct of brigadier general Clavering. But before he did so, he thought it necessary to state the reasons which induced his acquiescence in the delay that had already occurred upon this business. At the same time he must observe, that although he acquiesced in the delay, the impression upon his mind of gen. Clavering's prevarication, was so strong, upon the last night of his examination, that he thought the Committee ought not to have separated without coming to a decisive resolution respecting it. There were many forcible reasons why such misconduct should have been brought to an early discussion. For if the prevarication of a man of the rank and station of gen. Clavering, were suffered to escape with impunity; if an example were not made in his case, the mischievous consequences likely to result must be obvious. But when he heard it

1149
stated by some gentlemen, that this officer's examination upon a former evening, was not, combined with his letters, sufficiently fresh in their memory to come at once to a decision, the reason for delay was too strong to be withstood. But there was a still stronger reason in his mind for consenting to delay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer staled, that the whole of the papers respecting the evidence would not be printed before the Monday following gen. Clavering's last examination, while the discussion of the main question was fixed for three days afterwards. With this statement in his recollection, and naturally thinking that no subject of discussion should interfere in so short an interval, with that attention which every gentleman must be anxious to give alone and undivided, to a question of so much importance, he did not conceive it proper in such a period to bring this motion forward. But the discussion of the main question being postponed till Wednesday next, and the whole of the evidence having been before the house since Tuesday last, he hoped this would not be deemed an improper or unsuitable opportunity for considering the proposition which he had to submit to the house. To delay it any longer, would indeed, he should think, be a hardship. For any individual of his rank and connection must naturally be agitated, while a charge so materially affecting his character was suspended over him. Therefore, all who were disposed to consult the feelings of gen. Clavering, would concur with those who were desirous for justice in bringing the question respecting that officer to a speedy determination. He was not aware, indeed, of any good reason for delay. It had been suggested to him that this motion ought not to be proposed until the main question was disposed of; because there were gentlemen who might be inclined to bring forward a similar charge against other witnesses. If this proposition were likely to affect the main question; if it could be shewn that it was calculated to make either for or against the Duke of York, then, in that case, there would be a good ground for postponing it. But the evidence of gen. Clavering had no such tendency. The merit of every one of the witnesses should be considered on its own grounds. There might be less or more degrees of connection between them, but he would protest against the justice of examining them upon general grounds, upon impeaching them in a bulk,
1150
or upon a comparison of notes. It might be equitable to send other witnesses to Newgate; but let the merit or demerit of each be examined upon separate grounds, as he proposed in this instance with regard to gen. Clavering. When the correctness of any other witness should be submitted to the consideration of the house, he should feel it his duty to come to the discussion in the same rule of justice which he called upon gentlemen to apply to the subject of his motion. But he should very ill discharge his duty, or deserve a reputation for common sense, if he did not Mark the difference which existed between the nature of general Clavering's testimony, and that of any other witness. For not only would more mischief result from the impunity of this officer's misconduct, but his case was if fact prominent and single in its character. In the first place, his evidence was quite voluntary; he had no occasion to come forward. He begged that he might not be understood to insinuate that any occasion could justify prevarication; but yet, if a witness were called for, if obliged to appear at the bar, it was natural that he should endeavour to defend himself from any thing like inculpation. But here the case was different: general Clavering was a volunteer witness; he came forward of his own accord, and therefore was liable to the suspicion of designing to impose upon the house.—Here the hon. and learned gent. drew the attention of the house to the following questions, upon which he meant principally to rest his Resolution, and which he contended did not affect, in any manner, the deposition of the other witnesses. Those questions were the last put to this officer on the 10th of February, which was his first day's examination.—had you any communication whatever on the subject of army promotions with Mrs. Clarke? I never proposed any conversation of that kind, nor do I recollect any having ever existed, excepting at the period I before alluded to, when she requested I would recommend to the consideration of the Duke of York, lieutenant Sumner, of the 20th regiment. I understand you then to say, you had never at any time any communication or conversation what ever with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of army promotions, except in the case of lieutenant Sumner? Certainly not, as being the subject of conversation. Had you any incidental conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon that subject? A period

1151
of so many years having elapsed since that time, it is impossible to speak positively and accurately to a question so close as that, but to the best of my belief I do not think I had.—Do you of your own knowledge know that Mrs. Clarke used her influence in favour of any person whatever in the army with the Commander in Chief? I do not.—Do you of your own knowledge know of any person asked her to use her influence with the commander in chief upon that subject? I am not acquainted with any person that ever did; I have heard reports of that nature, but I cannot bring to my recollection any person positively,—Then you state positively that you do not know of any transaction of that nature? None, to my certain knowledge. —Give a direct and positive answer to that question. I do not know of any transaction of that nature. —To my understanding, observed the hon. and learned gent, nothing could be more direct than this disavowal, and notwithstanding what had been said in every direction on the subject —notwithstanding what had transpired, and must have occurred to his memory—notwithstanding the publication of his own letters delivered in by Mrs. Clarke on the 15th of February, this officer does not offer to come forward until ten days after his first examination, prompted no doubt by the letters; and what does he do? He proposes an explanation of his former testimony; and what was that explanation? Why, truly, that he understood communication and conversation to mean merely personal, and that it had no reference whatever to correspondence. But does it appear that this officer had really no personal conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of army promotions? On the contrary, we find in the letter of the Duke of York of the 24th August, a direct allusion to a request of this officer, where he states Clavering is mistaken in thinking that any new regiments are to be raised; it is not intended; only 2nd battalions to the existing corps. You had better, therefore, tell him so, and that you were sure that there would be no use in applying for him. What is the inference from this letter, and how is that inference confirmed, or rather made manifest, by general Clavering's own letter of the 28th of August? In this letter, the house will perceive he enters very fully into the nature of the proposal, respecting which Mrs. Clarke had applied to the Duke
1152
of York in vain, as his royal highness's letter of the 24th of August explained. It will also be observed in this letter, that although general Clavering professed, at the bar, that he should consider it as a slur upon him if he had been overlooked in the promotions which took place in the 1804; if he had not been appointed a brigadier-general in the ordinary routine of merit, yet that he alludes to a recent obligation for his present appointment. Now, what does this recent obligation refer to, but to his commission of brigadier-general, which he had obtained on the 5th of June, as Mrs. Clarke stated. But let the house look to this officer's letters of the 11th of November and 12th of December, in which he continued to address Mrs. Clarke upon military subjects: begging her to ascertain whether new regiments were about to be raised, and to acquaint him of it as soon as possible. With these facts in the recollection of the house, any gentleman disposed to acquit gen. Clavering of prevarication must believe three things: first, that this officer did not understand conversation or communication to mean any thing more than personal, and that neither had any reference to epistolary correspondence; and 2ndly, that he considered the raising of a new regiment as of so little consequence, that after the lapse of five years it was impossible for him to recollect such a trivial point. Good God! sir, is it probable, nay possible, that such a person, a general officer too, could obtain belief, when stating at this bar, that the object of raising a regiment, for which he had offered 1,000/., could, after a period of five, or any number of years, escape his recollection? The idea is quite preposterous.—But the third circumstance to which I allude, seems still more difficult to believe; namely, that this officer, when stating in his answers at the bar, that he knew not of any application being made to Mrs. C. upon military subjects, of her obtaining any military promotions, or applying to the D. of Y. for any person; he (Clavering) did not conceive himself, or his concern in any such transactions, to be at all included. In a case of this nature I am willing to make every allowance for misconception or inaccuracy, that can be reasonably required; but, if there be any gentleman who will lay his hand to his heart, and say that he can believe these with regard to gen. Clavering, I shall only say, that I cannot expect that such gentleman will vote for my motion.—Having gone through the several

1153
points of the case, the hon. and learned member expressed his sense of the painful task he had to perform upon this occasion, to which, however, he was urged by too powerful an impression of public duty, to shrink from it under any consideration of personal feeling. There were many aggravating circumstances connected with this case, which rendered it impossible for the house to overlook it. If a man of high rank, of honourable connection, and honourable profession, with every motive to impress a just sense of honour, would not tell the whole truth, from whom was the whole truth to be expected? The dignity of the house, its character, and its interest, appeared to him to be implicated in the fate of this question. For if an example was not made upon such an instance of gross prevarication; if a witness could save himself from the consequences of his shuffling, by such frivolous pretences as the house had heard from gen. Clavering, its inquisitorial powers must become nugatory, for how could it be expected that a witness would be very solicitous about telling truth at that time, when not bound by the obligations of an oath, and released from the dread of punishment for prevarication?—The hon. and learned member concluded with moving, That the Minutes of the Evidence given by brigadier-general Clavering on the 10th and 20th of Feb. last, and his Letters which were read on the 15th of Feb. last, before the Committee of the whole house, who were appointed to investigate the Conduct of h. r. h. the Duke of York, might be read; which being read accordingly, the hon. and learned gent. moved a Resolution, That general Clavering in his said Evidence had been guilty of prevarication.
Sir M. W. Ridleydid not profess to justify those parts of gen. Clavering's testimony to which the hon. mover alluded, but there were some statements and observations of his, independently of the evidence, which he was enabled to correct. He could assure the hon. gent., that so far from being an obtrusive volunteer witness, it was not at all the wish of gen. Clavering to appear before the house. Indeed, that appearance resulted from the advice of others, and from the impression, produced upon this officer, that he would be called to the bar, as a material evidence concerning Mrs. Clarke, and the course he took, which he was led to think the more proper, of writing to the Attorney-General, was in consequence of the opinion of Mr. Lowten.
1154
The second appearance of gen. Clavering was also the effect of the counsels of those who thought themselves the best judges of his interest. It was represented by gentlemen who frequented the Clubs, &c. that his Evidence had been the subject of much reprehension, and therefore he was determined to come forward, and candidly confess any thing, although that confession might injure him. But he could assure the house, however extraordinary it might appear to the hon. mover, that gen, Clavering did really entertain the impression in his own mind, that the words conversation or communication did not refer to correspondence, and that none of the questions upon the first day of the examination, referred to himself or his transactions with Mrs. C. That impression, indeed, was so strongly fixed upon the general's mind, that after he left the house on the first day, he met a noble relation of his, the duke of Argyle, to whom he expressed his surprise, that, after all the examination, not a cross-question had been put to him respecting himself or his own transactions, in fact, he was certain that general Clavering was not guilty of any intentional prevarication or concealment. He could not, indeed, bring himself to believe that the respectable father of a family, that an officer of his character, rank and connections, who had served his country with so much credit for 14 years, as could be testified by several officers of the highest eminence, if the house would allow them to appear at its bar; that such a man would at once determine deliberately to sink from his proper station, by acting a dishonourable part before a committee of that house: so thinking of him, he was inclined, and hoped the house would be inclined also, to treat him with indulgence. Indeed, he was willing to throw himself upon the mercy of the house, assuring them that general Clavering was innocent of any intentional falsehood and contradiction. The hon. baronet requested that the house, before it came to any discussion upon this motion, would call the duke of Argyle to the bar, who could confirm the fact he had mentioned, and also that distinguished officer the earl of Moira, who was desirous of speaking to the professional character of gen. Clavering. He concluded with exhorting gentlemen to consider the peculiar situation in which this officer stood. Bred in a profession Which gave him no opportunity of acquiring any legal education,

1155
he appeared at the bar before the combined wisdom of the nation; he submitted whether in the course of an examination of an hour and a half, such as he underwent, it was possible for him, or almost any man, however disposed to tell the truth, to escape some misconception or inaccuracy. Sure he was, that gen. Clavering's lapses were not the effect of design, but rather attributable to want of adequate capacity, than to any deliberate intention to deceive.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had understood, and he believed it had been generally understood by the house, that the discussion upon the conduct of general Clavering, in giving his evidence, would be subsequent to the determination of the house on the Charges now pending before the house. He certainly had thought that the general opinion was, that it was desirable that any question arising upon the conduct of any witness that would in itself lead the house into, as it were, a premature determination upon the evidence, had better be postponed till after the decision of the house upon the great question that had so long occupied its attention; and what served to bear him out in that conclusion was, the line of conduct which the house had thought proper to adopt with respect to another witness of the name of Donovan; in that case the house, whatever might have been its opinion of that person's testimony, had thought it right to forbear any decision upon it till after they had decided on the more important charge before them, and he could not help wishing that the hon. gent. would pursue the course that that instance might naturally suggest to him, and concur with him in the propriety of postponing that discussion till they had come to a decision upon the great question itself. He could not approve of taking one witness out of the mass; it would be better to wait until they could examine into all, or as many as might call for the investigation of the house. In saying thus much, he would not be understood as wishing the house to decide upon comparative merit; far from it. No man in the house was more prepared to say than he was, that it would be no ground for arguing, that because they did not proceed against one witness they ought not to proceed against another. He would not say, that because they did not commit one evidence for prevarication they ought not to commit another; so far from it, that he certainly
1156
thought that the evidence of each person should be left to rest upon its own merits merely, at least as far as that question went to affect the character of the evidence. The hon. gent. had said, that it would be a great disgrace to that house, after the instances which had occurred so recently at the bar, to overlook the case of general Clavering. Without now going into the question, he would say, that he entirely concurred with that hon. gent, and did not think that the house could possibly avoid taking it into its grave consideration; but he did not think that that was the time for entering upon the discussion. They had, to be sure, already decided in the case of Sandon, but that case was, in one respect, materially distinct from that of general Clavering; the prevarication of Sandon happened on the same day, and was of a nature so obviously gross and wilful, that the house had no difficulty in coming to an unanimous resolution of committing him; and from the prevarication happening at once, and upon the same day, there was no necessity of referring to any antecedent evidence, which would be indispensably necessary to the forming a right judgment in the present instance. Besides, he did not know how the house could now take upon itself to say, that any evidence did or did not materially bear upon the charges; he put it therefore to the hon. gent., whether he would put the house in the situation of deciding now upon the evidence, before they had come to any decision with respect to the charges themselves? He would not propose adjournment: he should be very sorry to do so: but he put it to the feelings of the hon. gent., whether, in consideration of such circumstances, it would not be as well to defer the question to some early day, after the house had decided upon the charges? He agreed entirely with the hon. gent. as to the necessity of that house rigorously asserting its own dignity, and the more especially so, in consequence of the recent offences committed against that dignity during the course of the late inquiry; and he would go farther; he did not think it enough, that that house should visit with its just resentment those persons only who had been detected in prevaricating at their bar, but those also who were guilty of advancing a falshood in their testimony. The house had sufficient powers to punish every insult offered to its dignity, and in punishing those who had been bold enough to utter falshoods at their bar,

1157
they would only discharge that duty due to the maintenance of their inquisitorial character. The remedy lay with themselves; indeed, perhaps, it did not lie elsewhere; for he believed (and he appealed to his hon. and learned friend near him), that there was no precedent upon the books of an indictment for false testimony given at the bar of that house. He did not mean to pledge himself that false testimony given at the bar of that house, would not be an indictable offence, but he did not recollect having ever heard that any person had been indicted for such an offence. In making these observations he did not wish to throw a shield or a screen over genl. Clavering, but rather over the whole mass of the evidence, into an examination of any part of which he did not think it right for the house |to go before they had come to argue upon the whole in relation to the charges, in support or in denial of which charges that evidence had been adduced. He again, therefore, put it to the feelings of the hon. gent., whether he would, at the present time, press his motion on the house? He put it to him, whether every desirable object of justice (and he was convinced the hon. gent. had been influenced by no other motive than a sense of justice,) would not be as completely and as efectually answered by punishing gen. Clavering after the discussion had taken place on the Charges against the duke of York as before, in case the house should think that the general had prevaricated? He proposed therefore, to the hon. gent., that he should defer his motion to the earliest day, suppose Friday, after the discussion of the Charges. In making this proposal to the hon. gent., he was influenced solely by a sense of its propriety, and not, he could assure the house, by any wish to compromise its dignity.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that as he had taken a part in the early stage of this transaction, he could not avoid saying one or two words. When the Motion was first proposed to the house on a former evening, he had wished to postpone the consideration of it, but he confessed he could not see any satisfactory reason for postponing it to a further day. He was perfectly convinced that his right hon. friend, in submitting the proposition he had done, had the same object in view that he himself had; but leaving out of the question altogether whether there was or was not adequate grounds for conviction, he still thought that the merits of the evidence
1158
now questioned ought to rest upon its own distinct, specific and exclusive grounds, and that it would be better to try it upon those grounds rather before than after their ultimate decision upon the pending Charges, because if in the course of the discussion it should appear that this evidence either made for or against the duke of York, might it not be said that either party, (he did not now mean political parties,) wished, according to the bearing of that evidence, whether for or against them, accordingly to befriend or to resent, but if they now went into the question, such a suspicion could not take place; besides, it should not be said that they entered into any comparison of the different testimony, and then justice should be defeated by any compromise among themselves, contracting that if one will spare this man, another will spare that; this was not the wav to support the dignity of the house; every case of that kind was, and ought, to rest on its own grounds. He thought it therefore better now to go into an investigation of the motion now before the house, than to wait until after the house had decided upon the charges.
Mr. John Smithdid not understand that any material inconvenience had resulted to the house in consequence of their having committed Sandon. He was, however, ready to admit that there were some points of distinction between the case of Sandon and that of gen. Clavering, but, at the same time, there did appear contradictions in the evidence of the last witness, that he very much feared it would be impossible satisfactorily to explain, nor was it to be forgotten in the case of general Clavering, that he came for the avowed purpose of invalidating another witness.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that as it had been postponed so long, perhaps it would have been as well to have postponed it a little longer, in case that the postponement would not be considered by gen. Clavering as a hardship; he thought, however, it would be extremely improper now, that it was brought before the house, to suffer the motion to be withdrawn, because that would look in some degree like a step to abandon it altogether, which would certainly go to commit the dignity of the house. If it did meet with the general wish of the house, not to go into it till after the charges were disposed of, he thought that in that case, the best plan would be to adjourn over the question to some day subse-

1159
quent to the discussion of the charges. With respect to the comparison of capt. Sandon's case with that of gen. Clavering's, it had been stated, that Sandon's evidence was given on the same day. He certainly had no hesitation in saying that if gen. Clavering had given all his evidence at one time, that house could not have had a doubt about what proceeding it would have been its duty to have taken; or if his own letters had been produced on the same day that he had given in his evidence the house could not have hesitated as to what it ought to have done. In another observation that had fallen from the right hon. gent., he seemed to think that this question went to put the house in the situation of deciding upon the testimony; even if it did, still that proceeding did not go to discard the evidence; so far from it, that in a very recent instance they had brought up to their bar a witness whom they had committed to Newgate for gross prevarication. As to the present question, if the wishes of the house were not inclined-to enter on the discussion now, he suggested as the best way to adjourn over the question to a future day, but disapproved of his hon. friend now withdrawing his motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that he had not the slightest intention of moving the adjournment, as that would look like taking it out of the hands of the hon. gent. with whom he wished to leave it. He would rather the hon. gent. himself would move the adjournment. [Here Mr. Wynn said across the table, Move! move!"] The right hon. gent. then moved, That the debate be adjourned till that day se'nnight.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid that the reason why he wished the right hon. gent. rather to move the adjournment than himself was, that he did not feel the weight of the objections made by the right hon. gent. to the propriety of entering into the discussion on the motion at that time. He was not, however, disposed to resist the general wishes of the house. In bringing it before them he had discharged the duty to which he had pledged himself, and they would now do theirs.—The debate was then adjourned to the 14th instant.