Sitting of 14 February 1809

CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK
The house, pursuant to the order of the day, went into a committee to consider of

613
the Charges against his royal highness. Mr. Wharton in the Chair.
Mrs. ELIZABETH BRIDGEMAN was called in and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Do you recollect any thing of Peirson, the butler to Mrs. C, Calling to have a note changed the latter end of July, 1805? Yes, I do.
State where you live. No. 6, Verestreet.
In what business are you engaged? A confectioner.
State exactly what passed with regard to that note. I cannot recollect exactly what passed, but I did not change the note.
Do you recollect Peirson bringing a note to be changed at that time? He did bring a note, but I do not recollect seeing the note, and I did not change it.
Have you no memorandums which you could refer to? No.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Perhaps you do not know the amount of the note? I think he said it was a 100 l. note.
You did not see it, but he said so? I did not see it.
Do you recollect with any precision the time, the day, or the month in which it happened? I do not.
Some time in July? I cannot say what time it was, but I recollect the circumstance of his coming with the note.
You cannot even be sure as to the month in which it took place? No.
Was he frequently in the habit of coming to your house? Frequently, to order things for Mrs. Clarke.
To get notes changed? I never recollect his changing any thing more than a small note, which might be to pay any little bills she had contracted.
You do not, of your own knowledge, know this was not a small note? No, I did not see it; he merely asked me, whether I could change such a note.
You did not see the note, and did not change it? No.
Do you recollect what was the largest note you ever changed before for him? I do not, but none of any high amount, I never changed.
(By General Loftus.)
Are you certain that Peirson told you this was a large note? To the best of my recollection he said a 100 l. note.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Do you recollect whether it was in the summer time? I cannot say positively, but I think it was.
(By Mr. Sham Lefevre.)
Do you not carry on business in partnership
614
with another person? There is another person in the concern with Mr. Bridgnian, but not exactly a partner; but he knew nothing of the transaction of the note.
Did you in general have the management of the money concerns, or the partner, in the year 1805? He had nothing to do with it, he was in the country.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW was called in, and the Letter from heut.-col. Shaw to Mrs. Clarke, given in evidence yesterday, being shewn to him, he was examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Do you know col. Shaw's hand-writing? I think I ought to know it.
Do yon know that to be the hand-writing of col. Shaw? I think I know it to be.
Did you ever see him write? I have.
Do you state that to be his hand-writing? I believe it is.
Have you any doubt about it? I have no doubt about it; it is very like, and I believe it is.
(By Lord Henniker.)
Did you ever see col. Shaw write? Col. Shaw is my son, and we have lived as father and son ought to do; as good friends.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. CHARLES SHAW was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Of your own knowledge, do you know that 200 l. was remitted to Mrs. C. on account of col. Shaw? No, I do not; but I know that 300 l. was.
State at what period that 300 l. was remitted. I received a letter from col. Shaw, mentioning that he wished to convey 300 l. to his friend, and requesting that I would receive that sum of Mr. Coutts, having sent me an order to that effect, and that I would send it by a careful hand, addressed to Mrs. Clarke. No. 18 Gloucester place. I received the money from Mr. Coutts, in consequence of the order, and delivered it myself at the door.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
When was that? I unfortunately have kept no papers or any letters; but, in consequence of the summons of this house, I called at Mr. Coutts's today, and found from their books that I received it on the 9th of May 1806; and I perfectly recollect that I delivered it that day at Mrs. Clarke's door.
Was this a remittance from col. Shaw from the Cape? From Bath; he was then immediately to leave Bath for Portsmouth to embark for the Cape; the letter, I perfectly recollect, stated, that though he had received his appointment through the influence of his friends—
Thes you have got the letter? I unfortunate-

615
ly have it not, far I destroyed it soon after lie embarked; but I perfectly recollect that he stated, that though lie had received the Appointment through the influence of his own friend, Mrs. C. had shewn a disposition to serve him; that he had already paid her 300 l. previous to this, and had received an application for the last sum by way of loan, and that he was loth to refuse her, because he believed there was a disposition to serve him, though the Appointment came certainly through the influence of his friend, whom I knew to have been Sir H. Burrard, who had interested himself very much upon all occasions for this gentleman, and that the Appointment was got by him; but that, as this lady has shewn a disposition to serve him, he had in consequence sent this 300 l. that it was expressly given by way of loan. In consequence of what I read to-day in the news-paper, that Mis. C. declared in this house that this gentleman had used her ill, and had not fulfilled all his engagements, I beg to, declare front my own knowledge, and I am ready to bring evidence to the Bar of this house, that lieut -col. Shaw is a man of as high honour and as good an officer, as any man in the king's service, and is incapable of making any pecuniary promise the he has not literally, faithfully, and honourably supported. I beg pardon, if I have been too warm; but it is such a reflection upon this gentleman. I am willing to produce officers, from his colonel downwards, who will state that he never forfeited an engagement he had made in his life; his services are well known.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw;
Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Can you state when major Shaw was appointed to be assistant barrack-master general, and at what period he was put upon the half-pay? I beg to ask, whether you would wish me to answer that question as it is put to me, or to read the whole proceeding respecting major Shaw's appointment, from the first to the last.
Answer the question at first as it is put.—I do not believe that I have got the document in my possession which can exactly answer that question; it must have. been about the end of March 1806, or the beginning of April.
Do yon mean that it was the end of March 1806 or the beginning of April that he was appointed barrack -master general? I believe he was appointed deputy barrack-master general, and placed upon hall-pay immediately afterwards.
Do you know how soon afterwards he was placed upon the half-pay? I cannot from my recollection at this moment ascertain the dates, but they are very easily ascertained: a reference to the army list, or the documents in the office, or the Gazette, would ascertain it in a moment.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Are there documents in your office that would ascertain it? Yes, there are.
State any thing you know to the Committee respecting the applications that were made for col. Shaw's situation.—With the permission of the house, I will read all the documents in my possession with respect to the appointment of major Shaw, lieut.-col. Shaw. The first document is a letter from lieut.-gen. Burrard to me, dated August 11th, 1804; it is not dated where from, but it was most likely from the Orderly-room in the Guards.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"Aug. 11th, 1804.
Dear Sir; T am so much employed on a hoard of clothing, that I cannot do myself the pleasure of waiting upon you. The enclosed will inform you of the situation of a friend of mine, whom I wish much to serve. If col. Clinton is in London, he can tell you exactly how he stands; as can Col. Loraine. If you can put me in the way of serving bun, I shall be extremely obliged to you. He has served long, always abroad, and very gallantly, and his father was a brother captain and friend many veal's hack. I request you to excuse the liberty I take and trouble I give you, and believe me truly, Your most obedient, HARRY BURRARD."
"Lt. Col. Gordon, &c. &c."
The next document is my Answer to that Letter.
[Colonel Gordon read the Answer.]
"Horse-Guards, 16th Aug. 1804.
Dear General; I fear that your wishes in behalf of major Shaw cannot be complied with, h. r. h. being of opinion, that he must join his regiment before any further recommendation in his favour can be attended to. Your's &c.
(Signed) "J. W. GORDON."
"M. General Burrard, &c. &c."
The next document is sir Harry Burrard's to me, August the 27th.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"Aug. 27th, 1804.
My dear sir; I shall be obliged to yon if you will let me know whether Clinton has spoken to you about major Shaw; and if you think he may be likely to see the Commander in Chief to morrow. He has found a major of the 39th eager to go to Ceylon, but he is himself preparing as fast as he can, however distressing it is to him. I am truly your's, H. BURRARD."
The next is my Answer to that Letter.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"Horse Guards, 28th Aug. 1804. Dear General; Clinton spoke to me with much warmth about major Shaw, but having twice mentioned his name and

617
wishes to the Commander in Chief, I cannot again venture to do it. I recommended major Shaw to speak to h. r. h., and state his situation. (Signed) Your's,
"J. W. GORDON."
"M. General Burrard, &c. &c."
The next Letter that appears upon this subject is from sir Harry Burrard to me, on the 27th of March, 1805.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
put by.
"March 27th, 1805.
"Private and confidential.
My dear sir; My friend Shaw's health is by no means re-established, and his family still in extreme distress from their recent losses and misfortune. I could therefore wish his leave to be extended for two months, and I am sure it would prevent infinite distress to him. If you can manage it for me I shall be extremely obliged to you. I have heard it whispered, that it was possible rank could be obtained by raising men. If it is so, and this could he allowed him, it would most materially Serve him, and do away the mortification I am afraid ray want of skill has occasioned; and I should not have to reproach myself at any rate with want of success I am afraid his leave will be soon out, and his anxiety will, of course, be great. Pray excuse the trouble I give you, and be assured that nothing can afford me mote pleasure than serving you, as I really am Your, &c. HARRY BURRARD."
The next is my Answer to that Letter dated the 28th of March.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"Horse Guards, 28th March, 1805.
Dear General; His royal highness has much pleasure in complying with your request for a prolongation of leave of absence for major Shaw, which leave has been extended for two months, from the expiration of his present leave, and the same has hen notified to the adjutant-general. At the same time it is but just to hint to major Shaw, that there is a duty to the service, to winch the Commander in Chief, however anxious h. r. h. may be to relieve the distresses of individuals, must give attention; and, if the circumstances of major Shaw are such as to preclude him from joining on so remote a service, he should retire upon the half pay until some more favourable opportunity. Ever your's, &c. J. W. GORDON.
P. S. There is no intention at present on the pan of government to raise men for rank in the infantry.
"Lt. General Burrard, &c. &c."
The next is from general Burrard to me on the 10th of May following.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"C. B.
"Speak to me.
"May 10th, 1805.
My Dear Sir; I cannot sufficiently acknowledge, in general Archer's name and my own, how much we feel obligation to h. r. h.; I sincerely hope Archer will have opportunity of evincing his gratitude and zeal. Since I spoke to you concerning major Shaw, he has called upon me to inform me that he cannot, conditionally not to pay if he docs not proceed to India, get a passage secured, and that the captains require 400 l. Now, as he is led to have some hopes-still, that an opportunity may offer to promote him, from what h. r. h. so graciously said, he feels a reluctance to sink so large a sum, if there is a possibility to avoid it. If you could, therefore, soon again recall him to the Duke, he would abide by whatever was the determination of his royal highness. Excuse my troubling you, and believe me, &c, HARRY BURRARD."
"Lt. Colonel Gordon."
The next is my Answer to that Letter.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter]
"Horse Guards, 13th May, 1805.
Dear general; I have laid your letter of the 10th instant before the Commander in Chief, and am directed to acquaint you, that h. r. h. sees no prospect of any early opportunity of complying with major Shaw's wishes: and that, therefore, it is advisable he should proceed to join his regiment by the earliest conveyance. I have, &c. J. W. GORDON."
"Lt. Gen. H. Burrard, &C. &C."
The next that I hold in my hand is March 1806, from sir Harry Burrard to me.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"(Confidential.)
"March 26, 06."
"My dear Gordon; I hope you will pardon the anxiety of a soldier to get promotion; and of his friend, and the very ancient one of his old father, to assist him in it, particularly as he is well assured of his zeal and general worth. Under this presumption I inclose a letter from major Shaw, with my earnest hopes that should any thing turn up, in which you can bring his name forward, that he may not be forgotten. I inclose it for your private reading, and request at your leisure you will return it. I will at any time attend you, to prevent you the trouble of writing, or rather the time of it, for I know the former you do not mind. Your messenger knows where to find me, as I am at this orderly room for two or three hours most days. I am truly your's with great regard,
"HARRY BURRARD."
Mr. D.
I shall be glad to speak to general Burrard this evening if possible, if not, about two tomorrow."
The inclosed is from major Shaw, to sir Harry Burrard, dated Pevensey Barracks, 19th March, 1806.
[Colonel Gordon read it.]
(Inclosure.)
"Pevensey Barracks, 19th March, 1806."
My dear sir; I fear that you must think me presuming on your many kindnesses in again troubling you, and, being without apology, I must rely entirely on your goodness. In making, however, my present request, let me beg that, if attended with any circumstances unpleasant to you, that you bestow no farther consideration, than pardoning the liberty of my having made it.— I shall premise with stating, that previously to my removal from the Ceylon regiment, h. r. h. had been graciously pleased to promise me promotion, on a favourable opportunity offering: and on my joining the 40th regiment, I repeated my desire of purchasing, to which I now stand noted by a letter from col. Gordon. Having had further assurances then to me of his royal highness's favourable intentions, in the admission of my services, being now nearly 23 years in his majesty's army, that my cotemporaries are generally colonels, or old lieut. colonels, and that I experienced the mortification of being purchased over by an officer from another regiment, and by many years my junior in the profession; from these circumstances, I am induced to hope that should colonel Gordon favour me by bringing my case to h. r. h.'s notice, that I might benefit by some mark of favour in the military arrangements that are expected to take place. It is in this expectation that I venture to trouble you, and I shall feel myself sincerely obliged by your mentioning to colonel Gordon (should a desirable opportunity offer) my services, disappointments, and present hopes; and I shall esteem it a particular favour his bringing my case at this period to h. r. h.'s remembrance. I shall no longer trespass on your time but in offering my best respects to Mrs. Burrard. I remain, &c.
"J. SHAW."
The next letter is one from general Burrard, March 29th, 1806.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
"(Private.)
"March 29th, 06.
My dear sir; To shorten the business, I send you Shaw's letter, which is no thing more than to say, that he gratefully will accept, if the deputy barrack-mastercy at the Cape can be obtained, with the rank of lieut. col. and go there in three weeks. I explained that; and also, that (if it could be obtained) he would be put on half pay as soon as it could be done. His request is to come to London immediate-
620
ly, if he can succeed. I am truly, &c. "H. BUKKABD."
"Pray return the letter."
"Lieut. Col. Gordon."
"C. L."
The appointment is now to go on.
I did not return the letter, and I now have it in my hand; it is a letter from col. Shaw to gen. Burrard.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
(Inclosure.)
"Pevensey Barracks, 28th March, 1806. My dear sir; I am just honoured with your letter, and I trust you will believe that I feel, though I shall not attempt to express my gratitude, for your present and many kindnesses towards me, and I can only add, that my sense of obligation can alone cease with my existence.—I have, as far as the present time allowed, given every consideration to the proposal you have made me, and should conceive myself fortunate in succeeding to it, and should be ready to proceed in the time you mention. I have only to request, that should the decision prove favourable, that I might be permitted an immediate leave of absence, as I should have a great deal to arrange in regard to my family. It would be my wish, could I procure an accommodation, to take my wife and two of my children out with me, and to leave the others in this country.—As our warning for the post is very short, I must conclude, begging my best respects to Mrs. Burrard, and that you will believe me, &c. J. SHAW."
"General Burrard."
The mark I put upon this letter was, the Appointment is now to go on; it did go on, he was appointed deputy barrack-master-general at the Cape, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and, as soon as possible, was put on half pay. I have further to state to the committee, that when this subject was mentioned in the house some evenings ago, I sent to sir H. Burrard, to request he would bring to his recollection all the circumstances that took place upon the subject of Shaw's appointment. Sir H. Burrard waited upon me on the 30th of January last, and put this paper into my hands.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
The following day sir Harry Burrard sent me this letter.
[Colonel Gordon read the letter.]
I have now told the committee all I know upon that subject.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
In the first letter that you have read, col. Shaw refers to some promises made him of promotion by h. r. h. the Commander in Chief; do you know what those promises were? I cannot state exactly that I do know, but I supposed them to have been the usual answers given to officer who make application for promotion,

621
that their names were noted, and would be considered with the names of other officers of equal pretensions, when future opportunities offered.
You do not know of any other promise which major Shaw had received? No, I do not.
Is it usual for field officers on the staff to be put on half pay? When a field officer accepts a staff appointment abroad, a permanent staff appointment, it is useless for him to be placed upon the half pay; it is the general rule of the army: there are exceptions, which I can explain when called upon.
State the exceptions.—The best way for me to state the exceptions would be to read to the committee a List of all the permanent staff situations, and to state all that are upon half pay and who are not, and why.
Was the officer who held the appointment before major Shaw, on half pay or full pay? If I recollect right, major Shaw was the first person who held it; he was appointed upon the capture of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope.
[Colonel Gordon delivered in a List of the Staff Officers on Foreign Stations.]
(By Sir George Warrender.)
How many of these officers holding staff situations, who are upon half pay now, were on half pay previous to and at the time they were appointed to those staff situations? Speaking to the best of my knowledge, I believe when they were appointed to their staff situations, they were every one, without exception, on full pay.
Was sir W. Keir upon full? He was not.
You have stated that the two other staff officers at the Cape are lieut. col. Sorel and lieut. col. Harcourt; were either of those officers upon half pay when they received those appointments? No, they were not, they were put upon half pay since; the paper I gave in will state it exactly; and I do believe, with the exception of sir W. Keir, they were all upon full pay; there may be one or two exceptions.
(By General Fitzputrick.)
Does sir W. Keir receive his half pay? That is a financial question that I can only answer as matter of general information; I believe he does not, as he has applied for it, and I believe he does not receive it.
(By Mr. Abercrombie.)
Am I correct in supposing that col. Kempt was appointed quarter-master general in Canada, on the recommendation of sir James Craig; col. Kempt being at that time absent in Sicily? Yes, he was; col. Kempt had no notion of his appointment until it was intimated to him.
Am I correct in supposing that col. Kempt would have declined that situation, if it had interfered with his situation as lieut. col. of the 81st regiment? I am quite positive of it, for he repeatedly assured me so.
Is the deputy quartermaster-general in Sicily on. full pay, or does he receive any other pay
622
than that of his staff situation? I do not know that he does; I believe that he receives merely the pay for his staff situation, and will be placed upon the half pay in addition to that as soon as an opportunity can be found, but at present he is aggrieved by not even having the half pay; that is lieut. col. Campbell.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Have the staff-officers, whom you mention as being on half-pay, been on half-pay ever since they have held those staff situations? I believe I have stated to the house, that to the best of my recollection they were all upon full-pay when they were appointed, and were placed upon half-pay as soon as possible afterwards.
Immediately upon their receiving their staff appointments they were placed upon half-pay? As soon as possible afterwards; the Commander in Chief has it not in his power to place an officer upon half-pay whenever he pleases, there must be a vacancy On the half-pay establishment.
I understood you to say that an officer of the name of Bowyer in the West Indies was on the full-pay, holding a staff appointment; what staff appointment does he hold? I said that major Bowyer was deputy adjutant general in the West Indies, and he is the eldest captain of the 59th regiment, he has been ordered to join his regiment, or he will be placed upon the half-pay.
What regiment did col. Shaw belong to before he received his staff appointment? Col. Shaw exchanged from one or two, but I believe it is the 40th regiment.
Did general Burrard command a battalion of the guards at that time? He commanded the brigade of guards in London.
Did you state those documents which you read to be all the documents respecting the appointment of major Shaw? They are all that C know of, in my present recollection.
All those that are in the office? Upon my word I believe so.
Is it customary to appoint an officer to any staff appointment or any advantageous situation, without inquiring of the officer commanding the regiment to whom he belongs, what has been the conduct of that officer? That is the general mode to apply to the officer commanding the regiment; but major Shaw had not been in the 40th regiment six months, if my recollection serves me right, and gen. Burrard states that he knew him from a boy.
Is it not customary to apply to the general officer, who is col. of the regiment, in such cases? No, I cannot say that it is; the col. of the regiment, not being with his regiment, he is very often not so good a judge of the merits of the officer as the officer actually in the command of it, or many other officers with whom the individual may have previously served.
In point of fact, no application in this case was made to any person but to gen. Burrard?

623
Gen. Burrard mentions in his letter that he had sir James Craig for his friend, and I have endeavoured to bring to my recollection whether sir J. Craig had ever spoken to me about Shaw; I cannot bring to my recollection that he did, but it is possible that he might.
Had col. Shaw ever served under sir J. Craig? I really know no more of it than exactly what sir H. Burrard states in his letter; it is most likely he had, for he had served a I great deal in India, and it is probable that in India he had obtained the patronage of sir J. Craig.
(By General Loftus.)
Do you know col Meyrick Shaw? There is a col. Shaw who has just been removed into the 76th regiment, I believe his name is Meyrick Shaw.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Do you recollect his being confidential secretary to lord Wellesley in India, then a major? I rather think hat he did hold some appointment under lord Wellesley, as lord W. has more than once recommended him to the notice of the Commander in Chief.
Do you recollect, that in consequence of his purchasing the lieutenant colonelcy of a regiment not in India, he was put upon half-pay?? Yes, I think I recollect that perfectly, that be purchased the lieut. colonelcy of the 31st regiment.
Was there any deviation from the ordinary practice of the army in the appointment of col. M. Shaw to the lieut. colonelcy of the 76th regiment? None whatever, it was the constant practice; I stated I believe in my evidence some nights ago, that it was the rule of the army that a junior officer should not be placed over the head of a senior officer of the same rank, that is, the junior major of one regiment should not be put over the head of the senior major in another; but lieut. col. Shaw was a lieut. col. and he was placed on the lieut. col.'s vacancy over the head of the major; that is the constant practice of the army, there has been no deviation whatever in it.
Do you know what recommendation Mr. Samuel Carter had for his ensigncy in the 16th regiment? Yes, I do.
(By Mr. Wellesley Pole.)
What is the date of major Covell's commission as major in the army? August 1807.
From what date dots lieut. col. Shaw take rank as lieut. col. in the army? I should think he has been a lieut. col. rather better than three years, I have no document by me that will state that accurately.
(By General Loftus.)
Do you know that col. M. Shaw was a great many years a commissioned officer in the East India Company's service, before he came into his majesty's regular service? I do not know it from my own knowledge, I have heard the
624
very best character of col. Shaw, from various officers.
Do you know whether he was removed to the half pay without receiving a difference? I believe be was.
Is it not a regulation, or at least understood, that whenever an officer is placed upon half pay without receiving a difference, government is in some degree pledged to place him upon lull pay as soon as a favourable opportunity offers? The Commander in Chief has invariably been governed by that rule.
(By the Secretary at War.)
Do you know whether I took a particular interest in lieut. col. Sorel? With the greatest deference to the right hon. gent. who put that question, I may say that he importuned me upon it.
Did I importune you to solicit h. r. h. to keep that officer upon full pay, as long as he could with propriety be kept in that situation? Yes, certainly.
(By Mr. John Smith.)
Q. Do you know any instance of a private solder of a dragoon regiment, who by his good conduct arrived at the rank of captain, and obtained a Quarter-Master's Warrant, and in that situation commanded officers who had been lieutenants when he was private?
[The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Colonel Woodobjected to the question, as coming within that line of examination which the committee had already decided against. He understood the opinion to be, that no case should be gone into except where the rules and regulations of the army had been broken in upon. If questions such as these were to be admitted, they would not know where to stop. To enquire into cases of promotion, where the rules of the army had not been broken in upon, would be to trench upon the prerogative of the crown, in which was exclusively vested the power of granting commissions in the army.
Mr. S. Bourneobserved, that the lion, member opposite (Mr. Wardle,) had been stopped from going into other matter, in order that some questions might be put to the witness relative to col. Meyrick Shaw. He put it then to the hon. member, whether he would travel into other cases, until that immediately under consideration had been disposed of.
Mr. J. Smithstated the object of his question to be to impeach the evidence of the witness at the bar, for whom, however, he felt a high respect. That witness had stated that the settled regulations of the army had never been broken into. He was not afraid to state that the contrary was the case; and it was to shew

625
this that lie had put the question to the witness.
Mr. S. Bourneshould not object to the question, if it were put with any view of impeaching any testimony given at the bar.
Sir G. Warrender,though he did not approve of the course of examination which had been pursued, yet considered this question as proper as those which had immediately before been put, relative to col. Shaw.
Mr. W. poleinformed the committee, that the object of his questions was to put the committee in possession of a fact of which it seemed not to have been aware, that col. Shaw had been a lieut. col. some years before major Covel was a major.
Mr. Yorkeobserved, that the inquiry concerning Samuel Carter had been stopped, in order to proceed with the case of col. Shaw, but, if it was contended that the regulations of the army had been broken in upon, he was of opinion that the question should be put.
Gen. Loftusrecollected the evidence which had been given by the witness on a former night, and he was convinced it could not be impeached. He had not said that the rules of the army were never departed from, but not generally, and except in special instances.
[The witness was again called in, and examined.]
(By Mr. J. Smith.)
Do you know capt. Brunker, who either is, or lately was paymaster of the 5th dragoon guards? I cannot say that I have that pleasure.
Do you not know that that officer, who is a very meritorious officer, was formerly a private in that regiment? I have already said, that I have not the pleasure of knowing him at all.
Do you know Mrs. Clarke? I never had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. C. till I saw her at the bar of this house two evenings ago.
(By Mr. George Juhnstone.)
In the series of correspondence which you have read between gen. Burrard and yourself, there is a letter sometime towards the 28th of March, wherein gen. Burrard, in the most earnest manner, renews his solicitation on behalf of major Shaw, and a note is made upon that, desiring to see gen. Burrard that evening, or early next morning; did you see gen. Burrard in consequence of that desire so expressed? I think it is most certain that I saw him, for his next letter contains an answer to something I must have said to him.
On that occasion did you suggest to gen.
626
Burrard, that this appointment of barrack master at the Cape of Good Hope was vacant, or about to be so? I cannot state positively that I did not, I think it most likely that I did.
Had you ever had any conversation with the Commander in Chief upon that subject, and had he ever expressed any earnest desire to provide for major Shaw? I do not recollect that the Commander in Chief expressed any desire at all, but I certainly must have had some communication with him, or I never could have ventured of myself to have made such a proposal to sir H. Burrard.
Did the Commander in Chief ever speak to you upon the subject of major Shaw, except when you, in the course of your official duty, made representations to the Commander in Chief respecting major Shaw? I do not recollect that He ever did, but I beg leave to state, that it is pressing my recollection a little hard, considering that there are 11 or 12,000 officers of the army, all of whom, or their friends, either correspond with or address me.
(By Mr. Brand.)
Did you ever hear of Mrs. Clarke's selling, or pretending to sell commissions in the army, before it became the subject of discussion in this house? Never, but through the medium of the numerous libels that have been lately published against the Commander in Chief.
Did you ever set on foot any enquiry into the truth of those statements? I have already stated to the house, that in the autumn of 1804 I had understood that numerous abuses of this kind existed, and I did set on foot every inquiry that it was possible for mc to do; I ascertained that these abuses were practised, and in a letter that is now before the house, cautioned the Officers of the Army against such practices; even subsequent to that letter, I had proof that such abuses did exist, and I obtained the opinion of eminent counsel, and they assured me it was not even a misdemeanor, and that I could have no redress; upon that I represented the circumstance to the then Secretary at War, as I have already I believe stated in evidence to this house, and a clause was inserted in the Mutiny Act, to impose a fine upon it.
From what source did you receive your intelligence of the existence of those abuses? I rather think that the source was anonymous; but upon inquiry I found that the account was true, and I traced it to Mr. Froome, an army broker, and a Mr. Hebden1, I believe a clothier in Parliament-street: I sent for Mr. Froome; Mr. Froome told me that he had received this money; I think it was nearly 1,000 l. for the paymaster-ship of one of the battalions of the German legion: I think, I am speaking now from recollection, that he told me also that he had only received a percentage upon the money, and paid the money to other hands: after repeatedly pressing him, I think he named Mr. Hebden the army clothier. I sent for Mr. Hebden, and after some conversation, I must

627
state to the house that I was not a little surprised at the impudence of that gentleman, who told me positively that he received the money, and would tell me no more about it; that is the proof to which I alluded.
The name of Mrs. C. was never mentioned to you as a party to this or any other similar transaction? Most certainly not.
(By Mr. Dickenson.)
Did you ever disclose to the D. of Y. the circumstance of Mr. Hebden and Mr. Froome: Yes, I did indeed, and to many other people, and took the opinion of lawyers upon it; which opinion I believe, and all the documents upon it, I can, if necessary, lay before this house.
What was the Duke's answer? The Duke desired me to scrutinize it to the bottom, and, let it fall upon whom it might, he would make an example of them.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Since this transaction, do you know that Mr. Froome has been employed by Mr. Greenwood? No, I do not know it.
(By Mr. Charles Adams.)
You delivered in a paper from Messrs. Greenwood and Cox, relative to the exchange between lieut. col. Knight and lieut. col. Brooke, some of which you stated to have been written in the original in pencil; how did that happen? As this paper is printed, it is incomprehensible almost to me: when this paper was laid before the Commander in Chief, I received his pleasure upon it, and I marked upon it this pencil remark "C. L." (Colonel Loraine] cannot be acceded to; h. r. h. does not approve of the exchange proposed. Subsequent to that, inquiries were made as to the services of lieut. col. Brooke, on whose account it was that the exchange was not acceded to The result of these inquiries was such as to induce mo to lay the papers before the Commander in Chief again; and this second pencil remark is the result of the second representation I made to the Commander in Chief.
Is is usual to make your remarks in pencil? Sometimes in pencil, sometimes in ink,
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Were yon acquainted with Mr. Froome, or knew any thing of his situation in life previous to the interview you had with him on the subject of this commission? I knew him as a reputed army broker to a great extent, and one of; description of persons with whom I declared open war the moment I came to the Commander in Chief.
In consequence of the transaction stated by you, were any steps taken to prevent his transacting that agency business for the army I do not understand that he ever was authorized to transact business for the army, but he transacted it in spite of every thing I could do; he was an army broker, not an agent.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Was it not in consequence of information which you obtained upon the subject, that those circular letters were written, and the clause in the Mutiny Act submitted to parliament? The circular letter was written in consequence of the information I had obtained prior to the fact with which I have now acquainted the house; the clause in the Mutiny Act was brought into this house subsequent to that, and because I found that I had no redress.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Was there ever any entry made of col. Knight's exchange not being approved by the Commander in Chief? Certainly there was, and sent cither to col. Knight or col. Brooke; I. had the letter in my hand the first time I gave evidence before the house.
Through what recommendation in your? office did Mr. Samuel Carter receive his Ensigncy in the 16th foot? Lieut. Sutton of the Royal Artillery.
[The Letter was read, dated Dec. 7th, 1801.]
"Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, December 7th, 1801."
May it please your royal highness; The kindness that your highness has at all times, most graciously bestowed on me, emboldens me to address you in the behalf of an orphan lad, nearly 10 years of age, of the name of Samuel Carter (whose father lost his life in the service, and whom I have brought up and educated,) in hopes that your highness will be graciously pleased to appoint him to an Ensigncy; a favour that I should not presume to ask but on the score of my long service and sufferings in his majesty's service; which I hope and humbly trust your royal highness will take into your gracious consideration, who am, with all due submission and respect, &c.
"THO. SUTTON,
"Lieut. Royal Artillery."
"Lt. Col. L."
From present circumstances, it is not in the Commander in Chief's power to recommend any person for a Commission; but the person mentioned will be noted to be provided for at a future opportunity.
"J. C."
Do you recollect when he was appointed? Here is lieut. Sutton's Answer to the notification, which will state it exactly.
[The Letter read, March 29th, 1804.]
Lieut. Sutton presents his most respectful compliments to col. Clinton, to acknowledge the honour of his note of the 51st inst. and bees to express how gratefully he feels the appointment h. r. h. the Com-

629
mander in Chief has been pleased to confer on Mr. Samuel Carter."
"London, March 29th, 1801."
"Colonel Clinton, &c. &c."
The appointment must have taken place there or thereabouts.
Do you know whether lieut. Sutton is dead? Until I looked into these papers, I did not know that such a man existed; I have heard that lie is dead.
(By General Loftus.)
Are not candidates for Ensigncies frequently on h. r. h.'s list for two or three years before they can be appointed? That depends upon the period; at the period of 1801, the reduction of the army, and the period of peace, it was absolutely impossible to appoint him, as the answer states; the answer is in substance upon the body of the letter, but here it is in length.
[Colonel Gordon read the Letter, dated 8th. December 1801.]
"Horse-Guards, 8 Dec. 1801."
Sir; I have received the Commander in Chief's commands to acquaint you, in answer to your letter of yesterday's date, that from present circumstances it is not in the Commander in Chief's power to recommend any person for a commission; but h. r. h. has directed Mr. Samuel Carter's name to be noted, to be provided for at a future opportunity. I am, &c.
"Lieut. Tho. Sutton, "Roc. BROWSIUGC."
"Royal Artillery,
"Royal Laboratory, Woolwich."
I should imagine the circumstances alluded to were the reduction of the army.
Have not you recently known instances of candidates, respecting whom there was no disqualification, where they have frequently remained two or three years before they were appointed? Certainly; I dare say there are 100 upon the Duke's books at this moment, or two.
Is there any subsequent recommendation of Mr. Carter? I have no other documents whatever on the subject.
When a recommendation is once in, is it necessary for a subsequent recommendation to come when that candidate is noted upon the list? The usual practice is, when a person sends in a memorial, he follows it up by him elf and his friends repeatedly, and commonly in person.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Do you know the date of Mr. Carter's commission? I cannot say that I know the date, hut it must have been between the 17th and 21st of March 1804.
In the affair of the exchange between col. Brooke and col. Knight, had not col. Knight previously made an application to be allowed to exchange with col. Pleydell? Yes, he bad.
Was that objected to? Yes, it was.
Are the documents upon that subject now in the office? I rather think they are.
Did you ever hear of a person of the name of Hector Stray, an Ensign in the 54th regiment of foot? To the best of my recollection, I never heard his name mentioned before.
Have you with you any means of ascertaining whether there is such a person? I have not with me, but I can ascertain it by eleven, o'clock to-morrow morning.
You stated, on a former examination, that you had frequently been in the West Indies; were you not born in the West Indies? I was not, I have the honour of being a Welshman.
(By Alderman Combe.)
To your knowledge, did Mr. Hebden, who received the 1,000 l., for the Paymastership, ever obtain that Paymastership? The Pay-mastership was certainly obtained, and that struck roe very forcibly when I made the inquiries.
Is it competent to you in your official situation to produce the documents of that appointment? I can produce them; it will give me great satisfaction if the Committee will do me the honour to go into them.
At whose recommendation are Paymaster-ships bestowed? The colonels of the regiments through the Secretary at War.
(By the Secretary at War.)
Has the Commander in Chief any concern with the recommendation for these appointments? None whatever, except the submitting them to his majesty.
Is it a matter of course for the Commander in Chief to submit to his majesty those recommendations for Paymasterships, which are approved by the Secretary at War? It is quite a matter of course, when approved of by the colonels of the regiments and the Secretary at War:
Does the recommendation of the Paymaster on all occasions originate with the colonel of the regiment, or does the Secretary at War appoint? I understand the practice to be, that the recommendation is with the colonel of the regiment, and it is submitted to the Secretary at War, whose duty it is to take care that the securities are good.
(By Mr. Dickenson.)
Who was the colonel who recommended the Paymaster, in the case of Hebden, to the Paymastership? I really do not know who the col. of the battalion was; it of course came through the head of the German Legion, the duke of Cambridge.
Who was Secretary at War at that time? I rather think it was gen. Fitzpatrick, I will not be quite sure.
Is there not an express regulation, that Pay-masterships cannot be sold? I understand it to be so decidedly,
Do you happen personally to know lieut. Carter? No, I do not, to my knowledge I never saw him.
Do you know from any correspondence that, although he was, as was expressed upon his recommendation, a poor orphan, he had had a sufficient education to qualify him for an ensigncy, being the son of a soldier who was killed in the service? Until his name was mentioned here last night, I never heard his name mentioned.
(By Mr. Ellison.)
Who appoints the paymasters? I have already stated, that the col. of the regiment recommends the Paymaster; the Secretary at War approves of the sureties, and in that shape they come transmitted to the Commander in Chief, who lays them as a matter of course before the king.
(By General Fitzpatrick.)
In what year did the transactions you have alluded to relative to Mr. Hebden, take place? I really do not know, hut this I know, that it was in consequence of the transaction that I was induced to speak to the Secretary at War to insert a clause in the Mutiny act.
Do you not recollect whether the transaction did not take place before my appointment as Secretary at War: whether that transaction could have ever come under my cognizance? I really cannot take upon me to state the exact date, it must have been there or thereabouts, I cannot speak to the exact period.
Cannot you ascertain, by reference to your papers, whether it was before the month of Feb. 1806? I cannot, without reference to the Army List; the Paymaster's name was Blunderstone, of one of the battalions of the German Legion.
(By the Secretary at War.)
Do you not understand it to be a matter of course, that the Secretary at War should recommend any paymaster that is recommended to him by the colonel of the regiment, provided he finds him to be a person fitted for the situation, and that he has proper security? Quite a matter of course.
(By General Fitzpatrick.)
Upon what ground do you say that the recommendation of the commanding officer of a regiment, for the paymaster, is received as a matter of course at the War-office? I am called upon to answer a question that in no shape belongs to the office which I superintend, but as matter of general information, I understand that when the colonel of a regiment recommends a paymaster to the Secretary at War, if the Secretary at War sees no objection to such recommendation, and his securities are good, then it is a matter of course that he recommends.
(By Colonel Barry.)
In case the Secretary at War should disapprove of the securities, what is then the process? I beg to repeat that I am answering questions in no way connected with my office, but as a matter of general information I can state, the Secretary at War would then return it.
Would not the colonel then have another recommendation which might meet with approval? Certainly.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Produce the documents respecting the resignation of major Turner.
[Col. Gordon delivered them in, and the following papers were read: Letter from Messrs. Greenwood and Cox to col. Cordon, dated Craigs'-court 5th of Sept. 1308.—Letter from capt. Turner, dated Canterbury, 26th Aug. 1808.—Letter from lieut. Sitwell, dated Canterbury 26th Aug. 1808.]
Craig's Court, 5 Sept. 1808. Sir, we are directed by lieut.-gen. Cartwright, to enclose the resignation of brevet major Turner, for the sale of his troop in the 3d or (King's Own) Regiment of Dragoons, which we request you will be pleased to lay before held-marshal h. r. h. the Commander in Chief, together with the recommendation of Lieut. Sitwell to succeed thereto, the purchase-money being satisfactorily settled, and no senior lieutenant in the regiment having signified an intention of purchasing. We have, &c.
"GREENWOOD, Cox & Co.
Lieut.-col. Gordon, &C. &c. &c."
Canterbury, 26 August 1808. Sir, I beg you will he pleased to obtain for me his Majesty's consent to the sale of my commission of Captain in the 3d or King's Own regiment of Dragoons, which I purchased. In case his Majesty shall be graciously pleased to permit the same, I do declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I have not demanded or accepted, neither will I demand or accept, directly or indirectly, at any time, or in any manner whatever, more than the sum of 3,150 l. being the price limited and fixed by his Majesty's regulation, as the full value of the said commission.
"I have the honour to he, &c.
"Which cote Turner, caput."
"Officer commanding 3d or
"King's Own Regt. of Drags."
Canterbury, 26 August 1808. Sir, I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me his Majesty's permission to purchase the troop, vacant in the 3d or King's Own regiment of Dragoons, (vice) Turner, who retires; the senior lieutenants hating declined purchasing. In case his Ma-

633
jesty shall be graciously pleased to permit the same, I do declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an- officer and a gentleman, that I will not now or at any future time, give by any means or in any shape whatever, directly or indirectly, anymore than the sum of 3,150 l. being the price limited and fixed by his Majesty's regulation, as the full value of the said commission.
"I have the honour to be, &c.
(Signed) "R. SITWELL, Lieut. 3 Drags."
"To the Commanding Officer,
"3d or King's O. Regiment of Drs."
I beg leave to recommend the above, and I verily believe the established regulation in regard to price is intended to be Strictly complied with, and that no clandestine bargain subsists bet ween the parties concerned. (Signed) "W. CARTWRIGHT,
"Lt. Ceneral.
What is the meaning of that mark "Put by?" Put by for the present, until further inquiries were made; the correspondence will explain it.
[Letter signed Lucy Sinclair Sutherland, dated London, 5ih of Sept. 1808.—Letter from col. Cartwright, dated 14th Sept. 1800.—Letter from col. Cartwright, dated 18th Sept. 1808.—Letter from major Turner to col. Gordon dated 23d Sept. 1S08. —Letter from major Turner to col. Gordon, dated 7th November 1808.—Letter from col. Gordon to Mr. Turner, dated 8th of Nov. 1808.—Letter from Mr. Turner to col. Gordon, dated the loth Dec. 1808.—Letter from col. Gordon to Mr. Turner dated the 16th Dec. 1808]
Portman-street, 5 Sept. 1808.
Sir; I think your royal highness will readily comply with the following trifling request I take the liberty of making. It is, not to. accept the resignation of major Turner of the 3d or King's Own Dragoons, in favour of lieut. Sitwell, till March. He has behaved with unkindness towards a Lady who merited different treatment; and it is of importance toiler to know where to find him for these six months; and if he quits the regt. he means to secrete himself from her. Besides, it is not quite honourable for an officer to wish to leave the army while his regiment is under orders for embarkation. Your royal highness will therefore perceive he does not merit indulgence. The General knows all about it, and can corroborate what I say, if necessary.— Major Turner depends on col. Gordon to expedite his resignation; I depend on your royal highness to prevent his obtaining it for some months. I Hatter myself such a trifling and just request you will not refuse. I have, &c.
"LUCY SINCLAIR SUTHERLAND,"
"C. L."
Place this Letter with Major Turner's Papers.
Burley, 14th Sept. 1808. Dear Colonel; In reply to your inquiries respecting the scrape into which it appears that Captain Turner of my Regiment has got with some woman of moderate repute, I have to say, that I am entirely ignorant of every thing which relates to this matter; but, for your satisfaction, will endeavour to inform myself of particulars, which, when obtained, shall be transmitted to you. Yours, &c.
"W. CARTWRICHT."
"Lt. Colonel Gordon,
&c. &c. &c."
"M. D. —Private.—Put by."
(Copy.)
Private. Aynho 22d Sept. 1808. Dear Colonel; I trust that the following Extract of a Letter from Lt. Col. Mundy will do away any unfavourable impression that may have been taken, to the prejudice of Major Turner, of the Regiment under my command; and that the business of his resignation may, in consequence, be allowed to go forward without further delay. I remain, &C.
"W. CAUTWRICHT, Lt. Gen."
"Lt. Col. Gordon,
&c. &c. &c."
"Extract."
In no one instance have I ever had occasion to be dissatisfied with the conduct of Major Turner since he has been in the King's Own Dragoons: on the contrary, I have always found him to be a perfectly gentlemanly, honourable man. I believe he has, unfortunately for his own peace of mind, formed a connection with an artful woman, who has brought him to much trouble; but I conceive this is a circumstance which can on no account warrant the putting any obstacle to his views of retiring.
"C. T.—Put by."
"Private," "Canterbury, Friday,
23d Sept. 1808."
Dear Sir; I am just favoured with a Letter from Lieut. Colonel Mundy, informing of me, my resignation is accepted, and the business will be forwarded without delay. I can with truth say, I have turned my fortieth year, and never had my honour or character called in question, until aspersed by Mrs. S—. When I arrive in Lontlon, I will wait upon you, and inform you how Mrs. S—is in the habits of making improper mention about h. r. h. In consequence of what has happened, and in consideration of my long services, I shall consider it as a great compliment, if I may be allowed to retain my rank as major. I neither ask for half pay, or future promotion; nor should I have ever have made a request,

635
had it not have been for the very unpleasant communication. I remain, &c.
W. TURNNR."
"Lieut.-Col. Gordon,
&c. &c. &c."
(Put by.)
Ipswich, 7th Nov. 1808. Sir; I am in possession of facts which places it beyond a doubt that h. r. h. the Commander in Chief did, influenced by Mrs. Sinclair, prevent for a while my retiring from the service.—I appeal to you, Sir, if I merited the effect which such unjust interference produced, alter having passed the greater and best part of my life in his majesty's service.—Before I left Canterbury I wrote to you, slating to you my earnest request that I might be permitted to retire from the service, retaining my rank in the army, to which I received no answer. Agreeable to my promise, I endeavoured to obtain an interview with you when I was in London, but I was disappointed, owing to some informality in my application to those in attendance under you. I therefore beg leave to repeat my request upon the subject of retaining my rank in the army: the length and nature of my services, I am convinced, will be a sufficiently strong claim: without reverting to the late transaction exercised by Mrs. Sinclair. I beg to assure you, Sir, it is the farthest from my disposition to take any steps injurious to h. r. h. the Commander in Chief's conduct. I request you will do me the honour to acknowledge the receipt of this, and your answer will regulate my future proceedings. I have, &c.
"WHICHCOTE TURNER,
"late of the 3d or King's Own Dragoons,
"and Major in the Army."
"To Colonel Gordon, &c."
(Copy.)
"Horse Guards, 8th Nov. 1808."
"Sir; I have to acknowledge your letter of yesterday, which I have not failed to lay before the Commander in Chief; and I am commanded to acquaint you, that on a complaint being made against you by a Mrs. Sutherland, in a letter, of which the enclosed is an extract, h. r. h. felt it his duty to cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case, before any decision could be given upon your request to retire from the service.—The result of that inquiry being honourable to your character, as appears from the enclosed correspondence from the colonel of your regiment, the Commander in Chief had no further difficulty in submitting your resignation to his majesty, and which was accordingly done in due coarse.—Upon the subject of retaining your rank in the army, I have to communicate to you, that the Commander in Chief has it not
636
in his power to meet your wishes, the request being contrary to the rules of the service, and has not in any similar in stance been acceded to since the Duke assumed the command of the army. I have, &c. J. W. GORDON."
"W. Turner, Esq. Ipswich."
(Copy.)
Bury St. Edmund's, 15 Dec. 1808.Sir; I am preparing to lay before the public, a statement of h. r. h. the Duke of York's conduct towards me.—I beg leave to assure you, I shall make use of your name as seldom as possible, and that with the utmost delicacy. Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland has offered to join me in a publication against h. r. h. the duke of York, which I positively declined. When I taxed Mrs. S. S. with having taken steps injurious to my retirement from the service, having traced her letter into h. r. h. the Duke of York's office, Mrs. S. S. stoutly denied having exerted herself in impelling my resignation. Mrs. S. S. ac-knowledged she had written to h. r. h. the Duke of York, but it was upon the subject of suppressing a publication; I am unable to say which pamphlet, the one addressed to the king, stiled the Ban Dogs, or Mr. (late Major) Hogan's. I have, &c. W. TURNER."
Colonel Gordon, &c. &c. &c."
Horse-Guards, 16 Dec. 1808. Sir, I have to acknowledge your letter of yesterday, acquainting me, that you were preparing to lay before the public, a statement of h. r. h. the D. of Y.'s conduct to wards you, and assuring me, that yon should use my name as seldom as possible, and that with the utmost delicacy.—In thanking you for this assurance, which I presume your recollection of former acquaintance in private life has induced you to make, I feel it my duty to relieve you from any delicacy upon that point, and most decidedly to express my wish, that whenever you or your friends may think fit to mention my name, as bearing upon any public transaction in which I may have borne any part, you will have the goodness to use it, free from any reserve whatever, and publish all or any of my letters that may be in any manner connected with it. I have, &c.
(Signed) J. W. GORDON. P. S. I take it for granted, that you have received my letter of the 8th Nov. addressed to you at Ipswich.
W. Turner, esq. Bury St. Edmunds."
(By Lord Fvlkestone.)
Do you know Mrs. Sutherland? Until I saw her name to that letter, I never recollect having heard of it before, and I never saw her in my life.
Do you know whether Mrs. Sinclair and Mrs. Sutherland are the same person? I have understood that they were so.
You stated in your examination on a former night, that any interference of the D. of Y. the Commander in Chief, with respect to exchanges, would be extremely futile; do you make the same observation as to any interference of the D. of Y. with respect to resignations? I beg pardon, but with great deference, I never said any such thing; I will state what I did say, and explain if necessary.
[The following Extract was read from the printed Minutes, p. 29.]
In any conversation that you have had upon the subject of this exchange with the Commander in Chief, do you recollect a wish being expressed that the conclusion of the exchange might be expedited? No, certainly not, the expression of such a wish would have been very futile, for it would not have expedited the exchange one half instant; it would have gone on in the usual course.
Do you mean that any application on the part of the Commander in Chief would have been more futile in regard to the expediting of that exchange than any other? There appears to be some misconception in this, which I will endeavour to explain: on reference to my former examination, it will be seen that the papers were laid before the king but once a week, and that after the Commander in Chief's pleasure had been finally obtained upon the exchange or upon any thing, then the expression of his wish to further that, would not have furthered it one half instant, it would have gone with the king's papers that week: that was what I meant to say, and I hope I did say it.
Then the futility to which you allude, only refers to the time after the Commander in Chief's pleasure has been taken? Most certainly; that is, if the Commander in Chief's pleasure is taken on Wednesday, and that it is the due course to send in the papers to the king on Friday or Saturday, the Commander in Chief's desire to me to expedite would not cause that paper to be sent in to the king on Thursday; that is what I mean.
Then any wish expressed by the Commander in Chief, to expedite an exchange previous to that period, might have the effect of expediting that exchange, might it? I really can only answer that as I have already answered before; that when I lay a paper before the Commander in Chief, and receive his pleasure upon that paper, with him it is final, and it goes before the king in the due course; I mean to say again, that the Commander in Chief desiring me to send in that paper would not expedite it, it would not go separate, it would go with the other papers.
Do you mean that if an exchange is in suspence in the office, an expression used by the Commander in Chief, of a wish to expedite that exchange, would have no effect whatever? O
638
no, I do not mean that; it most undoubtedly would.
Have you ever known any other instance of this sort of interference like that of Mrs. Sutherland? I cannot bring such to my recollection, but I can say, that if that letter had been anonymous, the very same course would have been adopted.
Had you any conversation with the Commander in Chief respecting that letter? I do not think I had, farther than this: I think it will be found, on reference to the papers, that the resignation is dated the same day with Mrs. Sutherland's letter, in which case it is probable that I submitted it to the Commander in Chief at the very same period that he opened the letter; I perfectly recollect the Commander in Chief putting the letter into my hands, and desiring me to inquire into it.
Do you mean, that the resignation is dated the same day that the letter is dated? I believe so.
[It appeared on inspection, that the letters of Messrs. Cox and Greenwood, and of Mrs. Sutherland, were both dated the 5th February.]
When was the resignation forwarded to major Turner? As it is dated on the 5th, and from the agents office, it is most probable I received it on that day, and most probably laid it before the Commander in Chief, in my usual course, the next day at furthest.
When was the resignation accepted? That is also dated in red ink upon the back; it was approved by the king on the 23rd of the same month? it came in on the 5th.
Did the D. of Y. state to you that he knew Mrs. Sutherland? No, he did not.
Nothing about her? Nothing whatever.
[The witness was directed to withdraw,
Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLLS was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Do you live at Hampstead? Yes.
Did Mrs. C. live at your house at Hampstead at any time, as a lodger? Yes.
What time did she come? In October.
What year? 1307.
How long did she stay there? Till the 25th June following, or thereabouts.
When she came there, did she represent herself as a married woman or as a widow'? As a widow.
Did she at any time during her continuance there represent herself in another character? Yes.
Upon what occasion? I understood that she was married to Mr. Dowler.
How did you understand that? She-told me so.
Did Mr. Dowler come to her there? Yes.
Was it upon the occasion of his coming to her, that she represented herself to be his wife? Yes.
Did she give any reason for calling herself by the name of Clarke, while she represented

639
herself as married to Mr. Dowler? She stated her reason to be, that if the D. of Y. knew that she was married, he would send Mr. Dowler abroad.
Was Mr. Dowler there frequently during her stay? Yes, very frequently.
(By Lard Folkestone.)
You have said that Mrs. C. represented herself as a widow; in what way did she represent herself, did she tell you she was a widow? Yes, that her husband was dead three years.
When did she tell you that? Some time after she was in the house; perhaps two months.
When did she come into your house first? The latter end of October.
When did she tell you she was married to Mr. Dowler? Soon after Mr. Dowler came to Hampstead.
When did Mr. Dowler first come to Hampstead? I forget the time, it was soon after the expedition returned from Buenos Ayres.
Did she go by the name of Mrs. Dowler? No.
Did you believe that she was the wife of Mr. Dowler? Yes.
Did Mr. Dowler often sleep in the house? Yes.
Was there a French lady in that house? yes.
What was the name of that lady? Josephine, I think, they used to call her; I did not know her name exactly.
Of how many people did Mrs. C.'s family consist? At first when she came, herself, capt. Thompson, and this French lady.
Any children? Afterwards there were.
How many children? Two, sometimes three.
How many bed-chambers had Mrs. C. in your house? Four or five; she occupied the whole house almost.
Do you know whether this French lady slept with Mrs. C.? No, I do not.
Is your wife with you now? Yes.
Is she here? Yes.
Had you ever any correspondence with Mrs. C.? I do not understand the question.
Did Mrs. C. ever write to you, or you to Mrs. C.? Yes.
Do you recollect when Mrs. C. last wrote to you? Yesterday.
Did you receive a letter from Mrs. C. yesterday? Yes.
When was the last time, before yesterday, that you received a letter from Mrs. Clarke? I do not know exactly.
Have you that letter in your possession? No.
What is become of it? I gave it to a gentleman, a professional man.
To whom? To Mr. Masters.
What is Mr. Masters? An attorney.
With what view did you give it to Mr. Masters? With a view for him to write to her.
Upon what subject? For a sum of money which she owed me.
What were the contents of that letter? I applied to Mrs. C. in town, to ask her to pay me my bill, when she was not to be seen; I told the housekeeper, unless she settled the account with me, I should dispose of some instruments of music that were left in part to satisfy me. The same evening, I received a letter, threatening that she knew I had forged a will, wherein I held an estate. Immediately I took the letter to Mr. Masters, telling him that it was all a falsehood, and desiring him to insist upon getting my money, and to despise her threats.
Was it in consequence of the threat contained in that letter, or in consequence of the debt which Mrs. C. owed you, you gave that letter to this professional gentleman? Inconsequence of the threat.
How long was this ago? I do not exactly know; I suppose July last, or thereabout.
Have any steps been taken in consequence by that professional gentleman? He wrote to her, and has received no answer; and I do not think any thing else has taken place since then.
Have you ever continued to apply to Mrs. Clarke since that? No, never.
Did you ever receive any rent from Mrs. Clarke? Never.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
In that letter, did she say that you had forged this will, and that she could hang you? I do not exactly know the words, but something to that effect.
You state that you applied to your lawyer upon that subject; why did he not proceed against Mrs. C.? I thought she owed me enough money already, and I did not like to throw good money after bad.
Do you ever recollect saying, you would be up with her for this? No, never to any body.
Do you recollect, that, at any time, in consequence of this business of the will spoken of in that letter, your wife and you parted? Never.
You do not recollect your wife leaving you upon that or any other occasion? No.
Have you in your possession, any letters that belonged to Mrs. C.? Yes.
Have you any objection to producing them?
I should not wish to produce them, unless I should be satisfied what she owes me, unless by the request of the house.
[The Witness produced a bundle of letters.]
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was incumbent on the house to take care that these letters were returned to the witness, in case it should appear that lie had any lien upon them. He might retain them as security for rent, and it would not be right to deprive him of that security, particularly as it was not in evidence before the committee that these letters had any relation whatever to the subject of

641
the inquiry. If there was any thing in them that bore upon the question before the committee, it certainly would be right that they should be forthcoming.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that the property of the witness in these letters would not be destroyed by their being laid on the table of the house of commons. The house had an undoubted right to retain and examine them. It would be proper to ask the witness how he came by them.
Mr. Wardlesaid that the witness had probably read them then, and therefore would be able to state whether they related to sales of commissions.
General Loftusobjected to the letters being read.
Sir G. Hillobjected strongly to the production of these letters, and blamed the committee for the course they were pursuing. They might contain Mrs. C.'s private amours for what they knew, and ought not to be heard, unless the lion, gent, would state that he had good grounds for believing they would throw light on his charges.
Mr. Wardle,with permission of the committee, begged leave to state all that he knew respecting these letters. He was informed by Mrs. Clarke that she had burned a great number of letters relating to transactions which were the subject or the inquiry before the house, and that she had given some of them to the witness to have them destroyed. A few days ago she learned that he had not destroyed them. He (col. W.) went yesterday to Hampstead, and demanded the letters of the witness, He said he had no objection to give them up to Mrs. C, on her sending a receipt for them. It afterwards appeared from a letter he had written her that be had changed his mind.
The Witness was again called in and examined.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
State how you came by those letters—They were sent down to light the fire with.
By whom? By Mrs. Clarke.
Did she desire those letters, when she sent them down, to be burnt? They were sent down merely to light the fire with; they were not given to me, they were put into the closet, and the maid servant used to take them out of the closet as she wanted them.
Do you recollect, at the period these letters were sent down, Mrs. C. burning a great number of letters? I understand so; I did not see her bum any.
You have read many of these Utters? I have
642
read them since this business has been in hand.
Are you aware that any of these letters relate to the circumstances that had been under the consideration of this house? Yes, I think they do.
[The Witness produced two other bundles of letters.]
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Yorkeobjected to the reading of such a mass of papers, which were not known to pertain to the business before the Committee, and might perhaps be improper, as well as unnecessary. He proposed that a small Committee might be appointed to select what were proper, and lay them before the Committee.
Mr. Barham,who had loudly opposed the withdrawing of the witness with the papers, said, that if the right hon. gent. had consulted the interests of the country, or of the Duke of York, he would not thus have interposed. He contended, that if any papers were referred to a Select Committee, the country would imagine they contained things which the house wished to be concealed. It would not do, after all the irrelevant mailer that had been admitted in their proceedings, to shut their eyes now. They must go on, since they had once begun.
Mr. Whitbreadproposed that the letters I should be delivered to Mr. Wardle, who might make the selection of such as were necessary to elucidate the matter he had brought before the house. His fair and manly course would justify this confidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought there was no apprehension as to the letters being destroyed, after being brought voluntarily to the bar. This was a difficult point to decide. He could not think of receiving letters in evidence which could not be proved as written by any one; which might be anonymous, and full of lies. He also disapproved of Mr. Whitbread's suggestion, and without meaning any disrespect to Mr. Wardle, was sure that hon. gent, would agree with him, that to be placed in the situation of selector would not be conducive to the ends of general justice.
After a long and desultory conversation, in which many plans were suggested, and in which Mr. Beresford, Mr. Canning, Mr. Barham, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Adam, Mr. Brand, lord Porchester, Mr. Wynne, and Mr. Wardle, took part, it was at last agreed to refer the letters to a Select Com-

643
mittee, to reject those that were irrelevant, and lay the others before the house.
[The Witness was again called in and examined]
(By Mr. Wurdlc.)
Have you in your pocket the whole of the letters you took out of the house? Yes.
Produce them. [The witness produced them.]
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Were you advised not to deliver those letters to Mrs. C.? No.
Is that your hand-writing? Yes, it is.
[Letter from Mr. Nicholls to Mrs. Clarke, dated 13th Feb. 1809, read.]
13th Feb. 1809.
"Madam; I received your's respecting your letters; and on turning the matter in my mind, I don't know how far I am authorized to give them even to you, as having been applied to from another quarter on the same business; and as I most certainly shall be obliged to attend the House of Commons, I will look them all up and produce them there.
"In fact, I think you ought to settle my account before you ask me for any thing.
"I am your obedient servant,
"Mrs. Clarke." "W. NICHOLLS."
(By Mr. Wardle.)
From what other quarter was it you were applied to for the letters? From no other quarter; I was waited upon by a gentleman on the same buisness, but in turning it in my mind, I did not know that I was even to give them to any person, without the consent of the house.
Who was the other gentleman? I do not know his name.
Are you certain you do not know his name? I do not know his name.
Did you know his name yesterday? No, I did not.
Did you tell me his name yesterday? I do not recollect that I did, I am confident I did not know his name.
Recollect yourself.—I am confident I did not know his name.
Did you not toll me his name was Wilkinson? I believed it was Wilkinson, but I mistook the name, and I do not know the name now; the person who came mentioned the name of Wilkinson, but it was not the person's name who came to me; though I might say it was Wilkinson to Mr. Wardle, I was mistaken.
Do you mean to say, that the person who came said he was sent by Mr. Wilkinson? He mentioned the name of Wilkinson, but I am not certain in what way he used that name.
Whom did this person say he came from? He came from Mr. Lowtent.
Whoever it was he came from, did he ask for any particular letter, or only applied to you upon the general subject? He said nothing about letters.
(By Lord Milton.)
What did you mean when you wrote that you had been applied to upon the same business from another quarter; what do these words mean? I meant the business of this inquiry.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did the person coming from Mr. Lowten re-quest that you would not produce those letters? No, he knew nothing at all about letters.
What did he ask for? He asked me some questions about Mr. Dowler.
What application did this person make to you? He asked me some questions about Mr. Dowler.
Did this conversation relate to nothing but Mr. Dowler? Mr. Dowler and Mrs. Clarke.
What did he say upon the subject of Mrs. C.? I forget almost what he asked me; he asked me a few questions about them, and I told him that she told me she was married to Mr. Dowler.
What did he say upon the subject of papers? Nothing at all.
Why then do you assign this person called upon you from Mr. Lowten, as the reason for not returning the letters to Mrs. C.—For no reason for the person having called on me from Mr. Lowten; but on turning the matter in my own mind, I thought it most prudent so to do.
Then why have you stated in your letter, that this person having called upon you was the reason for not returning the letters to Mrs. C.? In turning it in my own mind, I thought that I might he censured by the house, understanding that I must attend this house, for delivering those letters to Mrs. C.
Had you, at the time of writing that letter, received an order from the house to produce these letters? No.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Did the person who cone from Mr. Lowten desire you to keep back those letters, and to suppress them? He said nothing at all about them; he did not know that I had u letter, to my knowledge.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
At the time you saw that person, had you received an order to attend this house? No.
What made you suppose you should be obliged to attend this house? Because the gentleman, who came, said he supposed I must attend this house.
Have you seen that person since yesterday? Yes.
Where? I saw him; became to Hampstead to-day, and I came to town with him.
Did he go to Hampstead to fetch you? Yes.
Did he carry down the summons to attend this house? No.
How came you to come to town with him? He came there alter I received the summons; I did not expect he would come there.
His name is not Wilkinson? No.
Do you know what his name is? I should know what his name was it I heard it; I have heard it to-day, hut do not recollect it.
Is it Williams? No.
Did he say any thing to you to-day about the letters? No, he knew I had the letters today.
But he did not speak to you upon the subject? No; I believe his name is Wright, but I am not sure.
You stated in the former part of your examination, that you believed Mrs. C was Mr. Dowler's wife; did you ever apply to Mr. Dowler for the satisfaction of your debt? Never.
Why did you not? I had not an opportunity.
Did you ever seek for an opportunity? No, I do not know that I ever did; I was not anxious about the business; I did not suppose but what I should be paid.
(By Mr. Charles Adams.)
In what profession are you? A baker by business.
How long have you lived in Hampstead? 8 or 9 years.
You are a housekeeper there? Yes.
(By Mr. Hibbert.)
You have stated, that you believed Mrs. C. was Mr. Dowler's wife, and you have also stated that she told you when she came to Hampstead she was a widow; did you suppose the marriage with Mr. Dowler took place at Hampstead? No.
Why then did you believe that she was Mr. Dowler's wife, when she had previously told you she was a widow? Mrs. C. left my house and went to town; when she returned, Mr. Dowler returned with her, or near that time; it was after that time that Mr. Dowler was in the habit of coming, that she told me she was married to Mr. Dowler.
(By Mr. Beresford.)
You have stated, that you received a letter yesterday from Mrs. C.; what are the contents of that letter? I have it in my pocket.
[The Letter was read.]
Mrs. Clarke will esteem herself greatly obliged to Mr. Nicols, if he will send, as he has promised, all her letters by the bearer, who she sends in compliance with the arrangement made by him two hours ago. Monday, 1 o'clock.
"Mr. Nicols,
"opposite New End, Hampstead."
Who was the bearer of that letter? I
646
do not know who it was, a servant on horseback.
What did Mrs. C. mean by the arrangement? I suppose she means the conversation between Mr. Wardle and myself on the subject.
Repeat as nearly as you can that conversation? Mr. Wardle called on me, to apply for those letters, and I told Mr. Wardle I was not inclined to give them up; in fact, I should not think lit to give them up without an order from the person to whom they belonged. Mr. Wardle left me, with the supposition that I should deliver the letters up when I received an order from Mrs. C; but on turning it in my mind, I did not think fit to give them up even then.
(By Sir G. Hill.)
When did Mrs. C. know that you had these letters? I do not know how she knew it; perhaps I might mention to some one that I bad these things, and it might come to her knowledge by that means.
Mr. JOHN REID was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Where do you live? In St. Martin's lane.
Do you keep an hotel in St. Martin's lane? I do.
Do you know Mr. Dowler? I do.
How long have you known him? About two years, I believe; I cannot be exact to the time.
How long has Mr. Dowler frequented your house? About two years.
Do you recollect his coming there at any time with a person whom he represented to be his wife? I do.
When? At all of the times he was in town, at some time or other.
Has he been frequently at your house with a person whom he represented as his wife? Not very frequently.
Do you now know who the lady was whom he so represented as his wife? I do not.
Was it the same person that always came with him? The same person.
When was that person last at your house, that you knew her to be there? I think last Friday se'ennight, the day that Mr. Dowler came to town.
You do not know who that lady is? I have heard, but I do not know of my own knowledge.
Has Mr. Dowler supplied any body with wine from your house? No, Mr. Dowler has had some wine from my house.
Where has that wine been sent to? I believe somewhere by Bedford-square, I think, but I do not recollect; if I had expected to be asked the question, I would have made myself sure of it.
Did the lady who came with Mr. Dowler, go by the name of Mrs. Dowler? Certainly she did, or she would not have been in my house.
Was the person who was with Mr. Dowler on Friday se'ennight, at your house, the lady

647
who used to be with him under the name of Mrs. Dowler? The same.
Did you ever hear her go by any other name but that of Mrs. Dowler? No.
Did you ever address her yourself by the name of Mrs. Dowler? I did.
Did she answer to that name? Most certainly.
Are you sure it was oil Friday se'ennight that this lady was at your house for the last time? The last time that I saw her.
Are you sure as to the day? To the best of my recollection.
Are you sure it was the day Mr. Dowler arrived in town? I think it was.
Are you certain of that fact? As well as my memory serves me, I am.
Have you seen that lady any where in the neigh bourhood of this house since you came? I have not.
She passed as Mrs. Dowler on that evening? Yes, she did.
Have yon ever heard Mr. Dowler call her by the name of Mrs. Dowler? Yes, I have.
And she answered to that name? Yes.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
GEORGE ROBINSON was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Are you the porter at Slaughter's hotel? Yes.
Do you know Mr. Dowler? Yes.
How long have you known him? From the time that he returned from the expedition that came home from Buenos Ayres; that was the first knowledge I had of him.
Did you ever see with him any lady that he called by the name of Mrs. Dowler? Yes.
At your master's house? Yes.?
Living with him there? For a short time.
As his wife? Yes, as his wife.
Do you know who that lady is? Yes,
Who is it? She goes by the name of Mrs. Clarke, to my knowledge.
How do you know that? By the public talk I have heard that of her; nothing further.
Have you ever been to her house? Yes, in Bedford-place, leading from Bloomsbury-square to Russel-square.
Was there any name upon her door there? Not to the best of my recollection.
Did you ever carry her any thing there? Yes. What? Wine. From your master's? Yes. Who ordered that wine? I received the order from my master.
Have you seen her at your master's house lately? I have not.
Have you seen her since Mr. Dowler's return from Spain? I have not.
Have you seen Mr. Dowler there since? Yes, I have,
To whom was the wine directed to be carried? Mrs. Dowler.
To be carried to No. 14, Bedford-place? Yes. You would know the lady if you saw her? Yes, I believe I should,
648
Have you ever seen her at any other place, or carried wine to her any where else? Yes.
Where? At the end of the King's Road, I believe it is called Westcott Buildings, or something of that sort, leading to Sloane-square.
What name did you carry it to there? Mrs. Dowler.
When? I might say I believe it was the 13th or 14th of December last.
Who ordered that wine? I am not sure.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
SAMUEL WELLS was called in and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Are you a waiter at Slaughter's coffee-house? I am.
Do you know Mr. Dowler? Yes.
Do you know Mrs. Dowler? By name.
Have you seen her? By the name of Mrs. Dowler I have seen her.
Have you heard her called by that name? I have.
When did you see her there last? It might be about eight days ago.
Do you recollect the day of the week? I cannot.
In whose company was she? With Mr. Dowler.
How long did she stay there? One night.
Do you happen to know what the real name of that lady is now? Not till I had seen it in the paper.
Have you seen her any where else? No where else but at our house,
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Did you ever deliver a letter to this lady, directed to Mrs. Dowler? No, I have not.
(By the Attorney General.)
Was Mr. Dowler ever there with any other lady except this? Not to my knowledge.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
[The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.]
Mr. Wardleproposed to call in Mrs. Favery for examination, but the serjeant at arms appeared at the bar, and stated that she was not in attendance.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,after stating that it would be necessary to summons one of these witnesses for to-morrow, in order to identify Mrs. C. asked Mr. Wardle, whether he had any further charges to prefer?
Mr. Wardlereplied, that he was not yet prepared to state the nature of a Charge which he meant to adduce, if he found the evidence satisfactory. If he should find it so, he should bring it forward to-morrow night.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed a wish, that the hon. member would have

649
the goodness to slate the charge, in order that the accused might be prepared to bring forward evidence in his defence.
Mr. Wardlesaid, it was impossible for him to state the charge at that moment, but he would be decided respecting it in the morning, and should take the earliest opportunity of informing the right hon. gent, of it.
Lord Folkestonestated that, in consequence of the probable engagement of his lion, friend upon the business of the committee to be appointed, inquiring about the letters disclosed by Mr. Nicholls, he had undertaken to investigate the case he had alluded to, and he should apply himself to the investigation in the morning.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not conceive how there could be any difficulty in stating the nature of the charge: surely; after so much inquiry, it was rather hard to keep the public or the accused any longer in suspence; it was obviously desirable, that some information should be communicated as to this new charge, in order that evidence respecting it, if any, should be in readiness, and the case should close on both sides to-morrow night. He wished much, therefore, to know the description of the intended charge, with a view to have it forwarded to the D. of Y. without delay; otherwise, there might be a difficulty, or at least, a delay in meeting it, against which delay it must be desirable by all parties to guard, after an inquiry so long protracted.
Lord Folkestonesaid, that in its present state it could not be mentioned.
Mr. Secretary Cunningwas really surprised at the nature of the replies given to his right hon. friend. It was quite extraordinary, that a charge should be threatened, the object of which the accuser refused to explain, adding to that refusal a confession that he has still to look out for evidence to substantiate it. Neither in parliamentary proceedings nor legal record had he over heard of any charge so vague and indefinite.
Lord Folkestonedenied that the charge was either vague or indefinite, for this simple reason, that no charge whatever was made. It was because some doubt hung over this charge that it was not mentioned. If, while such doubt existed; if before the investigation of the evidence appearing to support it, any charge were stated, then his hon. friend or he might be exposed to the imputation of preferring an unfounded charge Which he could not
650
substantiate. But he felt the propriety of the course which he was pursuing. He was not ashamed of his conduct, nor was he afraid of the consequence of any imputation which the right hon. gent, might throw out upon his character.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdisclaimed the idea of throwing out any imputation against the noble lord.
Lord Folkestoneobserved that he did not mean the right hon. gent.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerresumed. He regretted that the charge was not explained, or some of the parties involved in it mentioned, in order that means might he afforded to the accused in due time to meet it, and to prove, if in his power, that it was groundless.
Mr. Whitbreadthought the observations of the right hon. gentlemen on the Treasury Bench of rather an extraordinary character. An imputation seemed to be thrown out, that it was intended to bring forward a charge in a manner calculated to take the accused by surprise. If any such imputation (and he was sure it could not) were meant to attach to his hon. friend, or the noble lord, he was confident it was groundless. But if it were possible for any man to entertain the intention which seemed to have been imputed, that house would defeat it. That house was not so circumscribed in its limits as to precipitate a termination of the inquiry, and refuse the accused a full opportunity of defending himself against any charge that might be brought forward. Athough it was understood that this charge was to close to-morrow night, it did not follow that it should, if it appeared necessary to extend it farther. He had no doubt that the noble lord would do his duty in examining the case referred to; but whatever the event, he trusted that house would do its duty, and that if an attempt were made from any quarter to withhold justice, such attempt would be baffled. On these grounds, he saw no reason for pressing so much for the statement which the right hon. gent, desired.
Mr. Canningdid not mean to throw out any imputation, but he must say, that he retained his opinion, that the proceeding which formed the subject of the conversation was most unusual and unprecedented.
Mr. Beresfordthought it too hard thus to press the hon. mover. He had already brought forward charges against the D. of Y. in which he had confessedly failed,

651
and it was but fair to afford him some time for inquiry and reflection, in order to save him from similar failures.
The Speakersuggested the form of a motion in the Committee, which was a necessary preliminary to the appointment of the Committee for examining the Letters given in by Nicholls.
This motion was put and carried. The house resumed; and it was ordered, on the motion of Mr. Wharton, That a Committee should be appointed to examine the Letters alluded to, and to report to the house such Letters, and such parts of letters, as had any bearing upon the question referred to the consideration of the committee of the whole house. Upon the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Committee was ordered to consist of the following members, three of whom are to boa quorum, namely, Mr. Wardle, Mr. W. Wynne, Mr. Croker, Mr. Brand, and Mr. Leach.

MILITTA ENLISTING BILL.
Lord Castlereaghmoved that this bill be read a third time, to which he had produced two new clauses; the one extending the provisions of the bill to the fencible regiments of Royal Miners belonging to the counties of Cornwall and Devonshire; and the other restraining the operation of the bill, whenever the militia establishment fell as low as two-fifths of the quota provided by the act of 1807. The noble lord said, that the principle upon which his Bill went, was, that the Militia regiments should not be weakened to less than two-fifths of their numbers, following the regulation laid down in 1807, nor exceed three-fifths of that number.
Colonel Franklandcomplained, that the noble lord had introduced this clause by surprize upon the house in the last stage of the bill, without having allowed any opportunity for considering it in its various bearings. It was a clause which would go totally to change the established order of the Militia, and went in a particular degree to affect the regiment with which he happened to be best connected. It would operate as a premium to those counties which had been negligent in carrying into effect the Militia act, and tend to encourage such negligence for the future, while it would operate as a heavy and oppressive penalty on those counties which have done their duty by completing their ballots, as it was upon such counties only this bill would have operation, by creating the necessity for a new ballot
652
where the ballots had already taken place to their fullest extent.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, this clause did no more than carry into effect the principle of the former Militia Enlistment bill, which allowed the privates in each regiment, to the number of three-fifths, to enlist into the line. With regard to any partial oppression upon counties which had completed their ballots, and the operation as a premium to others which had not completed their levies, apprehended by the hon. gent, his fears were groundless; for by the last returns of the different counties, it appeared that of the 36,000 men to be raised, the deficiency was not more than 2000 and a fraction, so that the operation of the bill must be general. Besides, in the other bill which he meant to bring forward on the subject, a very considerable relief would be afforded to the ballotted men, towards the means of providing substitutes.
Col. Lovedenjoined in the objections of col. Frankland.
Lord Castlereaghhad no objection to withdraw the amendment, not wishing to press it without allowing time for further consideration.
The Speakerobserved the clause had now passed the first and second readings, and was agreed to by the house, and therefore could not be withdrawn consisently with the forms of proceeding. The Clause was read a third lime and agreed to. Several other amendments were then moved by lord Castlereagh, and agreed to.—Upon the question being put that the bill do pass,
Lord Miltonrose to object to it altogether, as being a measure introduced in direct violation of what he always understood to be the positive pledge of the noble lord upon the introduction of his former bill; namely, that it was not to be adopted as a regular and permanent system, but only to be resorted to on great and urgent occasions. It was upon the strength of this promise that many gentlemen were induced to agree to the principle, who never expected that the noble lord would convert a measure, avowedly of temporary pressure, into a regular and permanent system. But now, without stating any such emergency, the noble lord revived the measure, and seemed to rest upon it as a regular expedient for recruiting the troops of the line. But the measure itself could not fail to produce the most mischievous effects upon the discipline

653
and morality of the militia regiments themselves, by exposing the privates to be tampered with by intoxication and other means equally destructive to morals and discipline, in order to induce them to enlist; and therefore, even if it were objectionable upon no other ground, it was highly so upon this. One great object of keeping up the militia force within the country, was, that it might be ready to meet an enemy in case of invasion: but if by the principle of this bill the best disciplined men of the militia regiments were to be drafted into the disposable force, and the militia regiments thus reduced to skeletons, and left to be filled up with raw levies, the noble lord would not say, that regiments so circumstanced, and only called out for a month in the year, could be fit to meet an enemy in the field. He therefore thought the country rather hardly dealt by in this measure, not only upon the ground he had stated, but by the oppressive burthens which a fresh ballot would impose. The noble lord, it seemed, had at last found out that the ballot was oppressive on the people; and he had found out an expedient for easing the burthen, by allowing to each balloted man ten guineas towards the bounty for procuring a substitute. The only operation however to be expected from this was to raise the price of substitutes, and impose in another way, a heavy burthen on the country. This was truly a most notable expedient, one which it was quite impossible the noble lord himself could expect to produce the effects he proposed. Upon the whole, he was decidedly averse, after so recently carrying into effect a militia ballot throughout the country, to resort again to another, and thus for the noble lord to come forward, year after year, with a measure like this, totally subversive of the original intent and constitution of the militia, and converting it to a mere vehicle for recruiting the line.
Mr. Shaw Lefevrewas also averse to this measure, and testified to the severity with which the militia ballots operated. He regretted that the noble lord should bring forward the present bill, and urge it through the house, before he introduced the other bill, of which he had given notice. On the former occasion, both bills were brought forward together, and the house had an opportunity of discussing them in their progress. He wished the noble lord to slate when he meant to introduce his other bill.
Lord Castlereaghanswered that it would be in the course of a week.
Sir George Warrender,though wishing to increase the disposable force of the country, thought the means proposed by this bill circuitous, inefficacious, and hostile to their own operation. He should rather at once vote for a bill to enable the whole of the militia to volunteer into the line, than take away one half of the militia, and leave the other to be filled up by recruits. It would be infinitely less oppressive to ballot men at once for the line.
Mr. Windhamrose, and said, that if he forbore troubling the house at present at any length, it was not from want of a due sense of the many and radical objections to which the present measure was liable; but as another Bill was shortly to be introduced, when there would be full opportunity of discussion, he should reserve himself for that occasion; though it was rather unfortunate that his observations would come after half of a measure had been already adopted. But, while the present Inquiry into the Conduct of the Commander in Chief which so occupied their attention, to the exclusion of the weightiest considerations, considerations affecting the very existence of the empire, lasted, it was difficult, if not impossible to find opportunity for any other discussion. By the mode they had thought proper to adopt in conducting that inquiry, which, however, he thought could have been attained by a different course, as effectual, and certainly more speedy, it was now found they could not calculate upon its probable conclusion; on the contrary, they had no controul whatever over their own proceedings, for a single woman (Mrs. Clarke) had shewn that she could rout them horse and foot; it was, therefore, he thought the noble lord should not have brought the business on in such a situation. However detrimental the course they had adopted of prosecuting the Inquiry was, both to the service of the country and to the character of the house, they were thereby reduced to the necessity of submitting to see a measure which was only temporary, become permanent, without either the attention or attendance of the house. He should, therefore, reserve himself till the opportunity arrived of discussing it attentively, only contenting himself with saying, that however politically hostile he might be to the present administration, there was no measure, their conduct respecting Spain not excepted; he

655
would sooner take, whereon to form a just estimate of the weakness of their counsels.
—The Bill was then passed and ordered to the Lords.