Sitting of 20 February 1809

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the motion of the Secretary at War the house went into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates for the current year were referred.
The Secretary at Warobserved, that notwithstanding the order of the house was
842
given on Friday se'nnight, the Army Estimates had not been printed till this afternoon. As soon as he was acquainted with the circumstance, he pressed the printer as much as possible to expedite the business; but owing to the great mass of papers relating to the Inquiry into the Conduct of the Commander in Chief, it was not in his power to procure the Estimates sooner. However late they were ready, he trusted the house would have no objection to go into them to-day, as it would be a matter of great convenience to the regular army, the militia, and foreign corps.—Indeed, he could anticipate no objection, as the Estimates were nearly the same as those of last year, with the exception of 200,000 l. arising from the actual increase of the establishment, which would be ascertained, by comparing the Estimates now offered with the last year's accounts. The establishment had stood very high last year, but, by this comparison, it would be seen, that it had now reached much nearer the complete number of effectives. The Militia was nearly in the same state, and the Foreign Corps had rather increased. Another cause of the increase on the Estimate, was, from the additional expence in some things, which had before been voted among the extraordinaries of the army, but which were now introduced into the regular accounts.—It had been recommended by the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, to put every possible annual account into the Estimate; and agreeing in the expediency of this mode, he had adopted their recommendation. The Estimate for the present year was also higher, on account of the last year's expences exceeding the Estimate of that year. Another nominal addition also appeared on the face of the Estimate, namely, that of the allowance of a second Lieutenant-Colonel in regiments of cavalry, who, though they had formerly been borne, yet never appeared in these calculations. With regard to the number of effectives, which had been brought up so near the establishment, he could not now give a certain account, owing to the return of men lost in the Spanish Campaign not having been deducted. As for the non-effectives which appeared on the Estimate, that was very necessary, as the recruiting service was solely provided for out of that fund. Before he moved the several Estimates, he begged leave to notice, that in the course of the present session he should have to

843
propose some measure, for the benefit of Colonels of regiments, commensurate to the losses they sustained, in consequence of many late acts, which bore hard upon their accustomed profits.
General Gascoynethen explained the nature of these losses, and the hardship it was upon Colonels of regiments to pay at the rate of 35 per cent. as duties on necessaries exported for his majesty's service. From this, and other taxes upon their profits, they were now 60 per cent. less than they were formerly. He was glad therefore to hear from the Secretary at War, that in consequence of the Sixth Report of Military Inquiry, some relief was intended to be afforded them in the course of this Session.
The Secretary at Warsaid, that he had only waited till the whole Reports of that Committee were brought forward, and would immediately proceed on this subject.
Mr. Calcraftwould be glad to be informed what was the cause of the increase, he observed from the Estimate on the Public Department; and also how it happened after so many Volunteers had gone into the Local Militia, that the expence for that species of force was the same as last year.
The Secretary at Warsaid, as there was no vote for either of these asked this day, it might perhaps be as well not to enter upon the subject, till it came regularly before them, when there would be sufficient opportunity for explanation.
Mr. Longobserved, that although these matters were not absolutely before them, he would be happy to give the hon. gent. a short answer to his question relative to the Public Department, which was this year estimated at nearly 30,000 l. more than it was last. This was not an increase of expence but of estimate. Agreeing with the Committee of Military Inquiry, and his right hon. friend the Secretary at War, that every expence which could be brought within the Annual Estimates ought to appear there, he had added to this the Contingencies of Deputies abroad, amounting to 15,000 l.; Exchequer Fees 5,801 l.; Deputies to the army under sir John Moore, that under general Spencer, and the deputies at Madeira and at Lisbon, making in all the amount of increase now charged.
The Secretary at Warthen moved: 1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 133,922 effective men, commissioned and non-commissioned officers in-
844
cluded, be employed in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.—2. That a sum, not exceeding 7,582,378 l. 16 s. 11 d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the Charge of his majesty's Land Forces at home and abroad (excepting the regiments in the East Indies, the foreign corps in British pay, and the embodied Militia) including the charge of pay and daily allowance of commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers, and private men, the charge of cloathing for non-commissioned officers and private men, the charge of agency, and the charge of annual allowances to be made to field officers, captains, and riding masters, and the extra allowance for farriery, as also certain Miscellaneous Charges on account of the said Forces, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.—3. That a sum, not exceeding 29,322 l. 10 s. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the charge of five troops of dragoons, and 15 companies of foot, stationed in Great Britain for the purpose of recruiting the corps serving in East India, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.—4. That a sum, not exceeding 3,048,647 l. 19 s. 5d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the Charge of the Embodied Militia of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Royal Corps of Miners of Devon and Cornwall, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.—5. That a sum not exceeding 933,654 l. 6s. 10 d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the charge of Foreign Corps in the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809."
The Resolutions were severally agreed to, and the Chairman was ordered to report to-morrow.

CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.
Mr. Wardle moved the order of the day for going into a Committee for inquiring further into the Conduct of his royal highness the Duke of York.
Sir Thomas Turtonwished, previously, to ask a question of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the statement made by him the other day, relative to the sums of money that appeared to have been transmitted from h. r. h. to Mrs. Clarke. Many of these sums were very considerable; and, therefore, he wished to know whether the right hon. gent. meant to examine any evidence on the subject, it

845
order to obviate any prejudices that might be entertained through the want of a more minute examination.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, that when he made the statement a few days ago, he had mentioned to the Committee that the different tradesmen who had received sums of money from Mrs. C., were in attendance to prove the sums they had respectively received; and he at the same time stated, that if the house was disposed to go into a particular investigation upon the subject, it might be expedient to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose. He had also stated, that it would be impossible, he feared, to bring specific proofs of the actual conveyance of the money from h. r. h. to Mrs. C., as the messenger who conveyed it could only prove that he had brought the sums from the banker to h. r. h., and afterwards conveyed a number of separate parcels from h. r. h. to Mrs. C., but could not prove their contents. He regretted, if the house was disposed to adopt the plan of a Committee, that the interval had been lost. There had been a variety of opinions expressed on the subject, but no gentleman intimated any wish for the Select Committee at the time. If, however, the house was now disposed to adopt the committee, he had no objection.
Sir T. Turtonsaid, he did not hear the right hon. gent. mention a committee; but he feared that the report of a Select Committee would not be satisfactory.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas, however, of opinion that the report of a Select Committee on this subject, like other Select Committees, to whom particular points had been referred in the course of this Inquiry, would be satisfactory to the house, as the former reports had been. He had conversed with the members of the other committees, who acknowledged that every thing had been conducted, on both sides, with the utmost candour and fairness; and he therefore thought, that such a committee in the present case, composed more numerously, if deemed expedient, would much expedite the business, save the time of the house, and be perfectly satisfactory,
Sir T. Turtonsaid he did not mean satisfactory to the house, but to the public; for his own part, he was perfectly satisfied on the subject, and had no doubts to remove; but he thought the evidence would with much better effect be examined at the bar.
Mr. Abercrombierose to express his wish that a mis-statement, which appeared on the face of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the house, should be corrected. It related to the evidence of Mr. Greenwood, in the case of Mr. Elderton, who was appointed to a paymastership in consequence of his recommendation; but Mr. Greenwood was represented on the Minutes to have said, that subsequent to his first recommendation, he found upon inquiry that Mr. Elderton was a person unfit to be recommended, in consequence of which he forwarded a remonstrance to the D. of Y. upon the subject, but Mr. Elderton's appointment had taken place notwithstanding. Now, having himself some doubts as to the accuracy of the statement, he had appealed to Mr. Greenwood himself, whose authority he had for stating that the Minutes on this point were inaccurate; and he proposed to call Mr. Greenwood to the bar for re-examination, in order to correct the error.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the evidence of Mr. Greenwood had not stated his having made a subsequent communication to the D. of Y. after his first recommendation; but he stated that he found Mr. Elderton a person of improper character after his first representation, and that the appointment had taken place before his second representation reached the Duke.
Mr. Charles Adamswished to ask the right hon. gent. in which of the conferences stated by him to have taken place with different persons, in the transaction of the particular Note in question, he was informed of the suppression of that Note by Captain Sandon.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he received his information from Col. Hamilton.
The house then went into the Committee. Mr. Wharton in the Chair.
The Chairmaninformed the Committee, that he had received a Letter from general Clavering, stating that there was a seeming inconsistency in his evidence, and expressing a wish that he might again be called before the Committee in order that he might explain it. [A cry of read! read!]
Earl Templemoved, that the Letter be read.
Sir M. W. Ridleyspoke a few words in vindication of general Clavering, but in so low a tone, that we could not hear what he said.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if gen. Clavering wished to correct any thing which appeared to be inconsistent or contradictory in his evidence, let him be summoned, or let him attend if he was there; but he saw no reason why his Letter should be read.
Earl Templeanswered, that as he understood gen. Clavering was then attending, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion.
Mr. Johnson was then called in as a witness.
Mr. Whitbreadrose, and the witness was desired to withdraw. The hon. gent. then said he apprehended the Committee had already examined several persons who were deemed the most competent to know the D. of York's hand-writing. It would seem, from what he had been given to understand, that this gent., who was then produced as a witness, knew nothing of the Writing of his royal highness; and it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that the Committee should now resort to an evidence not nearly so strong as that of those witnesses who had already been examined. Such a rule as that which the Committee was now about to pursue had once obtained, he believed, in courts of justice, in cases of capital offences, but it had for some time been discontinued. If that were really the case, he begged the house to consider seriously what must be the effect of calling this witness before they agreed to admit him to the bar; for, however inclined they might be, to give every indulgence in their power to the royal personage who was accused, yet they should well weigh in their minds whether any person would, if standing before them on the same or similar charges, be allowed an equal degree of favour. In his opinion, they had given latitude to col. Gordon, in permitting him to take a paper from his pocket, and compare it with the Note which he was called upon to say, whether it was, in his opinion, the Duke of York's hand-writing; yet almost immediately afterwards 40 letters were shewn to Mrs. C., and she was told that she must not read any one or any part of any one of them; but must, from merely viewing the signature, say positively whether they were her's or not. It would seem rather hard that she should not have been allowed to see whether any alterations or interpolations had been made in any of them, but from solely the name at the bottom, should be obliged to allow they
848
were her's. He knew very well the Committee had decided by their proceedings that they were not to be confined within the strict rules respecting evidence by which the courts of law regulated themselves; but having made this allowance to col. Gordon, he must throw it out for the consideration of the Committee, whether having already committed an impropriety would justify them in adding to that impropriety, by allowing a witness to be examined, who could only speak upon the writing of a person whom he had never seen write; a practice which certainly would not be allowed in the courts below. Under these circumstances, he wished the Committee to pause before they determined, for it seemed to him to be of such importance, that if a vote should take place on it, he should give his against the witness being admitted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that this objection of the hon. gent. ought to have been made when the subject was first introduced to the notice of the Committee; for when it had been decided that such evidence should be resorted to, it seemed rather hard that any opposition should now be made to it. He supposed, however, the hon. gent. left the house the other night before the subject was mentioned in the Committee. In the course of the last night's discussion on this inquiry, an hon. member under the gallery had observed, that having carefully compared the Note with the two letters which had been actually proved to be the Duke's hand-writing, the letters in the Note appeared to him, from their formation, to be more like an imitation of letters than a regular hand-writing. On this it was thought necessary that the information should be attended to, and followed up as accurately as possible; and as it would be altogether out of the power of all the members of that house to examine the Papers so minutely as to form a decision on the point, it was thought most adviseable to apply to four or five persons of the Post-office and the Bank, who were in the use and habit of investigating such points in cases of life and death. If these Letters and Note were only to be submitted to a jury of 12 men, they might all of them examine all the letters so minutely, as to decide the point by themselves; but in so great a number as the members of that house, such an examination would be absolutely impossible. Such a proceeding had been allowed in a trial at bar by

849
four judges, sitting in solemn decision in the Court of King's Bench; but in one case, that decision had been denied to be law by one judge at Nisi Prius. The present proceeding, as he observed before, had been adopted the other night; and though it might not fall in with the observations of the hon. gent. on the subject, it was somewhat hard the witness should now be objected to, after it had previously been agreed upon that he should be examined, and that he had been sent for accordingly.—As to the observation of the hon. gent., viz. that it seemed as if the Committee were inclined to give indulgence on one side and not on the other, he thought it was by no means the case. In one instance a person was called to examine a hand-writing that was not his own, and in the other, a writing that was her own. If there had been any irregularity, it was in having admitted col. Gordon's evidence, but none in Mrs. C.'s; for if any thing should arise in the course of the letters produced to the injury of Mrs. C.'s evidence, she would be allowed to have an examination of such parts, and if any alterations and interpolations had been made, she would be able to detect and point them out. From the mode adopted by the Speaker, he was equally ignorant of the evidence this witness would give as the hon. gent. was or any other person whatever; but he thought as he had been called upon by the Committee to make the examination, and had done so, he ought to be permitted to give his evidence on the subject, be it whatever it might.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he saw no difference between a jury and the members of that house, as he thought no member would give his judgment without having examined the papers carefully with his own eyes, and after he had so done, he believed there was not a member who would not give his opinion in preference to his own eye-sight, before that of this witness, or any other who formed his judgment from the same basis.
Lord Folkestonesaid he came prepared to make the same objection, in which he had been anticipated by the hon. gent. below him; and he must observe generally, as to this kind of evidence, that whenever it had been resorted to, it was always in the case of its being the best evidence that could be obtained on the subject. Mrs. C. had given a direct testimony, and if gentlemen would seriously and carefully attend to the whole of her
850
evidence, it would appear to be as correct, fair and honourable a testimony as could be given. Four gentlemen of honour had been examined on the point in question, who all agreed that it was so like the Duke of York's hand-writing, that they believed it to be his.—With respect to the doctrine of being allowed to prove any thing by a comparison of hands, the last case which had been determined on the subject, was at Maidstone. It was that of Jackson v. Cator, for a libel; and Mr. Garrow, for the plaintiff called evidence such as this to prove that the libel was written in a feigned or suppositious hand, and that there was a similarity between this feigned hand and that of the defendant Cator. The noble lord then read an extract from the speech of lord Ellenborough, who was then Attorney-general, and counsel for the defendant, by which it appeared, that he said he was not desiring the court not to go the length of judges in the worst of times, but only the judges who were then administering the laws of the land. He referred to the case of Revett and Braham, which had been quoted by the right hon. gent. opposite, being the trial at bar he had mentioned, and shewed that that case had afterwards been reversed by lord Kenyon. The witness was asked whether he could say the libel was like the hand-writing of Cator, but lord Kenyon would not allow him to answer the question, because, he said, that comparison of hands was no evidence. And in a similar case, which came to be heard before Mr. Justice Yates, that most upright and learned judge held expressly the same doctrine, and said he did not know any case where comparison of hands could be admitted. In an indictment for forgery, a person who had seen the party write might be admitted to prove it, but not by a comparison on a similarity of hands. There was also submitted by lord Ellenborough to the court the case of the seven bishops, in which chief justice Jefferys and another judge were willing to receive such evidence, and Mr. justice Powell and another were against it, which shewed that the lawyers even of that day never thought it right to prove forgery by a comparison of hands. Mr. Baron Hotham's decision in the case of Jackson and Cator, and in which he rejected the doctrine laid down in Revett and Braham, was an authority which compelled him to acquiesce entirely in the opinion of that learned judge. The solicitor for the plaintiff, in

851
the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to take down a host of inspectors from the Post-office, to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The defendant was prepared with another host of inspectors from the Bank, who would have proved the direct contrary. This statement had been made to him by the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of great honour and credit in his profession, and shewed how very great the difference of opinions was, with regard to the comparison of hands. He would therefore intreat the Committee to weigh well the matter, before they allowed such evidence to be called to the bar.
Mr. Beresfordsaid a few words in favour of the witness being called in.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that having given his opinion in favour of the proceeding on the last night of the Inquiry, he should certainly maintain it then, though in direct opposition to that of his hon. friend and the noble lord, with whom he was generally in the habit of voting. The subject, indeed, divided itself into more branches than he was inclined to enter upon at that moment, but he could not help offering a few observations on it. He was sorry the mode of examining witnesses on oath had not been adopted, as he thought this house ought to examine on oath as well as the other, and he believed the custom had obtained in the other house from the circumstance of their being more frequently used to act in judicial capacity. As it was, the house must now proceed in the way that it set out with. There appeared to him great confusion in the manner of arguing the subject. The first question in these cases generally was, Have you seen the party write? and in answering this the witness did not give his opinion on having seen the party write, but on what he had written, which was merely matter of opinion from comparison of the hand-writing. That this, however, was, after all, a very uncertain mode of proceeding, he was ready to admit. This had to him been strongly exemplified in a case which occurred in that house a few nights ago. An hon. gent. had been examined as to the hand-writing of sir Horace Mann, who had on that occasion said, that the first paper produced to him was the writing of sir Horace, and the second was not. He (Mr. Smith) had carefully and minutely examined both, and though he had never seen sir H. Mann write, from the first paper being allowed by the hon. member with-
852
out any doubt, to be the hand-writing of sir H. Mann, he (Mr. Smith) should have felt no doubt the second was also; with no other difference, than that the one had been written with what is generally called a letter pen. As to the gentlemen who had been called to prove the duke of York's hand-writing, they had done themselves honour on the occasion, by the great caution with which they had given their evidence. If the house had strictly adhered to the rules adopted by the courts of law, he would allow they should confine themselves to it: but having once taken a greater latitude, they ought not to permit themselves to be circumscribed, and therefore he thought that col. Gordon's comparison of hands was not liable to the objection his hon. friend had made to it. He could not, therefore, but think it right that the witnesses should be examined, as to the comparison of hands.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that as this point had been objected to, it behoved them to look well to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought. They might set up technical or legal proofs to bar such a mode of proceeding; but this case was nothing like what was so called in courts of law. As to Mrs. Clarke, he should give no opinion on her evidence. He should not follow the example of the noble lord who had penegyrised the lady on the occasion, because he thought it was premature to do so at present. As to the others, there was not one of them, but gen. Brownrigg, to whom a legal question had been put, and that question he had answered so as to deny that it was, in his opinion, the hand-writing of the duke of York. So far, therefore, from the fact being absolutely proved, there is still a doubt, it stands at present in equilibrio; and the question now was, whether the house might not apply to persons who were adequate to speak on the subject; and for his own part, he saw no reason why they should not endeavour to obtain as much information in it as they could. A case had been adduced, where a person was asked, whether a libel was in the genuine handwriting of the plaintiff, and that was allowed. The person's hand-writing was then shewn, and he was asked whether that and the libel were not the same. That was a comparison of hands, and was objected to. The Inspector was asked whether the writing shewn him was a feigned hand, and that he was allowed to answer. The house ought therefore to go as far at least

853
as the courts of law, and that was what was wanted to ask of this witness from the Post-office. Because the Duke's handwriting, as to this Note, had not been proved at all, it was desirable to know, whether it was likely to be a real or a feigned hand. He was therefore of opinion the witness ought to be examined.
Mr. Brandexpressed his surprise that any objections should be made to the examination of the proposed witnesses, and observed, that those who made it their business to mark and compare different hands might reasonably be considered as more competent to judge of such affairs than others.
Sir Samuel Romillysaid, the question appeared to him to be of such high importance that he thought the Committee should not determine on it before they were in possession of more information. The object was very different from that of courts of justice, and therefore the house could not be bound by the same ties. The right hon. gent. opposite had not stated the matter fairly, when he merely talked of a decision at bar, and one at Nisi Prius. The fact was, that in the case of Revett and Braham, which was a trial at bar, the decision was so contrary to the established principles of law, and gave so universal and great an alarm to the whole bar, that on the subsequent occasion in the case of Nisi Prius, Mr. Baron. Hotham, who was well known to be a judge very diffident of his own opinion, took on himself to reverse the law held on the other case, of the trial at bar: and it was very evident, and perfectly well known, that he, a single judge sitting at Nisi Prius, never would have undertaken to overturn that decision of the court, had he not been well aware that it had been highly and loudly condemned by the universal opinion of the whole bar. There was no question of law so nice, as that of saying whether any certain piece of writing was that of any one particular person or not; the property, the liberties, and the lives, of all the subjects of this realm, were deeply interested in it; and it ought never to be forgotten in that house, in particular, that Algernon Sydney lost his life by admitting a comparison of hand-writing, and as lord Ellenborough had so lately argued the case most seriously, the house ought well to consider whether this was really law or not. He should be sorry to take up the time of the Committee, by going deeply into the reason of this case, but he had really heard nothing
854
to convince him in what had been advanced that night on the subject. If the house were to judge by what had fallen from the hon. gent. below him (Mr. W. Smith), a comparison of hands was unquestionably better than seeing a person write; that argument, it seemed to him, went too far, for it proved the comparison to be the best, which was a doctrine long since exploded. The right hon. gent. on the floor (Mr. Bathurst) had said, that the house had examined four gentlemen, but had not put the proper questions to them. Then why not put these questions to them? They were still to be called before the house, and it was much better to put these questions to them in such a manner as the right hon. gent. should point out as a proper one, than to admit evidence so very alarming as this appeared to him to be. He begged the Committee to recollect that the evidence to be produced was to decide the point by a comparison of hands; that this was deemed contrary to the established law of the land; and is it, said he the evidence of those persons which shall be allowed to determine this positively to be the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? He thought it ought not, and should therefore object to the witness being called to the bar.
The Attorney Generalsaid his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, could not more highly respect the judicial opinion of lord Ellenborough than he himself did; but when he considered that in the case alluded to he went to Maidstone as counsel for the defendant, all the law he had then held on the subject was merely that of an advocate, doing the most he could for the cause of his client, but was by no means to be considered in the light of a judicial opinion. He could not allow the reason given by his hon. and learned friend for baron Hotham's over-ruling the decision of the court, because it was the universal opinion of the bar that that decision was contrary to law. In the case of Revett and Braham, the point was, whether the hand-writing was feigned or real; and this was to be determined by persons from public offices, who acted as inspectors. In the trial before baron Hotham, the inspectors from the Post-office were asked whether the hand-writing of the defendant Cator was a feigned hand: so far it agreed with the case of Revett and Braham; but it went further, and having proved the opinion that the hand-writing was feigned, they proceeded to ask, whe-

855
ther it had been feigned by the person who wrote the libel, and this was to be done by shewing the defendant's writing, and then comparing it with the libel; this was refused; but so far as whether the hand was a feigned hand, baron Hotham, in the case of Jackson and Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Braham. The question, however, then was, whether, as the Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witnesses should be allowed to be called, and whether the Committee should receive any further assistance towards proving the hand-writing. The Committee had already exceeded the strict rules of legal justice, and were then only asked to admit the evidence of persons who had been accustomed to examine, and to say whether certain hand-writing, submitted to their inspection, was feigned or real, and whether they would not be better able to judge, from persons of such experience, than by their own only; on that ground, he should apprehend the Committee would come to a decision.
The question was then put, and the witness was allowed to be called in, without a division.
THOMAS METCALFE, M. D. was called in, and examined.
You are a Physician? I am.
Are you Mrs. C.'s medical attendant? I am.
Have you seen Mrs. C. in the course of this day? Yes.
Is her state of health such as to prevent her attending to give evidence to-day? I think totally so.
Can you form any opinion when Mrs. C.'s health will permit her to attend? I should think in the course of two days.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
[It was moved and seconded, that the evidence to hand-writing about to be produced, be not received; which being put, passed in the negative, without a division.]
Mr. SAMUEL JOHNSON was called in and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
What are you? Inspector of Franks at the General Post-Office.
How long have you been in that situation?
I have been in the Office about thirteen years, or rather more; in that situation about six years; I think it was in 1802 I was appointed to the Franks.
In that situation, is it your particular duty to look at hand-writing, and observe its different variation? It is our duty to perceive that no Franks pass either from the house of peers or
856
the house of commons, but Franks by the peers or the members themselves.
In the course of that duty, it is necessary for you to be very particular in your examination of hand-writing? As much so as our time will permit.
[The two Letters and the Note being shewn to the Witness.] You have seen these papers before, in the room of the house of commons? I have.
The paper to which particularly I wish to direct your attention, is the small paper: in your opinion, is that smaller paper the same hand-writing as the larger papers? It resembles it so nearly, that I should think it was.
In point of fact, have you occasionally, from inspection only, detected false or feigned signatures? Yes.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. ROBERT SEARLES was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
What pre you? A deputy inspector of Franks.
How long have you been in that situation? About 18 months.
[The two Letters and the Note were shewn to the Witness.] You have seen these papers before? I have.
Look at them, and tell me whether you think they are all the same hand-writing? I think they are.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. THOMAS NESBITT was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Beresford.)
What is your employment? I am in the service of the Bank.
In what department of the Bank are you? Principal of the Letter of Attorney Office.
In that office are you in the habit of examining hand-writings that are suspected to be forgeries? Yes, constantly so.
How long have you been in that employment? Between 30 and 40 years, in the daily habit.
Are you in the habit of examining writings that you so suspect, by comparing them with other writings, acknowledged to be the hand of the same party? Certainly.
In making such comparison, what is your usual habit of doing it? A signature to a letter of attorney for sale is left at the Bank for me to examine, and if to any other letter of attorney the proprietor has put his name, or has accepted the stock, this letter of attorney in question would be examined by those signatures.
In so doing, are you in the habit of observing the turn of the different hands in writing the names, to see whether the party writing turned his hand the same way? Certainly.
[The two Letters and the Note were shewn to

857
the Witness.] Have you seen these papers before? I have.
By a close inspection of the hand writing of the Letters, do you perceive any difference in the turns of any one compared with the others —(A cry of oh ! oh ! oh !)
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bathurstrose to order:—He thought the proper course of examination was that which had been pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not understand the objection of his hon. friend on the opposite side. His hon. friend behind him (Mr. Beresford) having formed his own judgment by an attention to the formation of the letters, wished to direct the attention of the witness to the particular circumstances which had weighed with himself before he asked him the general question. This he thought perfectly proper; and as his hon. friend had been in a situation where he himself had been in the habit of comparing hands, he had given up the examination of this witness to him.
Mr. Bathurstcontended that the examination ought to be confined to the general question; for as to a trifling difference in a word or a letter, the hand-writing of each of the members of the house might so far vary at different times. But the point was, whether, on a view of the whole the witness was of opinion that the writings were the same. The question he thought the more improper, as the hon. gent. had founded it on an opinion of his own.
Mr. Elliotwas sorry to interpose, but he had an objection to state different from that of his right hon. friend, who had just sat down. He thought it of great importance that the house and the committee should be consistent. A witness had been before rejected because he could speak only from signatures, and this witness stood in the same situation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerremarked that the witnesses now called were not called with a view to prove the handwriting of the D. of Y., but to say whether the two papers shewn them were in the same hand-writing. The question, he contended, was in substance unobjectionable; for it was proper and important to direct the attention of the witness to the materials upon which he was to judge; and this he supposed was the object of his hon. friend.
Mr. Ellisonsaid, that the house had de-
858
cided that these witnesses should be called, and therefore he had nothing to say on that point; but he was very anxious that it should not go forth to the public that there was any thing like an attempt to lead the witness. The object was to get at the truth. The question had a manifest tendency to lead the evidence. This would not serve the cause of truth; and on that account his feeling was strong against it.
Mr. Beresfordstated, that having been himself in the habit of examining handwritings with a view to detect forgeries, he had looked at the Note and the other Letters, and had made observations which appeared to several gentlemen to whom he mentioned them to have weight. He had refrained from asking any questions of the two first witnesses, as he might from the circumstance have a prejudice in his mind that might lead him to ask an improper question.—(A laugh). But the gentlemen around him seemed to think there was no impropriety in his asking questions, and pointing out the particulars to which he wished the witness to attend before he gave the general answer. But he would be sorry to press any question which might be thought improper, and if there was any objection to his last question, he would abandon it.
Mr. Wilberforcethought the question very improper in the peculiar circumstances under which these witnesses came before the committee. They had already examined the papers, and of course had attended to the necessary particulars, and it was quite needless now to lead their attention to them. They ought first to be asked, whether they believed the handwriting to be the same, and if they answered in the affirmative, they might then with perfect propriety be asked why they thought so. But upon the principle of the last question a witness might be asked 500 preliminary questions, so as to fritter away his opinion before he gave it. The same course ought to be followed with respect to this witness, that had been adopted with respect to the two former, otherwise it might be imagined that the gentlemen who examined the witnesses, resorted to this circuitous method from the dread of an opinion contrary to their wishes.
Mr. Beresfordmoved that the question be expunged, which was accordingly done.
[The Witness was again called in.]
(By Mr. Beresford.)
State whether you think these several papers were all written by the same person, looking both at the directions and the inside of the Letters? I have looked very attentively at the Note particularly, and compared it with these two Letters, and after a great deal of attention and care in looking at almost every letter in the Note, I am of opinion that it was not written by the same hand.
On what circumstances in that Note do you ground your opinion? Because I perceive a neatness through almost every letter of the Note, which is not, I think, to be found in the Letters; and the whole of the writing in the Note appears to me to be of a smaller character than the Letters in general are; I think I perceive a stiffness in several of the letters in the Note, which I do not perceive in the two Letters dated Sandgate and Weymouth.
Have you any further observation to make? I will just add, that in the two Letters dated Sandgate and Weymouth, there appears to me to be a general freedom I do not perceive in the Note.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
You state that you perceive in the formation of the letters of the Note a neatness of character which you do not perceive in the Letters; do you not conceive that difference may arise from the difference of the pens and ink used in the writing? That circumstance has not escaped my mind, but after looking at that also, I am stilt of opinion that it was not the same writing.
You stated, that you are principal Inspector of the Letter of Attorney office; in examining letters of attorney in that office, is it not your principal business to look at the signature? It is.
Is that your only business? No, surely not; that is the principal business.
What other part of the hand-writing are you accustomed to examine, besides the signature; It is necessary for me to read over the whole of the letter of attorney, to see that it is correct in all its parts, and when so done, to compare the signature with any former signature, and if it agrees, of course it is admitted; if it does not agree, we have other modes of proof, such as looking at other signatures, comparing the hand-writing of the witnesses, and still other proofs.
Is it expected that the hand-writing in the body of the letter of attorney should be written by the person who signs his name at the bottom? The letters of attorney are almost universally filled up by the clerks in the office over which I preside; the body of the letter of attorney is uniformly filled up by them.
Then is not the comparison of writings to which alone your attention is directed, altogether a comparison of signatures? It is.
(By Mr. C. Adams.)
Have you, in looking over the Note, observ-
860
ed that there are no dots to the i's in that note? I have not.
Have you observed whether there are any dots to the i's in the two letters? I think I have observed dots in some parts of the letters.
Look over the letters again, with a view to that circumstance. [The Witness looked over the letters]—I do not observe several, but I do find, in the first letter I have looked into, one; that is the letter dated from Weymouth.
Have you observed but one i, in these two letters, with the dot over it? I have not observed more.
Having adverted to that circumstance, do you remain of the same opinion with regard to the hand-writing? I do not think that should change my opinion, because I think that the ensemble of the note appears to me altogether a different kind of hand.
You have stated to the Committee, that you looked over these letters and the note with great attention; how did it happen that so remarkable a circumstance as that escaped your attention? I do not at all wonder that such a circumstance as that should escape my attention, it is the first time I have ever been called upon in this house, however, and surrounded as I was by gentlemen on every side at the time I was examining into the letters, as far as my time and attention would allow, I do not wonder that that circumstance escaped my attention.
How long a time were these letters under your inspection in the Committee-room above stairs? I think about an hour; but in the course of that time, I had a great variety of letters to look over, of Mrs. C.'s and other persons, which I was directed to look at, and which I did look at, and observed the characters with some attention.
Do you remember an instance of a person endeavouring to forge or imitate the hand-writing of another who did not put dots to the i's, who in that forged or imitated paper was accustomed to put dots? I do not exactly recol-collect any circumstance about dots of i's, but I have refused signatures, and perhaps daily do that, which turn out to be forgeries, though generally innocent ones, but not actually the signature of the parties that should be there.
Does the circumstance of there being no dots to the i's in the note before you, make any difference in your opinion? It certainly was a circumstance that I did not advert to, and therefore, as for as that goes, I certainly think it is of weight, but not sufficient to alter my opinion.
(By Mr. Thompson.)
In the course of examining the signature of powers of attorney, have you not observed that the signature of the same person varies considerably in a short period of time? I certainly have, and that may arise from a variety of circumstances, such as ill health; a signature made before or after dinner has frequently been very materially different, and indeed a variety

861
of other circumstances would alter the signature materially.
Have you not admitted the validity of signatures of the same person, so varying as you have stated, in a greater degree than the variation between the writing in the note and the two letters? I have no doubt but I have, but it will arise from this circumstance, probably, that where the signature of the constituent differs materially we have then the signature of two witnesses to look at, and if the signature of either of those witnesses should be well known to me to be in all probability a true signature, I mean a signature that passes before me very frequently, that would operate in my mind to admit the power of attorney, though there might be some considerable variation between the constituent's signature in the one instance and in the other.
Have you not admitted the validity of the hand-writing of those varying signatures, where the witnesses have been totally different persons, and totally unknown to you? I think I have not, because that is my particular business to attend to, not to admit any thing that is not in itself exactly what it ought to be, without such proof before me as should enable me to admit it.
What proportion of the signatures of the witnesses to the powers of attorney, in the country, are you acquainted with? I cannot say the proportion of hand-writings of witnesses that I am acquainted with, but certainly a great number, and you will allow that, when I tell you that every day I admit from forty to fifty, sixty and a hundred; hardly any day is less than forty, and very often a hundred.
You must know that powers of attorney, executed by the same person in the country, are attested by very different witnesses? Certainly.
Do you not depend upon the signature of the person who executes the power of attorney, much more than upon any name of any witness to the execution of that power of attorney? I certainly do, that is the first object.
Do you not principally depend upon the signature of the person who executes the power of attorney, notwithstanding the variations in the hand-writing of that person? I certainly do.
And you have admitted the validity of those signatures with greater variations than you find between the note and the two letters? I certainly have, but collateral evidence has come in to satisfy me of the validity of the signatures.
(By Sir James Hall.)
Do you consider the note as having been written in imitation of the hand-writing of the letters? That was my opinion at the time I was examining them.
(By Mr. Lyttleton.)
Is it in the usual and common habit of yourself to be called upon for your opinion, and to give an opinion upon the similarity of handwriting, where there are no signatures of names
862
whatever? It has very seldom happened of late years, formerly it was more frequent, because of late years I have understood that such kind of evidence has not been admitted in the courts of law.
Having stated that you have been chiefly conversant with the examination of signatures, do you judge of them by comparison with other signatures of the same person, or a general comparison of the hand-writing of the person supposed to sign? I judge of them by a comparison with other signatures of the same person.
Have you ever seen papers in which the signature and the other writing in those papers, purported to be, and to your knowledge were written by the same person? I have.
Have you in those cases observed that the signatures are in many cases different from the general writing? I certainly have; and I must acknowledge that signatures in general are much easier to judge of than common lines of writing, because signatures have always appeared to me a set kind of hand, which a man takes up, and in general does not part with.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
Previously to your examination of the two letters and the note, had it been intimated to you by any person, and by whom, that there was reason to doubt of the authenticity of the note? I think I should answer to that, that I read the newspaper every evening, and therefore I have read all that concerns this business every evening as constantly as it has passed.
Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the newspapers? I certainly came with no prejudice in my mind, but I came determined to form my mind from what I should see in the note and in the letters.
Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the newspapers? I think I said that I came here with no prejudice, but to form my mind from what I should find in reading over the note and the letters.
Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the newspapers? I conceive that I might reason upon the subject, but certainly I came here with no prejudice whatever.
Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the news-papers? I certainly did reason upon the subject in my own mind, but I came here with no prejudice whatever.
Have you carefully examined both the letters, and do you find in any parts of either of those letters any difference in the hand-writing; are both those letters exactly in the same character and style of hand-writing? I did not perceive any particular difference in the mode of writing in those two letters, but that they were all written with the same kind of freedom, except where the ink appeared to fail, and that will

863
constantly be the case under such a circumstance.
(By the Hon. Mr. J. Ward.)
Is or is not the difference in the note and the letters greater than that which you have frequently observed between acknowledged pieces of hand-writing of the same person? The difference between the note and the letter appears to me to arise, taking it altogether, from the neatness and the stiffness of writing, which I do not observe in the two letters; as to there being a greater difference between the note and the letters, and any two signatures which I have admitted, I really cannot tell how to answer that; the differences in signatures are so very frequent, and so various, that I cannot well explain myself upon that subject.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
From your habits of business at the bank, have you more frequent opportunities of comparing the general hand-writings of parties, than persons engaged in any mercantile or other counting-house in the city of London? I am persuaded not, and I have thought myself frequently incompetent to such kind of examinations, because my constant practice has been with respect to signatures only.
You having stated that you had been occupied one hour in examining all the papers, inclusive of Mrs. C.'s letters, what time did you devote to the examination of the three letters now in question? I think it is probable that I might have been from half an hour to three quarters on the one, and the rest of the time on the various letters of Mrs. Clarke, and so on.
(By Mr. Barham.)
Might not the short note and the two letters have been the hand-writing of the same person, supposing the short note written in the morning, and the two letters after dinner, or vice versa? I think that might possibly have been the case, but then that written in the afternoon would have been much worse than that written in the morning.
If two powers of attorney had been presented to you for your examinations, one in the hand of the letter which was acknowledged to be the hand-writing of the party who presented it, and the other in the hand-writing of the short note, with your observation would you officially have refused the acceptance of that latter power of attorney? If there had been no other circumstances as collateral evidence in favour of it, I certainly should have demurred to the signature.
Have you not said, that writings differing as much as these, have ultimately turned out to be genuine? If I have not, I am persuaded they have done so.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. THOMAS BATEMAN was called in, and examined.
(By the Attorney General.)
In what business are you? In the service of he Bank of England.
In what department? My employment is the examining powers of attorney in the first place, as to the accuracy of them, and then examining their signatures.
[The two Letters and the Note were shewn to the witness.] Have you examined those two letters and that note, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person or not? I have.
How long have you been employed in the department in which you now are? Nearly 20 years.
You are still in that situation? I am.
You state, that you have examined these two letters and that note, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person? I have.
Look at them now, and tell me whether they were in your judgment written by the same person? I think there is a very correspondent similarity.
In your judgment, is the note written by the same person as these letters were written by? I can only say that there is a very marked similarity.
(By Sir J. Sebright.)
Upon examining these letters and the note, have you any reason to think they were not written by the same person? I have not any reason to think they were not; I have no reason at all upon that subject.
Upon examining those letters and the note, have you any reason to think they were not written by the same person? After what I have said, I think I cannot answer that question but in the way I have answered it.
If two powers of attorney came before you, signed, one in the character of the note, and the other in the character of the letters, would you have passed them both as written by the same person? I think I should.
[The witness was directed to withdraws
Mr. THOMAS BLISS was called in and examined.
(By the Attorney General.)
What is your employment? One of the Investigators of the Bank of England.
What is your business in that department? To examine and inspect into forged notes.
How long have you been in that situation? About fifteen years.
Is it your business to discover whether the signatures to those notes are or are not genuine? It is.
Do you examine any thing but the signatures to those notes? The whole of the notes; every writing on the note; it leads to many other things, the paper, the writing, the engraving, and the whole of the notes.
Do you examine any writing upon the notes, except the signature? Yes, very frequently.
What part of those bills which you examine is written, except the signature? The date and number.
Do yon examine Bank post bills as well as Bank-notes? No.
Then there is nothing of writing upon those bills you examine, but the dates, the numbers and the signatures? Nothing else, except it might be writing by the public at times, upon the notes.
[The two letters and the note were shewn to the Witness] Have you examined the two letters and the note now put into your hand, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person or not? I have.
According to the best judgment you can form, are they or are they not written by the same person? I should suppose they were.
(By Mr. John Smith.)
Have you any doubt upon that subject at all? From letters that I saw afterwards, I have some doubt; but if I had not seen any other letters, from the appearance of those I should have had no doubt.
What letters did you see afterwards? I saw different letters on the table where I examined these, that I was desired to look at, from, I believe, No 31 to 40 or 41.
Is the committee to understand, that, from the observation you have made upon the letters and the note you have just seen, you have no doubt but they were written by the same person? I did not say I had no doubt, I said I thought, they were.
Have you or have you not any doubt upon that subject, alluding to the three letters you have just seen? From the letters that I saw since, many of them seeming to differ, I have some doubt of it.
Have you or have you not any doubt upon that subject, alluding to the three letters you have just seen? From the examination of the three letters, which I looked at as carefully as possible, I thought they were all of one handwriting.
(By Mr. Bathurst.)
Whose letters do you imagine those were that you saw besides? There were papers numbered as far as 40 upon the table; I went in at a late hour; only one being allowed to go in at a time, I looked only at ten, from 30 to 40 or 41; and I understood from those letters they were written by Mrs. Clarke.
Explain how the comparison of Mrs. Clarke's letters induced you to doubt about the similarity of the three others.—After I had been desired to look at two letters, and the other, to compare the hand-writing, I was desired to look at the other letters, and compare them with the first two letters also.
How did that comparison alter the opinion you had before formed? Because, though they were written by one person, yet they differed in the writing; there were some very plain to
866
read, and some more difficult to read; some written rather larger, and some rather smaller.
I understand you to have stated, that the two letters and the note appeared to you at first to be of the same writing? I did say so.
Therefore, though these were written at different times, there appeared no great difference in the writing? There did not.
How was that opinion altered by finding that another person did at different times write different hands? From the difference of that handwriting; some of them I compared, in some measure bore a semblance to the first two letters; if I had seen no others than the first two and the note produced to me, I should have been clearly of opinion, without any doubt, that they had been the same person's writing; but I explain now, from the ultimate judgment of what I looked at, which impressed upon me this, that the letters that I saw, though they were one person's writing, the writing differed materially, some very small and some larger, and from the very free easy running hand, some seem so exactly alike, and some different, that it would be doubtful to judge of that person's writing at all times, whether it was her writing or not.
Is it from those letters differing amongst themselves, or from some of them agreeing with the two letters now shewn to you, that your doubt arises? It is from some of those letters being differently written of themselves, and some of them having a small semblance of the other writing.
Did those letters most resemble the two letters or the note? One or two of the letters resembled the two letters and the note.
Is it from that resemblance that you doubt now that the two letters and the note were of the same hand-writing? The difference amongst themselves would be the only reason that would create any doubt in my mind.
You have said, that some of those letters were in a large and some in a small hand, and yet you suppose them to be the writing of the same person? I understood that they were the writing, and thought that they were the writing of the same person.
Is not the note in a smaller hand than the letters? I think as near as possible, the major part of it is the same size as the letters.
(By the Attorney General.)
Did you perceive any similarity between the hand-writing of any of the letters last shewn you, from 30 to 40, and the Note? There were one or two of the letters that I thought bore a semblance of the two letters and the note.
Is that the circumstance which led you to doubt at last whether the two letters and the note were written by the same person? It certainly was.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Brigadier General CLAVERING having sent a Letter to the Chairman, requesting that he might be called to explain his Evidence;

867
he was called in and examined by the Committee, as follows:
What part of the Evidence, which you gave on a former night, do you wish now to explain? There is a part of the evidence that I gave on a former night, that I wish to explain. But I request permission, before I explain it, to state why I requested to come forward this evening: it was intimated to me yesterday, by a friend of mine, and other Members of the Committee, that an idea had gone forth, that part of the evidence I gave on a former evening was not correct; I certainly started at the idea, having been thoroughly satisfied in my own mind that it was my intention to state every thing to the very best of my knowledge. Yesterday, however, I referred to the Minutes, which before I had not seen, and it did certainly appear to me that the answers I had given to the questions, were not perfectly such as I would have given, had I clearly comprehended those questions; and however extraordinary this may appear to the Committee, I pledge my sacred honour and word the mistake was perfectly involuntary on my part, and it was my entire intention, as well as my wish, to give every information in my power, and I should feel myself particularly honoured and flattered by as many questions as the Committee shall think it proper to put to me upon this occasion. With the permission of the Committee, I will now refer to the questions put to me on the former occasion. The question was (p. 520); "Had you any communication whatever on the subject of Army Promotions with Mrs. Clarke?" My reply was, "I never proposed any conversation of that kind, nor do I recollect any ever having existed, except at the period I before alluded to, when she requested I would recommend to the consideration of the Duke of York lieutenant Sumner of the 20th regiment." It is perfectly clear now to me, that by the addition of the word 'whatever' after 'communication,' an epistolary correspondence was intended, but I certainly understood it to be a personal communication or conversation, for, in the two preceding questions, the idea of conversation and conversation only had been included; and in the following question likewise it appears also evident to me, that that was in the idea of the hon. member who proposed it, that he meant conversation, for the question is, "Had you any incidental conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon that subject?" and my reply was, "A period of so many years having elapsed since that time, it is impossible to speak positively and accurately to a question so close as that, but to the best of my belief, I do not think I had." The next question, and the reply, which I wish to advert to, is this: "Do you of your own knowledge, know that Mrs. Clarke used her influence in favour of any person whatever in the army with the Commander in Chief?" My reply was, "I do not." I certainly did misunderstand that Question altogether; and that I did misunderstand it, I have the most positive proof for stating to the committee: one of the first conversations I had,
868
after withdrawing from this bar, was with a noble relative of mine, a peer of the upper house, in which I stated, and he has authorized me to say, if it is necessary, he will confirm the same, that my surprise was, that a question had been put to me which I conceived concerned others, and that my regret was, that the question had not been put which did immediately concern myself, for if it had, I should have given that reply which, in my own mind, conveyed a thorough conviction that Mrs. Clarke never possessed that influence over the mind of his royal highness which it is supposed that she possessed. I have nothing further to add upon that immediate head.
[The five Letters delivered in by Mrs. Clarke on the 13th instant, (p. 670.) were shewn to General Clavering.]
General Clavering.—They are my handwriting.
(By the Hon. Mr. Ward.)
On the former examination, you were asked whether you had ever known of any person who had asked Mrs. C. to use her influence with the Commander in Chief; to which you answered positively, that you had not. When you were asked whether you knew of any transaction of that nature, you say you understood that any transaction in which you might have been engaged was excluded in the intention of the person asking that question? I certainly did, both to that question and to the following one, for I conceived that my answer to the third question from the bottom, was an answer which applied equally to the two last.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Did you or did you not ever, in writing or otherwise, ask Mrs. C. to use her influence in your behalf with the Commander in Chief? I did.
(By Mr. Yorke.)
Had it any effect? I believe not.
Did you obtain what you asked for? I made two applications; I did not obtain the first, and I believe that what was granted me in the second, was not through her influence.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Was it granted to you? Will you permit me to answer that question not immediately directly; it was granted, but it must equally have been granted, and it could not have been denied me, if such application had not been made.
Why then did you apply through Mrs. C.? Were I permitted to state the circumstances, I believe it would be better understood than by any other answer. In 1803, I was placed upon the Staff as an Inspecting Field Officer, as Colonel. In 1804, the government thought proper to raise all the officers of the rank of Colonel to that of Brigadier-General; I received a notification from the War-Office, that I was ap-

869
pointed a Brigadier-General, and about a fortnight afterwards I received a second notification, to say, that my appointment was not to be that of Brigadier-General but Brigadier-Colonel. The circumstance appeared to me so extraordinary, that I wrote upon that occasion to Mrs. C., to know if she could discover why the alteration was made from Brigadier-General to Brigadier-Colonel; she replied to me, that upon inquiry it was found to be a mistake, and that all the Brigadier-Generals who had been previously appointed and afterwards removed, were to be restored to their first appointments of Brigadier-Generals; and the reason was evident, it was supposed that the Militia and the Volunteers might possibly be assembled to act together; by the Militia Act, no Colonel in the Army can command a Colonel of Militia, consequently, our appointment to the situation of Brigadier-Colonels would not have had the effect it was intended to have had; therefore, we were again appointed to our original situation, that of Brigadier-Generals.
How came you to apply for an interpretation of any mistake, or any extraordinary circumstance, to Mrs. C., and not to the office of the Commander in Chief? Because, according to the custom of all offices, the persons holding the ostensible situations could not have given me the information that I desired, or rather, they would have been reprehensible if they had given it me, for in all probability, though they might have been acquainted with the reasons, they would not have been justified in declaring them.
What secret source of information, which it would have been reprehensible for the ostensible officers in the office of the Commander in Chief to have given, did you suppose Mrs. C. to have? I certainly did suppose that Airs. C. was informed of what was passing in the War-office; I mean generally in the office of the Commander in Chief, and therefore I had reason to suppose that she would give me every information that was in her power.
What was the reason? Because on any former occasion, as far as I can at present recollect, she had been always extremely communicative.
From whom did you know or suppose that she had derived that communication which she was so communicative of to you? Certainly from h. r. h. the Commander in Chief.
How do you reconcile the answer you have last given to the answer you before gave; you supposed Mrs. C. to have no influence with the Commander in Chief? The reply that I before gave, went to Mrs. C.'s influence over h. r. h. in the distribution of military promotion.
Of the two applications which you state yourself to have made through Mrs. C., which was the one that was successful, whether by her influence or otherwise? If I recollect rightly, I had before the honour of stating, that the rank of Brigadier-General was restored to
870
me, which I could not have been denied; it was granted to all the colonels of the regular service of the year 1802, in which brevet I was, with others both above and below me, and consequently it could not have been denied me without a marked stigma.
Which of the two applications, which you have stated yourself to have made through Mrs. C., was successful, the first or the second, whether through her means or any ether? I certainly have to apologize to the Committee, if I have not made myself understood.
What were the two things which you applied for? The first circumstance upon which I wrote to her was, or rather a letter was written, which I was accessary to, it is immaterial whether I wrote it or not, was relative to the raising a regiment. I was given to understand that she had very great influence in military promotions, and I conceived, therefore, it would be a fair speculation to try whether that influence did exist or not; a letter was accordingly written to her, stating, that in case she obtained me permission to raise a regiment, she should receive 1,000 l. She wrote me, in reply, that h. r. h. would not hear of it, or scouted the idea, or words to that effect; and consequently from that answer, it was my decided opinion that she did not possess an influence over h. r. h. in the distribution of military promotion.
Did you in point of fact obtain leave to raise that regiment? I did not.
Did you make a second application, and what was that application for? The other application, if it may be so termed, was not for any promotion, but to know the reason why, after having been appointed a Brigadier-General, I was reduced to the situation of a Brigadier-Colonel.
Have you ever made any other application to Mrs. C. for information, for promotion, for exchange, or for any other thing? I cannot bring to my recollection that I ever have made any other application to her upon any one of those subjects mentioned, but if any of the hon. gentlemen here can give me the smallest clue to guide my recollection, I shall be extremely happy to give every information in my power.
Being convinced in the first instance by the D. of Y.'s having, as Mrs. C. informed you, scouted the idea of your being permitted to raise a regiment, for which you had made an offer of 1,000 l. and having from thence inferred that she had no influence; how came you to make any second application to her? If I am correct, I before stated that I was satisfied, from h. r. h.'s answer to her, if such was his answer, that she did not possess any influence over him in the point of military promotion; that h. r. h. might have permitted her to talk upon military subjects, but that as to military promotions she had no influence.
Do you know that at the time you made application through Mrs. C. for leave to raise a regiment, any officer received that permission

871
which was refused to you? If my memory serves me right, there were three or four young regiments raised at that time in Ireland, but not in this country.
Were they raised upon the same term with regard to the payment of money, as the tender made by you for raising your men? They were not; my proposal was, as far as I can recollect, for I had forgotten that till I saw it in the evidence, my proposal was to raise them from the Militia; the regiments in Ireland were raised with a bounty.
From whom did you receive the information first, that Mrs. C. had influence with the Commander in Chief relative to military promotions, which induced you to have the first letter written, or to connive at the writing of the first letter to Mrs. C., in order to obtain that influence in your favour? My information upon that head was merely report, but the letter alluded to was suggested to me.
(By the Hon. Mr. Ward.)
Had you ever any other than a written communication with Mrs. C. upon the subject of your own promotion? To the best of my opinion, I had not; the reason why I think so is, that at that time I was stationed at a distance from London.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
Is the Committee to understand you to have said, that if you had applied to the War-office for information, after its having been notified that you were a Brigadier-General, and your being put back to the rank which you call Brigadier-Colonel, you would not have obtained that information? I do not think that I should, nor should I have made the application, conceiving that such application would have been improper.
Why then do you suppose you could obtain information respecting military arrangements from Mrs. C., which you could not obtain from the War-Office? Because I see a considerable degree of distinction between making application for information to a lady of the description that she then was, and making it to those official persons who would not have been justified in giving me the information that I desired.
What reason had you for thinking that Mrs. C. had information of what was passing at the War-office; which information would have been refused to military officers regularly applying? Because I was of opinion that by her influence over the Commander in Chief, which she described herself to me to possess, she could obtain any information of that description.
How is the Committee to reconcile that declaration with that which yon have made, that you did not then believe her to have any influence over the Commander in Chief? If I am correct, I before said, that the influence she possessed over h. r. h. the Commander in Chief
872
did not go to the distribution of military promotions.
Did it then go to the obtaining information of regulations in the War-office, which regulations were withheld from public notice? As she always gave me to understand she could procure almost any promotion whatever, I conceived that the only way to obtain that which I wished for was by application to her.
Did you in point of fact obtain the information you sought for through her means? I did not; the information that I received was, as far as I can recollect, that there had been a mistake in removing us from the situation of brigadier generals lo brigadier colonels and that that mistake was shortly to be rectified.
Was that or not the information you did wish to obtain? It was not the information that I wished to obtain, if I am perfectly correct, because I do not think she stated the reason why we were removed from the situation of brigadier generals to brigadier colonels. I hope the hon. committee will excuse any mistake I may make in this, for there has a period of several years elapsed since this correspondence, and I may fall into an error: it is my endeavour to give every information in my power.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Look at the letter in the clerk's hand, and read it. [A Letter, dated the 11th of Nov. 1804, was shewn to gen. Clavering.] You there express your thanks to Mrs. C. for her attempts to serve you, though unsuccessful.—I am of opinion that must have alluded to her not being able to obtain me permission to raise a regiment.
You speak further on the coming to town; when you and Mrs. C. met, did any conversation arise as to military promotions, or military matters? It is above five years since I wrote this letter, and I am sure it is impossible for any person whatever to recollect any conversation of so trivial a nature after so long a period.
You have positively stated in your former examination, that you never had any conversation; you have referred the explanation which you wished to give to the Committee tonight, to the difference between communication and conversation, and that it was conversation you understood the question to refer to; do you now adhere to the answer of the former night, that you never had any conversation with Mrs. C. on the subject of military promotions, or military matters? I do not recollect having had any conversation with her upon the subject; it is possible that something tending to it in the course of conversation might have been alluded to, but at this distance of time I cannot charge my memory with it.
Having stated, that in the original application to Mrs. C. you proffered her the sum of 1,000 l. to obtain that which you wished at the time; did you ever, on any other occasion, make her an offer of money, or any valuable

873
consideration of any kind, for the purpose of obtaining her supposed influence with the Commander in Chief? I am positive I never did.
Did you ever, without making any previous offer, make her any pecuniary recommence, or give her any valuable consideration for any service she might have done you, or endeavoured to do you, with the Commander in Chief? I never gave her any thing in my life, unless it might be accidentally; being in the room when the milliner brought her a shawl, I told the milliner she might call upon me for the payment for it.
I understood you to say, that you consider Mrs. C. to have very little, if any influence with the Commander in Chief, on military promotions? Yes.
(By Sir Thomas Turton.)
Do you found your opinion on the refusal to allow you to raise a regiment, or have you any other reason for that opinion? I ground my opinion upon my own case, and also conversation with various military officers upon the subject; for though various reports have gone forth, to the prejudice of h. r. h. upon that subject, I never heard of any one case that could be brought home, nor do I believe there is any such case.
(By Sir J. Sebright.)
Did you ever apply to Mrs. C. by letter or otherwise, to get yon put upon the staff? I was placed upon the staff upon the 24th Sept. 1803, as the Gazette of that date will shew; and h. r. h.'s first acquaintance with Mrs. C. did not commence till four months afterwards, in the month of January 1804.
Did you not write a Letter to the Attorney General, desiring that you might be examined at the bar of this Committee upon this subject? I did, and I should be extremely happy to state the reason why I wrote that letter.
Acknowledging, as you have done, that you have written letters to Mrs. C. upon the subject of Military Promotions, and also have had conversations with her upon that subject, state with what view you wrote that Letter to the Attorney General.—About a day or two after this inquiry commenced, I perceived in the public papers that my name had been introduced, and, apprehensive that h. r. h. might suppose that I had been engaged in any improper military transactions, I went down to the Horse-Guards, to explain the transaction to lieut. col. Gordon; col. Gordon did not see me, but referred me to Mr. Lowten, I called upon Mr. Lowten, and he put various questions to me; and, and after my replying to those questions, he told me it would be necessary for me to go down to the House to be examined. I replied to him, that was what I should wish particularly to avoid; but that if he stated absolutely it was necessary, I certainly would attend, but that it was the farthest from my wish. When I did come down here, it was deemed right I should write a Letter to
874
the Attorney General, and accordingly such letter was written, and I stated in it, that I appeared here at Mr. Lowten's desire: after reading that letter to Mr. Lowten, and two other gentlemen who were present, it was observed by one of them that Mr. Lowten's name should not appear, in consequence of his being Agent for h. r. h. consequently Mr. Lowten's name was expunged; and therefore it appeared I was a voluntary witness upon this occasion, whereas I was not so, but came forward at Mr. Lowten's desire.
Why, after the evidence you have given here before the Committee, did you write to the Attorney General, with a view of shewing you knew nothing at all about these transactions? The hon. member who puts that question is under a mistake, I never wrote such a letter.
With what view did you write the letter to the Attorney General; and why, after having written that letter to the Attorney-General, offering to do away the evidence of Mrs. C. do you come to give the evidence which you have given at the bar of this Committee? I am very sorry to say I do not comprehend the question.
(By Mr. Dennis Browne.)
With what view did you write that letter to the Attorney-General? Mr. Lowten stated to me, that he conceived my evidence would be of considerable consequence in this house; and therefore, as it was absolutely necessary that I should be introduced to this house, a letter was written to the Attorney-General, as the best mode of bringing me forward.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
Did you inform Mr. Lowten of all your transactions with Mrs. C. at the time Mr. Lowten gave you that advice? I did not, of all of them.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
It stands upon the Minutes of the Evidence, that Brigadier-general Clavering having stated to a member of the house that he was desirous of being examined, brigadier general Clavering was called in, and examined by the committee as follows: Have you sent a letter to me (namely, the Attorney-General) this evening? I did so.—Desiring that you might be examined? I did so.' I understand that you presented yourself as a voluntary witness; you state now, that you were unwilling to be examined, but were desired by Mr. Lowten to be examined; do you mean to state that you were a voluntary or an involuntary witness at this bar? I have no objection to state, that it was the last wish of my heart to be examined at this bar. Mr. Lowten stated, it was extremely desirable that I should he examined, and therefore I acceded; and I apprehended the distinction between a voluntary and an involuntary witness to consist in this, that I was not summoned to attend at the bar.
Did Mr. Lowten represent to you what his

875
reason was for wishing you to put yourself forward, instead of a summons being issued to you in the usual way? He did not state any thing upon that subject.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
For what purpose did you go down to the Horse-Guards, and afterwards go to Mr. Lowten? I was anxious to remove from the mind of lieut. col. Gordon any idea that I had been concerned in any traffic in Commissions, as appeared in the news-papers. Col. Gordon refused to see me, and referred me to Mr. Lowten.
Were you desirous to do away that impression from the mind of col. Gordon at the time you recollected that you had offered that 1,000 l. for a Commission? I was desirous of removing from his mind any unfavourable impression that might have occurred from reading the reports of what had passed in this committee.
Were you desirous of doing so, by stating the true state of the facts to col. Gordon, or concealing it? It was my intention to have stated the fact which was alluded to in the preceding evening, in which my name was brought forward, and that was relating to lieut. Sumner.
Was it for the purpose of contradicting that fact, that you went to col. Gordon? It was for the purpose of explaining the mode in which my name came to be introduced by Mrs. C. in the transaction in which lieut. Sumner's name was brought forward.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Did you mention to Mr. Lowten this transaction, of the offer of the 1,000 l. to Mrs. C.? I believe I did not; but I should have had no scruple in doing it, for I had mentioned it to a thousand persons before.
Are you sure you did not mention it to Mr. Lowten? I think I did not.
Were you appointed a brigadier general in a district, after having been inspecting field officer of a district? I was continued in the district to which I was originally appointed.
Had you the rank of brigadier general, after having been col. or lieut. col. inspecting field officer? I was promoted in common with all the officers of the same rank with myself at the same time.
Did you apply to Mrs. C. upon the subject of that promotion, directly or indirectly, by letter or in conversation? I am quite certain that I did not apply to her upon it; and I am the more certain, because I recollect that the first information I received of any of the brigadier generals being to be appointed, was about a month before it became public, and that was from her.
Was that information communicated to you privately as a secret? It was communicated by letter, but no secrecy enjoined, to the best of my opinion.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. C. W. Wynnrose to discharge a painful duty; but, painful as it might be, it was a duty, and he should not shrink from the discharge of it. The Committee must be aware of the nature of the testimony given by the witness who had just withdrawn, and as he had been warned that he was to give his evidence at his own peril, and had exposed himself to the animadversion of the house, he should move, That general Clavering has prevaricated in his evidence.
General Mathewtrusted his hon. friend would not prematurely press a motion, which went to affect the honour and feelings of a gallant and deserving officer. For the last eight years he had not the honour of a frequent intercourse with gen. Clavering, but from what he did know of him, he was convinced there never was a man who would more studiously avoid any conduct which an honourable mind would disapprove. He had listened attentively that night to his examination, and he could by no means prepare his mind to say, that in his testimony there was any prevarication.
Mr. Whitbread,although alive to the feelings of friendship, by which his hon. friend was actuated, still could not, in regard to the dignity of that house, sacrifice the paramount demands of justice.
Sir M. W. Ridleycalled upon Mr. Wynn to point out the particular parts where gen. Clavering prevaricated before he pressed such a serious motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not zealous to cover gen. Clavering, but he did not believe, that although between his letters and his verbal testimony there existed contradictions, still it could be proved that he had prevaricated.
Mr. Wynnperspicuously contrasted the various parts of gen. Clavering's testimony, in order to justify his motion, and concluded with admonishing the Committee, that the country would put an injurious construction upon that system which would vent on the same misconduct, in humble life, that severer measure of punishment, the infliction of which on the higher rank of delinquents it would oppose.
Mr. Calvertdeclared, that he had not heard the evidence distinctly, and if he was to be called upon for a vote, he should move that the short-hand-writer should read the whole of the evidence.
Mr. Yorkeobserved, that gen. Clavering had come to the bar to explain his former evidence, and that it was not therefore a

877
trifling variation that was to be considered prevarication. He thought that it would be better to put off any consideration of such points, unless in the case of gross and wilful prevarication, till the investigation should be concluded. The day of reckoning would come, when the house ought to take up the consideration of the various acts of corruption, imposition, and swindling, which had come out in the course of this inquiry.
Sir T. Turtonargued, that as the witness had come to the bar to contradict or correct his former testimony, he could not be said to have prevaricated.
The Secretary at Warthought, that as gen. Clavering had on a former night given evidence in which he found he had been mistaken, he had no other course but to come down and explain the mistake. However contradictory this statement had been to the former, there was no prevarication in what he stated to-night, as he had concealed nothing, but told of his offer to Mrs. C. of 1,000 l. for her influence to set him a regiment.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that if he were absolutely called upon to pronounce an opinion, it must be in favour of the motion, as the contradiction was so very strong. If gen. Clavering had, upon reading his evidence, and finding that it conveyed a false impression, come down without delay, and explained it the next day, it would have had a very different aspect; but he had waited eight or nine days before he thought proper to make this explanation. Under all the circumstances, however, he considered that the best course would be to adjourn the discussion on the proposed resolution.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he had felt the case so strong, that he did not apprehend any doubt; but as there was a doubt, he should very readily agree to postpone the discussion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in case of prevarication, he thought the house should proceed immediately to the punishment of the witness. In case, however, of a witness contradicting a statement he had before made, he thought it would be much the best way to go through the whole of the case, and afterwards consider what course should be taken with the witnesses who had contradicted themselves, He thought, therefore, the hon. gent. would do best to withdraw his motion for the present, and bear the matter in his mind till that time should arrive.
Mr. Wynn,on this suggestion, consented to withdraw his motion.
CHARLES GREENWOOD, esq. was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Abercrombie.)
Is there any part of your evidence, respecting the appointment of Mr. Elderton, which you now wish to correct? Yes.
State what that part of your evidence is. I there mentioned some unfavourable reports which I had heard of him, as having heard of them before the appointment took place; it now appears, upon referring to the transactions of that period, that those reports were not received till after the appointment had taken place.
Is there any other part of your evidence on that subject which you wish to correct? No.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Huskisson.)
Do you recollect the date of col. Clinton's leaving the public office of secretary to h. r. h. the Commander in Chief, and of your succeeding to him? It was on the 26th of July, 1804.
On the 26th of July, had the name of capt. Tonyn been sent in to his Majesty for promotion to a majority? No, it had not.
Then, if any person could state at that time that capt. Tonyn would appear in the Gazette of the following Saturday, that person must have been either entirely ignorant of the course of office, or must have intended to deceive the person to whom such information was given? I should suppose so.
In point of fact, would it have been possible in the course of office, between the Thursday and the Saturday, to have received his majesty's pleasure respecting that promotion? It would certainly have been possible to have received his majesty's pleasure on the Thursday or the Friday, supposing the thing to have been so settled.
In the usual course of office could that have taken place? Supposing the thing to have been settled, it might certainly have been so.
On what day was capt. Tonyn's name sent in to the king for promotion? I have not got the documents with me, but I think, upon recollection, it was the 9th of August.
Then he did not appear in the Gazette either of Saturday the 28th, or of the Saturday following? No, I think not, but I have not got the documents at hand.
[The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 18th August 1804, page 999:
"31st regiment of foot, capt. Alexander Leith, to be major. Capt. George Augustus Tonyn, from the 48th foot, to be major."
You will observe that major Leith's commission is dated the 1st of August, and capt. Tonyn's the 2d; can you state the reason of major Leith's being dated the day preceding? They were both promoted at the same time, and major Leith had been the oldest captain.
You have stated, that the king's approbation to major Tonyn's promotion was obtained on the 9th of August, he appears in the gazette of the 18th; in case the Commander in Chief had thought it right on the 16th of August to stop the publication of major Tonyn's promotion in the gazette of Saturday the 18th, he could have done it? Yes, he might.
Is there any instance, in point of fact, of the Commander in Chief directing the publication of promotions in the gazette to be stopped, after they have received the approbation of his majesty? Yes, very frequently casualties happen between the periods of gazetting, and the periods of submitting them to the king; consequently such appointments are not gazetted.
Then if the Commander in Chief had sent an order on the 16th, to you or the proper department, to stop the publication of major Tonyn's promotion, it would not have appeared in the gazette of the 18th? If the Commander in Chief had sent such an order, it probably would have been suspended.
In point of fact, do you know whether any such order was sent? I think it was impossible, I should have had some recollection of it, and I cannot find any trace of such a thing.
And it was not suspended? It was not, it was gazetted among other promotions.
Do you know where the Commander in Chief was on Thursday the 16th of August, 1804? I cannot take upon myself to say positively where he was, but the 16th of August is his birth-day, and he commonly passes it at Oatlands.
Do you know whether he was at the Horse-Guards on the following day, the 17th of August? I cannot take upon myself to say, but it is a point very easily ascertained by reference to the dates; I nave not the papers at hand to answer so precisely as that.
Do you recollect the Commander in Chief applying to you, either verbally or in writing, between the 16th and the 18th of August, to ask you whether he was in time to stop the publication of major Tonyn's promotion? No, I have no such recollection.
Can you inform the Committee, whether any officer of the name of Aslett is to be found in the Army List for that time? I have caused reference to be made to the Army List, and no such person's name could be found in the list of the army.
Was there any major of the name of Bligh promoted about that time? I have caused a similar reference to be made to the Army List, and I can find no such person.
Do you know whether an officer of the name of Bligh was removed about that time from the half pay of the 54th foot, to be lieut. col. of the 14th? On inquiry, the only officer of the name of Bligh who was removed about that time, was
880
the hon. col. Bligh, who was removed from the half pay to a regiment of foot.
What was his standing as lieut. col. in the army? I really do not know, but a reference to the Army List will point it out at once.
Then, in point of fact, there was no major of the name of Aslett, and no major of the name of Bligh, promoted or removed about that period? None that I know of.
Do you know of any officer of the name of Bacon, in the army? There is a capt. Bacon in the army, but I have no knowledge of him whatever.
Did he apply for promotion about the period of July, August, or September, 1804? Not that I know of.
Do you know any thing of an officer of the name of Spedding? I find upon enquiry there was a capt. Spedding in the 48th regiment at that period.
Are there any documents in your office, respecting this officer's applications for promotion? I think I have the documents here. It appears he applied for promotion, and was refused; and he then applied to go upon the half pay, which was granted, and he is now, I think, upon the half pay.
[Col. Gordon delivered in the Papers.]
"In August, 1804, capt. Spedding of the 48th regiment applied for promotion (No. 1), and as he was known to sir Alured Clarke, an application was made to the latter for the character of capt. Spedding, by whose answer (No. 2), it appears that sir Alured Clarke does not recollect such an officer. In Nov. 1804, capt. Spedding applied to be placed upon ½ pay (No. 4), on account of a large family, and an intricacy which had recently occurred in his private affairs."
No. 1. 34
The Memorial of capt. John Spedding, 48th regiment.
28th August, 1804.
Not to be noted until a fair report shall be received from the regt.
To his royal highness Field Marshal the Duke of York, Commander in Chief.
The Memorial of John Spedding, captain in the 48th regiment of foot.
"Humbly sheweth; That your memorialist is a captain of 1798—has served the greatest part of his military life in the West Indies, and was never absent during the whole period from duty. Your memorialist most humbly prays that your royal highness may be graciously pleased to grant him promotion. And your royal highness's memorialist, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
"August 98th, 1804."
"Inquire of sir Alured Clarke of the character of this officer, to whom it is understood he is known."
No. 2. 62
General sir A. Clarke, 7th Nov. 1804.
Put by.
"Rhual, near Chester, Nov. 7th, 1804.
"Sir; Your letter of the 29th ultimo directed to my house in town was forwarded to this place: bill having been absent for a few days, I did not receive it till yesterday, which will, I hope, sufficiently account for my not returning an earlier reply to h. r. h.'s commands. I cannot at present call to my recollection having had any personal acquaintance with capt. John Spedding of the 48th regiment, and consequently cannot give the Commander in Chief the information he requires; or offer any opinion as to that officer's merit. I have been so many years employed abroad on the public service, and in such various parts of the world, that it is not impossible but capt. Spedding may have served under my orders; and I should be extremely sorry if my immediate want of recollection of it should operate to his disadvantage; if, therefore, he should be able to refresh my memory respecting him, by any communication he may think fit to make, I shall have great pleasure in doing him justice, and obeying h. r. h.'s com-commands, I am, sir, &c.
"ALURED CLARKE."
"Lieut. Col. J. W. Gordon."
No. 3.
48 Foot.
Mem. 23 Nov. 1804.
Agreed to.
Return this to J. M.
Strand, 14 Nov. 1804.
Sir; I am directed by gen. Tonyn to transmit you the enclosed memorial, which the General begs leave to recommend to the notice of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief.
I have the honour to be, &c.
"WM. GILPIN."
Lieut. Col. Gordon."
"Acquaint Mr. Gilpin, for gen. Tonyn's information, that h. r. h. approves of capt. Spedding retiring to half pay, and will recommend an officer from that Est. to succeed him.
"To Field Marshal his royal highness the Duke of York and Albany, Commander in Chief of his majesty's forces, &c. &c.
"The Memorial of capt. John Spedding of the 48th regiment of foot:
"Humbly sheweth; That your royal highness's memorialist, on account of a large family, and an intricacy which has recently occurred in his private affairs, is desirous of retiring from the service upon half pay.— That he has been ten years in the army, three of which he has been in the West Indies.—That in the year 1799 he obtained leave of absence from the 11th West India regiment, wherein he then
882
served as captain, and afterwards on the 17th Oct. 1799 exchanged to half pay with an officer of the 2nd regiment of the Irish brigade, and did not upon that exchange receive any difference.—That he was removed from the half pay in July, 1803, not at his own request.—Your Memorialist therefore humbly hopes that your royal highness will be pleased to permit him to retire upon half pay: and your Memorialist as in duty bound will ever pray.
"10th November, 1804."
48 Foot.
Capt. Hon. Geo. Blaquiere.
Mem. 23rd Nov. 1804.
"C. L."
"Capt. Blaquiere from half pay of Hompesch dragoons to be placed on full pay in any regiment of infantry."
"The Commander in Chief has approved of capt. Spedding of the 48th regiment being placed on half pay.
"Capt. Blaquiere may be appointed to the command."
Do you know what steps were taken when capt. Spedding applied for promotion? A reference was made to sir Alured Clarke, and it appeared that sir A. Clarke had very little or no knowledge of him. Sir A. Clarke's letter is here.
Was there any expectation or encouragement held out to capt. Spedding, that he would receive promotion in answer to his application? No, I think not. I find by a memorandum made upon the letter, that lie was not to be noted until a favourable report should be received; in short, no notice was taken of his application; his Memorial is dated the 28th August, 1804.
Is the Committee to understand, that no notice was taken of his application, and no encouragement given to him between that application and the time he went upon half pay, so far as the documents inform you? None that I know of.
Do you know whether the Commander in Chief stopped all promotion in the 48th regiment? I have no recollection of it.
Does it appear by any document in the office, that any reason was assigned to capt. Spedding of that nature, as the reason for not giving him his promotion? I think not, I cannot find any such reason.
If promotion had been stopped in the 48th regiment, is it not likely you must have recollected it? Yes, I think so, some letter would have been written upon the subject, some correspondence must have passed.
Then you do not believe that there was any order given to stop promotion in the 48th regiment? I have already said I have no recollection of any such transaction.
Have you any documents in your possession that will shew in what manner major Taylor obtained his promotion to a lieut. colonelcy? Yes, I have.
Did he obtain it by purchase? No, be ought not to have obtained it by purchase; he was recommended by the colonel of a new levy, lord Matthew.
What was lord Matthew's levy, an Irish levy? Lord Matthew raised the 99th regiment, and by his letter of service was to recommend the officers; his letter of service I have now in my hand, and major Taylor is at the head of it.
Then the Commander in Chief could not do otherwise, under the conditions of that levy, than accept the recommendation of major Taylor to be a lieutenant-colonel, if he had served the time prescribed by the regulations of the army, to be qualified to hold that rank? I cannot say that the Commander in Chief could not do otherwise, but it was a transaction perfectly regular, and in the due course of business.
In point of fact, was lord Matthew, as the officer who had undertaken to raise the new levy, to recommend a lieutenant-colonel? Certainly.
Then is the Committee to understand that major Taylor obtained Ins promotion in consequence of this levy? Certainly, I know of no other cause whatever.
[Colonel Gordon delivered in the Papers.]
Major Taylor, 25th foot.
1st October, 1804.
"To Field Marshal h. r. h. the Duke of York, Commander in Chief, &c. &c. &c.
"The Memorial of major John Taylor of his Majesty's 25th regiment of foot;
"Sheweth; That your Memorialist served during the rebellion of 1798 in Ireland, as brigade-major and aid-de-camp to major-general Trench, in which situation he remained until the month of August 1799; when major-general Hutchinson, having been appointed to the staff of the army about to embark for Holland, was pleased to nominate Memorialist as his aid-de-camp, in which station he served the compaign of that year. That Memorialist in 1800 accompanied the expedition under lieut.-general sir R. Abercrombie to the Mediterranean, and landed with the army in Egypt; Memorialist served the former part of that campaign as aid-de-camp to lord Hutchinson, who was pleased to nominate him to the situation of deputy adjutant-general; upon col. Abercrombie's succeeding brigadier-general Hope as adjutant-general, the latter having been appointed to the command of a brigade; that in 1801 your royal highness was graciously pleased to obtain from his Majesty the rank of major, for Memorialist, and lately to appoint him to a majority in the 25th regiment of foot.—Memorialist therefore relying on your royal highness's goodness, presumes to hope that your royal highness will not deem it improper, under circumstances which he has had the honour to submit, to express an humble hope, that, should an opportunity
884
occur of promoting him to a lieutenant-colonelcy in one of the new battalions, your royal highness will be graciously pleased to include him in the list of promotions.
J. TAYLOR,
Gordon's Hotel, Major 25th foot.
"Albemarle-street, 1st Oct. 1804."
Major of 1801, and just promoted to the majority of the regiment.
"Considered with others, having equal pretensions, but no favourable opportunity at present."
99th foot.
Mem. 28th Feb. 1805.
"C. L."
"Col. Gordon."
Compare this list with that already in your possession.
"If you wish to shew these to h. r. h. to-day."
"Sir; By direction of lord Matthew, we have the honour to request your royal highness will be pleased to recommend to his Majesty, the officers whose names are contained in the inclosed list, for promotion, and appointments in his lordship's regiment. We have the honour to be, with great deference and respect, sir, your royal highnesses very faithful and devoted servants,
"GREENWOOD & Cox."
"Craig's Court, 13th Feb. 1805."
"Field Marshal h. r. h. the D. of York, &c."
[Here follows a list of the Officer's Names.]
Does it appear that he applied for leave to purchase a lieutenant-colonelcy? I do not find any such application.
Have you any documents respecting the promotion of capt. Ximenes to a majority in August 1804? Yes, I have.
Where was capt. Ximenes when he was promoted? With his regiment, in Canada.
Was he an old captain in the army? Yes, he was a captain of 1794, of ten years standing.
Was he of that class of captains from his standing who was entitled, according to the view you take of the pretensions of officers of that rank and time, to majority? Yes, he was.
[Colonel Gordon delivered in the Papers.]
"Ximenes was a capt. of Nov. 1794, and promoted to a majority in the 62d regt. on the 28th Aug. 1804, in consequence of the accompanying applications from his brother."
1
Capt. Ximenes, Wargrave Rangers.
29th April 1804.
No 40, Weymouth-street, Portland-place, 29th April 1804."
"Sir; My brother, capt. David Ximenes of the 29th regt. (now at Halifax) being a capt. since 1794, induces me, in his absence, to have the honour of requesting you'll be pleased to interest yourself with h. r. h. the Commander in Chief, for the purpose of obtaining him permission to enter on an ar-

885
rangement (by me) for raising men under the late regulation, for a majority for him. I was very successful in raising a large proportion of the late Windsor Foresters Fen. Cav. in which I served from its commencement to the general reduction of Fen, Cav. in 1800. I will use every exertion till his return, which I humbly hope, in consideration of his being a capt. of near ten years standing, and having purchased every step, h. r. h. will graciously permit; and I beg leave further to state, that when he was on the recruiting service he was very successful. I am, sir, &c. MORIS "XIEMENES,—Capt. Comt. Wargrave Rangers."
"Col. Clinton, &c. &c. &c."
To be noted.
1
Maidenhead, 22d Aug. 1804.
The Memorial of Capt. M. Xinenes of the Wargrave Rangers, in behalf of his brother, Capt. D. Ximenes of the 29th Regt.
His brother's claims will be considered.
To Field Marshal his Royal Highness the Duke of York, Commander in Chief, &c. &c. &c.
The Memorial of Captain Moris Ximenes, Commandant of the Wargrave Rangers, on behalf of his brother, Captain David Ximenes, of the 29th regiment of foot, now oh duty with his regiment:
Most humbly Sheweth; That your memorialist having seen in the Gazette several Captains promoted to Majorities, junior to the abovesaid Captain David Ximenes of the 29th foot, most humbly prays that your royal highness will be pleased to take his said brother's length of service (being nearly ten years a Captain) into consideration, and recommended him to his Majesty for promotion. And your memorialist will ever pray.
"M. XIMENES"
Bear Place, Maidenhead, Berks.
"22 August, 1804."
"Capt. D. Ximenes, 29th regt,"
"He is a Captain of 1794, and a young man —does your R. H. approve of his being noted for promotion—he is abroad with his Corps."
"Approved.—C. L.—I have posted Capt. X. to the 62d.—J. W. G."
1
London, 23d Dec. 1804.
Major Ximenes, 62d Regt.
"New Hummums, Dec. 23, 1804.
Sir; I'll thank you to have the goodness to inform his royal highness the Commander in Chief, of my arrival here, and of my readiness to join the regiment, to which his condescending kindness has promoted me; for which promotion I should be happy to return thanks personally to his royal highness. I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient servant, D. XIMENES, Major 62d regt."
"Lieut. Col. Gordon, &c. &c. &c.
"Horse Guards."
"Major Ximenes, 62d Regt."
"For your Royal Highness's perusal."
"He must join his Regt."
Was the levy of this regiment of lord Matthew's completed? It is actually now a regiment of the line, and serving, I think, in the Bahamas; it is the 99th regiment.
Was it completed in the year 1804? It was so far completed as to entitle him to recommend his officers; it was completed according to his letter of service, at least I believe so; it was regularly inspected by the commander of the forces in Ireland, and I know nothing to the contrary.
You observe in the statement of colonel Brooke's services, he is appointed to the 56th regiment on the 5th of Jan. 1805? I see it is so.
(By Sir George Warrender.)
Having stated, in your former evidence, that it was necessary to make enquiries into the services of lieut. col. Brooke, on the 1st of July, when the exchange was proposed; were not enquiries made previous to the 5th Jan., when he was appointed as effective to the 56th regiment of foot from half-pay? I take for granted that due enquiries were made; but I think I have stated in my evidence that particular enquiries were necessary on his exchange to the cavalry.
You mean that enquiries respecting colonel Brooke were made with respect to his fitness as a field officer of cavalry? I mean exactly that.
You will observe, that the only services of col. Brooke as a cavalry officer, are for three months as a cornet in 1793; state what the result of your enquiries into the services of col. Brooke as a cavalry officer were, in addition to those stated as a cornet for three months in 1793? That very circumstance made the enquiries still more necessary, and the result of them was satisfactory, as I have before stated; and that they were satisfactory, the services of col. Brooke have since very fully proved.
State what other services col. Brooke was engaged in which could give him a knowledge of cavalry, in addition to the three months during which he was cornet in 1793. I have already stated to the Committee, and it is in evidence before them, that I kept no memorandum in writing of such enquiries, but that the result of such enquiries was satisfactory: the conduct of col. Brooke, in the command of his regiment, has proved that they were eminently satisfactory.
[The following entry was read from the London Gazette of the 18th of Aug. 1804:— "14th Regiment of Foot, lient. col. hon. Wm. Bligh, from the half-pay of the 54th foot, to be lieutenant colonel."
WILLIAM ADAM, esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined.
(By Sir T. Turton.)
You stated in your first examination, that

887
you considered Mrs. C. had prejudiced h. r. h.'s interest and his name with regard to money, and that an investigation took place; in consequence of that investigation, did any proofs appear of h. r. h.'s name having ever been used by her to procure money? It is impossible for me to state the particular facts that appeared, but I remember perfectly well it was certainly established that there had been transactions with regard to goods and likewise with regard to bills, which satisfied me that that representation was correct; I made no memorandum at the time.
Then you cannot state any particular transactions, or any particular sum for which the name of the D. of Y. was made use of to raise money for Mrs. C.? Certainly not.
Can you state the sources from whence you derived the information of its being so raised? I believe I have already stated in that part of my evidence, that, in order to obtain the information that was necessary to enable h. r. h. to judge what course he should take with respect to Mrs. C., I communicated with Mr. Lowten, and he employed Mr. Wilkinson; Mr. Wilkinson made an investigation, and reported the circumstances to me.
It appears in your evidence, that the facts of the raising of money, or the prejudicing the interests of the D. of Y., by making use of his name, were communicated, after the investigation, to h. r. h.; were they communicated to h. r. h. by yourself, or by Mr. Lowten, or by Mr. Wilkinson? The result of the investigation was drawn up by Mr. Wilkinson or Mr. Lowten, I do not know which, and that was conveyed to h. r. h., not by my hand, but transmitted to h. r. h. when he was at Oat-lands, I believe, upon the 7th or 9th of May 1806.
I understood by your evidence, that h. r. h. the D. of Y. was very unwilling to believe the facts that were charged against Mrs. C.; is the Committee to understand, that, after the investigation was made, and the facts were communicated to h. r. h., he was then satisfied that she had made use of his name, and prejudiced his interest by so doing? I can only answer that by stating what h. r. h.'s conduct was: h. r. h., in consequence of being possessed of the information which I have stated to have been conveyed to him, immediately or very soon after came to a resolution to take the step of separating from Mrs. Clarke.
Then I understand you to say, that the consequence of laying these facts before h. r. h. the D. of Y., was his separation from Mrs. C? I can draw no other conclusion than that; for, as I have already stated in my evidence, before that time, there was no reason to suppose that h. r. h. intended to separate from Mrs. C.; and, after that time, he did take that determination.
Did you read, at any time, the statement that was drawn up by Mr. Lowten or Mr. Wilkinson, and submitted to h. r. h. the D. of Y.? I certainly did.
Does your recollection furnish you with any specific sum that was raised by Mrs. C. in the D. of Y.'s name, without his authority? No, it does not.
Probably you know whether the paper which was delivered to the D. of Y. is in the possession of h. r. h. at present? I never have seen that paper since.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
When did you first hear of the Note in the possession of capt. Sandon? On Saturday morning, the 4th of this month, between ten and eleven o'clock.
From whom did you hear of it? I heard of it from col. Hamilton; col. Hamilton came to my house on Saturday morning, between 10 and 11 o'clock, before I was out of my bed.
State to the committee what passed upon that occasion.—Col. Hamilton came to my house between 10 and 11 o'clock on Saturday morning, and was shewn up to me. He immediately mentioned to me that he had seen capt. Sandon at Portsmouth; that capt. S. had communicated with him upon the subject of this Inquiry; he said, that capt. S. had asked him how he should conduct himself; that he had told capt. S. that there could be no rule for his conduct, but one, which was to adhere strictly to truth, to tell every thing he knew, that it would not at all avail him to do otherwise, even if he should have an inclination, because he would be examined, I think he said, by the united ability of the country. He then told me, that capt. S. told him that he had some letters upon the subject of his transactions with Mrs. C. and that he had a note, which is the note in question, which he believed to be in the D. of Y.'s hand-writing; that that note he had shewn to capt. Tonyn before he was made major Tonyn, in order to induce him either to keep the deposit which he had made, or to replace the deposit which he had made, I cannot exactly recollect which; that deposit he had threatened to withdraw in consequence of the delay between the first interview he, capt. Sandon, had with capt Tonyn, on the subject of his promotion, which he represented, I think, as being nearly two months; that there was likewise another note, which note had been delivered, as he stated, to major Tonyn, which was a note saying he was to be gazetted to-night, or in words to that effect. Col. Hamilton told me he had given strict injunctions to capt. Sandon to preserve the note which he represented as in the D. of Y.'s handwriting, and which I understand now to be the note about which there has been so much inquiry here, the original of which has been produced, and every paper. I said to col. Hamilton, that nothing could be more correct than his instruction; that it still remained to be seen what the terms of the note were, and to be judged of whether it was the D. of Y.'s hand-writing; I desired col. Hamilton, therefore, to go to capt. Sandon, and to desire to look at the note, and to take a copy of it, and

889
to repeat his injunctions in the strongest manner, to preserve all the papers, and among the rest the note. Col. Hamilton returned to my house, I think it must have been considerably before one o'clock; it was after twelve or about twelve; he told me, that he had repeated those instructions, that he had taken a copy of the note, which he brought to me, which I perused, and found to be in the very terms of the note which has been since produced; and he added, that according to his opinion and belief, it was the D. of Y.'s hand-writing. I then told him that such circumstances must be immediately communicated, and I wished him, therefore, to go to Mr. Perceval, with a note which I wrote, and that I would follow as soon as I could. Col. Hamilton went to Mr. Perceval, which I know, because I found him there, and had told Mr. Perceval the story before I arrived. Mr. Perceval and myself deliberated upon the course to be taken, and having understood from col. Hamilton's representations (for I believe neither of us ever saw capt. Sandon till he came to the bar of this house) that capt. Sandon had been applied to by Mrs. C. and I think he said Mr. Wardle, but I will not be sure, and Mr. Lowten, to go to them, it was Mr. Perceval's suggestions, and my own, I believe mutually almost, that the most advisable course for us to direct col. Hamilton to take, was to instruct opt. Sandon to hold no further communication with any person whatever till he appeared at the bar of this house, and likewise to instruct him, to preserve the note and all the papers he had spoken of. Col. Hamilton received those instructions at Mr. Perceval's house, and went, as I presumed, to make the communication immediately to capt. Sandon, which was to be done before two o'clock, because Sandon had promised, as we understood from col. Hamilton, to give his answers, to the persons who had desired to see him, at that hour. After having given these directions to col. Hamilton, it was agreed by Mr. Perceval and myself, that this matter ought to be communicated to the D. of Y. and it was further agreed by us, that the matter should be brought before the house of commons by us, in case it did not make its appearance in the evidence of capt. Sandon. I went in search of h. r. h. the D. of Y. but it was the evening before I saw him; I communicated the matter to him, he expressed his surprise and astonishment, and declared the impossibility of his ever having made any such communication, and wished immediately to go to Mr. Perceval; we went to Mr. Perceval's together, where he made a similar asseveration, and again at col. Gordon's. I did not see h. r. h. again till between three and four o'clock on Sunday the 5th, and I did not see col. Hamilton until Sunday at one o'clock, when I saw him for the purpose of learning whether he had executed the delivering the instructions to capt. Sandon in the manner that Mr. Perceval and myself had required; col. Hamilton told me that he had delivered them in the very terms; that
890
capt. Sandon had said, that he, col. Hamilton, might depend upon his, capt. Sandon's, obeying his instructions; but that he would be extremely angry with him, or extremely enraged with him, I am not sure which was the expression, for he had already disobeyed one of his instructions, he had destroyed the note; upon which, according to col. Hamilton's representation, he said, 'Good God, have you destroyed the note? Of course I expressed myself to a similar effect to col. Hamilton when he made the communication to me respecting the destruction of the note. I went to Mr. Perceval, according to appointment made the day before, and communicated to him this fact, as stated by col. Hamilton; this became again the subject of our deliberations, and we again determined that it was our duty, as members of parliament, to bring the matter forward, leaving it to ourselves to judge in some measure, with regard to the time of bringing it forward; and in order that there might not be a possibility of supposing that we brought it forward or kept it back according to circumstances, it was determined to make the communication to certain members of this house. Accordingly the facts, as I have now stated them, were communicated to lord Castlereagh, to Mr. Canning, to the Attorney and Solicitor General, to lord Henry Petty, to Mr. Whitbread and to general Fitz-patrick. This brings the fact down to the transaction in this house.
Mr. Lowten is employed as an agent of the D. of Y.? He is.
Has Mr. Lowten been in the practice of examining the witnesses that were produced in support of the charges against the D. of Y.? I really do not know whether he has or not.
When you stated the circumstance of this Note to the D. of Y. did the Duke state that he never had written such a note with a view of influencing capt, Tonyn, as it has been represented by capt. Sandon, or that he had never written such a note at all to Mrs. C.? The D. of Y. stated, that he was perfectly sure that he had never written such a note; that he had not a recollection of it at all.
Did he state to you, that he had never written to Mrs. C. upon the subject of military affairs? He always stated to me, that, to the best of his recollection, he had never written to Mrs. C. on the subject of military affairs, and that, if he had done it, it must have been very rarely.
Have you any objection to state what were the grounds of your withholding this communication from the house till the period it was brought forward? The ground that influenced my mind was, that I thought if the communication had been brought forward at an earlier period, it might have embarrassed the course of proceeding in the Inquiry, at the instance of the gentleman who had set it on foot, and that, in considering the whole circumstances of the case, justice would be better obtained, whatever the effect of that note might be, by keeping it back till the period when it was allowed to transpire. I can only say now what were

891
my motives and reasons for that conduct; that was what influenced me in the opinion I gave in consultation with Mr. Perceval upon that subject. I mentioned that I did not see the D. of Y. again till three or four o'clock on Sunday; at one o'clock on Sunday I was informed, by col. Hamilton, of Sandon's having declared the note to be destroyed. Between three and four o'clock on Sunday I informed the D. of Y. of that fact. I think it right to state that as a material fact in the case.
You have stated, that one motive which you had for keeping back the mention of this note to so late a period, was, lest you should embarrass the gentleman who brought forward this inquiry, by the premature disclosure of the note; explain to the committee how that disclosure would have embarrassed him more than the cross-examinations which took place, when the witnesses appeared at the bar? I considered this note, and the transaction respecting it, the disclosure respecting its destruction, to form one of the most extraordinary features that I had ever known of in any case. If I had been in the course of examining witnesses much in this proceeding, I should have avoided cross-examining to that fact, thinking the mode that was adopted a more satisfactory means of bringing it forward; and I believe it will be found, that there was no cross-examination of Sandon to that fact, nor any thing that could lead to it; and therefore, answering to the motive, and not to the fact, I can only say it does not strike me that this stands upon the same footing as the ordinary cross-examination of witnesses, according to my conception.
Why should its being an extraordinary feature, prevent its being presented at an early period; is it usual for extraordinary features to be kept back in evidence in Courts of Justice, when they relate to the evidence that witnesses examined in chief, are given to the Court? I conceive, that being possessed of a fact of this sort, which I found it my bounden duty, in conjunction with Mr. Peceval, to bring before the public, whatever its consequences might be, and which the royal Duke, I believe, had expressed a desire to Mr. Perceval, should be brought before the public, that I had a right to exercise my discretion, in conjunction with Mr. Perceval, to bring it before the public at the time that, according to that discretion, we should think the best, meaning honestly and distinctly at all times to bring it before the house.
You have stated, that you thought that the purposes of justice would be best answered by not bringing this fact before the house sooner than it was brought; will you explain how the purposes of justice were likely to be best answered by the delay in bringing forward the circumstances respecting this note? I can only state how I think the purposes of justice would be best answered; I cannot be so presumptuous as to say that the purposes of justice were best answered, but in my opinion they were, because it brought this particular feature of
892
the case distinctly, clearly, and unembarrassed, before the house; that if it had been mixed up in cross-examination, or brought forward in that shape, it neither would have appeared so distinct, nor have appeared so clearly the determination of the persons bringing it forward.
The right honourable SPENCER PERCEVAL, attending in his place, was examined.
(By Lord Folkestone)
Have you heard the statement of the hon. gent. lately under examination, and do you wish to add any thing to that statement? I am not quite certain that I heard the whole. If it is wished that I should state the motives that influenced my mind not in keeping this back, but in not bringing it forward before, I conceived the case that was to be made against the royal Duke was closed. When the communication was made to me, I thought at the first it was a very extraordinary circumstance; and when I found that the note was, as the witness represented it, destroyed, coupled with the direct assertion of the royal Duke, that this note was a forgery, I thought it to be a forgery, and I determined to act upon the supposition of its being such, and upon that impression, and with a view the better to detect it, if it were so, I thought it better that all the witnesses that could in any degree have been concerned in that transaction, should have told their own tale to the Committee, before they were in any degree informed, by me at least, or by the course that we took, of our being in possession of any fact, or inclined to make use of the information we had of any fact; it might break in upon their own plan of narrating it to the Committee; if it had been a single case, instead of a variety of cases, that were brought before the Committee, I apprehend that there could be no question; that on the part of the defence to that charge, those who interested themselves in the defence could not be called upon to produce any part of the evidence which they thought material, till they had the whole of the case that was to be brought against them laid before the Court; and considering how the whole of these cases are, by means of the same witnesses, more or less, being brought forward upon them all; considering from that circumstance how they were all connected, I conceived it would be better that this information should not be given till it was closed
(By Mr. Brand.)
Was the introduction of this evidence settled upon the supposition that the note was actually destroyed? Certainly my impression was, that the note was actually destroyed, and it was after that impression was conveyed to me, that the note was actually destroyed, that I concurred with my hon. and learned friend in thinking that it was equally necessary that fact should be brought before the Committee; and perhaps I might be permitted to add, that, feel-

893
ing there was a considerable degree of aukwardness in the appearance of being backward to bring forward at the earliest period a fact so important as this fact was, we did think that our own honour would hardly be safe, unless we made a communication not only of the fact, but of our determination to produce it in the manner in which we did.
WILLIAM ADAM, esq. in his place, made a Statement, as follows:
It becomes unnecessary for me to state any thing in confirmation of what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think it right to state to the Committee, that the whole course of our conduct rested on a thorough conviction that the note was defrayed.
Mr. Whitbread and gen. Fitzpatrick bore testimony to the correctness of the hon. and learned gent.'s (Mr. Adam's) statement.
Mr. Whitbread said he was told the story on the Monday after Mr. Adam had become acquainted with it, and considered himself as the depositary of what was afterwards to be communicated to the Committee; he considered it quite certain that the Note was destroyed.
Mr. BENJAMIN TOWN was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Charles Adam.)
State to the Committee your name? Benjamin Town.
I presume, then, you are of the Jewish persuasion? I am.
You have stated on a former occasion, that in your transactions with Mrs. C. she told you she could forge the D. of Y.'s name; are you aware that that word is applicable only to fraudulent transactions? That I cannot say.
Did you use it in that sense? No, I did not.
Did you, then, when you mentioned the word forge, only mean the word imitate? Those were her words, that she could forge the Duke's name, and she has done it, and she shewed it me immediately on a piece of paper.
Did you understand that word forge to mean imitate? Those were the words that she expressed.
Had you, before you gave your evidence here on a former occasion, read in the newspaper that part of Mrs. C.'s evidence, wherein she spoke of you as a Jew, and said, perhaps you might have stolen a letter or two from her? I never saw the paper, nor never heard of it.
Did you say that Mrs. C. had forged the Duke's hand-writing? She said she could, and she has done it; that she has forged the Duke's name, and she shewed it me on a piece of paper.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
What is your name? Benjamin Town.
How long have you had that name? My father's name is Town.
Does your father go by the name of Town? Yes.
How long has he gone by the name of Town? That I do not know.
Have you ever known him by any other? No.
Recollect yourself.—No, I have not.
What is your father? He is a Jew.
What is his trade? He is an artist, he teaches velvet-painting.
How long has he taught velvet-painting? Many years.
Do you remember your father carrying on any other trade but that of velvet-painting? That I do not know, he might; ladies have now and then, I suppose, asked him to recommend some jewellery to them, and I think he has sent different jewelleries to the ladies.
Did you ever know him go by the name of Lyons? No never.
(By Sir T. Turton.)
I understood you to say, that Mrs. C. told you she could forge the D. of Y.'s hand, and that she actually forged his hand in your presence? She said that she could, and she has done it, and she shewed it to me on a piece of paper, and I could not tell the difference between the two.
How could you tell it was the D. of Y.'s hand-writing? I did not know, only as she told me.
What do you mean by forging? I do not know; those were her words; I only tell you what she told me.
(By Mr. Wardle.)
Did you appear as a witness at the sessions at Clerkenwell? Yes, I did; it is a considerable time back.
Do you know Mr. Alley, a barrister, and recollect any such barrister at those sessions? Yes; he was, I believe, Mr. Smith's counsel.
State whether any thing in particular happened at that sessions with regard to your evidence? I do not recollect.
Endeavour to recollect whether Mr. Alley, in that court, used any strong expressions to you? I do not recollect any; he said that I was a Jew, and that all the Jews ought to be punished, or something of that kind; he made use of some language which I cannot recollect.
Is any indictment now hanging over your head for perjury? No.
(By Mr. Barham.)
Do you know of any proceedings? I know there is a proceeding, but I do not know upon what grounds; it is not against me; it is not belonging to me.
Are you sure that you are in no way connected with that proceeding? I do not know

895
whether it is my sister or brother; I cannot tell which.
Are you sure you are no way implicated in or connected with that proceeding? No, I am not.
What is the proceeding, and against whom? It is so long since, I cannot tell; there have been so many, and Mr. Smith has lost them all, that I cannot recollect what he is doing, or what he intends doing.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
WILLIAM ADAM, esq. made the following Statement in his place.
In my examination this evening, I have been asked whether h. r. h. stated to me, that he had not corresponded with Mrs. C. upon military matters; in answer to which, I said, that h. r. h. did not recollect ever having corresponded with her upon military matters; or, if he had, very rarely. The latter part of that answer is erroneous, and without that addition, of "very rarely," the answer is correct.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Did the D. of Y. state to you, that he did not recollect ever having written to Mrs. C. about any military business whatever? The D. of Y. certainly stated to me, that he did not recollect to have written to Mrs. C. upon any military matters whatever. He afterwards said, that if he had ever written to Mrs. C. upon any military matters whatever, it must have been merely in answer to some question put in some letter of her's; and h. r. h. said expressly, that when she once stated something to him, early in their acquaintance, respecting a promotion in the army, he said, that was business that he could not listen to, and he never heard any thing more of it afterwards.
JOHN MESSENGER was called in, and examined.
(By Mr. Huskisson.)
What is your situation in life? I live with Mr. Parker.
What is he? A goldsmith.
Does he receive goods in pledge? He does.
He is a pawnbroker? He is.
Did Mrs. C. ever pledge any goods with Mr. Parker? Yes, she did.
Did Mrs. C. ever apply to Mr. Parker to discount any bills? Yes, she did.
Among the bills so discounted, were there any drawn by Mr. Dowler upon Mrs. Farquhar? Yes, there was one.
State the date of that bill, and the amount. —The bill was dated on the 11th of June 1805, at two months after date.
What did the bill purport to be? For 363 l. drawn by Dowler and accepted by Farquhar.
What is the Christian name of Dowler? I do not know.
What is the Christian, name of Farquhar? I
896
do not know; Mrs. C. has credit by bill of Dowler on Farquhar.
Did Mr. Parker discount that bill? He did.
Was it paid when it became due? No, it was not.
Did Mr. Dowler draw any other bills? No, I believe not, not to my knowledge; I do not perceive any other bill drawn by Dowler.
Is there no other bill drawn in the name of Farquhar? None drawn by Farquhar; there are others drawn by Mrs. C., and accepted by Mrs. Farquhar.
Were those bills paid? No, not the day they were due; there was one for 100 l. which we discounted for her on the 13th July 1805.
That was not paid when due? No; another on the 19th of September, drawn by Clarke on Farquhar at two months.
Was that paid when due? No; on the 27th of Sept. we discounted another, drawn by Clarke on Farquhar the 27th of Sept. at two months, for 100 l.
Was that paid when due? No, I believe it was not; that is the whole that we discounted.
How were those bills taken up? We received on the 19th Sept. a draft of the D. of Y.'s, dated on the 18th Jan. 1806, for 400 l. dated forwards three months; it was due on the 18th February.
How were the others taken up? On the 4th Dec., we have credited her with a bill of Bell on Pritchard, for 100 l.; another drawn by Bell on Millard, for 100 l.
Were any others taken up by any draft or check of the D. of Y.'s? We received on the 10th of Feb. 1806, a promissory note, drawn by the D. of Y., payable to Parker, dated on the 8th of February at four months, for 230 l.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Had Mr. Parker jewels or other property of Mrs. C.'s, in his possession, as a security for those advances? Yes.
Were there any bills in 1805? The one for 400 l. was taken in 1805.
Does your book state what pledge was re-deemed by that bill in Sept. 1805? It was discounted; no pledge was redeemed in September.
Did Mrs. C. deposit any goods in pledge, in the year 1805? That I do not recollect.
Does not your book state that? No.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
[The following entry was read from the Gazette of Sept. 4, 1804:]
"48th regt. of foot, Lieut. Wm. Fry French to be Captain, without purchase, vice Colquhoun, promoted in the 14th Battalion of Reserve."
[The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 6th Oct. 1804.]
"25th regt. of foot, ensign Henry Crotty, from the 48th foot, to be Lieutenant, without purchase."
[The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.]
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid that as soon as the names on the List were disposed of, he should take an early opportunity of bringing forward the prevarication of general Clavering.—Adjourned at three o'clock on Tuesday morning.

MILITIA ENLISTMENT BILL.
The Earl of Liverpoolmoved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. His lordship said it was unnecessary for him to take up much of the time of the house on the subject of the present bill. The prin-

841
ciple of it had been fully discussed in the course of last session. Whatever difference of opinion might prevail respecting past events, there was one point on which they were all agreed, namely, that it would be necessary to keep up a large efficient force. The regular army at this moment consisted of upwards of 210,000 infantry and 27,000 cavalry. The infantry was disposed in 126 first battalions, averaging 902 men each, and 56 second battalions, of which the average was about 400 men each. The object of the bill on the table was to render these second battalions complete. To carry this into effect, it was deemed expedient to allow a certain proportion of the Militia to enlist into the regular army. This measure was resorted to in the last session, and had been found most effectual.
Viscount Sidmouthbriefly reviewed the effects of the mode of recruiting the army, contained in the Bill before their lordships, since it was first adopted in 1799. At that period it was a measure of imperious necessity. The necessity, fortunately, was not so strong at this moment, though still sufficiently so, he must admit, to justify the present measure. He had many objections to the measure. Its object was to provide for the augmentation of the disposable force at the expence of the Militia. He could not approve of the practice of enlisting men for one species of service, and afterwards seducing them into another. He regretted that ministers had not availed themselves of the popular enthusiasm in favour of Spain to procure recruits for the army. Had they done so, he was persuaded the present measure would have been wholly unnecessary. However, as he heard of no other expedient from any quarter for keeping up the army to that efficient establishment which was universally admitted to be necessary, he would not, for that reason, and the extraordinary emergency of the moment, oppose the bill.
The bill was then read a second time.