Sitting of 22 February 1809

IRISH GRANTS.
On the motion of Mr. Foster, the house resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Fosterthen proceeded to read the various sums to be granted. Upon that for granting the sum of 25,000 l. Irish currency for there pair of Public Buildings in Ireland,
Earl Templerequested, that the right hon. gent. would defer this item, particularly as it did not appear to him to be regularly introduced, or many members must be precluded from delivering their sentiments upon it.
Mr. Fosterreplied, that regular notice had been given, and he considered every member had been aware that it would be moved this day, but he bad no objection to deferring it till Monday next.
Sir John Newportsaid, he was completely ignorant of the intended measure, and so he believed were Mr. Ponsonby, and the member for Dublin: although the Grants were usual, yet there were several which would require revision.
Upon the reading of the Grant to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations
976
and Bequests, farther to enable them to execute the duties of their office;
Sir J. Newportcalled the attention of the committee to the nature of the institution of these commissioners, and a recent circumstance in their procedure, which demanded the notice of parliament before any such grant should be allowed to them. The commission, he said, was originally vested in a certain number of the members of the house of lords in Ireland, and its truly laudable object was to prevent abuses in the disposal of charitable donations and bequests, by preventing the executors, trustees, and others, to whom such bequests were confided, from converting them to their own private emolument. The Commission was executed by the lords' committee up to the Union, and it then became necessary to provide other managers, who were accordingly appointed. About two years since an elderly catholic lady died at Waterford, and by her will bequeathed to charitable uses a sum of 11,000 l. of which 1,000 l. was to be distributed amongst the poor of Waterford, expressly without any distinction of religious persuasions; and the remainder was to be appropriated partly in providing an asylum and maintenance for a certain number of decayed gentlewomen of the catholic persuasion, and for educating a certain number of boys and girls, the children of poor parents; and the executors named in the will were the catholic bishops of Cashel and Waterford, and a lay parson. The catholic bishop of Cashel declined to act, but the others did not. A letter was written to the acting executors from the commissioners of Charitable Bequests, requesting, some explanation as to the extent of the legacy, its objects, and whether they had transferred the money to the public funds? To this Dr. Power, the catholic bishop of Waterford, returned for answer, that some objection had been made on the behalf of a residuary legatee; that he had not transferred the money to the public funds, because it was already in the hands of the marquis of Waterford, and other responsible persons, who paid interest at the rate of six per cent, being much more than it would produce in the funds, and that he had already begun to distribute part of the legacy, and would, as soon as possible, dispose of the remainder, agreeably to the conditions of the will, he received an answer from the commissioners, expressing thanks for the frankness of his communication, and promising to give him no

977
further trouble; but what was his astonishment to find on the following term, a bill filed against himself and the other executor, in the Court of Chancery (instigated by these very Commissioners for Charitable Bequests, in direct perversion of the duties of their office) for the purpose of setting aside this will bequeathing charity to poor persons in Ireland, to deprive them of the benefits of that bequest, and to increase the residuum to a lady, the residuary legatee, and living at Seville, in Spain. This was not only a direct perversion of the obvious duties of the commissioners to the poor, for whom they were trustees, but it was felt in other quarters as an act of gross prejudice and of religious rancour. There was no law of Ireland for making any provision at the poor of the catholic persuasion, and surety nothing could be more cruel, oppressive, or unjust, than to defeat the humane purpose of pious and charitable persons of their own sect, who had property to bequeath, from making some provisions for the poor of their own religion, who were not chargeable upon any other sect. This was felt in Waterford especially, and tended in a very prominent degree to excite clamour and discontent; and he therefore wished to appeal to the Committee, whether it was decent for such a Commission to apply to this house for compensation for law expenditures incurred in such a way.
Mr. Fosterdisclaimed all knowledge of the circumstances until that moment; but thought the circumstance of any bill in Chancery which the commissioners might have thought fit to file, and had yet come to no issue, was not a reason for refusing at this time the usual Grant. Besides, the right hon. baronet could surely entertain no doubt that the case, if before the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, would meet due notice, and that strict justice would be done.
Sir J. Newportreplied, by professing the highest respect and veneration for the truly upright character who now filled the Chancery bench of Ireland, with so much honour to himself and advantage and satisfaction to the country where he presided. It was not upon any doubt of his strict justice that his own apprehensions were founded or his objections offered, but in the perverse conduct of the Commissioners of Bequests, in endeavouring, by a strict research into obsolete acts of parliament, to fish out flaws in the legality of a will bequeathing charity to an
978
unprotected class of the poor in Ireland, of whom those Commissioners were appointed the legal guardians and protectors, in order to transfer the benefits of the legacy to a perpetual absentee resident in Spain. It was not their duty, but much beside it, to fish out flaws in the will, even if any existed, to defeat the charitable ends of their own institution, and the humane intention of the benevolent testatrix towards the poor in Ireland, and wantonly to promote litigation and excite new discontents, already too prevalent. However disposed the Chancellor of Ireland might be to consider and act on the equitable and benevolent side of the case, he could not avoid taking notice of legal flaws, if they were officiously pointed out to him. It was not, therefore, the proposed Grant, but the conduct of those Commissioners, that he wished to reprobate; for it made no difference whether such proceedings were taken by their direction, or by their permission to any legal person in their employment, merely to increase his own professional emoluments in the way of litigation, and which must be deducted from the sum of the legacy, and thus directed from the object of the charity.
The motion, however, passed in the affirmative; as did also, without any discussion, a grant of 8,953 l. to the Catholic college at Maynooth.

CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.
The house resolved into a Committee to inquire further into the Conduct of the Duke of York. Mr. Wharton in the Chair.
Colonel DIGBY HAMILTON was called in, raid examined.
(By Lord Milton.)
When did you first know capt. Sandon was in possession of that Note, which is now in the possession of the house? He informed me so at Portsmouth, the day that he arrived:
Was that before or after the commencement of the inquiry in this house? It was after the inquiry commenced.
When did you first communicate1 this intelligence, and to whom did you communicate it? The communication was made to me on Wednesday, and on the Saturday following I communicated it to Mr. Adam.
Did capt. Sandon tell you, that he considered this note of great importance to the present Inquiry? I do not recollect that he did.
Did capt. Sandon tell you, that he believed this note was forged? Certainly not; no conversation of the sort took place between capt. Sandon and myself.
When you first saw the note, did yon believe that it was forged or genuine? In my opinion, I thought it to be the hand-writing of the D. of York, and therefore I did not conceive it to be forged.
Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? I have never seen h. r. h. write; I have bad occasion to see letters, which I was led to believe were h. r. h.'s writing; and I have also seen his signature to public documents.
Did you desire capt. Sandon not to destroy this note? Repeatedly, and laid the strongest injunctions upon him to that effect.
When you communicated this intelligence to Mr. Adam, you believed that the note was an existence? Judging from what capt. Sandon had promised me, when I saw him at Portsmouth, I took for granted that he bad not destroyed the note; I had no communication with him after I saw him on the business till I met him on the morning of my seeing Mr. Adam, which was subsequent to my mentioning the occurrence to Mr. Adam.
Did capt. Sandon tell you, that he thought it would be best to destroy the note? No.
Did capt. Sandon communicate to you any thing of his motives for wishing to destroy the note? I had no intimation whatever from capt. Sandon of such an intention; I only knew, or believed, the note to be destroyed, upon his informing me that be had done so.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Was the occasion of capt. Sandon's stating to you that he had destroyed the Note, on your returning from Mr. Adam and myself with a direction to him not to destroy it? It perhaps would he more satisfactory to the house, if I were to state the reasons which led to capt. Sandon's making that declaration to me: After I had seen Mr. Adam I made an appointment with capt. Sandon to meet me at the British Coffee-house at two o'clock on the same day; previous to going to the British Coffee-house, I had the honour of an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I was desired to repeat what I had previously stated to capt. Sandon, the necessity of his preserving all the papers, and that he should confine himself strictly to the truth in his examination before this honourable house. When I went to the British Coffee-house, there were several persons in the room, and I did not conceive that a proper place to talk upon such a subject: I begged him to accompany me, as I was going towards the city; In going towards Temple-bar, he said, Colonel, I am sorry that I have not complied with the whole of your injunctions, for I have destroyed the note. I told him that he had done extremely wrong; that it would be of serious consequence, and that it must be his own affair. I had no intercourse whatever with capt. Sandon from that period till the day of his commitment by this honourable house; he came to call upon me on the morning of that day; I met
980
him after I left my lodging in Oxford-street; he mentioned that be came to explain to me that be had not destroyed the note; but that he did not mean to produce it. I told him be would do extremely wrong, and that I could only repeat the injunctions I had formerly given him, and that I did not mean to discuss the subject further. After some conversation as to regimental business, we parted. Capt. Sandon stated, that the papers were his own, and that he thought he had a right to do whatever he thought proper with them.
Did capt. Sandon tell you why he did not mean to produce the papers? No, he did not assign any reason whatever.
(By Alderman Combe.)
In the first conversation yon had with capt. Sandon, or at a future conversation when he produced the note, did he say they had forgotten this? It is impossible for me to recollect at what period he mentioned to me that he did not confine his observations to the note, but he said, he believed the party who brought forward the inquiry were not aware that such papers were in his possession.
(By Mr. Thompson.)
In your first conversation with capt. Sandon upon this subject, did capt. Sandon promise that he would preserve the note; upon the second interview, did he not tell you that he had destroyed the note; and upon a subsequent interview, did he not tell you that it Was not destroyed? No, that is not the order of things. Capt. Sandon promised me that he would follow the whole of my injunctions; I did not lay any particular stress upon that note, or any note, but told him to preserve all the papers, to speak the truth, and not to prevaricate; it was a general injunction, but nothing specific. With respect to the note, that was the first conversation; the second conversation was of the same tendency; it was at the third interview, after we left the British coffee-house, he informed me that he had destroyed the note.
And upon the fourth he informed you it was still in his possession? More than a week, probably a fortnight, bad elapsed before he told me the note was in his possession, because it was on the Saturday after the interview with Mr. Adam, that I learned he had destroyed the note, and I expressed surprise that he had done so. I did not see capt. Sandon, except getting out of a gentleman's carriage, the day of his examination, when I had not further conversation than my expressing that I hoped he bad not bad any intercourse either with Mr. Lowten or the other party; but nothing passed further on the subject, of the papers till the morning of the day that he was committed.
A fortnight after capt. Sandon had said that he had destroyed the Note, he informed you that he had not destroyed the Note, which was on the day of his examination here? Exactly so.
When you copied the Note, was the note in an envelope; was there any cover upon the Note, and if so, did you observe the hand-writing of the direction upon that cover? If my recollection is correct, I believe that it was not inclosed in a cover; the direction was something Farquhar, esq. I believe George Farquhar, esq. and the hand-writing appeared to me not to be the same with the contents of the Note; it was not written with that freedom and ease which the contents of the Note were.
What induced you to copy that Note particularly? I was desired by Air. Adam to do so.
(By Mr. C. Wynn.)
You have mentioned the very proper advice which you gave capt. Sandon, to preserve carefully every paper, and not to prevaricate before this house, but to speak nothing but the truth; were you induced to give that advice simply by a consideration of its general propriety, or in consequence of any thing that had passed with captain Sandon, which made you think that advice particularly necessary? I should state to the house, that I did not consider the advice that I gave to capt. Sandon merely as the advice from one individual to another; I considered that capt. Sandon came to consult me as his colonel, officially, on the line of conduct he should pursue; I was not influenced by any other considerations but those of duty, but I gave him that advice which I thought every man of honour, and every officer ought to follow.
Then the Committee is to understand, that nothing had been said by capt. Sandon which raised in your mind a doubt whether capt. Sandon might not prevaricate and keep back certain papers? No, not even an insinuation on his part.
Upon what day was it that capt. Sandon informed you that he had not destroyed the paper, but had kept it back from this house? The day of his commitment.
What steps did you take in consequence of that communication? I thought it my duty to inform Mr. Adam and Mr. Lowten of the circumstance, and Mr. Harrison.
Did you inform those gentleman of the circumstance? I did.
At what time on that day did you inform those gentlemen of it, and in what manner? It was probably about five o'clock, it was when Mr. Adam came to the house; I met Mr. Harrison coming to the house, and I went up stairs to Mr. Lowten; the communication was made in the course of half an hour to those gentlemen, and probably about five o'clock.
(By Mr. Adam.)
Are you quite certain that I was present at the time you made that communication? To the other two gentlemen? No, I spoke to the three gentlemen separately.
Are you quite certain you made that communication to me? Upon my honour I cannot
982
speak decidedly; I either did, or thought I did, or desired Mr. Harrison to mention it to Mr. Adam; I did not attach any importance to the circumstance at the moment, and it has not attached itself so to my mind as to state it precisely, but if not, I certainly desired Mr. Harrison to mention it to you.
From the time that I conversed with you at the Horse Guards on Monday the 5th of Feb., have I not avoided all intercourse or communication with you upon the subject of the proceedings on this inquiry? So much so, that Mr. Adam has avoided speaking to me upon matters that did not relate to it.
(By Mr. C. Wynn.)
Did yon desire Mr. Harrison to communicate this intelligence to any person? I have already stated that I desired him to mention it to Mr. Adam.
(By Lord Milton.)
You did not communicate what you knew concerning this note to Mr. Wardle? I have not had any intercourse, nor have I any knowledge whatever of Mr. Wardle.
Why should you communicate it to one side and not to the other? I have had the honour of knowing Mr. Adam some years, and I conceived I could not go to a more honourable man, nor to a man on whose judgment I had a greater reliance than on Mr. Adam's.
(By Mr. H. Martin.)
You have stated, that you were induced to take a copy of the note in question by the advice which had been given to you by Mr. Adam; what induced you to make an application to Mr. Adam upon that subject? I do not recollect making any particular application as to the note; I stated the affair generally to Mr. Adam, without dwelling more upon the Note than any other part of the transaction.
Why was there floating in your mind any idea of the necessity of copying this note? It is not a very easy matter at an interval of three weeks to state the ideas that might have occurred to my mind at that moment; perhaps I attached more importance to that paper, because it was the only paper that was said to be the hand-writing of the D. of Y.
You must have had some reasons for consulting with Mr. Adam respecting this paper; state what they were.—I can offer no particular reasons; I can assign no other reasons than those I have had the honour already to offer to the house; my opinion of his honour, his integrity, and his public character were such, that I thought I could not do a more proper act than to lay the matter before him.
You have stated, that previous to going to the British coffee-house, you had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at what period was that? After I returned to Mr. Adam, and communicated to him that I had seen the note, and read a copy of the note, he said, that the most advisable measure was, for

983
Mr. Perceval to be informed of the whole circumstance; that he would give me a letter, and desired that I would immediately go to Downing-street, and communicate the whole to Mr. Perceval; which I did immediately, the Saturday morning, the first morning I was in town.
This was previous to your going the first time to the British Coffee-house? Previous.
Did you at any time tell Mr. Adam, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the note was destroyed; and if so, when? I never had the honour of having any communication, either personally or in writing, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer after the morning alluded to. With respect to Mr. Adam, I really cannot bring the thing home to my recollection, whether I spoke to him personally upon the subject, but I certainly took measures that ho might he informed of it, by acquainting Mr. Lowten or Mr. Harrison; it is impossible for me to say precisely how I made the communication; it might have been personally.
Then you never saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except prior to your going the first time to the British Coffee-house? I have been him accidentally, but had no kind of communication with him whatever: I have not had any sort or kind of communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer since the Saturday morning alluded to.
What induced yon to seek a communication with die Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion? I conveyed Mr. Adam's letter to him, as I have previously stated; I was desired by Mr. Adam to communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer all that I knew.
(By Mr. W. Adam.)
Do you recollect having come from Croydon to the Horse-Guards on Sunday noon, the 5th of Feb.? I remained in town on the Saturday, and therefore I did not come from Croydon on the Sunday, but I was at the Horse-Guards on Sunday the 5th of February at one o'clock.
Do you recollect having a very short conversation with meat the Horse-Guards? I do remember a few words passed only.
Do you remember on that occasion, stating to me that capt. Sandon had informed you, the day before, that he had destroyed the note? I do.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
When did you first hear of the note in question? The note was stated tome by capt. Sandon to be in his possession, together with other papers, in our first conversation at Portsmouth.
State the whole of what passed between capt. Sandon and you upon that occasion? I will not undertake to state accurately or verbatim what passed; I will give the purport of the conversation to the house, to the best of my recollection. Capt. Sandon, after reporting his a nival from Plymouth, where he had landed with his troop, said, undoubtedly I had read the newspapers, and had seen his name men-
984
tioned as having had something to do with these transactions; that he wished to consult me as his colonel, what was the line of conduct he should pursue, and that to enable me to judge of the matter, he would give me all the information he possessed; and that when ho came to town he would allow me to look at all the papers that were in his custody. He began by stating, that he met with a gentleman (he did not name him, nor had I any curiosity to know who he might be) who talked to him on military matters, and who asked him whether he knew officers who might have money, but were without interest to get promotion; he said undoubtedly there might be such persons in the army, but at that moment he could not give any names, but that he would make inquiry; and he afterwards met with a Mr. Donovan, who had served in gen. Tarleton's legion in the American war, and had been wounded there. Mr. Donovan had been surgeon to the supplementary militia, of which regiment he had been lieutenant colonel: that he understood Mr. Donovan was endeavouring to negociate the sale of commissions, and was, in short, what is called an army broker, and that he considered him a very likely person to be able to point out the description of persons I have before stated. That subsequently to that he met with col. French at the house of a major Poole, who is since dead, and who lived in Sloane-street: that upon asking col. French his motives for coming to town, having come from the country, he said, that he had come up to endeavour to do himself service in the way of recruiting the army. Capt. Sandon then related to him what I have previously stated, that a gentleman had promised him very powerful support, and that they had concerted the measure of raising a levy; that he saw a gentleman, and the terms were agreed upon. I do not recollect the specific sums, but I think 500 l. was to be paid upon the measure being acceded to on the part of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief, that this matter went on for some time, and that he had not the remotest idea through what channel the acquiescence to the request had been granted; that the application had been regular and official, and the answers were official. Sometime after this he had an application made to him respecting the promotion of captain Tonyn. Capt. Tonyn was to lodge, I believe, 500guineas on being appointed to a majority. Capt. Tonyn had been kept in suspence some time, and was desirous to withdraw his security. I should have previously stated, that he had lodged a security for the payment of that sum; that upon his having made this overture to withdraw this security, Capt. Sandon received a note, which is the note in question, to say, that the promotion should not go on. That some time after, upon capt. Tonyn finding he was not likely to gain the majority, he requested that the thing might go on, and that he would consent to the security remaining where it was; that he then received a second note, to say that the promotion would go on,

985
and mentioning the day it would be gazetted, and then he stated to me that both notes were in his possession; but it is necessary I should add, that capt. Sandon fully explained to meat the moment, that the whole party had been deceived; that they had been led to believe that there was a certain influence by which those objects were to be accomplished, which, ultimately, they found did not exist, and that it was not until considerable sums of money bad been paid by him through the medium of another person that he understood that influence was to be procured through the medium of Mrs. Clarke.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
Lord Folkestonehere addressed the Chairman, and said, he had just received an intimation that Mrs. C. was arrived, for the purpose of attending the Committee, and as she had been greatly indisposed he hoped the Committee would have no objection to examine her immediately, that she might be detained as short a time as possible.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that, as a witness was under examination, it would be irregular to do it; but in consideration of Mrs. C's indisposition, he should not make any objection to it.
Sir T. Turtonthought there was great irregularity in it, and that the examination of the witness who had just left the bar should be proceeded with.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he had acknowledged there was an irregularity in the proceeding, but under the circumstances of the case he thought that Mrs. C. should be examined immediately.
A Chair was ordered for Mrs. C., in consequence of her indisposition, and she was desired to come to the bar.
Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in; and examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Have you brought, with you the two last notes you received from h. r. h.? What were mentioned in the summons did not purport to be the last notes. H. r. h. did not cease corresponding with me after we parted.
The notes, supposed to be the last, were that which first notified to you h. r. h.'s intention of separating from you, and the note he wrote immediately afterwards? Does h. r. h. state those to be the last notes that he sent to me?
I never heard of any others? I have had many; more than fifty from him since that.
Look at that paper, and state whether yon recollect receiving a note to that effect from h. r. h. (the copy of a note being shewn to Mrs. Clarke). May I read this?
Certainly.—(Mrs. C. read the Note) I do not recollect any thing about it; it is very possible I might have received such a letter, and very possibly not. I have been looking over all those letters I have for those he sent me on that day, and cannot find them. I know he wrote one himself, and the other Mr. Greenwood wrote on that day, but which the Duke copied out, and sent to me.
Was the letter that you did receive in Mr. Greenwood's hand-writing in the same handwriting as that? It is so long ago I cannot recollect, but it was the longest letter that Mr. Greenwood wrote; it was a short note I bad in the morning, and the longest I received in the evening; it was written by Mr. Greenwood; His r. h. copied it, and sent it instead of coming to dinner. The letter I received was not in Mr. Greenwood's hand-writing, but I was told Mr. Greenwood wrote it, and h. r. h. copied it and sent it to me; they were dining together.
You were told Mr. Greenwood wrote it? Yes.
By whom were you told? His r. h.'s servant told it to my servants. I waited dinner for h. r. h. after I had seen Mr. Adam till ten o'clock, and sent down several times to Portman-square to know whether he dined with me or not; they said, they fancied he dined with me, as he had ordered no dinner. Between eight or nine o'clock, Mr. Greenwood made his appearance in Portman-square, and they sat down to dinner, and after dinner Mr. Greenwood wrote that letter, and h. r. h. copied it, as I understood. I have mentioned it in several of my letters since to h. r. h. I burnt the letter. I saw h. r. h. afterwards in his own house that same night, but he ran away from me, after Mr. Greenwood had left him.
How long have you recollected that you have burnt that letter? Not till just now, I have burnt many of h. r. h.'s letters, and lost many of his love-letters; those are the only letters that remain.
How long do you recollect that you have burnt that letter? I cannot tell how long. I have recollected it; I have many of his love-letters by me; and when col. M'Mahon mentions that I had many letters in my possession that would make much mischief between h. r. h. the D. of Y. and the Prince of Wales, I have none, nor never mentioned that to him.
How long have you recollected that you burned that letter? I cannot tell; I was not certain that I had burnt it till I had looked over my papers. I never kept any thing that was unpleasant.
Did you ever know Mrs. Favery by any other name but that of Favery? I have learned a great deal since last night.
Were you ever acquainted with her when she went under any other name than that of Favery? No; but I have heard that she has made use of my name, and more especially since last night, which has made me very unhappy indeed, and I am afraid Mrs. Favery will be found to have told a great many stories.

987
I did not know that Mr. Ellis was a person that she lived with till she told me after she got home, and I told her yesterday, it would be better to go to Mr. Ellis and tell him what she had done, and then come forward to the house, asking his leave, and undeceive them as to what she had said.—A day or two alter she had been examined at the house, she told me he was not a carpenter, but that he was a clergyman, and that she was afraid of bunging forward his name.
It was not the same day? No; I had no opportunity of speaking to her the same day.
How many days after having heard that she had made this misrepresentation of Mr. Ellis, did you desire her to go and inform Mr. Ellis? She did not tell me what he was till yesterday morning; I then told her to get a hackney-coach, and go down and ask the gentleman leave to speak the truth, and when she came back last night, she told me she had been married, which I do not believe; I had heard of it before, but did not then believe it, and I parted with her in consequence at Gloucester-place, after telling his royal highness of it.
It was not till yesterday she told you that she had misrepresented Mr. Ellis's situation in life? No, it was not.
What did she tell you, at first, with respect to her evidence? I do not recollect that she told me any thing about it; I spoke to her some time afterwards, and asked her how she could tell stories about my having no company, for I was in the habit of having very huge parties every day the Duke dined out; and about having three cooks; I never had three cooks, as I stated before. I only had a cook and his attendant.
When did Mrs. Favery first live with you? Soon after I was married, but she has been in twenty places since.
Did you give Mrs. Favery a character to Mr. Ellis? Either me or my sister did; or some one in the house, I do not recollect which; we came to town for the purpose, some one did.
Were you in the habit of any intimacy with Mrs. Favery at the time she lived with Mr. Ellis? No.
Did you ever call upon her at Mr. Ellis's? I do not recollect that I ever did; I called to fetch her away once when I wanted her, I believe a hackney-coachman fetched her and a young lady.
Did you turn her away in Gloucester-place on account of her having been married? Yes, I did.
How came yon to turn her away in consequence of having heard that she had been married? Because I heard the man was a thief, and I had lost some soup plates, and they that though he had stolen them; he was a man of very bad character, and I heard there were a great many stories; and the Duke said it was better that she should go, and proper.
How long was it after you turned her away that you took her into your service again? A
988
year and a half full, I did not take her again till I wanted her very much.
Has she only lived with you once since? No, only once since this time.
How long has she lived with you now? Yes, I believe that Mrs. Nichols and she had a fight at Hampstead, and I parted with her then, I did not recollect that; and I found Mrs. Nicholls was just as bad as Mrs. Favery, and I took her afterwards; I found that there was no difference between the two, and Mrs. Favery is necessary to me; she knows all my affairs, and I believe she keeps my secrets; I have believed so till now, but now I am afraid not.
How often, in the whole, has Mrs. Favery been in your service? Indeed I cannot tell, a great many times backwards and forwards, because I had given her several characters; I never found her dishonest, and I have always given her a character to that effect; she lived eight or nine months in a family where she cooked for sixteen or seventeen, and they gave her a very good character back into another family.
Did Mrs. Favery tell you the name of her husband? O yes, I have heard of the man a hundred times; and have seen his wife, he is a married man. I saw his wile once when h. r. h. was there; a very vulgar woman came one day wheal was at dinner, and said that I encouraged my maid servant in seducing a married man, and that she was his real wife; I told her the woman was not in the house, that she hail been discharged, which was the truth; and h. r. h. ordered the servants to take her to some prison, which they did, and she was there two or three days for her bad behaviour.
You are sure you only went to Mrs. Favery once when she lived with Mr. Ellis? Yes.
And that was in a hackney-coach you are sure? Yes, I am.
[The following Question and Answer, in pane 459, being read to the Witness:]
"Did you ever receive a list of names for promotion from any other person than capt. H. Sandon and Mr. Donovan?—I never received such a long list from any one, nor such a list; I never received more than two or three names; this I had for two or three days; it was pinned up at the head of my bed, and h. r. h. took it down."
(By Mr. C. Adams.)
Do you abide by that account? Yes, I do; I never attended to any other; I do not know what others may have been given me.
How long was that list so pinned up? The second morning h. r. h. took it down, drew up the curtain and read it; and afterwards I saw it when he was pulling out his pocket-book some time afterwards, when one or two promotions had taken place, with his pen scratched through those names, when he took out his pocket-hook to look at some other papers. I only make this remark, as I have heard a gen-

989
tleman on my right hand say that I had picked his pocket.
Did this list remain up one whole day, or was it taken down the next morning? No, it remained there, I believe.
Was this list seen by any other person besides yourself and h. r. h.? I suppose the maids that made the bed; but perhaps they could not read, or did not understand it; I do not know.
You are quite sure b. r. b. read it? I am quite sure, he read it in my presence, drew tip the curtain, and afterwards came to me and made the remark, that he would do every one by degrees, or make them, or to that effect.
Do you know that Mrs. Favery ever saw this paper? I am sure I do not know; if she did, she knew nothing about it.
(By the Attorney General.)
Did you ever live with Mr. Ogilvy? No; I never lived with any man but the D. of Y.
Did Mr. Ogilvy ever live with you? No, never; gen. Clavering called on Mr. W. Ogilvy a few days ago, and asked him whether he would come down here and speak against my character; that he was instigated to ask him by Mr. Lowten.
Are you acquainted with Mr. Ogilvy? Very well, both of them.
How long ago have you been acquainted with Mr. Ogilvy? I cannot recollect.
About how many years? I cannot recollect at all.
Two years? Yes, certainly two years.
Four years? I do not know; yes, four years.
Six years? No.
Have you not known Mr. Ogilvy six years? No.
You did not know him six years ago? I do not think I did.
How long did you know Mr. Ogilvy before you lived with. the D. of Y.? Only a few months.
Did you know Mr. Ogilvy before he was embarassed in his circumstances? No, I did not.
Before he failed? He was just failing, and his books were made up as I knew him.
Was any thing owing from Mr. Ogilvy to you at the time of his failure? No, nothing at all.
Were yon examined as a witness in Mr. Ogilvy's bankruptcy? Yes, I was; but I was living with the D. of Y. at the time, though unknown to the world; there is a pamphlet going about now, but it is not true.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
Since the dale of your separation from the D. of Y., have you frequently had letters from h. r. h.? Yes, I have.
Can you, by any one letter, substantiate that fact? Yes, I can; but they are not civil ones since I left him.
Produce some one letter to substantiate that ftict.—I believe that I may have a little note or
990
so, for they always consisted of short notes in answer to some request of mine in some letter. I have brought down envelopes, to shew that the note I have seen here is in the same sort of character as the notes I have; here ate eight or ten in my hand. I have many notes I could shew since his h. r. h. and I have parted.
Subsequent to the date of the separation? Yes.
Are they dated? I believe some of them are, and perhaps there is one or two among these.
Are either of those notes signed? His r. h. never signs any thing unless it is necessary; here is his name to one of the notes; it was merely for his box at the play; they are all his writing; I have taken the insides our.
Is that which is signed, subsequent to the separation? No.
Put in some one or more notes, as you shall think fit to select from those you have, for the purpose of substantiating that fact? Here [three letters] are something I have picked out which I thought to be like the hand I saw here the other night; I should wish to deliver them in, because I know they are exactly like what I have seen here.
Are those you have here subsequent to your separation from the D. of Y? No, they are not; unless one of them is.
Put in some one or more notes subsequent to the date of the separation? A gentleman asked me for a seal or two when I was here the other night; I should wish to put them in, because the story of a forgery going about is extremely unpleasant.
Arc those papers in the hand of the clerk, the only ones you wish to put in? It is not the only one I wish to put in; I have many at home, but the inside of that is what h. r. h. has written to me since.
Look at the outside and inside for the purpose of saving whether it is b. r. h.'s hand-writing? They both are; I have dates to some at home.
Do you wish to put in any more papers? Yes, I wish to put in all these I have here. Here is another since h. r. h. parted from me.
Do you mean to assert, that that first note you have sent to the table, was written to you after your separation? Yes, I do not say for the outside, because they are confused; but certainly the inside was, as the language will shew.
Put in such papers as you have now with you, which you are desirous of putting in? I wish to put in all these [delivering in several letters.]
Have you sufficiently examined all the papers you have put in, to be able to state that they are all the D. of Y's hand-writing? Yes, I have.
Can you discriminate such as were written before, and such as were written after your separation from the D. of Y? Yes, they are only mere envelopes, to shew the hand-writing as nearly as I could guess, what I saw here the other day; and this is since the separation.
Will you look at that, and say whether it was

991
Written before or after the separation? This was written by the D. of Y. some time after, when he sent me the 200 l. to go out of town after the separation.
Is the Note which you have just now put in, and which you have just seen, dated? No, it is not.
Will you produce some of those notes with dates, which you say you have in your possession, which were written subsequent? I will do so.
[Two Notes, directed, "George Farquhar, esquire," were read; one beginning, "I do not know what you mean," &c.—Another, beginning, "Inclosed, I send you the money," &c.]
(No. 1.)
"I do not know what you mean; I have never authorized any body to plague or disturb you, and therefore you may be perfectly at your ease on my account."
(No. 2.)
"Inclosed I send you the money which you wished to have for your journey.
Inclosed, My Darling receives the Note, as well as the money, which she should have had some days ago."
"My Darling shall have the Ticket for the Box the Moment I go home. God bless you."
(By Mr. Thompson.)
Was it customary with the D. of Y. to mix, in what you call Love Letters, any thing relative to Military or Ecclesiastical Promotions? I hardly know how to answer that question.
Have you not stated that you bad several letters, which you call Love Letters, from the D. of Y., in your possession at present? Yes, I have, and some of my friends have.
Is there any thing in any of those letters relative to Military or Ecclesiastical Promotions? No.
(By Mr. Lockhart.)
Has any person been present when you looked over your papers relative to the subject of this Inquiry? No, not over his letters.
Has any person assisted you in looking over any other papers relative to this Inquiry? I have never let any one look over any papers.
(By Mr. Herbert.)
Did you, when you lived in Gloucester-place, always pay your bills yourself, or did you sometimes pay them through the medium of your housekeeper? Sometimes myself, sometimes my housekeeper; but the common tradesmen, such as butchers and bakers, I never paid myself.
Who was that housekeeper? Mrs. Favery.
Did Mrs. Favery ever represent to you that the creditors were so clamorous that she (Mrs. F.) was accused of having most likely secreted the money by not paying it? Yes, but then I never minded what she said.
Did Mrs. Favery represent the absolute necessity of the D. of Y.'s supplying you with money to pacify the creditors? Yes, of course: if she was teazed by people she teazed me.
Did this often happen? She is the best judge,
Were not the creditors often paid in consequence? Yes, if they were very clamorous.
Were not those sums to a very considerable amount? I do not know what is called considerable.
Were they to the amount of 1,000 l.? She would speak of different tradesmen teazing for their bills, I do not know to what amount.
Do you not know that bills were often paid, and to a large amount, in consequence of your applications to the D. of Y. upon the representations of Mrs. Favery? No, he never paid a bill for me on its being so represented, and I never had credit with any of his people, nor never got money on his account.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid there were but three or four Letters requisite to be delivered: he therefore moved, That all the letters, except three or lour, be returned to Mrs. C., which was done accordingly. The hon. member then requested that Mrs. C. would send two or three of his royal highness'S letters, with dates, or by the postmark of which it could be ascertained that they had been written since the separation took place. He was particular in this, because as he hoped the inquiry would close, this evening, it would be necessary for Mrs. C. to attend again, and a messenger might go with her to bring back the letters.
Mrs. Clarkeanswered, she would send them as soon as ever she got home.
(By Sir T. Turton.)
Do you recollect that, in the presence of Miss Taylor, the D. of Y. and yourself ever talked of military promotions? I am sure I cannot say; His r. h. did not mind what he said before Miss Taylor; he was very fond of her.
(By Mr. Lockhart.)
The witness says that several of the D. of Y.'s letters are in her own possession, and in the possession of several of her friends; I wish her to name those friends in whose possession the letters are.
[The Witness was ordered to withdraw,
Lord Folkestonedesired to know by what right or title the learned gent. was authorised to inquire where all the letters, which Mrs. C. stated herself to have received, were to be found?
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the noble lord seemed to forget that it was a Committee of Inquiry, and that it was competent to demand any documents which might be necessary either to the convic-

993
tion or acquittal of the illustrious person, against whom the Charges under investigation had been brought. The witness had no right, therefore, to withhold any letters which might conduce to elucidate the subject of inquiry. If the Committee, however, should be of a different opinion, he should not press the question, though upon the broad principle he was convinced it was a proper one to put.
Lord Folkestonecontended that the argument of the learned gent. went too far, because it would go to the extent that, the witness was bound to produce all her papers, in order to give the learned gent. an opportunity to look them over, and judge which were, applicable to the question under consideration. Any papers the Committee would be authorized to demand, ought to be defined; and the learned member well knew, that it was not in the practice of any court of justice to order a party to produce all his papers, with a view that the court should decide, on examination of them, which were relevant to the matter in issue.
Mr. Bathurstobserved, that the noble lord seemed to have mistaken the object of the learned gent.'s question. They were not Mrs. C.'s letters which he wished to have produced, but the letters of the royal person the Charges against whom the Committee was engaged in investigating. If the noble lord, or the hon. member who brought forward the Charges, had put the question of the learned gent., he was convinced that no objection would have been made to it. The Committee was a court of inquiry, and it was certainly competent to any hon. member to call for any papers which might aid the investigation. On the whole, therefore, he thought that the letters of his royal highness ought to be produced, though if the learned gent. could take upon him to say, that they would not bear upon the subject, it would not be desirable to add them to the Minutes.
Mr. Charles Adamsthought that the question was a fit one to be put, but that it would be competent to the witness to refuse to answer it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed with his right hon. friend (Mr. Bathurst), that if any hon. member thought any one letter would throw light upon the subject, he might call for its production; and if no objection could be made to the production of one, none could be made to the production of all, if called for. If the
994
noble lord had moved for the letters, no objection would have been made to his motion; and what right had the noble lord to suppose the motive of the learned gent. in calling for them different from that which would have actuated himself? He agreed, however, that it would not be desirable to place the letters upon the Minutes, already swelled to an inconvenient bulk, unless they should bear upon the subject of inquiry. Upon this ground, he would submit it to the learned gent. to. withdraw his question; but if he was disposed to insist upon it, he saw no reason on which the Committee could reject it.
Mr. Bathurststated, that the witness had already declared in evidence, that in no one of the love letters was there any mention of military or ecclesiastical preferments.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the object, of his question had been misunderstood. It was not his wish to have all or any of the letters produced. It would be. recollected that the witness had been assisted in preparing the papers for this investigation; and the object of his question was, to discover in whose hands the letters were, with a view to come at some information respecting the person who assisted her, and the nature and circumstances of that assistance. He should therefore not press his question.
Mr. Marryatthought the witness had said, that all the love letters were either in her own or her mother's possession.
Mr. Rosethought, that as the witness had stated, that the letters did not contain, any thing relating to military promotions or ecclesiastical preferments, their production was unnecessary; otherwise, he should have had no objection to the question.
Mr. Whitbreadwished the learned gent. to withdraw his question. As to the object stated by the learned gent., for which, he had put his question, namely, to discover who had assisted the witness in preparing the papers for the Committee, he should only observe, that, if it was the case, it would be quite natural, that the person conducting this investigation should have looked over the papers which might bear upon it. He had stated this only to shew that the Committee did not acquiesce in the inferences to be drawn from the learned member's statement of his object, that blame was imputable any where.
Mr. Lockhart then withdrew his question.
Colonel DIGBY HAMILTON was again called in, and examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Did capt. Sandon state to you, that he had ever received any sum of money from major Tonyn? No.
Did he state to yon from whom he received the note? To the best of my recollection, he stated that he had received the note from Mrs. C., or that it had been conveyed to him from Mrs. C.
When did you see that note? On the Saturday after I had my first communication with Mr. Adam.
Was that note wrapped up in a piece of paper, or accompanied with a piece of paper with another similar direction upon it? I do not recollect whether it was wrapped up in a piece of paper, but capt. Sandon shewed me part of the cover of a letter which had the Dover postmark upon it, and requested I would look at the similarity of the address of that letter with the note in question.
When you were informed that this note was not destroyed, are you now certain whether you informed Mr. Adam or not? J can only repeat the reply I made to that question before: my mind was impressed with the idea that I had informed Mr. Adam, or taken effectual measures that he should be informed of the circumstance.
Are you certain that you informed Mr. Harrison? Yes.
Why did you inform Mr. Harrison? Knowing that Mr. Harrison was employed on the part of h. r. h.
How did you know that Mr. Harrison was so employed? From my having been frequently in the room when Mr. Harrison came into it, where Mr. Lowten does his business, in consequence of my being ordered to be in attendance upon the house.
From whom did you learn that Air. Harrison was employed as the agent of the D. of Y.? From no particular person; but it was impossible to be in that room, and not to observe that Mr. Harrison was so employed.
Did you understand that Mr. Lowten was the agent of the D. of Y.? Clearly.
How did you learn that? From observing what passed in the room where Mr. Lowten sat. Were you referred by any one to Mr. Lowten? I received a note from lieut. col. Gordon, desiring my attendance upon this house, and that t was to call upon Mr. Lowten, whom I should find upon making inquiry here. I received a note at Croydon-barracks, which induced my attendance.
When capt. Sandon shewed you the piece of paper with the Dover post-mark upon it, did he state to you how that piece of paper came into his possession? I do not know as he did; it was merely to impress my mind that the letter and the note were directed in the same handwriting; I do not recollect any other conversation having passed.
How long have you been acquainted with capt. Sandon? I have known capt. Sandon since the year 1794, but capt. Sandon has never been my acquaintance; I have known him in my military situation only; he served on the continent at the same period I did, but without having any intercourse, merely knowing him as capt. Sandon; we did not serve in the same corps.
Had you much intercourse with him in the years 1804 and 1805? None whatever, but what was strictly official.
(By Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
Did capt. Sandon manifest any reluctance in allowing you to take a copy of the note? None whatever; it was done with his perfect concurrence.
After he had stated to you that he had destroyed the note, did he say any thing to you respecting the copy you had taken? He never alluded to it.
(By Mr. Bathurst.)
Did capt. Sandon shew you the other note to which you have referred? Upon producing the note in question, I brought to his recollection that he said there were two notes in the conversation which took place at Portsmouth; upon which he replied, that he must either have been mistaken, or if there had been a second note, he must have given it to major Tonyn, to convince him that the promotion was to go on.
Did capt. Sandon explain to you what the contents of that note were, and by whom it appeared to be written? It will appear in the former part of my testimony, that I stated to the house, that the second note was to convince major Tonyn that the promotion would take place, but he never stated to me that either of the notes were written by the D. of Y., or by whom they were written.
Why then did capt. Sandon compare the first note with the envelope of the letter? I have already stated, that he produced the envelope of the letter to convince me that the hand-writing of the note and the letter were by the same person; he assigned no other reason for producing the part of the envelope; it was not entire; there might be half of it.
For what purpose did you understand he wished to prove the two papers were of the same hand-writing, unless he (jointed out some person whose hand he pretended it to be? I must state most unequivocally, that capt. Sandon did not point out the hand-writing to be the hand-writing of any particular person; all that he wished to convince me was, that the two papers had been written by the same person without any comment or observation beyond what I have stated to the house.
Were no comments made upon the post-mark from Dover? He merely stated, you will see that has the Dover post-mark upon it.
At what period of your conversation with capt. Sandon was it that you observed to him, if you did, that you thought the note appeared

997
to be written by the Commander in Chief? I have never stated that I had made such a declaration to capt. Sandon, because no such observation was ever made to me by capt. Sandon.
Did capt. Sandon state from whom it was that he received the second note? I have already stated, to the best of my recollection, that he did not state precisely how they came into his possession, but I understood he received them from Mrs. C. personally, or through some other means from her; I did not enter into those particulars with him.
Both notes? Both notes.
Have you not already stated that capt. Sandon appeared to think the note, of which you took a copy, was a note of some importance? It is impossible I could have stated any thing of the kind, because I have never stated capt. Sandon's opinions upon the subject at all.
(By Lord Milton.)
When you communicated to Mr. Adam what you knew concerning this note, did you do it with an intention or expectation of its being made known to this house? I stated the circumstances as I have related them to the house, to Mr. Adam with a view of having his opinion, and that his judgment should be exercised upon the subject rather than my own; I had not come to any precise decision in my own mind how I was to act, and therefore I thought I could not conduct myself with greater propriety than to consult Mr. Adam, what line of conduct I should pursue.
Am I right in my apprehension, that you have stated that you considered this note of importance to the inquiry that was going on? I have already stated to the house, that when I saw the note, I believed it to be, according to the best of my judgment, the hand-writing of the D. of Y., and therefore it was impossible that I should not attach very great importance to the note.
After your communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did you know that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention not to produce this note to the house for some days? I had no knowledge whatever of the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the business.
(By Mr. Thompson.)
I think you have stated that capt. Sandon said that the usual channel of promotion had failed, or that he and others had been deceived with regard to the influence which he expected to be exerted, but that another channel of promotion was opened, but at a considerable expence; do you know any thing of the new channel of promotion to which capt. Sandon alluded? I believe that if a reference is made to my statement, nothing of the sort will appear; I believe I have stated to this hon. house, that capt. Sandon informed me that after considerable sums of money advanced by him for objects of promotion, they ultimately found the influence supposed to exist on the part of Mrs.
998
Clarke, did not exist, and that it failed on the proof of trial; and that he never alluded to any new source or channel of promotion whatever.
What other person was alluded to, in your opinion, when capt. Sandon mentioned that? Captain Sandon alluded to the original person, but I have already seated to the house, that my curiosity was not excited to know who that person was, and he never informed me who was the intermediate person who received the money and transacted the business.
(By Mr. Lockhart.)
Did capt. Sandon mention to you his intention of destroying the note? On the contrary capt. Sandon promised me, that he would preserve all the papers, and that he would follow the whole of the injunctions I had laid upon him.
Did he ever mention to you he had destroyed it? I have already stated to the house, that in a conversation that took place between capt. Sandon and myself upon our leaving the British Coffee-house, he did state that he had destroyed the note, and that I exclaimed, Good God! you have done extremely wrong.
Did he mention to you what m ive he had for destroying it? Captain Sandon has never mentioned to me any motive which can have actuated any pan of his conduct.
Did he ever mention that the concealment of the note would be a benefit to any person? Never.
Did he ever mention that the production of it would be a prejudice to any person? Certainly not.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
WILLIAM HARRISON, esq. was called in and examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Are you agent, or counsel, to the Duke of York in this business? Certainly not agent, nor can I call myself counsel.
Are you employed by the Duke of York in any way? I was desired in a very early stage of this business, to assist in any way in which I could assist, in advice or otherwise, but I did not understand that any counsel could appear for the Duke of York, or that I was employed in that capacity. I am consulted by three of the military offices, the Office of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief, the War Office, and the Barrack Office, upon military subjects in which it is necessary to consult a professional gentleman, and was, I believe, called upon to assist in consequence of the knowledge that it was supposed I possessed of military subjects, as connected with legal consideration.
Was it in consequence of so being called upon that you have attended constantly the proceedings of this house upon this business? Certainly.
When did col. Hamilton inform you that the note purporting to be written by the Duke of York, and supposed to be destroyed, was not

999
destroyed? It was between four and five, I believe towards five o'clock on the evening of the day on which capt. Sandon was called in and committed. I met col. Hamilton in Parliament-street, I believe I was walking at that time with the Solicitor General; he took me aside and told me, that he had just heard, or heard that morning, I do not recollect which he said, that the note was not destroyed, but was still in existence.
Did you lake any steps in consequence of that information? I very shortly afterwards, almost immediately, I cannot recollect whether I went a little further on, came back to the house. The committee, I believe, was sitting when I came in, and I informed, I believe Mr. Huskisson, but I am not quite certain whether it was Mr. Huskisson or another gentleman who was just coming into the house, that I had just received this information.
Were you present in the house after giving that information at the proceeding on that night? I was.
Was this information given before the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Certainly.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
WILLIAM HUSKISSON, esq. attending in his place, was examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Did yon receive the information with respect to the note from Mr. Harrison? I did.
What did you do in consequence? I received that information, I believe a very short time before my right honourable friend rose in his place to make a statement to this committee of what he had heard from colonel Hamilton on the subject of this note; I Stated to him, I am told by Mr. Harrison, that he has heard from col. Hamilton that the note is not destroyed; and I believe I added, I think it can make no difference whether it is, or is not, in the statement you have to make; and in the examination of capt. Sandon, I certainly stated to my right hon. friend, that I had received this information from Mr. Harrison, who told me he had received it from col. Hamilton.
Had you heard of this note before that? I had been informed, by my right hon. friend, in confidence, of the account col. Hamilton had given of thin transaction, and of his intentions, as I believe other members were informed, to make the statement to the house.
The right hon. SPENCER PERCEVAL, attending in his place, was examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Would you wish to correct or alter any part of the evidence you gave on Monday, relative to this transaction? I do not recollect any part of the evidence I gave on Monday that I would with to correct or alter; if the noble lord, in
1000
consequence of the information he has now collected, would wish to ask any other question, I will give an answer.
When you made the statement to this committee, of the destruction of this note, had you heard that the note was not destroyed? When I made the statement to the committee, I had received such a communication as my hon. friend has just mentioned, and I did in the statement that I made to the committee, if my recollection does not extremely fail me, state that I did by no means know whether the note was destroyed or not, and that statement I certainly did make in consequence of the information I had but recently received, for, except from that recent information, I had strongly impressed upon my mind that the note was destroyed.
State who the persons were to whom you had given information respecting this note? I can state several, but I cannot undertake to be certain that I can state them all; I communicated it to the Solicitor General, to the Attorney General, to my lord Castlereagh, to Mr. Canning, and I think I mentioned it to Mr. Yorke, and I am pretty confident that I mentioned it to others; I mentioned it likewise to the Lord Chancellor, I mentioned it to my lord Liverpool and I mentioned it to Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Long, and they concurred in the opinion that Mr. Adam should communicate it to some friends of his on the other side of the house; and I believe that to every one of the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned, I did state at the same time my opinion, that from the first moment that I had heard of the existence of this note, I felt it to be my clear duty not to be the depository of such a secret; that I formed that opinion upon the first day that it was communicated to toe, before I understood it to be destroyed, and that as soon as I did know that it was destroyed, which was the next day, I then communicated it to the different persons that I have mentioned, but I believe that no person did know of the existence of the note till I heard it was destroyed, except I believe the Lord Chancellor, when I had reason to believe it was in existence. Before I heard that it had been destroyed, I determined to communicate the fact, so that the note, if it was net destroyed, should be extracted by the evidence at the bar; and when I heard that it was destroyed, I still continued to act upon that determination, and made that determination known. In the examination that I made of the witness (Sandon) at the bar, I had in my mind, the whole time of that examination, the various points of fact which the witness had communicated to col. Hamilton, and if the witness had not at last confessed that the note was not destroyed, I should unquestionably have asked him, whether he had not communicated to col. Hamilton, that very morning, that it was not destroyed.
WILLIAM ADAM, esq. attending in his place, was examined.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Did you receive from col. Hamilton, or Mr. Harrison, any information that this note was not destroyed? I certainly received no information from col. Hamilton that this note was not destroyed: I cannot take upon myself to recollect, whether I received the information that it was not destroyed from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Huskisson; but much about the same time that Mr. Huskisson had stated himself to have received that information, I became possessed of that fact. I wish to state, that the circumstances which have been stated by Mr. Perceval respecting the determination to communicate, from the first moment of our intercourse upon that subject, was my determination as well as his. I wish further to state, that as soon after the note was reported to me to have been destroyed as I could possibly make the communication, I made the communication to the gentlemen whom I mentioned before, lord Henry Petty, general Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Whit bread: I wish to add, that I mentioned it to those gentlemen, as Mr. Whitbread stated, on the Monday preceding capt. Sandon's first examination, and that on the day preceding his second examination, I mentioned it to my learned friend sir Arthur Piggott, and to my learned friend Mr. Leach.
Rev. JOHN JOSEPH ELLIS, was called in, and examined.
(By the Chancellor if the Exchequer.)
You are a clergyman? I am.
In what situation of life are you? One of the masters of Merchant Taylors School.
Do you know a person of the name of Favery; Mrs. Favery? Not by that name.
By what name do you know a person, who has presented herself at this bar as Mrs. Favery? Elizabeth Farquhar.
Did she live in your service? Yes.
To whom did you apply for the character of Mrs. Farquhar before she came into your service? To Mrs. Clarke.
Mrs. C. who has been examined here this evening? Yes.
Where did Mrs. C. live at the time you applied for Mrs. Farqubar's character? In Goldenlane
Do you recollect the year in which Mrs. Farquhar came into your service? It was in the beginning of July, 1800, and, with the exception of three months, she lived in my family two years.
You were not, at that time, a carpenter? By no means, I was not.
Did you apply to Mrs. C. for the character of this servant? I did.
Can you recollect what name you represented to Mrs. C. the servant stated to belong to her? Elizabeth Farquhar.
Are you certain that you asked Mrs. C. for the character of a servant who called herself Elizabeth Farquhar? Certainly.
Did you ever know of Mrs. C. calling upon Mrs. Farquhar while she continued in your service? Yes, repeatedly.
Did Mrs. C. come in a carriage or on foot to see Mrs. Farquhar? I rather think on loot, I never observed a carriage.
Did she stay any time with her when she came there? Sometimes half an hour, sometimes an hour.
You say frequently, can you say whether it was eight or ten times in the period of her living with you? I should think full that.
Did she come to visit Mrs. Farquhar as an acquaintance, or for what purpose did she come? Her visits appeared to me to be very familiar, principally in the morning.
Did you understand whether there was any relationship between Mrs. C. and Mrs. Farquhar? From the familiarity that subsisted between them, I surmised as much.
Did you live in the same place during the time Mrs. Farquhar lived with you, or did you change your residence? I have lived in my present residence fourteen years.
Then during the whole time Mrs. Farquhar was living with you, your town residence was constantly where it is now? Where it is now.
Had you occasion while she lived with you, to take your family to the sea-side for their health? Only once, while she lived with me.
Did you go with your family upon that occasion? I did.
Did you leave your family there, or come back with them? I went, with them, and returned with them.
You stopped with them the whole time? Yes, and returned with them.
Was Mrs. Farquhar with you during the whole time? She was with me during the whole time.
Had you any reason to know from Mrs. Farquhar whether she was a married or a single woman, at the time she lived with you? I considered her a single woman, and had no reason to suppose the contrary.
Had you any reason to know from her whether she had a mother living at the time? I know she had a mother living, because she left my service after she had been in my family a twelve-month, for the space of three months, to nurse her mother, who was reported to be very ill.
Had you any means of knowing where her mother lived at the time Mrs. Farquhar was in your family? I know it was somewhere about Tavistock-place, but where I did not ascertain.
From what did you learn that? From Elizabeth Farquhar herself.
That she lived near Tavistock-place? Somewhere in that neighbourhood.
Have you seen Mrs. Farquhar lately? I saw her last night.
What occasion had you for seeing her last night? She called upon me, and requested particularly to see me, and the motive of her visit was, that the felt herself extremely asham-

1003
ed, and much hurt that she had mentioned my name in the manner that she bad done; and further, to say that she did not know how to appear before this honourable house this evening, because you Would not give her any credit for what she might state hereafter. I would further add, that she observed it was from motives of delicacy she withheld my name and my place of residence, and being taken by Surprise.
Delicacy to whom? Delicacy to my family.
Did she say it was out of delicacy to your family she mentioned you to be a carpenter? She stated that she felt particularly ashamed that she had stated what she had relative to my profession.
Did you learn from her that she knew you had been summoned to be a witness at this house? She knew it from reading the paper yesterday.
Did she inform you that she knew it? Yes, she did.
What did your family consist of at the time you went to the sea-side? At that time my family consisted of three children.
Was your wife alive? Yes.
She went with you? Yes, she went with me.
(By Mr. C. Adams.)
Were you ever present at any of the visits you described to have happened between Mrs. C. and Mrs. Farquhar? Never.
How then does it happen that you know that great familiarity passed between them? Though I have not been present in the room with them, I have seen them meet together at my door, and they have addressed each other with great familiarity.
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Have yon seen that Mrs. G. lately? This evening in the lobby; but not to speak to her.
That is the same Mrs. C. who used to visit this Mrs. Farquhar? The very same.
Has Mrs. Farquhar been in your family at any period since that time? Not since she left my service in the month of May 1802.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
In what situation in your family did Mrs. Farquhar live? As nursery-maid.
Have you seen Mrs. Farquhar here? I saw her pass through the lobby this evening; but not to speak to her.
[Mrs. Favery was called in.]
Mr. Ellis. This is Mrs. Farquhar.
Mrs. FAVERY was examined.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Is that the Mr. Ellis whom you represented as a carpenter the other night? Yes, it is; I had no other motive in disguising Mr. Ellis than my respect for the family, to bring a gentleman from the pulpit to the bar.
What is your name? My name is Favery.
How long have you been called by the name of Favery? Always.
Have you not been called by any other name? I took her name by Mrs. C.'s permission; I asked her if I might, and she said yes, I might take that name if I pleased; that I might get more respect shewn me.
When was that? Some years ago.
How long ago? Ten years ago; it is between six and seven years ago since I lived with Mr. Ellis.
How long have you been acquainted with Mrs. C.? Ever since she was married.
How long is that? It is 12 or 13 years ago; I cannot exactly say.
Were you in Mrs. C.'s service when you desired you might take her name? Yes, I was.
And that you might gain more respect, she told you to take her family name when you were living in her service? Yes.
Had you ever taken that name before? No.
What name did you go by before? Always my own name.
What was that name? Favery.
How long is it that you have dropped the name of Farquhar, and taken to the more ordinary name of Favery? I am not obliged to answer those questions; I did not come here on that account.—[The Chairman directed the Witness to answer the question.]
How long is it that you have dropped the name of Farquhar, and taken to the more ordinary name of Favery? I might take it if I pleased; I was not forced to take Mrs. C.'s name; she told me I might if pleased, and I did it.
When did you drop the name of Farquhar, and take again the name of Favery? When I went back to Gloucester-place.
Was that that you might have more respect from the name of Favery, or out of delicacy to Mrs. C.'s 'family? More to Mrs. C.'s family than to myself.
I think you just told me, that in Mrs. C.'s family it was, that for the sake of having more respect you dropped the name of Favery, and took the name of Farquhar? That was to go to Mr. Ellis's; it was when I went there; and when I went back to Mrs. C. I told you my name was Favery.
Was it not to disguise from the family of Mrs. C. that your name was Farquhar, that you took the name of Favery? No, I had no cause to disguise myself in any point whatever; I have never done any thing that I was ashamed or afraid of; I had no call to disguise myself ill any point whatever.
Where does year father live? In his grave.
Where did he live? In Scotland.
What name did he go by? Favery.
Has your mother married since your father died? My mother is dead.
How long is it since she is dead r Some years ago.
How many years ago? I cannot recollect; such questions as that put to me.
Did your mother die before your father?
No, my father died first, and my mother afterwards.
Were you come to England before your mother died? Yes.
Were you in Mr. Ellis's service before she died? No.
Did yon ever go to see your mother when you were in Mr. Ellis's service? No, I did not.
Did you continue in Mr. Ellis's service from the first time you went into it till the last lime you quitted it, without interruption? I went away from Mr. Ellis's; Mrs. Clarke came for me in a coach, with her sister, and desired mo to come to her child, which was ill, Miss Mary Anne; I went up to Hampstead to her; I said to Mr. Ellis that I wished to go away; he said, for what reason? I said my mother was ill, and I wished to leave; that was not so, but I did not wish to offend Mr. Ellis; and I went to Mrs. C. again, and staid with her some time, and then went back to Mr. Ellis's.
And you told Mr. Ellis when you went back, you had been nursing your sick mother? Yes,
Who was it you used to visit near Tavistock-place, when you were with Mr. Ellis? I never visited any body there while I was with Mr. Ellis; I did not know Tavistock-place at that time.
Who was it you used to represent to Mr. Ellis as your mother, that you wanted to go and see when you wanted to go out? Mrs. C. and her children, and no one else; and if the was here she would represent the same.
You represented that as a visit to your mother? Yes, because I did not wish to tell him I was going there.
You told him your mother's name was Mrs. Farquhar? I did not tell him, because he never asked me.
Where did Mrs. C. live at that time? At Hampstead.
Not in Tavistock-place? No, she did not; and I did not know Tavistock-place at that time.
Did you use to tell Mr. Ellis you were going to Hampstead? Only once, and he gave me leave to go.
Where did you use to tell him you were going to? I never told him any where; he never put those questions to me; it was not above once a month, or once in six weeks that I did go out.
Did you ever live with Mrs. C. in Tavistock-place? I lived with her mother, and she lived there too some time after that.
Are you any relation of Mrs. C.'s? That is not a question to put to me upon the business.
[The Chairman directed the Witness to attend to the questions, and to answer them in a manner becoming the dignity of the Committee.]
Are you any relation of Mrs. C.'s? No, I am not a relation to her.
What objection had you to answer that question? Because I think there is no reason to put me such questions as that, that are not upon the business I was brought here upon.
Did you never tell any body that you were a relation of Mrs. C.'s? No I do not think that I ever did.
Can you have any doubt of that? Yes, I can.
How came you to doubt about it? I lived with Mrs. C. to he sure; I know what you want to bring forward, and I will bring it forward myself; I suppose about my being married to Mr. Walmesley.
If you have any thing to bring forward about Mr. Walmesley I shall be very glad to hear it? I was married to this man, and I married in the name of Farquhar; be was a married man, and I would not live with him; he had a wife before me, and I never cohabited with him when I knew of it.
How came you to marry him in the name of Farquhar? I spoke to Mrs. C. upon it, and said, I am going to be married; she said, To whom? I said, To a coal-merchant; which I thought he was at the time, but I was deceived; she said, I would not have him; I said, I will, and I was married to him. I married in the name of Farquhar.
How came you to marry in the name of Farquhar? Because I had left Mrs. C.; she had not any money to give me, and she said if I could get any thing upon credit, I might take it in her mother's name, and so I did; and I took bills in the name of Mrs. Farquhar, and Mrs. Farquhar paid them.
When was this? Three years ago; I left Mrs. Clarke at the time.
It was upon that occasion Mrs. C. permitted you to take the name of Farquhar? No, before that she permitted me, I assure you.
Then you went by the name of Farquhar before you married? Yes, I did.
How long did you live with your husband? Four months; no longer.
Did you never represent to your husband that you were related to Mrs. Clarke? No, I never did.
That you are positive of? Yes, I never did, indeed, do that, because he asked me several times, and I told him, no, though I went by that name I was not related to Mrs. Clarke.
How came the real Mrs. Farquhar to pay so many bills for you, which you drew in her name? Because I lived with her daughter, and she gave me no money; I never had above 10 l. of her in my life; I had only 10 l. of her all the time she lived with h. r. h. in that house.
Did Mrs. C. never pay you more than 10 l. for all your services? No; once she gave me 5l. but never more than 15 l. altogether during the time she lived with his royal highness.
But before the time she lived with h. r. h.? Yes, then I have been paid very well, but I did not live always with Mrs. Clarke.
You are not Mrs. Farquhar s daughter? No, I positively am not Mrs. Farquhar's daughter.
Are you not Mrs. Farquhar's husband's daughter by a former wife? I cannot answer you that question, but I am not the present Mrs. Farquhar's daughter, I can assure you.
Cannot you answer that question? No, I Cannot, indeed.
Why cannot you answer it? Supposing I did not know my mother nor my father; I cannot answer to that; I cannot toll what they did with me when I was young, I cannot answer such a question as that; it is impossible.
How old were you when your father died? I am sure I cannot tell you; I do not know my own age now.
Were you an infant when your father died? I believe I was; I did not know my own lather. Nor your mother? I do not know that I knew my mother.
Which died first? I believe my father died first, as far as I have heard; I cannot say to it.
Did you know your mother? I did not know my mother.
Did your father marry again? I cannot answer to that question; I do not know.
Do you mean to say you do not know whether your father married again? No, I cannot answer that question.
Did you ever hear Mrs. Farquhar say that you were the daughter of her husband by a former wife? No, I never did.
But you will not state that you were not the daughter of Mrs. Farquhar's husband by a former wife? I cannot say any thing about it, but I can say I am not this Mrs. Farquhar's daughter; that I can answer to.
Did you know that Mr. Walmesley was summoned to be a witness at this bar to night? No, I did not know it.
You bad not beard so? No, I have not been told so.
Have you not seen it in the paper? Indeed I have not seen the paper to clay nor yesterday neither.
Did you happen to know that Mr. Ellis was summoned as a witness? Yes.
How did you know that? I went to beg his pardon; I did not wish to bring him into it at all, because I thought it was quite unnecessary to bring him in.
Did you know that Mr. Ellis was summoned to be a witness at this bar? Yes, I knew that be was summoned to be here.
Do you mean that you did know, or that you did not know? I did know, because, I went to Mr. Ellis last night.
Did you know before you went to him last night? I was told that he was in the paper, and I said I was very sorry that he should be put into the paper on my account.
Who told you so? My Mistress.
Mrs. C. told you so? Yes, I bad no motive whatever for disguising Mr. Ellis, but only his family.
Had you told Mrs. C. you had represented Mr. Ellis to be a Carpenter? I told her last night.
Not till last night? Yes.
Are you quite sure you did not tell Mrs. C. before last night? I told her I had so represented Mr. Ellis; she said, Why did you do it? I said I did not wish to bring him forward in the house.
If you had represented him to be a Clergyman, and represented your story truly, how would that have brought him forward? I bad no motive whatever for it, but to screen Mr. Ellis.
Do you mean to say, that the wish to screen tiny person is a sufficient reason with you for representing the fact different than the truth? That was my motive, and no other, to keep Mr. Ellis out of the Paper.
Do you mean to say, that the wish to screen any person is a sufficient reason with you for representing the fact different than the truth? Yes, that was it; I wished to screen Mr. Ellis in every point.
Do you recollect bow often Mrs. C. called upon you while you were living with Mr. Ellis? I believe once, and her sister Miss Isabel Farquhar.
Only once? No.
Are you sure of that? Once Miss Taylor called upon me, and Mr. John Clarke's wife; I never had any body but twice there.
Never any body called upon you but these four persons? No, I do not recollect any body else calling upon me.
Did Miss Taylor call upon you alone? No, there was Mr. John Clarke's wife with, her.
Was that the Miss Taylor who has been here? Yes.
Did she come upon a visit to you? No, she only called to see me, and to tell me Mrs. C. wanted to see me as soon as possible; I told her I could not come out.
Did you know Miss Taylor before she called upon you? O, yes.
How long have you known her? Nine or ten years; she lived at Bayswater, and they had a house in Ormond-street.
Do you recollect Mrs. Clarke's ever living with a person of the name of Ogilvy? Not to my knowledge, she never did.
Did you know such a person? I have seen him; a lusty gentleman; I have seen him in Tavistock-place, two or three times.
(By Mr. Bathurst.)
Had you any character given you when you went to live with Mr. Ellis? Yes, I had.
By whom was that character given? Mrs. Clarke or her sister; I do not know which gave it.
Under what name was that character given? In the name of Farquhar.
(By Sir T. Turton.)
Was the person whom you represented as Mr. Ellis, that you lived with as a Carpenter, the person whom you also represented as keeping a Linen-draper's shop at the other end of the town? I never represented such a thing
Did you represent that Mr. Ellis to keep a shop? Yes.
Then is that statement that you made, wholly untrue, and a fabrication of your own?

1009
It is quite untrue that he was a Carpenter, he was a gentleman; but I did not wish, as I have before said, to bring him forward; it was a fabrication of my own doing, on purpose that I would not bring him forward.
Was it a fabrication as to the statement that he kept a shop? He never kept a shop, to my knowledge; he is a gentleman, as I have told you before.
Do you now recollect in what street he lived? I did not know last night, when I went there; I was two or three hours finding the place out; though I had a coach to Cheapside, I could not find it out when the coach put me down; I never was at Mr. Ellis's since I left him till now.
How long in truth did you live with Mr. Ellis? I believe, as near as I can say, two years; I lived with him twice.
During the time you lived with Mr. Ellis, did he change his residence? No, never.
You are quite sure of that? Yes, I am quite sure of that, because I found him where I left him.
Were you sent with the children to Brighton, or to the sea-side, by yourself? No, I went with Mr. and Mrs. Ellis there; I went to Hampstead by myself with the children, when they had the measles, by Mr. and Mrs. Ellis's orders; but I did not mention that before; I never thought of it.
You have said, that your father lived in Scotland; in what part of Scotland? I do not know in what part he lived.
(By General Loftus.)
You have stated, that you did not wish Mr. Ellis to know where you were going to when you went to Mrs. Clarke's; what was your reason for wishing that? I had no motive, only people do not like to have their children taken about; not that I suppose Mr. Ellis had any reason to suppose I should do any thing with his children, or any thing that would hurt them.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Can you recollect where you were married? Yes.
Where? At Woolwich Church.
By the name of Farquhar? Yes, it is three years ago.
Have you any relations in town? I do not know that I have any relations, or any acquaintances; hardly two; I keep no company, I hardly see any one.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. was called in; and a copy of a Letter being shewn to him, he was examined as follows:
(By Mr. Huskisson.)
Is that in your hand-writing? Yes, it is.
Do you know what that paper is? Yes, I do.
State to the Committee what it is.—It is a
1010
copy of a Letter written to Mrs. Clarke, after the Duke had separated from her.
Written by whom? By the Duke of York.
Did you take this copy from the original Letter so sent? I did.
Yon perfectly recollect that this is a correct copy of the contents of the letter so sent? I Conclude it was, I believe it is a correct copy; I do not recollect comparing it with the original afterwards.
You copied this, in your own hand writing, from the Duke's letter? Yes, I did.
[The Letter was read.]
"You must recollect the occasion which obliged me, above seven months ago, to employ my Solicitor in a suit with which I was then threatened on your account; the result of those enquiries first gave me reason to form an unfavourable opinion of your Conduct; you cannot therefore accuse me of rashly or hastily deciding against you: But after the proofs which have at last been brought forward to me, and which it is impossible for you to controvert, I owe it to my own Character and Situation to abide by the resolution which I have taken, and from which it is impossible for me to recede. An interview between us must be a painful task to both, and can be of no possible advantage to you; I therefore must decline it."
May 1806.
"Copy of a note supposed to have been Wn. by the D.—"
(By Lord Folkestone.)
Do you recollect the date of that letter? Indeed I do not.
You have stated that it was after the separation, how long afterwards? Immediately.
Is that docket, at the back of it, your hand-writing? No, it is not.
Was tins letter written at the period of the separation, to announce the separation, or subsequent? It was upon the separation, immediately after; I believe, h. r. h. never saw her afterwards.
Had he been in the habit of seeing her up to the time when this letter was written? I really do not know that, I rather think that within three or four days he bad seen her.
(By Mr. Charles Adam.)
At whose desire was the copy of that letter taken? At his royal highness's desire.
Has it been in your possession ever since? I have never seen it till to-night, I believe, from the time I took the copy.
Do you know in whose possession it has been? I really do not.
To whom did you give it after having taken a copy of it? I left it with the Duke of York.
[A letter sent by Mrs. C. since she left the house, being shewn to the witness] do yon believe that to be the D. of Y.'s hand-writing? I believe it is.
Will you look at the address of that, do you know that hand-writing? No, I do not at all.
[The witness looked at another letter] Whose hand-writing is that? I think this is the same hand-writing as the last.
[Another letter being shewn to the Witness] Do you believe that to he the D. of Y.'s hand-writing? I believe it is.
[Another letter bring shewn to the Witness] Do you believe that to be the D. of Y.'s hand-writing? I think that is the same handwriting.
Do you know gen. Covering's hand-writing? No, I do not.
[The following Letters were read:]
A letter addressed to Mrs. Clarke, No. 9, Old Burlington-street, dated Friday morning, beginning, "Without being informed to what amount."—A letter addressed to Mrs. C., No. 13, Gloucester-place, Portman-square, beginning "If it could be of the least advantage to either of us."—A letter addressed to Mrs. C., dated Octr. 2lst 1806.—A letter addressed to Mrs. C., No. 18, Gloucester-place, Portman-square, beginning, "I enter fully into your sentiments concerning your children."]
"Without being informed to what amount you may wish for assistance, it is impossible for me to say bow far it is in my power to be of use to you."
"Friday Morng.
Addressed: Mrs. Clarke, No. 9, Old Burlington street."
"If it could be of the least advantage to either of us, I should not hesitate in complying with your wish to see me; but as a Meeting must, I should think, be painful to both of us, under the present circumstances, I must decline it."
Addressed: "Mrs. Clarke, No 13, Gloucester-place. Portman-square."
"October 21, 1806."
"It is totally out of my power to be able to give you the assistance which you seem to expect."
Addressed: "Mrs. Clarke,
Southampton."
"I enter fully into your sentiments concerning your children, but cannot undertake what I am not sure of performing.—With regard to Weybridge, I think that you had better remove your furniture, and then direct the person who was employed, to take the kouse, to give it up again."
Addressed: "Mrs. Clarke, No. 18, Gloucester-place, Portman-square."
(By Mr. Charles Adams.)
(To Mr. Greenwood).—Were you in the frequent habit of copying h. r. h.'s letters? No.
Did h. r. h. give you any particular reason, for wishing you to copy this letter? I think I
1012
was with the D. of Y. at the time he wrote that letter, and as he generally copies letters that he does write himself, that I undertook to copy it to save him the trouble.
[The witness withdrew.
CHARLES TAYLOR, Esq. a member of the house, attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows:
Do you believe that to be gen. Clavering's hand-writing? Yes, I do.
Are you acquainted with his hand-writing? Yes, I am.
Did you ever see gen. Clavering write? How could I possibly assert I knew his writing, if I had not.
[The letter was read, dated the 8th Feb. 1808:]
"Limmer's Hotel, Conduit-street,
8th Feb. 6 P. M."
"My dear Mrs. C—; I have just heard that, you had it in contemplation to Subpœna me before the house of commons: the report I hope is unfounded; at all events, I am particularly to beg, that you will take every care that my name even he in no shape whatever, or on any account, brought before the house of commons. As being a family man, the world would be inclined to attribute motives to our acquaintance, which, the not existing, all the arguments in the universe would not persuade them to the contrary. With great regard, truly yrs.,
"H. M. CLAVERING."
"Mrs. Clarke, "In haste, 6 P. M."
"Westbourn-place, Sloane-street."
THOMAS LOWTEN, Esq. was called in and examined.
(By Sir Thomas Turton.)
You are a solicitor? I am an attorney at law and solicitor.
Do you remember being employed by Mr. Adam in the year 1805 to make any inquiries relating to Mrs. Clarke? I do. The first application to me upon that subject was from h. r. h. the D. of Y. in the month of Oct. 1805, in consequence of a letter which had been written to him. I had the honour to see h. r. h., and he communicated to me the business in which he wished me to be employed, and I acted professionally and confidentially for him upon that occasion.
In the course of such inquiries did you receive any and what proofs that Mrs. C. had made use of h. r. h. the D. of Y.'s name to raise money? I cannot say that I did in any inquiries that I made, discover that she had made use of the D. of Y.'s name to raise money. It appeared to me that in consequence of the protection she had from the D. of Y., and the way she lived, many persons were induced to trust her further than I think they would have, done, if it had not been for that protection.
In the course of that inquiry did any pecuniary transaction turn out, in which Mrs. C. was concerned, that, in your opinion, injured in any degree the character of h. r. h. the D. of Y.? My inquiries upon that occasion were not directed to the purpose of knowing what transactions she had with respect to money concerns, they were of a nature which regarded Mrs. C.'s husband and her family rather than the mode in which she acquired money.
Do I understand you to say you were not directed by Mr. Adam to investigate the circumstance of any pecuniary transaction in which the use of the D. of Y.'s name had been made? I do not particularly recollect that Mr. Adam ever directed me to inquire particularly as to any transaction in which the D. of Y.'s name was made use of with respect to money; he had Communication upon that subject with a gentleman who was more at liberty to go about than I was, which was Mr. Wilkinson.
Do not you recollect Mr. Adam stating to you, that he considered the conduct of Mrs. C. had been very incorrect in pecuniary transactions, in the use of the D. of Y.'s name? I do not recollect it.
Do you recollect stating upon paper the result of your investigation of the inquiries to h. r. h. the D. of Y.? In the beginning of the month of May 1806, having enquired as much evidence as appeared to me to be necessary for the purpose of satisfying the D. of Y. on the subjects on which I was employed, those Several matters which did so come to my knowledge were reduced to writing, and I do not know whether through Mr. Adam or some other person, were communicated to h. r. h. the D. of Y.
When you had finished the examination, did you communicate the result of it with the proofs to h. r. h. the D. of Y.? I put them into a train, and they went to h. r. h. I did not deliver them myself; I knew from h. r. h. that he had them.
To whom did you deliver them to be conveyed to h. r. h.? As to the hand, whether I delivered them myself, or any clerk, or any servant, I cannot tell.
Were they conveyed by yourself or any other confidential person? I really do not recollect.
Are you sure that the result, and the documents upon which that result was founded, were communicated to h. r. h.? I have got in my pocket the thing that I communicated to h. r. h.; I communicated all such things as appeared to mo to be necessary and proper.
Are you sure that the result, and the documents upon which that result was founded, were communicated to h. r. h.? I believe they were.
Do you recollect, that with those papers there were any documents to prove, that any money was raised in the D. of Y.'s name, by Mrs. C.? I think there were not, but the paper will speak for itself.
Do you know the reverend William Williams? I know very little of him; I remember
1014
him some years ago being about the Court of King's Bench, and very troublesome to Mr. William Jones the Marshal.
Have you seen nothing of him lately? I never saw him till that night he was before this house, for 7 or 8 years.
You did not see the rev. W. Williams lately, before he was examined at this house? I saw him about 7 o'clock that evening.
Was that previous to his examination before the Committee? It was.
Was no application made to you by Mr. Williams, or by you to Mr. Williams, before that? I had no application from Mr. Williams nor did I make any to Mr. Williams, nor did I see Mr. Williams, except about three minutes in the lobby about seven o'clock, before he was examined.
Had you any reason for thinking Mr. Williams insane? I was induced to think very indifferently of him, as to his character and sanity, 7 or 8 years ago, on his calling upon me; I wrote to my friend Mr. Jones the Marshal, and in answer I received a letter from him saying, have nothing to do with Mr. Williams, for he is mad.
(By Lord Milton.)
Do you recollect sending any person to Mr. Nicholls at Hampstead, some days ago? I do.
Who was that person? It was Mr. Thomas Wright, who lives upon Haverstock hill, near Hampstead.
What was the object of sending Mr. Wright to Mr. Nicholls upon that occasion? I sent Mr. Wright to find out where Mr. Nicholls lived, as I was told be had removed from Hampstead to a farm, and Mr. Wright being a resident at Hampstead, I thought, him most likely to find out where it was he lived.
Why did you wish to find out where he lived? I had received intimation by a letter, that Mr. Nicholls could give material evidence as to the matter of inquiry before this honourable house.
What description of evidence? It was respecting Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Dowler living at his house in 1807 and 1808.
Did you wish to inquire after any letters that were supposed to be in the possession of Mr. Nicholls? I did not wish to inquire, for I knew nothing of any letters that were in his possession till he came to be examined before this honourable house.
(By Mr. Alderman Combe.)
In the representation you made, of the result of the inquiries into the conduct of Mrs. C., was any part of it that she had raised money, under the real or fictitious patronage of military promotion? It did not occur tome in my enquiry, that any such transaction had taken place; it was not part of my enquiry; I never believed one word upon that subject.
(By Mr. Bankes.)
Have you had any interview with gen. Clavering during the course of this enquiry? On

1015
the day that gen. Clavering was first examined, he called upon me in the Temple.
Did he call upon you previous to his examination; He did.
What passed in that conversation? I will stats as nearly as t can; Gen. Clavering when he came to me said, that he had seen the statement made by Mrs. C. in which his name had been mentioned; that he could contradict that statement very materially; he gave me his account of the contradiction, of which I made n memorandum in writing; after that, to my surprize, when I came down here, gen. Clavering came to where I was at Alice's Coffee-house with a letter ready written, addressed to his majesty's Attorney General, in which he made use of my name I thought improperly; and I desired that my name might not be introduced; but that if he had any thing to communicate to the Attorney General he would write it in his own name.
Did you advise gen. Clavering to write a letter to the Attorney General or any other member of this house? I did not advise him in any other way than I have just now stated.
What advice did you give to gen. Glavering? Not to make use of my name in any letter he might write to the Attorney General.
That is negative advice; what positive advice did you give him? I did not give him any advice to offer himself to he examined; but that if he could give any contradiction to Mrs. C.'s evidence, I thought it would be material he should be examined.
Did you advise him to offer himself to be examined, if his evidence could materially contradict Mrs. C.'s? I did not advise him to offer himself voluntarily to be examined.
Did you give him any advice, as the result of your conversation with him? I really thought gen. Clavering competent to advise himself upon the subject; I did not give him any advice further than common conversation, to say if you will he examined send in your letter; I was not consulted by him by way of advice.
What was the occasion of his coming to communicate with you? I really do not know; he said when he came in, that he had a statement to make that would contradict Mrs C.'s Statement: and I think he said that he had seen col. Gordon, and that he had desired him to call upon me.
Did you understand that he came to you, in consequence of the desire of col. Gordon? I believe partly from the desire of col. Gordon, and partly from a wish of his own to contradict the statement made by Mrs. C.; so I understood it.
Did he ask you what would be the best course for him to pursue, after his conversation with you? He did not.
Did he say that he should write any letter to the Attorney General, or any other member of parliament? He did not.
At the time he left you, did yon suppose he was about to offer himself as a voluntary witness before tins committee? When he left me
1016
in the Temple I did not suppose or expect any such a thing; when he quitted moat Alice's Coffee-house I did expect it.
Did you put any questions to him, to know w hat any evidence he could communicate to this Committee might he? I did; I asked gen. Clavering several questions as to his knowledge of Mrs. C.; how long he had known her, where he had seen her, where he had seen her last, and other questions, which occurred to me as proper for the investigation of the business in which I was engaged.
Did you ask him any question, whether he had offered Mrs. C. any money for promotion, or for raising a regiment, to he procured through her influence with the D. of Y.? I did not; I should have thought it most impertinent, as I could not conceive a general officer could be guilty of any such conduct.
Did he communicate any such information to your Certainly not.
Did you question him generally with regard to his communication and intercourse and acquaintance with Mrs. C.? I did; and it appeared to me, from the paper which be produced, that Mrs. C. was making use of him for the purpose of getting some person promoted from one regiment to another; and it appeared that a letter, dated in the Temple, and apparently signed by a Mr. Sumner, contained a recommendation of that person so wished to be promoted, and who, he stated to me, Mrs. C. had represented as a relation of an hon. member of this house, and which letter he was to transmit to the D. of Y., in order to obtain that promotion.
Did you ask him, whether he had maintained any correspondence with Mrs. C. upon the subjects of military promotion, or matters connected therewith? I did not; and I knew of no other instance than the one I have just mentioned.
Did he give you to understand, that he had communicated to you fully all that passed between him and Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of military promotions, or matters connected therewith? He did not say any thing to me upon that question, further than I have stated to the Committee.
Did he inform you that he had shewn a letter, addressed to the Attorney General, to any other person before he shewed it to you? I do not recollect that he did; thee were two other persons present when he shewed it to me. Are you sure that you advised him to omit your name out of that letter? I am.
Are yon sure that he omitted it in consequence of your representation to him? He destroyed the first letter, and he wrote another, and read it to me, without my name being inserted in it.
Did you make any observations upon the second letter? I cannot say that I did, I do not recollect that I did.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
In the conversation that you have stated to

1017
have passed between gen. Clavering and you, did the words "If you will be examined, you bad better send a letter;" pass at Alice's Coffee-house, or in the previous interview with gen. Clavering? I said, if you will be examined, you had better send a letter; that was at Alice's Coffee-house.
Did you advise gen. Clavering to call upon Mr. Ogilvie, or any other persons, touching this inquiry respecting Mrs. C.? Gen. Clavering mentioned the name of Mr. Ogilvie to me, as being the person who first introduced him to Mrs. C., and said he could get this information from Mr. Ogilvie: and it is possible I might say, then you had better sec Mr. Ogilvie.
Did gen. Clavering give you any account afterwards of having seen Mr. Ogilvie? I think he did, but I will not be positive; I do not recollect any thing that he said.
You have mentioned, that before Mr. Nicholls came to the house of commons to be examined, you were not aware that he was in possession of any letters; did you see those letters before Mr. Nicholls came to the bar of the house with them? I did see four bundles of letters in the possession of Mr. Nicholls.
Did you examine those bundles? I believe I turned over many of the letters, but I did not read any one of them.
Were they examined in the presence of Mr. Nicholls orally other person? The examination that I had was in the presence of Mr. Nicholls, and did not last five minutes; other persons were present; Mr. Nicliolls's wife was present? I returned all the letters as I received them from him.
(By Mr. Robinson.)
Did you know of any sums of money paid by h. r. h. to Mrs. C., during her residence in Gloucester-place? I did not.
Have you with you the paper, on which you wrote the result of your conversation with gen. Clavering? I have not.
Have you in your recollection the contents of that paper, so as to enable you to state it to the house? I believe that paper, which was the rough copy of a paper which I wrote in the Temple, was sent into the house with his letter.
(By Mr. Beresford.)
Did you recommend gen. Clavering to send in that examination; was it inclosed in the letter, or bow was it sent? It was given, I believe, to gen. Clavering open, without being inclosed in any letter.
Was it in your hand-writing or gen. Clavering's? In mine.
Was it inclosed in the same cover as gen. Clavering's letter? Certainly not.
What do you mean by saying that it was sent in with the letter? I believe I gave it to gen. Clavering in the Coffee-house.
Who were present when you turned over those letters of Mr. Nicholls's? Mr. Nicholls, Mrs. Nicholls and Mr. Wright.
Nobody else? Nobody else.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. Beresfordstated his wish to procure the fullest information on this subject, in order to trace the conduct of that officer ab initio.
General Matthewvindicated the character of gen. Clavering from any improper insinuations. He did hope, that a long and honourable life in the service of his country, would not be aspersed without the fullest proof of what he conceived could not be substantiated.
[The Witness was again called in.]
(By Mr. Robinson.)
Have you any and what reason to believe that Mrs. C. ever raised any money on the credit of the D. of Y.? I do not know that Mrs. C. ever raised any money on the credit of the D. of Y.; that she might get a great deal of credit with tradesmen for goods supplied to her in consequence of living in the way in which she did.
In consequence of the inquiries which you made, did you find that Mrs. C. bad ever raised any money upon the credit of the D. of Y.? I cannot say expressly that ever I did find it in any other way than I have before Stated, that she got into debt to various tradesmen to a considerable amount, who were induced to trust her in consequence of her connection with the Duke of York.
(By Mr. Adam.)
Look at the subpoena inclosed in the letter which you have; what is the name of the cause in which that subpoena was? Turner against Mary Ann Clarke.
Do you know from your situation as clerk of Nisi Prius in Middlesex, whether that cause was entered for trial ill Middlesex? I recollect perfectly that it was entered for trial, and it stood for trial. I believe, upon the 12th of May 1806; just before the cause was to he tried it was withdrawn.
State how you received that letter with the subpoena inclosed? I cannot positively recollect: I rather believe Mr. Adam communicated it tome; or what other gentleman who had communication with the D. of Y. did so, I really do not know.
Look at the signature of that letter, and merely road the name at the bottom of it? The name appearing at the bottom of this letter is Henry Turner.
Are you acquainted with him? Just as I am acquainted with many other persons in town; I do not know that ever I spoke to him in my life.
Do you know what he is? I believe a Pawnbroker, in Princes'-street, Leicester-fields.
Do you know the hand-writing? I do not.
How do you knew that it is his hand-writing?

1019
I believe it to be the hand-writing of Henry Turner, who I know was living in John-street, Golden-square.
Do you know that Mr. Henry Turner, who lives near Golden-square, is the Mr. Henry Turner who signed that letter? I do not.
(By Mr. Whitbread.)
During the connection between the D. of Y. and Mrs. C., did you ever know that Mrs. C. raised money upon the credit of the D. of Y.'s name? I do not.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
JOHN WILKINSON, Esq. was called in, and examined.
(By Sir T. Turton.)
In what capacity do you live with Mr. Lowten? I do not live with Mr. Lowten.
In what capacity are you ever employed by Mr. Lowten? I am very frequently employed by Mr. Lowten in the transaction of various businesses that arise in his office.
Do you recollect being employed by Mr. Lowten in the year 1805, to make any inquiries relating to Mrs. C.? I was.
In the course of such inquiries, have you any proof that you can give to this house, of any money transactions in which Mrs. C. made use of the D. of Y.'s name? I really do not know what this house would consider as proof; it came to my knowledge in the month of May, that the D. of Y. had received notice that he was to be subpoenaed in an action brought against Mrs. C. for money due to, a man of the name of Turner: Mr. Turner's attorney, Mr. Batchelor, called upon me, and informed he was going to serve the D. of Y. with a subpœna, and read me a letter, which he said he had advised his client to send with the subpoena; but I had no proof that the money was due from Mrs. C.
Do you know of any instance in Mrs. C. made use of the D. of Y.'s name to raise money? I do not of my own knowledge.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Miss MARY ANN TAYLOR was called in, and examined.
(By Sir Thomas Turton.)
In your former examination, have you not said that you were very intimate with Mrs. C., and frequently visited at Gloucester-place? Yes.
When the D. of Y. was present at those visits, was there any body in company besides, at any time, that you can recollect? None except the servants ever.
Upon those occasions, did the conversation in your presence appear free and unrestrained? Yes, quite so.
Do you recollect, at any time, when you were present, any conversation taking place between Mrs. C. and h. r. h. the D. of Y. relative to military promotions? Nothing except that time about col. French.
Recollect, whether at that conversation relative to col. French, you are perfectly sure there was nobody present but Mrs. C. yourself, and h. r. h. the D. of Y.? Yes, I am very certain of it. Are you sure that the words that were used by Mrs. C., on the occasion of the D. of Y.'s referring to her upon the conduct of col. French towards her, were, that his behaviour was middling, but not very well? Yes.
You are sure those were the words? Those were the words.
Did you at any time afterwards have any conversation with Mrs. C., relative to the observation of the D. of Y. upon col. French's business? Not till within these three weeks or a month.
What was the conversation you had at that time? She asked me, if I recollected the D. of Y. mentioning col. French's name in my presence.
Did any thing else pass upon that occasion? I immediately recollected the circumstance, and told her.
Did Mrs. C. make any reply to that observation, and what? I do not recollect what she said.
Do you at all recollect any further conversation that passed at the time, when the D. of Y. made that observation relative to col. French's levy, besides what you have already given in evidence? No, nothing at all upon that subject.
Do you recollect at any time, Mrs. C.'s stating in your presence to the D. of Y., any wish in favour of any application for military promotion? Never.
Do you recollect at any time Mrs. C. applying to the D. of Y. in your presence for money? No.
Did any conversation at any time take place in your hearing between h. r. h. the D. of Y. and Mrs. C., with respect to the pecuniary difficulties under which she laboured? No, never.
Do you recollect that Mrs. C. ever stated to h. r. h. the D. of Y., that col. French had broken any pecuniary promise he had made her? No, I do not recollect it.
Do you now know Mrs. Hovenden? What is meant by now?
How long is it since yon have ceased being acquainted with Mrs. Hovenden? More than two years.
Can you assign any reason for not being acquainted with Mrs. Hovenden at present? I did not return the last visit she made me, I suppose that is the reason.
Can you inform the Committee where Mrs. Hovenden lived at that time? In South Moulton-street, I think, Oxford-street.
Do you recollect at what number? No, I cannot recollect the number.
Do you recollect how long she lived in South Moulton-street? I never knew.
How long had you known her before she lived in South Moulton-street? She was there when first I saw her.
How long was your acquaintance with her? Not above seven or eight months.
Is Mrs. Hovenden n widow or a married woman? She was a married woman, she is now a widow.
Do you know where she lives now? No, not at all.
(By the Solicitor General.)
I think you said that till three weeks ago, you had not mentioned the expression respecting col. French since it passed; do you mean to state that? No, I do not think I ever did mention it.
Then it was to Mrs. C? Yes, it was.
How long ago is it since you heard the expression respecting col. French? I do not say it was during Mrs. C.'s residence in Gloucester-place.
About how long? I cannot say.
Was it a year, or two years ago? More than two years ago.
Was it four years ago? No, I do not think that it was quite so much, though I cannot say.
Was it the winter or the summer? That I cannot recollect.
Cannot you recollect at all what part of the year it was in? No.
Nor what year it was in? No.
You have totally forgotten how long ago it was, or what part of the year it was in? Yes, I have quite forgotten it.
Were there any circumstance at the time passing which induced you to take particular notice, or to bear in your recollection the expression? The chief circumstance was, that I never saw col. French, though I had heard his name, which made me curious when I heard his name, respecting him.
No other circumstance but the one you have mentioned? No other.
After an interval of four years, you recollect a particular expression, without any intervening circumstance ever having happened to call it to your remembrance? O, yes, I have thought of it since, though I have not mentioned it.
You had never mentioned it to any body before you mentioned it to Mrs. C., three weeks ago? I believe not.
What brought it into your thoughts so now and then? The curiosity that I mentioned before, respecting a man that I was not allowed to see.
Can you recollect what passed with Mrs. C. three weeks ago upon the occasion of this conversation respecting col. French? No, nothing.
Not one expression or circumstance that passed three weeks ago with Mrs. C.? No, I do not recollect any.
Is your memory so defective as to hate forgotten all that passed in the conversation three weeks ago with Mrs. C? That is very possible, for it did not interest me at all.
Where was it that Mrs. C. brought to your recollection, or enquired about col. French? At her house in Westbourne-place.
Was it at that time proposed to bring the subject forward in an inquiry? I do not know about that.
Was any body present when this passed between Mrs. C. and you? I believe not.
Have you forgotten that too? Yes.
Cannot you now recollect any one fact or circumstance that passed three weeks ago with Mrs. C., or even who was present? I do not think any body was present, and I do not recollect any fact or circumstance.
How tame Mrs. C. to be making any inquiry about this? I did net ask her that.
Do you mean to state you do not know upon what occasion the conversation between Mrs. C. and yourself arose.—I suppose something relating to this business; t did not think of it at the time.
Did not Mrs. C. inform you at the time why she was making this inquiry? I do not recollect that she did.
Will yon positively say that she did not? No, I will not, because I am not sure.
Had any body been in your presence with Mrs. C. prior to the inquiry, asking questions upon the same subject? No, I believe not.
Cannot you remember that? I cannot renumber it, if it was the case.
Cannot you remember, whether three weeks ago any body had, in your presence, when enquiring of Mrs. C. on the subject of military promotions by the D. of Y., or any thing which is now the subject of inquiry.—They did not inquire in my presence.
When you were here before you stated that your father and mother were living, and of the name of Taylor? Yes, I did.
Is that true? Yes.
Does not your father go by the name of Chance? He never told me that he did.
[The witness was directed to withdraw.
Mr. W. Smithobjected to this course of examination: whether she knew or not, that her father went by the name of Chance, was, he contended, of little consequence. He protested against any attempts to endeavour to draw the witness into contradictions.
The Solicitor Generalagreed that it was not very material to the inquiry before the Committee; but would it not go to affect the credit of the witness, if it appeared her father never went by the name of Taylor, but always by the name of Chance?
Mr. Whitbreadsaid it was competent for the learned gentleman to call evidence to contradict the witness, but he would maintain that any temporary change in her father's name, arising from embarrassment or other circumstances, could not affect the witness's credit. The questions pressed upon her on this and her former examination appeared to be very severe.
After some farther discussion between

1023
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Bathurst,
[The Witness was again called in, and examined.
(By the Solicitor Central.)
Did your father ever go by the name of Chance? He never told me that he did.
Do you mean to state that you never heard anybody call him by the name of Chance? No, I do not think that I ever did.
Have you a doubt about it? None, I believe.
Then do you mean to state that he has always passed by the name of Taylor? To the best of ray knowledge.
Recollect yourself, whether you mean to persevere in that, that throughout the whole time you have known your father, you never knew him called by any other name than the name of Taylor? Never, throughout the whole time I have known him.
Do I understand you to say, that during all the time you have known him, you never yourself, or in your presence, heard any body call him by the name of Chance? No, never.
Do you know Mrs. Favery? As far as she was a servant of Mrs. Clarke.
How long have you known her? Nearly as long as I have known Mrs. Clarke.
How long is that? Some 8 or 9 years, I suppose.
Did Mrs. Favery, all the time you have known her, go by the name of Favery, or by any other and what name? When first I knew Mrs. C., she went by the name of Martha, but I did not know her surname.
Do you mean, that Mrs. Favery went by the name of Martha? Yes.
Did you never hear Mrs. Favery go by any other name than that of Favery or Martha? I do not recollect that I did.
Did you visit Mrs. Favery when she lived with Mr. Ellis? I called upon her once, not as a visitor.
Whom did you inquire for at Mr. Ellis's? It was Mrs. C.'s sister went with me; I was not the inquirer.
Did not you hear Mrs. C.'s sister inquire for her as Mrs. Favery, or by some other name? I believe Mrs. Favery opened the door.
How long were you together? I cannot say.
By what name did you or your companion address that woman? By the name of Martha.
And no other name? No other name.
Do you mean to state (recollect yourself before you answer that question) that that person never went by the name of Farquhar? Never, to my knowledge.
You have known her nine years? Yes, about that time.
And in no part of that time did she ever go by the name of Farquhar? I never heard her called by that name.
Were you well acquainted with her while she lived with Mr. Ellis? Yes, she had lived with Mrs. Clarke previous to that.
You had known her when she lived with Mrs. C., previous to her living with Mr. Ellis? Yes.
Do not you remember, that when she went to live with Mr. Ellis, she took the name of Farquhar? I never heard that circumstance.
Do you mean to say, that she continued to go by the name either of Martha or Favery, after she quitted Mrs. C., and went to live with Mr. Ellis? I never knew her by any other name.
Do you remember Mrs. Favery being married? There was some talk of it in the house, but it was scarcely believed.
Did you know any of the relations of Mrs. Favery? Not one.
You never saw her husband, or the person to whom there was a talk of her being married? No, never.
You never saw a person of the name of Walmesley? No, he never saw him.
Do you recollect your father's father? No, he was dead many years before I was born.
What was his name? I do not know what his name was; I never talked to any body about him.
(By Mr. Cavendish Brudshaw.)
Might not your father, from distress, to avoid his creditors, have taken the name of Chance, or any other name, without your knowledge? Then how should I know it.
Have you had a niece of Mrs. Hovenden's under your care at any lime? Yes, more than two years ago; she staid with me only a few weeks on a visit.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Is your father now alive? Yes, he is.
Do you know whether your mother has been in custody for debt, within a short time? I cannot answer that.
Do not you know that your mother has been in execution for debt? [Here the right hon. gent. expressed his regret that he should he thus compelled to hurt her feelings. Miss Taylor burst into tears.] My mother has nothing to do with the present subject.
[The Chairman informed the Witness she must answer the question.]
Do not you know that your mother has been in execution for debt? I must appeal to the indulgence of the Chairman; I cannot answer it.
[The Chairman informed the Witness that, in his opinion, she most answer the question.]
Do you know that your mother has been in custody for debt? Yes.
How long? Miss Taylor replied in tears, Nearly two years.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained why he asked the question. He thought at her first examination that there was something in her answers respecting her father and mother, which made him sup-

1025
pose that she was not the respectable person she was represented. It now appeared that her father and mother wore not married.
Mr. W. Smithput it to the house how far the credit of the witness was to he affected by this circumstance. She felt on the occasion as any one might feel. It was natural that she should feel a reluctance to disparage herself by acknowledging that she was illegitimate.
Mr. Whitbreadconcurred with the right hon. gent. that the questions were as painful to him to put as they were to the witness to receive; but it appeared to him that he had rather overstated what she had said on a former examination. She did state that Taylor was her father's name, but not that it was her mother's. It was by her credibility, and not by her respectability, that they were to determine how far they should believe her.
Mr. Barhamregretted that these last questions were put. They had cast a doubt upon the character of the witness, which was enough to extinguish her means of subsistence.
Mr. DEDERICK SMITH was called in, and examined.
(By General Loftus.)
What are you? A brazier and tinman.
Do you know Miss Mary Ann Taylor, of Cheyue-row, Chelsea? Yes.
How long have you known her? I cannot exactly say, but I think about 15 years; I am not certain exactly to the time.
Do you know her mother? Yes, I do.
How long may you have known her mother? About the same time.
Do you know her father? Yes, I do.
Do you know what his name is? His name is Thomas Chance.
Do you know his profession? His profession was formerly a stock broker, but he failed, I believe.
Did he ever do any business for you in that profession? Yes, he has.
Did you ever make a purchase of land of him? Yes, I did.
In what name did he convey-it? In the name of Chance.
Did he ever tell you that he had a wife? His wife was Mrs. Taylor, she passed as his wife.
Did he ever tell you that he had another wife? No, he never told me so.
Did you over apply for him at the Stock Exchange under the name of Taylor? Yes, I have.
Could you find him by that name? No.
Under what name did you find him? The name of Thomas Chance.
How long has he ceased to be a broker?
1026
To the best of my knowledge, two years; but I will not be certain.
Did he do business publicly at the Stock Exchange every day as Thomas Chance? Yes, he did.
Was he known by any other name than that of Chance? He was not.
Did you ever see him with his daughter Mary Ann Taylor? Yes, I have.
Did he go by the name of Chance at that time? No, he went by the name of Taylor.
(By Mr. W. Smith.)
What was your reason for inquiring for him by the name of Taylor, at the Stock Exchange? Because at that time I did not know but what his name was Taylor.
How come you to apprehend that the name of a man was Taylor, whom you knew by the name of Chance? I found out then that his name was Chance; before I always thought his name was Taylor; I found it out when I began to deal with him, and not before.
At what time did you find out that the name of this person was Chance? I cannot exactly say the time, but it. was that time when I wanted him to do business for me at the Stock Exchange.
By what name did the person of whom you are speaking, go, when you were first acquainted with him? He went by the name of Thomas Taylor.
How long ago was that? O, that is a good many years ago, ever since I knew him.
How long did he continue to go by that name, to the best of your knowledge and belief? He has gone by that name till I found out that his name was Chance, when he began to do business for me at the Stock Exchange.
About how long ago may that be, that you apprehended that the true name of this party was Chance? My memory will not furnish me with that, but it is several years ago, that is all I can say; I could find it out by papers, but my memory is very bad, and therefore I cannot go any further.
In what neighbourhood did the party of whom you speak, live, when you knew him by the name of Taylor? He lived in Norman-street, and he lived at Bayswater, and all that time I knew him but by no other name than that of Thomas Taylor; nor my family, never any of them knew him by any other name.
To the best of your knowledge and belief, was the party universally known in all that neighbourhood, by the name of Taylor, and no other name? Yes, he was.
(By General Loftus.)
Do you recollect Mrs. Taylor and Miss Mary Ann Taylor calling at your house one day with a bill, or an instrument of that kind, to get cash for it? They called at my house, and Mrs. Taylor wanted to borrow some money of me; she said she had a paper to give me as

1027
a security, which she would not trust with any body else.
Did you state to them, that Mr. Chance was coining to your house on that day? I did.
Did they then know him to be the person that you knew as Mr. Taylor? Yes.
Did Mary Ann Taylor make any observation, upon your stating that Mr. Chance was coming? She laughed, and said to the mother, we will say we only paid Mr. Smith a morning visit.
What did Mrs. and Miss Taylor or either of them, say or do in consequence of your telling them Mr. Chance would he there that morning? Miss Taylor said to the mother, We will tell my father, I think, I will not be positive, if he comes, that we only paid Mr. Smith a morning visit; they stopped a bit, and then they went away.
(By Sir John Sebright.)
Are you quite sure, that when you told Mrs. Taylor and her daughter, this person was coming, yon made use of the name Chance; are you quite sure you did not say, Mr. Taylor is come? I am not quite sure; I think I said Mr. Taylor by way of a compliment.
(By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Have you any means of knowing that Miss Mary Ann Taylor knew her lather by the name of Chance: and if you have, what are those means? I have no means of knowing that she did.
[The Witness was directed to withdraw.
General the Honourable CHAPPLE NORTON attending in his place, was examined.
(By Mr. Yorke.)
Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when h. r. h. took the command of it, in regard particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions of the army were carried on? I believe in former days, those officers who had great weight of interest, might have got promoted very rapidly, much sooner perhaps than was right or proper; b. r. b. made, in my opinion, very salutary regulations to prevent that. I could, if it was not trespassing too much upon the time of the Committee, speak very fully to what I believe, and what has come to my knowledge, to have been the conduct of the Commander in Chief since he has been at the head of the army.
State any particular circumstances that are within your own knowledge with reference to this particular part of the subject.—Perhaps of all others this is a subject I am least able to speak to; but the conduct of h. r. h. with respect to the army in general, I can speak to at large, That he has done more service to the army than all his predecessors the Commanders in Chief; and I will state in what manner; in the first place, and what is very material, I
1028
recollect very well that h. r. h., I believe was the instrument and the means, through the medium of this house, of giving bread to the soldier when he had little or nothing to eat; and I will exemplify that, by a conversation I had with a lieutenant colonel of one of" the best regiments in his majesty's service, the late lord Cornwall's, col. York, I was very sensible of the very scanty pittance the soldier had to subsist on in this country, and I endeavoured to do what I could to assist in the measure; and col. York supplied me with a very strong instance, which was when the 33d regiment was about to return home from a foreign station. According to the articles of war the commanding officer of each regiment so returning is to make known to his men, that any soldier who wishes to remain behind upon that station is at liberty so to do; the men of the 33d regiment informed col. York that it was their intention all to remain behind, and to continue abroad, because where they were they had sufficient to eat, and if they came to this country they should not have a dinner. His r. h. first got an allowance of bread to the soldiers, and afterwards of beer, and then their pay increased, and upon which the soldiers are very comfortable. If it was not wearying the time of the Committee, I could mention another very singular instance. After the American war, I recollect a soldier in my own company (I was in the Coldstream Regiment of Guards) that came home, and had been very severely wounded; he was discharged from the regiment, the regiment had nothing further then to do with him; he was recommended to Chelsea, but Chelsea had no means of taking care of him; and the man would have been left to perish, if it had not been for the quartermaster of the Coldstream, who went to the officers at Chelsea, and the officers at Chelsea did get the man taken care of. Since that (I take for granted h. r. h. was very much the means of doing it) the York hospital was instituted; so that the men have not been left in that distressed situation since the American war.
In your opinion, have the condition and discipline of the army upon the whole declined or improved since h. r. h. took the command? I am one of those, unfortunately, who think there was a very good system in the army, with regard to discipline, before h. r. h. came to the head of it.
Referring to the time when h. r. h. took the command of the army, and the latter part of lord Amherst's time, has the state of the army improved since h. r. h. took the command? There was a very good system, then, or else our regiments would not have gained those advantages which they did; and I really do not know that it is better now than it was then, if I am to speak my opinion.
The Right Hon. General FITZPATRICK, attending in his place, was examined.
(By Mr. Yorke.)
Do you recollect the state in which the Army was, when h. r. h. took the command of it, in regard, particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions in the army were carried on? I am persuaded that there is no officer of long standing in the service can recollect the state of the army previous to h. r. h.'s taking the command, who will not he ready to testify the very great improvement which the army has derived, in every respect, from h. r. h.'s management of it; I do not presume to give this opinion on my own experience merely, having no pretensions myself but that of long standing in the army; I consider myself as a competent judge of the question, I really believe the notoriety of this fact to every officer who has any knowledge or experience upon the subject, is such, as in my humble opinion, to have made any such reference to general officers wholly unnecessary; and all I have to say upon this subject is, that there is no officer in the army who will contradict the fact.
The Right Honourable the SECRETARY AT WAR, (Sir James Pulteney); attending in his place, was examined.
(By Mr. Yorke.)
Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when h. r. h, took the command of it, in regard, particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions in the army were carried on? I can only say that I concur entirely in every syllable which was delivered by my right hon, friend over against me (general Fitzpatrick); with regard to the manner in which promotions were carried on before the present Commander in Chief assumed the command of the army, particularly in the period immediately preceding his appointment, there was certainly great abuse, and such as, if continued, must have proved highly detrimental to the service. It is notorious that rank in commissions and rank in the army, were got intirely by money, or what was the same thing, by raising a certain number, of men, indeed more generally by paying for it; there were many instances of officers who attained their rank of major, I believe of lieutenant-colonel, in the space of one or two years. H. r. h., soon after he assumed the command, established a regulation, in consequence of which no officer could attain the rank of captain, before he had served two years, nor that of field officer before he had served six, and I believe that those regulations have been rigidly adhered to, and have been of infinite service to the army.
State whether in your opinion, upon the whole, the condition and discipline of the army have declined or improved during the time his r. h. has been Commander in Chief? In expressing my concurrence with what had fallen from my right hon, friend, I have answered that question. I certainly conceive that the
1030
condition of the army is very considerably improved, and I am certain that its discipline particularly (meaning the discipline in the field,) has improved to a very great degree. I recollect when it was a matter of difficulty to place live or six regiments upon the ground, so I mean, as to be enabled to act against an enemy; that operation is now performed with as much facility as that of placing a company; when those live or six regiments were so placed, it was a matter of great difficulty to make them move in an uniform line, that is now done with the utmost precision and facility; I therefore conceive, without going further, than the discipline of the army, and their power of action, have very considerably improved by the uniform system which has been produced under the auspices of the present Commander in Chief, and that to that great part of our military glory is owing.
The Right Hon. Sir ARTHUR WELLESLEY, k. b. attending in his place, was examined.
(By Mr. Yorke.)
Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when h. r. h. took the command of it, in regard, particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions in the army were carried on? With respect to the manner of conducting promotions in the army, I cannot say that I knew much about it before the present Commander in Chief was appointed; I rather believe, however, from all I have heard, that it was very irregularly conducted; that a regulation which existed at that time, that no officer should be made a captain till he had served two years, was frequently broken through, and that much injustice was done to many old officers in the army; I know that since h. r. h. has had the command of the army, the regulations framed by him for managing the promotion of the army have been strictly adhered to, and that the mode in which the promotion is conducted has given general satisfaction. I must also state that, besides my knowledge as a general officer of the army, of the mode in which the promotions of the army are conducted, I have some knowledge of it from my official situation; and having had frequently to apply to h. r. h. for promotion for different officers, in consequence of applications which have been made to me, I have never found, in any one instance, that h. r. h. has departed from the regulations laid down for the promotion of the army, or that he has done injustice to any individual. I must also state, that in applying to h. r. h., which I frequently do for ensigncies, I have found h. r. h. invariably ready to attend to my applications, and I also know that many persons have got commissions from h. r. h., by applying direct to him, without coming through me. In respect of the state of the tinny, I can say from my own knowledge, as having been a lieutenant colonel in the army when h. r. h. was appointed to command it, and having a very inti-

1031
male knowledge of it since, that it is materially improved in every respect; that the discipline of the soldiers is improved; that owing to the establishments formed under the directions of h. r. h. the officers are improved in knowledge; that the stall of the army is much better than it was, and much more complete than it was; that the cavalry is improved; that the officers of the cavalry are better than they were; that the army is more complete in officers; that the system of subordination among the officers of the army is better than it was, and that the whole system of the management of the cloathing of the army, the interior economy of the regiments, and every thing that relates to the military discipline of the soldiers, and the military efficiency of the army, has been greatly improved since h. r. h. was appointed Commander in Chief.
Do you consider the improvement you have specified, to be owing to the personal superintendance and personal exertions of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief? The improvements to which I have adverted, have been owing to; the regulations of h. r. h., and to his personal superintendence and his personal exertions over the general officers and others who were to see those regulations carried into execution.
General GROSVENOR, attending in his place, made the following Statement:
I wish to state my humble testimony of the high sense I entertain of the advantages the army has derived from the zeal, attention, and care, of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,previous to the Chairman's quitting his seat, suggested, that as the Evidence was now closed, and there would be no occasion to ask leave to sit again, a day might be fixed for taking the subject into consideration. For the sake of having the first convenient day fixed, he had inquired into the state of forwardness in which the printing of the Minutes stood, and the result was that it would be in vain to expect them to be delivered entire before Monday. As, however, great part of them were already in the hands of members, who would naturally be giving them a gradual perusal, he was inclined to think, on the idea of their being completed on Monday, that a period of two days might be allowed to interpose, and the Report be taken into consideration on Thursday. If, however, gentlemen thought that too early a day, he had no objection to Friday.
Mr. Wilberforcewas anxious that on so important a subject, and one which had gone to so great a length, the House should not be precluded from such further light as they might be able to procure in the way of observation, elucidation, or contra-
1032
diction. It would also be desirous that some farther time for consideration should be granted, probably till the following Monday, or even till this day fortnight.
Mr. Whitbreadcould not agree to the suggestion of the hon. member; bethought that no unnecessary delay should take place, but still he submitted that the fixing of the day would more properly belong to his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle) than to the right hon. gent. opposite.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared that he bad no wish to take the nomination of the day out of the hands of the hon. member. Friday, or any other day that hon. gent. chose, would be equally agreeable to him with the day he himself had suggested.
Mr. Wardlesaid, Thursday or Friday were equally agreeable to him.
Mr. Whartonthen left the Chair; the house resumed, and the Report was brought up, ordered to be printed, and the whole question was ordered to be taken into consideration on this day se'nnight.
Mr. C. W. Wynngave notice, that immediately after the decision of the question, he should bring forward his motion relative to the testimony of gen. Clavering.
Adjourned at half past three o'clock on Thursday morning.