* ****** |× §§§§ ¡ ¿ !,: ;&#: { } ----！>š:*: №. ;ſ. &**: # ...“, º ſº: :::&.*; *（）. }， ~~ ... ?** -L. „--~~~~&#！***！źń} ∞------~--~~~~---§§ ~~~~ * - ==-- ~~~~-- Jae } * º 3-7 42% 25° -xx- - ºzºº _2^ ~< ,” ..º. * & 6% * 2’ § ≤&--~~~~~----- 2* Ņ §§Å„**~ - &# -******* × × × ×- · • ×· *.-~ …”\, +*--�…º.s. {- *\ *ą.-,|- ·*·* · **）.*- « .------ į »-\ _ *** · ·|-{-ș*;→ ſą---- } -# ±* * * · *y�* |-;ſå·&-- |-- - -«. ž: →•*.»*-�*** e -* ..?！#! ». · ·'&-. -- »- -->-~）• ſ * · * * *- |- ---------* ·- ',-- *… …#*- * ș$| + |• -• ,~~）;* *. , •- -?u |-r;-,！ș?- ‘ ,• gº }|- ------• “, |-.lº« . »« '---- ----b ·&rºș|--- · §ą, . ！ （ *··- „ ·& *+ • •· -·- -*|-*«e%*; · »►·* •-}- *` y* º- -- **** - ~）.|- *ș|-· ș-→ *… -->∞ *\- ' , ！ #→ |-{-% -- ~*� •|-· *· *. ---- *•ş. -->|-*|- ; · -*.*---- • -&- - *• | 1） * ſy #- →ſ. »ș §§„ *~ | Ģ \ #�→ ----* *---- +- * * * * * * * z */ * EI IS TO R Y . PROCEEDINGS * º OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, | - IN THI E INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK, COMPRISING AN AUTHENTIC COPY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND AN ACCURATE REPORT OF ALL THE DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT, A 3 THEY O C Clu R RED IN ORI) ER OF TIME, - LONDON: painted for John stockDALE, Piccadilly. 1809, Soo 'AT2 . A2:3 T Giver, Printer, Crown-court, Fleet-street, London- ADVERTISEMENT. NEVER in our own times has the attention of the British public been so strongly excited, as by the examination in- stituted by the House of Commons into the conduct of the late Commander in Chief. Never were the avenues to the Senate more crowded with visitors, and never were the journals of the day more eagerly and anxiously perused, than during the period of that examination. Reflecting on these circumstances, the Editor of the following work is encouraged to believe, that a full and faithful history of this most extraordinary transaction will be favourably re- ceived by the country at large. And he can assure his readers, that this history is both a full and faithful one. The Evidence has been correctly printed from a parliamen. tary copy; and, the Debates have been collected from a comparison of the daily prints, which are most famed for fidelity and accuracy in the report of proceedings in Par- liament. In many instances, also, the Editor has been in- debted to the assistance of gentlemen, who took a part in these important deliberations, and who have favoured him with authentic copies of their respective speeches. On the circumstances and results of the investigation into the conduct of the Duke of York, it is not the incli- iy - Anventisement. nation of the Editor to dwell. But, in justice to his feel- ings, he cannot dismiss this volume without remarking, that the proceedings therein recorded will afford a strik- ing lesson to posterity; and that in the present degraded state of Europe, it presents to the nations of the Continent a proud example of the efficiency of our civil institutions. It demonstrates that, in this country, pre-eminence of power cannot protect from inquiry those who are but sus- pected of delinquency; and that they, who stand nearest to the throne, are amenable to the tribunal of public. .** opinion. .* London, July 1, 1809. - contents AND INDEX. 3. . . . . . . . Page Mr. Wardle's notice, and motion; and subsequent debate, Jan. 20 1—18 — motion respecting wit- nesses, Jan. 31 -, - 19 - preliminary observa- tions, F. to the examina- tion of witnesses, Feb. 1 - ib. Inder to the several Days Exa- imination. First day's examination, Feb. 1 22 Second, Feb. 3 - ' * 60 Third, Feb. 7 tºº * 88 Fourth, Feb. 9 §º * 130 Fifth, Feb. 10 gº ſº 189 Sixth, Feb. 13 - - 237 Seventh, Feb. 14 sº - 292 Eighth, Feb. 15 - - 321 Ninth, Feb. 16 - &=º 361 Tenth, Feb. 17 - - 421 Fleventh, Feb. 20 - - 449 Twelfth, Feb. 22 - - 497 Alphabetical Inder of the Witnesses examined, with references to the several parts of the Volume. Adam's, W. Esq., 43,64, 68, i56, 291, 365, 376, 429, 487, 493, 494, 517 Bateman's, Thomas • 467 Beresford's, J. C. Esq. - 277 Bliss's, Thomas - - 468 Bourne's, W. S. Esq. 123, 133. Bridgman's, Mrs E. - 292 Brownrigg’s, General - 425 | Clarke's, Mrs. M. A. - 30 Page Address to the house 127 — Examination, 137, 161, 217, 252, 277, 332, 349, 378, 398, 406, 503 Clavering’s, Gen. - - 198, 469 Clementson's, J. Esq. - 164 Combe, H. C. Esq. - 174 Comrie's, J. tº sº - 92 Corri's, D. - 105,403 Dickie's, Mr. A. * 478-9 Dockery's, Timothy - 260 Donovan; J. - - 174,208 Dowler's, W. - - 109, 129 Duff's, A. - - - 363 Ellis's, Rev. J. J. - a 517 Favery’s Mrs. M. - - 342, 519 Few’s, J. tºº sº tº 88 Fitzpatrick's, Gen. - 542 Gordon's, Colonel 51, 70, 159, 227, 294, 356, 424, 426, 479 Grant, J. tº - º 123 Greenwood's, C. 353, 373, 524 Grosvenor’s, Gen. - - 544 Hamilton, Colonel - 497, 51.1 Harrison's, Wm. Esq. - 514 Hope's, General , - '- 428 Hovenden's, Mrs. A. - 363 Huskisson's, W. Esq. 122, 133 & 366, 515 Johnson's, º, * * * 46i Knight's, R. Esq. , - - 26 Long's, Charles, Rt. Hon. 160, - 365, 368 Lowten's, Thomas, Esq. - 527 Maltby's, R. * ſº 237 M“Dowal's, W. tºº - 340 M'Mahon's, Colonel - 156 2} i i CONTENT'S AND INDEX. # Page Medcalfe's, Dr. - - 460 Messenger's, J. - - 495 Nesbitt's, Thos. tº tº Nichol’s, W. - - - 46i 314 Norton’s, General - - 540 Crramin's, L. tº - 66 Parker's, T. - - 172,205 Perceval's, Rt. Hon. S. 492, 515 Pierson's, J. - - 94, 196 Reid's, J. - - 321, 401 Robinson's, G. - - 322 Rochfort's, General - 359 Sandon's, Capt. 95, 214, 388, 404 412; committed to Newgate 439 Searle's, Rob. - - 461 Secretary of War's - - 542 Shaw's, Mr. A. and Mr. C. 293 Smith's, D. - --> 538 Stower's, T. tº tº- 91 Sutton's, D. tºs - - 170 Swann's, H. Esq. - - 367 Taylor's, Miss M. A. 164,533 Taylor’s, Gol." - 371 375 365 22 Taylor's, E. - * * Thynne's, A., M. D. * Town’s, B. - - - 430 493 Tyson's, W. - - 205 ardle's, G. L. Esq. 46, 62, 192 226, 348, 351, 380, 403 Wellesley's, Rt. Hon. Sir A. 543 Well’s, S. *E º ºn 322 Wilkinson’s, J. Esq. tº- 533 William's, Rev. W. º 151 Alphabetical Index of the Letters read in Evidence. Anonymous, to Mr. Adam 69 Baseley's, to the Duke of Portland | 203 Bourne’s, to B. Watson - 136 Brooke's, to Col. Norton - 53 Brownrigg’s, R. to Lieut. Sutton - ** 4 306 Calvert's and Frazer's correspond- ende -> º - 72 -Carter’s, S. to Mrs. Clarke 333 Clarke's, Mrs. to Mr. Adam 64; 65 w to Mr. Donovan 177 — to Captain Sandon 413 Clavering's, Gen. to Mrs. Clarke { i m 334, 527 Page Clinton's, to Capt. Tonyn 229 Donovan's, J. to Mrs. Clarke 193 Doyle's, to Col. Gordon 70, 71 Elderton's, to Mrs. Clarke 337 Frazer's and Calvert's correspond- : ence - sº Gordon's Col. to Col. Knight 54 — to Huskisson 76 to the arm - 77. to Sir H. Burrard 294 Greenwood and Cox's, to Colonel Gordon sº tº º 53 Grey's, to Hare wº - 83 Hare's memorial to the Duke of York - - - 81—2 Huskisson's, to Col. Gordon 76 — to the Lords of the Treasury - - - 134 Kennett, letters respecting 366, 370 Knight's, Col. to Col. Gordon 358 Lawson's, to Gol. Gordon 81 Leake's, J. M. to the Lords of the Treasury - - - 135 London, Bishop of, to the Duke of Portlánd - - - 204 Maling's, Mr. to Col. Gordon 71 Maltby's and Mrs. Clarke's cor- respondence - - 255-8 Sir H. Mann's, to R. Kennett 367 Noleken's, to Mrs. C. - 338 Portland's, Duke of, to the Bishop of London - - 204 Shaw's, Col. to Mrs. Clarke 278 to Sir H. Burrard 298 Sumner's, C. C. to Gen. Clavering 200 Sutton's, T. to the Duke of York 305 Taylor’s, Miss, to the Chairman of the Committee mº 423 Tonyn's, Patrick, to the Duke of York --> tº- º 227 Turner's, Col. to the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons ge - 421, 433 Tucker, letters concerning his re- signation - - 308-12 Williams's, to Mrs. Clarke 150 —— to Col. M*Mahon 159 York, Duke of, to Gen. Tonyn 228 conteNTS AND INDEx. ill & © 9 Page York, Duke of, to Mrs. Clarke 229 — to the Speaker of the House of Commons - 545 Alphabetical Index of the principal Speakers. Adams, Mr. C. tº gº 792 Adam, Mr. W. º 11, 689 Althorpe, Lord - - 828 Attorney-General - - 689 Bankes, Mr. - 546, 661, 803 Barham, Mr. - - 788 Bathurst, Mr. B. 623, 788, 824 Brand, Mr. - - 799 Burdett, Sir F. > 6, 10, 695 Burton, Mr. wº &= - - 584 Calcraft, Mr. - tº 740 Canning, Mr. - - 14, 778 Cartwright, Mr. - 789, 829 Castlereagh, Mr. - 16, 738 Coke, Mr. - * º 732 Croker, Mr. tº tº 723 Curtis, Sir W. ſº tº 702 £urwen, Mr. - - 602 Ellison, Mr. - 807, 846 Ferguson tºs sº - 793 Fitzgerald - - - 792 Folkestone, Lord 14, 549, 679, - 782, 831 Fuller, Mr. tºp tºº 801 all, Sir James - - 790 Leach, Mr. gº tº º 672 eycester, Mr. - - 747 Lockhart, Mr. gº º 792 Lon 9 Mr. - º tº 731 Lord Advocate º tºº 764 Lyttleton - sº-º º 795 §§en, Mr. - - 843 Martin, Mr. H. - - 727 Master of the Rolls tº 702 Milton, Lord gº gºe 742 Montgomery, Sir H. - 790 Perceval, Mr. , 13, 14, 18, 548, 557, 561, 605, 784, 794, 813, 823, 830, 845 _s Petty, Lord H. 549, 794, 809 Ponsonby, Mr. 783 Portman, Mr. - 802 Ridley, Sir M. W. - 557, 843 Romilly, Sir S. - - 707 Rose, Mr. tºº gº - 729 Rüşel, Lord W. * 789 Page Ryder, Mr. - - - 756 Secretary of War sº 6, 694 Smith, Mr. W. - - 691 Solicitor General - - 713 Speaker - - - 546 Stanley, Lord gº - 746 Sumner, Mr. gº - 808 Sutton, Mr. M. ſº 729, 801 Temple, Lord - 758, 832 Tierney, Mr. Ǻ 783, 784 Turton, Sir T. tº 754, 799 Wardle, Mr. 1, 14, 18, 21, 564 Wellesley, Sir A. - ... 7 Whitbread, Mr. 15, 547, 632 816, 833, 844 Wilberforce, Mr. 13, 559, 764, 809 Windham, Mr. - - 732 Wynne, Mr. W. - 721, 840 Wood, Colonel - - 792 York, Mr. º 9, 21, 665 Army regulations, copy of 78, 79 Report of the Select Committee * 413-20 Duke of York's letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons 545 Lord Folkestone's motion for the call of the House tº e 55 Wynne's, Mr. C. W. motion re- specting General Glavering 555 Lord Folkestone's motion 560, 561 Mr. Wardle's motion for an address to his Majesty to dismiss the Duke of York from the com- mand of the army, March 8, 563 Mr. Bankes's motion, March 10 661, 665 Sir Thomas Turton’s motion 754, e 756, 799 Divisions on Mr. Bankes's and Col. Wardle's motions - 784 Mr. Perceval's motion - ib. List of the minority on Mr. War- dle's motion * - 847 List of the minority on Sir T. Tur- ton’s motion - - 848 List of the minority on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exche- quer º - " - 850 HISTORY OF THE P R O C E E D IN G S OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, &c. &c. a-samº- ON the 20th January, 1809, Mr. Wardle rose in his place, and gave uotice that on the Friday follow- ing he would make a motion relative to the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, in the sale of commissions, their exchange, and the raising of levies thereon. p On the twenty-seventh of the same month, herose to sub- mit to the house his promised motion, respecting certain abuses which had obtained in the disposal of commissions in the British army. In doing this, he said, he should make no assertion in which he was not supported by positive facts. The power of disposing of commissions in the mili- tary service of this empire had been placed in the hands of a person of high birth, power, and influence; and he was sorry to observe, that this power had been exercised to the worst of purposes. But notwithstanding the high authority and powerful influence which the commander- in-chief of this country possessed, no respect to either should induce him to swerve from his duty as a member of that house, or operate with him as a motive to screen his royal highness, in any misuse of his power or au- thority, from that public justice which was called for by the voice of the people. No other motive impelled him that day than a sense of his public duty; for if corrup- tion were not attacked in a quarter where it was so for- midable, the army and the country must fall the victims of its influence. It was necessary, in the first instance, B 2 PRQCEETIEGS RELATIVE To to put the house in possession of the true purposes for which the disposal of commissions in the army was placed in the hands of the commander-in-chief. It was for the purposes of defraying the charges of the half-pay list for the support of veteran officers, and of increasing the com- passionate fund, for the aid of officers' widows and or- phaſis ; and, therefore, any commissions which fell by deaths or promotions, the commander-in-chief had no right to sell or dispose of for his own private emolument, nor to appropriate for the like purpose any differences arising from the change or reduction of officers from full to half pay. He had thus explained, he believed, the nature of the power vested in the hands of the com- mander-in-chief; but he could bring positive proofs that such commissions had been sold, and the money applied to very different purposes from the legitimate ones re- quired by the military usages and establishments of the country. If he could prove that those purposes were, in a variety of instances, abandoned by the commander-in- chief; that officers had been reduced to the half-pay list without receiving the usual difference in such cases; and if he could substantiate such a violation of the rights of military officers, it was a duty he owed to his constituents and his country io do so. *; In the year 1803, his royal highness set up a very handsome establishment, in a fashionable quarter of the town, consisting of a superb house and elegant carriages of various descriptions, for a favourite lady of the name of Mrs. Clarke. Of the lady's name he should have oc- casion to make frequent mention in the course of his speech, in connection with a number of names and facts, io shew the house that he had not taken up this subject on light grounds. -- -- & The first fact which he should state was the case of Major Tonyn, of the 48th regiment, who received his commission as a captain on the 2d of August 1802, and was promoted to a majority in the 31st regiment, in Au- gust 1804. He meant no reflection upon this gallant of ficer, nor in the smallest degree to depreciate his merits; he meant merely to state facts as communicated to him. Major Tonyn was the son of a very distinguished officer, and might have purchased his promotion, if he chose; but this gentleman was introduced to Mrs. Clarke by a captain of the royal waggon train; and it was agreed, z’ ºff{E COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 3 that upon his appointment to a majority, he should pay 500l. the meney to be lodged at a house to be named, three days before he was gazetted, and then paid to a Mr. Donovan, a surgeon, in Charles-steet, St. James's square. As he should have occasion to mention this gen- tleman (Mr. D.) again, it was necessary to state, that in 1802, he was appointed to a lieutenancy in a garrison bat- talion. He had never inquired what was the nature of the services he performed; but certainly ho military ser- vices, for he had never been near his regiment, and seemed to have a perpetual leave of absence. He could not account why this gentleman's appointment was not in his professional line, upon the medical staff, sufficiently extensive as it was for the purpose. The introducer was Captain Huxley Sandon. This money was appropriated by Mrs. Clarke towards the purchase of an elegant ser- vice of plate from Mr. Parker, a silversmith, the com- mander-in-chief paying the remainder. Thus it was evident that Mrs. Clarke had the power of disposing of commissions for purchase; secondly, that she received pecuniary considerations for promotions; and thirdly, that the commander-in-chief partook of the emoluments; and this he could prove, by the evidence of five witnesses, including the executors of Mr. Parker. . The next fact he would adduce, was that of Colonel Brooke, on the 25th July, 1805, and which was trans- acted through a Mr. Thynne, a medical gentleman of high respectability. It was agreed between him and Mrs. Clarke, that she should receive 200l. on his exchange being gazetted : the lady was extremely anxious, and said she could have an opportunity of getting 200l. with- out calling on the commander-in-chief, and on the Satur- day following the promotion was gazetted. He should be able to produce Lieutenant-Colonel Brooke and Lieu- tenant-Golonel Knight; and he would be the last person in that house to bring forwards such charges without com- petent evidence. He should now state a case by way of contrast to the last, and for the purpose of shewing that such permissions to exchange were not easily obtained from the Duke of York. It was the case of Major M“Donnell and Major Sinclair, of the first regiment of foot. Major Sinclair had been a considerable time in the West Indies; the climate perfectly agreed with his health, and therefore he was daiº, of going upon that service, 2 º & PROCEEDING's RELATIVE TO and applied to the commander-in-chief; Major M*Don- nell, who was in a puny state of health, earnestly applied to the commander-in-chief for leave to decline that ser-, vice, apprehensive of the danger of the climate, and wishing to remain in England. But Major Sinclair was refused permission to go, and Major M'Donnell was re- fused permission to remain, and was ordered to the West Indies; and both gentlemen fell victims to the arrange- ment, for they soon died. But they offered no bribe to the military patroness, whose influence could have pre- yailed in their cases. The next was the case of Major Shaw, appointed de- puty barrack master general at the Cape of Good Hope. It appeared that the commander-in-chief had no favour- able opinion of Major Shaw; but Mrs. Clarke interposes : he consents to pay her 1000l. Of this money he im- mediately paid 200l. ; shortly after he paid her 300l. ; when she, finding he was backward in the payment, sent to demand the remainder; but seeing no chance of receiving it, she complained to the commander-in-chief, who immediately put Major Shaw upon the half-pay list. The honourable gentleman said, he had a letter from *Major Shaw himself, stating the fact, and he never knew but one other instance of an officer being thus put on the half-pay list. Here then was further proof, to shew that Mrs. Clarke's influence extended to the army in general, and that it operated to put any officer on the half-pay list, and that the commander-in-chief was a direct party in her authority. The next case to which he should advert of the lady's influenee, was that of Colonel French, of the horse-guards. This gentleman was appointed to a commission for raising new levics in 1804, and the business was set on foot by Mrs. Clarke. He was introduced to her by Capt. Huxley Sandon, and she was to have a certain sum out of the bounty to every recruit raised, and a certain portion of patronage in the nomination of the officers. She was waited on by Colonel French, of the first troop of horse- guards, and as the levy went on, she received various sums of money by Colonel French, Capt. Huxley Sandon, Mr. Corri, and Mr. Cokayne, an eminent solicitor, in fondon, in the following rates, viz. for a majority, 900l. ; captaincy, 700l. ; lieutenancy, 400l. ; and ensigncy, 200l. whereas the regulated prices were respectively 2600l., THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. : 5 1500l., 550l., and 400l. ; and consequently all this money was lost to the half-pay compassionate fund, to put money into Mrs. Clarke's pocket. - The next instance was one in which the commander-in- chief himself was a direct partaker in the advantages of this traffic, by a loan to be furnished through Colonel French, the writings for which were drawn by a Mr. Grant, an eminent solicitor of Barnard’s-Inn, for the pur- pose of raising 3000l. ; but he did not receive it, because there were 3000l. due from government to Colonel French: Hence then it was obvious that Mrs. Clarke exercised an influence in raising the military force of the country, in disposing of commands in that force, and in converting the purchase of commissions to her own private advantage. Having now said enough of Mrs. Clarke, he would next proceed to the case of Captain May, of the royal African corps. He meant no reflection upon that officer. He was appointed to an ensigncy on November 28, 1806; some time after, he was made lieutenant. He had still the good fortune to remain a clerk at the desk of Mr. Greenwood; army agent. On the 15th of April, 1898, he was em- ployed by the Duke of York, and before the end of the year he was raised to a captain in the royal African corps, the third year after his first appointment, and without seeing service; thus promoted over the heads of all the subalterns of the army, without any regard to their long services and wounds in their country's cause; though many of them had lodged this money to pay the differ. ences on promotion. Whether the honour and interests of the British army, and the feelings of the officers, were properly to be subjected to such a system, the house of commons would judge and decide. He hoped, after what he had stated, the house of commons would not refuse to grant him a committee to inquire into those transactions; and if they agreed, he would pledge himself to bring as evidence before them Mrs. §. herself, and the whole of the other persons whom he had named. . . . There was another circumstance in this case, which he could not pass unnoticed ; it was the existence of a public office in the city of London, where commissions in the army were offered to purchasers at reduced prices, and where the clerks openly and unequivocally stated, in his own presence, and in his hearing, that they were employed, by the present favourite histress of the commander-in-chief; & PROC EEDINGS RELATIVE TOr Mrs. Carey; and that, in addition to commissions in the army, they were employed to dispose of places in every department of church and state; and those agents did not hesitate to state, in words and writing, that they were employed under the auspices of two of his majesty’s prin- cipal ministers. Having now gone through the whole of his statement, the honourable member concluded by ex- pressing his hope that the house would grant him a com- mittee to inquire into the conduct of the Duke of York, in respect to the disposal of military commissions; and he moved accordingly. Sir Francis Burdett seconded the motion. The Secretary at War said, he did not rise to give any opposition to the motion, at least to any fair and reason- able extent to which the proposition might be thought necessary. The henourable gentleman had, in a very candid manner, brought forward facts of the most im- portant kind, and in their consequences most serious and weighty. He conceived the house would readily ac- quiesce in going into an inquiry of the facts which had then been brought forward, or any other facts which the honourable gentleman might still intend to produce here- after ; but as to a general inquiry into the conduct of the commander-in-chief, he would not agree. He was cer- tain that illustrious personage was ready to go into a full investigation of these charges. As to the half-pay list, he had already stated on former occasions, that it had been, most extensively and materially benefited by the com- mander-in-chief, who had voluntarily resigned a very. extensive patronage, in order that the sale of the com- inissions might be brought in aid of the compassionate. fund, by which that fund had been greatly increased. With respect to the barrack department, he thought it proper just to state that it was not within the patronage of his royal highness the Duke of York. He wished also to observe, that the mander in which the army had been fitted out, which was lately sent to Portugal, was a very striking mark of the superior military talents of the Duke. of York, and a strong proof of his great attention to and regard for that army, and of course militated against the truth of the charges, which, if founded in truth, must strike at its discipline, and, through that, at its very existence." His right honourable friend near him (Sir A. Wellesley), who had so lately commanded that army, would readily. THE CoMMANDER IN CHIEF. . % tell the state in which he found it; and great as his right honourable friend's talents were for inspiring his soldiers. with courage, spirit, and activity, he could not speedily have instilled into them the noble energies of which they had given such unequivocal and brilliant proofs, if they had previously been under such inattention to and neglect of discipline as these charges held out. The spirit of pro- motion which had been infused into the army by the commander-in-chief, and which throve so well under his auspices and nourishment, together with the extreme re- gularity, order, and arrangement which he had intro- duced into every military department, had done every - thing for the army, and evinced that he had ever been ac- tuated by the greatest zeal and anxiety for its honour and its interests, whereas the charges, if true, would make him one of its most inveterate enemics. He thought it neces- sary to make these few observations as to what he knew of the conduct of the illustrious personage in question ; and, having done so, would not trespass further on the time of the house than to say, he was very happy the honour- able gentleman had brought them forward, as he was sure the commander-in-chief wished nothing more earnestly than that they might be fairly and fully investigated. Sir A. Wellesley said, he rejoiced sincerely that the honourable gentleman had brought forward certain facts on which a committee might be able to judge. His right honourable friend had said that he was able to speak as to his knowledge of the army he had lately commanded, with respect to its discipline, and also as to the character and conduct of the commander-in-chief. He could truly answer that it had fallen to his lot to know particularly how promotions were made, and that such an advance- ment in the army never took place without the names being produced, by whom recommended, and the sums ascer- tained which were paid for the same. There was also a cor- respondence, shewing how the money was brought in that was intended for the half-pay fund, and what sums went out of it. He rejoiced, therefore, at the statement of facts alleged, and then brought forward. With respect to the removal of the deputy barracks master-general at the Cape of Good Hope, he believed, and indeed knew, it was a case that frequently occurred, and that staff-officers, not on full pay at the time they were appointed, must go on half pay; those who hap- § Prio (2EED INGS RELATIVE TO pen to be on full pay at the time appointed, remained on full pay ; but those only on half-pay must remain so. He did not know that this was the case in the instance then alluded to by the honourable gentleman, but he men- tioned these circumstances because it might happen to be so; and if it were, the usage of the service would account for it, and shew that it was no fault nor partiality in the com- mander-in-chief. As to the case of the two officers in the West Indies (Majors M'Donnel and Sinclair), to whom the honourable gentleman had alluded, he thought it would be jutting the commander-in-chief into a very severe and invidious predicament indeed, if, because he would not consent to any particular exchange which might have suited the private convenience or interests of those two in- dividuals, that he should, therefore, be liable to the charge of their deaths. This would be carrying his re- sponsibility for events not depending on himself a great length indeed, and never could be thought reasonable. If, indeed, general charges were to be brought forward and countenanced against persons filling so high and im- portant a station as that of commander-in-chief, it would, he feared, become very difficult to prevail on persons of the elevated rank of the illustrious person in question to accept an office of such extraordinary and extensive responsibility. It would appear from the statement of the alleged facts, that with a view to save money from going out of his own pocket, the commander-in-chief had connived at, or authorised the sale of commissions, the emoluments of which went into the coffers of his favourites, to the great detriment and injury of the compassionate fund. This seemed to be most contradictory of every principle of reason, or even probability. The com- passionate fund actually originated with the command- er-in-chief, who gave up voluntarily, and most libe- rally and generously, a very extensive patronage, in order that the commissions so within his gift might be sold, and added to the compassionate fund, in order to exonerate the half pay list. If he had wished to . make use of these for corrupt ends, nothing could be further from his purpose than the mode The had adopted. He coincided perfectly with his right hon. friend (the Secretary at War), and should deem himself greatly deficient in duty, as well as justice, should he omit to speak of the state of the army so lately under his THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 9 command in Portugal, and whose gallant achievements had so recently received the thanks of the house. He really believed there never had been an army in a higher state of discipline, from the staff down to the meanest soldier in the ranks; and if the army had not performed the feats and acquired the glory and the reward of the thanks it had received, the fault would not have been imputable to the commander-in-chief, but to himself (Sir Arthur) only. He thought so much from him was due to the commander-in-chief, to whose superior military talents and unremitting zeal and assiduity, the high state of discipline which our army could now boast, was cer- tainly to be attributed. Having made these observations, he should certainly vote for an inquiry. Mr. Yorke said, he agreed with both the right honour- able gentlemen who had just spoken, as to the impor- tance of the charge, and that it was highly deserving the attention of the house. He believed there was never a charge of greater magnitude brought before it; nor had any honourable member ever before taken upon him to bring forward alleged facts, at once so serious and so weighty in themselves, and in their consequences. He was sorry to observe, it had lately been the misfortune of this country to have been inundated with the most shameful, scandalous, and atrocious libels against this illustrious character, and others of his august family. That such should have been the case, was, in his opi- nion, highly disgraceful to the country; and he was happy to find that the matter had at length been brought into a tangible shape, and he hoped the honourable gen- tleman would proceed with his facts, and endeavour to prove the very serious and important charges which he had thus undertaken to do. He had for some time past viewed with the deepest concern the continued and re- peated current of scurrility which had been poured forth against various branches of the royal family; and he could not, from the whole complexion of it, consider it in any other light than as a vile conspiracy against the illustrious House of Brunswick. ... [4 loud cry of hear! hear! from all parts of the house..] It had for some time past been thought by many, and said by some, that the jacobinical spirit which some years ago so unfortunately pervaded many parts of this country, was in a great de- gree allayed and diminished, if not altogether annihilated. TO PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO r He believed, however, that where a spirit of jacobinism had once taken root, it would never be wholly subdued or eradicated ; and when he "reflected on the numerous infamous libels which had lately appeared, he could not but consider them as the engines of a conspiracy devoted to those purposes ‘ſhear! hear ! hear !]; conducted, it was true, against his royal highness the commander-in- chief, but actually intended against the whole family and establishment. [Hear! hear ! hear! from all sides.] Write down the commander-in-chief, continued the right honourable gentleman, and you eventually attack and wound the whole. This he believed verily to be the aim and end in view of these perturbed spirits. He was, therefore, decidedly in favour of an immediate inquiry, and if blame there was, there let the punishment fall; but when it was considered who this illustrious personage is, against whom these facts have been alledged, how nearly he is related to the crown, how much praise he merited for his unremitting attention to the army, and its most vital interests, to which the right honourable general had just before so forcibly borne testimony, and thereby re- corded, he thought that merely a commission would not be sufficient to investigate a matter of this important na- ture; but that, when the honour of a branch of the royal family was so deeply concerned, and so strongly assailed, the house should take up the matter on a higher ground and on a broader basis, and pass an act of parliament for a special commission, empowering them to examine per- sons who were brought as witnesses on their oaths. This being the impression on his mind, he should not have thought he had done his duty, if he had not thrown it out for the consideration of the house, at least; and no less grave and solemn a mode of investigation appeared to him to be properly adapted to the subject. Sir Francis Burdett said, he thought it was impossible any gentleman could have a different feeling upon this subject from what had so forcibly been expressed by all those honourable members who had delivered their senti- ments on the subject, and particularly those of the right honourable gentleman who had just sat down. For his own part, he had heard so many stories in circulation, which he had never the smallest doubt were calumnies, that without knowing any thing more of the motion than what lie had heard from the honourable gentleman who THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. • H brought it forward, and of his intention so to do, he had agreed to second it. He could have no other reason for doing this than a sincere wish that these stories should be fairly brought to the test of investigation before so serious, so honourable, and so competent a tribunal as the house of commons, and there receive that judgment and deci- sion which he had no doubt would be highly honourable to the character of the illustrious personage who had been so vehemently assailed by them. The right honourable gentleman had expressed his opinion that the several gross libels which have appeared against the commander-in- chief, are so many indications to him that a conspiracy exists at this moment against the whole establishment. Where the right honourable gentleman could obtain his information, he could not tell ; but for his own part, he could never suppose that in this country, where discus- sion was allowed, such publications as those alluded to naturally or fairly led to any such inference or deduction. It had ever been the case that public characters, even in the highest rank, had, from time to time, been liable to the attacks of falsehood and misrepresentation. That it should have been so, or that it was so at the present period, he allowed was much to be regretted; but there was one consolation, at the same time, in reflecting that such weak efforts of , envy or malignity were easily traced, and when found out might and ought to be exem- plarily punished. He had no doubt but that the false- hood and malice of the libels alluded to by the right honourable gentleman would, on the present occasion, meet the fate they merited. He knew no way in which they had a chance of doing so which appeared to him so certain or so speedy as an investigation of, an enquiry in- to the present gharges; and he was happy to find that the right honourable gentlemen opposite to him were of the same opinion. Mr. Adam said he gave way to the honourable baronet, in order that he might have an opportunity of shewing, as he had done, with so much coolness, candour, and po- liteness, the motives which induced him to second the pre- sent motion. He was extremely glad he had done so, as the whole of the honourable baronet's sentiments had been delivered in a mauner highly honourable to him. His chief reason for offering himself to the house on the present question, was for the purpose of stating what he H2 PROCEEDINGS RET, ATIVE. To thought would be the most desirable method of proceeding in the present case. In forming the opinion he was about to deliver to the house, he looked only to the prin- ciples of the British constitution, and the invariable end of its justice, viz. that from the highest subject to the lowest, every person accused must be taken to be inno- cent, till proved to be guilty. With respect to all those alledged facts which the honourable gentleman had them brought forward in a very candid manner, he had not the smallest doubt, however the honourable gentleman might have been induced to give credence to their truth or pro- bability, it would ultimately turn out, on a proper inves- tigation, that they are founded in falsehood and misrepre- sentation. With respect to money, there were some cir- cumstances in the transactions which positively forbid him from believing them possible to attach to his royal highness the duke of York. He had been more than twenty years, not professionally, but gratuitously, in the service of the duke of York; and he assured the house he did not mention this from any vain boast of being so ho- moured with the confidence of that illustrious person, but from motives of justice he thought it his duty to declare, that he had ever received the most unbounded confidence from his royal highness as to all his pecuniary affairs, and there had never been one of his embarrassments which the duke of York had ever concealed from him. He used the word embarrassments, because they had been made known even to parliament. On the accuracy of his memory in this respect, he could positively and firmly rely, and could truly say, that he never heard of any loan which he wished or attempted to negotiate with any individual whatever, that was not grounded on as fair and honour- able terms as a loan of the duke of Bedford, the duke of Northumberland, or any other nobleman could be, who had occasion at any time to raise money for any particu- lar or special purpose. He was, therefore, an advocate for the inquiry, and should be happy that the five facts, or alledged facts, which had been stated by the honour- able gentleman, should be speedily inquired into. He would also wish to have this done in as public a manner as possible; for publicity was what he aimed at, as much as his right honourable friend on the floor (Mr. Yorke); but he would not wish with him, that an act of parlia- ment should be passed to obtain this desirable end. He THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 13 would not have the house give up its inquisitorial power : but to obtain that publicity which was so much desired, and was in fact so necessary for the due investigation of this important business, it was his advice that it should take place in a committee of the whole house, where every member would be a witness to it, and every circumstance would be fully inquired into. The great object was the mode of inquiry, and his decided opinion was in favour of a committee of the whole house. Mr. Wilberforce thought, that situated as the house was as to party spirit, a committee of the whole house would not be that mode of investigation which would best be adapted to that impartiality which a charge of this high importance required. He considered the judicial power of the house in this way as very defective, and looked upon the mode proposed by the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke) as preferable, because it would cnable the committee to be appointed to examine witnesses. on oath, which would give the evidence a weight in the eye of the public and of the world, which the other could not do. It had been done on former occasions, and he thought this as important a case as had ever occurred, and as much entitled to such a mode of proceeding. His Royal Highness's rank, the delicacy of his honour, and the splendor of his connections require, that if put on his trial, it ought to be taken upon its real merits, and inves- tigated in so serious a manner as to shew the house were in earnest; that the inquiry should be on the most extensive scale, and that they were determined to do justice, which would best be done by examining witnesses on oath. It was well known, the eyes of all Europe were then fixed on the deliberations of the house, and it behoved them to act in the most grave and decisive manner. He would, therefore, prefer a parliamentary commission, with power to examine witnesses on oath. \ The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was decidedly in favour of an inquiry into these most important charges, but was inclined to prefer the mode proposed by his honourable friend (Mr. Adam), of a committee of the whole house, as best adapted to the occasion, and most likely to obtain a full investigation and speedy decision. He owned he was aware of the extreme inconvenience which such investigations produce to the house, as had been well observed by his honourable friend behind him 14 ProceedINGs RELATIve to (Mr. Wilberforce) of protracting the business, both pub- lic and private :- but if there was a case that required that all inconveniences should give way to it, this was unques- tionably that case. The honourable gentleman who brought forward the motion had stated, that the agency of the office he had mentioned, extended to situations in church and state, as well as the army, and that two great officers in his majesty's present councils were privy to this office. He would, therefore, wish the honourable gentle- man to name every thing which could lead to the fullest investigation. If he had any delicacy in mentioning the names of those agents publicly, it might be privately done. He wished him also to name the two persons in high situations, and he would give him every assistance to arrive at the truth. Publicity had been mentioned as de- sirable: he was decidedly of that opinion, which he thought would be best had by a committee of the whole house. Mr. Wardle said, he had no objection to give every de- gree of information of which he was possessed. The office was in a court out of Threadneedle-street. One of the agents' names was Delop, and he thought the other was Warren. The two great officers who had been men- tioned were, the Chancellor and the duke of Portland. There were variety of places for sale, some in Jamaica, and some in England. He did not wish to keep back any thing, but was willing to give all further information in his power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished the honour- able gentleman would inquire further into the affairs of the office with regard to promoting exchanges and ap- jointments in the army, and particularly of raising loans. He concluded by moving, that the committee be a com- mittee of the whole house. JLord Folkestone objected to this, as taking the mode of proceeding out of the hands of the honourable gentleman —a proceeding of which he had, on a former occasion, loudly complained. Either method proposed would be better than this ; but he would prefer a select committee. Mr. Serretary Canning was surprised at the objection of the noble lord, when the honourable gentleman himself had made none to the committee of the whole house, pro- osed by his right honourable friend, and which he coin- cided perfectly with him was the most desirable. He ex- THE COMMANDER. T.N CHIEF. 15 pressed his highest admiration of the conduct of the honourable gentleman in bringing forward these charges, if his motives were purely patriotism and the public wel- fare; but it was not to be disguised, that when this charge was once brought forward, it must somehow or other be brought to a conclusion; and he begged him to recollect that ignominy and infamy must attach somewhere. He agreed with his right honourable friend (Mr. Yorke) that he was glad this matter had been brought forward in a tangible shape, and that there had been a degree of calumny the most extensive and the basest, and attended with a brutality of insult which would almost make one regret the liberty of the press, if it were not at the same time recollected, that the evil was transient, while the good was perpetual and immortal; but he must have a heart torpid and stony indeed, who did not feel the cowardice of those infamous attacks. The charge had been public; he hoped the acquittal would be as public, and would speedily ensue. - * , Mr. Whitbread said, he had a very few observations to make, for he agreed with both the right honourable gentle- men opposife to him as to the propriety of a committee of the whole house. He thought, however, the right honour- able secretary, who had just sat down, had gone a little out of his way in addressing his honourable friend who had brought forward this motion in the way he had done. For his part, he thought the duke of York was obliged to his honourable friend for bringing forward this charge, and was somewhat surprised the right honourable secre- tary could for a moment doubt the blessings of the liberty of the press, when he cônfessed the evil was so venial in comparison of the good; but if there had been published that brutality of insult in libels against the duke of York, of which the right honourable secretary so loudly complained, where were the law officers of the crown, and how came they so to have slumbered over their duty as not to have prosecuted 2 The libels alluded to were anonymous; on which a right honourable gentlesnan (Mr. Yorke) had formed an idea of conspiracy; but his honourable friend had not been anonymous ; he came forward fairly and honourably to make charges which he had been led to be- lieve were true. ... And though he had not a shadow of doubt the illustrious commander in chief would be found innocent of all the calumnies charged on him, yet if he be, º H6 PROCEED INGS RELATIVE TO no infamy or ignominy could thereby attach to his honourable friend, who had acted in discharge of his duty as an independent member of parliament. He thanked his honourable friend for the part he had acted, and the duke of York and his friends ought to thank him also; for if those libels were anonymous attacks which the law could not reach, this was the only way in which the cha- racter of the duke of York could be cleared from the base calumnies which had been cast on it. - Lord Castlereagh was happy to find that there had been such an universal concurrence of sentiment with respect to the necessity of examining, in the most solemn manner, the charges which had now been brought forward. He should have thought it unnecessary to trouble the house if it were not for one or two expressions which had fallen from an honourable gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), who seemed to censure the idea of there being a systematic conspiracy to calumniate the duke of York and the Royal Family; and who stated that ministers and the law officers must be much to blame for not instituting prosecutions, if such a conspiracy really existed. He was somewhat surprised at the course which had been taken in the debate by a noble lord (Lord Folkestone), who suffered the original motion to be carried nemine contradicente, and afterwards spoke against the course which the house had adopted by that resolution. For his part, he thought that every possible publicity should be given to the proceedings upon this important occasion. It was a proud situation for the con- stitutiºn of this country, as well as for the illustrious person who was the object of this accusation, to have a personage the most exalted in rank of any subject in the realm (ex- cept one), desiring the same publicity in the examination of the charges against him, as would take place in the case of the lowest and meanest subject. Although every gentleman would perceive that the house would suffer great incon. venience in being obliged to devote to this examination so much of that time that was wanting for other important business, yet it would be better to suffer that inconvenience than suffer calumnies to rest upon persons in the most distinguished and important public situations. He thought the house and the country should feel indebted to the honourablegentleman who brought this matter forward, as it was reducing those charges, which had been so often made, into a tangible shape and a form upon which a regular de- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, I7 cision might be had. It should be recollected, however, that every charge which had hitherto been made in that house against any part of the conduct of the duke of York, had only tended to raise his Royal Highness higher in the estimation of the public, and exhibit in a clearer view the purity of the principles upon which he acted. With respect to the doubt which the honourable gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) seemed to entertain, of the existence of a systematic conspiracy to traduce and calumniate the duke of York and the other members of the Royal Family, he should ask who was there that read those newspapers which are daily presented to the public, and those other publica- tions which come before them more indirectly, that could entertain a doubt of this systematic conspiracy It was evident that the same party, who in times past endea- voured to subvert all the -cstablishments of the country, by force of arms, are now endeavouring to undermine them by calumniating whatever is exalted in rank, or distin- guished in situation. That party could not now think of carrying their object by force of arms, as they knew the attempt would be too desperate and dangerous in the pre- sent times, but they were unremitting in their exertions to prepare the way to the objects which they hoped to ac- complish, by calumniating the members of the Royal Fami- ly, and all persons in eminent and distinguished situations. The honourable gentleman asked, what were ministers and the law officers doing, or why they did not institute prose— cutions 2 The fact is, they have instituted prosecutions; but their entire time would be taken up in prosecuting the libellers of the duke of York, if every libel was to be prose- cuted. There was also one reason which often prevented prosecution. It was in the power of any man of moderate understanding, and who had any legal knowledge or advice so to frame his calumny, that it might deeply wound the feelings of the person who was the object of it, and yet the malice of the calumny might be so disguised under the mask of fair discussion, as to make it difficult for the law to lay hold of it. There was another way in which libellers might escape justice. When the law was going to he put in force against them, they shrunk from the laws, and quitted the country. In a very, remarkable recent case ſhere the noble lord alluded to Major Hogan], before the promulgation of the libel itself, the author had secured his passage to America. thºut and the duke of York I3 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO were now in a new situation, and he congratulated them: and the country upon it. There was much more chance of mischief from malignant misrepresentations out of that house, than from direct charges brought in a fair and manly way in that house. As those charges had been so, brought, he thought it necessary that they should undergo the most solemn, serious, and public investigation. He thought the greatest possible publicity should be given to this examination, and that every step of it should be in the face of day. He was, therefore, not for leaving it to any select committee, nor even to the twelve judges, nor to any thing short of that fuſſ and open examination, which might be had at the bar of that house. He therefore trusted the house would adopt that course. Mr. Whitbread said a few words in explanation. The question was then put on the motion of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, “that the committee should be a eommittee of the whole house,” and was carried without a division. It was then ordered that the committee should sit on Wednesday. The º the Exchequer requested the honour- able gentleman (Mr. Wardle) tofurnish him with a list of witnesses to be summoned, and wished to know whether the honourable gentleman meant to begin with the case of Major Tonyn Mr. Wardle said, that he was not now prepared to say which of the cases he would begin with, as many of the witnesses were officers on their return from Spain, who had not yet arrived in England. He thought, however, by Tuesday, that he should be prepared to prove some ene of the cases, and would on that day give the list of the witnesses who were to be summoned. The Chancellor of the Eachequer thought the honour- able gentleman would have done better if he abstained from bringing his charges till he had all his witnesses in England. January 31, 1809. Mr. Wardle wisfied to call the attention of the house to the subject appointed for the investigation of the com- mittee, in respect to his royal highness the commander in chief. He understood that some of the witnesses whom it would be necessary for him to examine touching this inquiry were not now in London, particularly Major Knight THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 19 and Major Brooke; and as he wished to adduce such proofs as would place the truth of the statement he had made to the house beyond the possibility of doubt, he trusted the house would not expect him to go through the whole of his case without the attendance of those witnesses he thought necessary. He was ready, however, to go into the inquiry to-morrow or any other day the house thought more proper, with such witnesses as were in readiness to at- tend. But he hoped the house would indulge him with some further delay in respect to those points, to establish which the necessary witnesses might not be immediately forth-coming, and permit him to move for any additional witnesses to those he had already named, and whom he should deem requisite in the progress of the business. The witnesses, for whose attendance to-morrow he should now move, were Lieutenant-colonel Knight, of the 5th dragoon guards ; Major Brooke; Dr. Andrew Thynne, of Berner- street; Robert Knight, Esq. of Dean-street, Audley-square; and Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke, of Westbourne-place, Sloane-square. Those several persons were accordingly ordered to at- tend, as were the proper persons from the office of Messrs. Cox and Biddulph, bankers, with their banking-book for July last. It was also ordered that Mr. Biddulph, a mem- ber of the house, do attend in his place to-morrow. February 1, 1809. Mr. Wardle, in proceeding to the investigation he pro- posed, felt it necessary to call the attention of the com- mittee to a few preliminary observations. He hoped that in the statements he had already made to the house, he had not uttered a single word which could justify a suspicion that he was actuated either by party motives, or any thing like personal animosity towards the com- mander-in-chief. He trusted his conduct on the occasion had been open and candid. When first he proposed this investigation he had offered an entire list of all the wit- nesses. He had never kept any thing a secret from the house, and God forbid he should attempt to sustain his charges by any proofs but such as it became a man of honour to offer. He felt it necessary, however, to advert to some strong remarks which had fallen from a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke) on a former night, 29. PROGEEDINGs RELATIVE To which were not relevant to the subject before the house, and which, he thought, might better have been omitted. He had a right, to appear in his place as a member of parliament, the accuser of the commander-in-chief; and it was the privilege of gentlemen on the other side of the house candidly to deliver their opinions on the subject: but he did not expect to be attacked in his personal cha- racter, or his conduct imputed to private motives, with- out any foundation in justice. Much was said about the licentiousness of the press, the spirit of jacobinism, and of a conspiracy to overturn the illustrious house of Bruns- wick. Nothing, however, which he had said had any thing to do with the licentiousness of the press. There was no man within or without that house who abhorred jacobin principles more than himself, unless by jacobin was meant an enemy to corruption, for such he was, whether it existed in great or little men; and as to con- spiracy against the house of Brunswick, if any man pre- sumed to charge such a motive to him, it was the duty of that man openly and manfully to follow up his accusa- tion by proofs. As to jacobinism indeed, if his principles had tended that way, he should have adopted a contrary conduct; and, instead of opposing, had cherished corrup- tion, until it undermined the government. His object, on the contrary, was to check corruption, to serve his coun- try, and to prevent in time those dreadful effects which are the certain consequences of corruption. A right honour- able gentleman had said on the former night, that he could give no credit to the charges against the commander- in-chief, because he had been so intimately acquainted with him for twenty years, that had any such transactions taken place, he must have known of them ; but, as he knew of none such, the charges must in consequence be false. He would, however, undertake to prove the exist- ence not merely of those comparatively slight transactions under investigation, but of others to a most enormous amount, which, most probably, were unknown to the right honourable gentleman, and which were the cause of the breach between Mrs. Clarke and his Itoyal Highness. He was aware of the difficulties opposed to him in such a - pursuit. He was aware there were many members in that fiouse, who might be supposed to lean more toward the ‘commander-in-chief than towards a private individual like himself. [Order, order, order!] He was confident THE comm ANPER IN CHIEF. 91 no member of that house would be actuated by motives of partiality in this case. [Hear, hear, hear !] He threw himself upon the honour, the-candour, and indulgence of the committee, and without frespassing further on their attention, would proceed to evidence. . Mr. Yorke said, as the honourable gentleman had al- duded to some words which had fallen from him on a former night, he must -beg leave to explain. So far from casting any censure on the honourable gentleman, or imputing to him any hostile motives towards the Duke of York, he said his Royal Highness must feel obliged to him for putting the rumours, long industriously propa- gated on this subject, into a tangible shape. What he had said about jacobinism and licentiousness of the press, had no relation at all ‘to the honourable gentleman, but applied to other topics, which must have been passing at the moment in every man's mind who heard him, and not to what fell from the honourable gentleman. Mr. JWardle then read an extract from the flondon Gazette, of the 30th July, 1805, announcing the promotion of Colonel Brooke, from the 56th regiment to the 5th dra- goon guards, vice Lieutenant-colonel Knight, exchanged, and said he gave this as competent proof of the ex- change. . . . . . . #. first witness called was Dr. Andrew Thynne; and he was examined upon questions suggested by Mr. YVardle. But before his examination, Mr. Wardle assured the committee, that he very reluctantly, and against the gentleman's own wishes, called him as a wit- mess. He had no other concern in the business than merely the inadvertent delivery of a message, which, upon mature reflection, he most probably would have declined. - c 22 } FIRST DAY. wÉDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1. List of Witnesses gramined. --- ANDREW THYNE, M. D. ROBERT RNIGHT, Esq. . GENERAL NORTON, (a member.) Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. (a Member.) G. L. WARDLE, Esq. (a Member.) COLONEL GORDON. M. WHART.on in the Chair. The following entry in the Gazette, p. 970, was read: - War Office, July 30th, 1805. “ 56th regiment of foot; brevet lieutenant- “ colonel Raleigh Knight, from the 5th “dragoon guards to be major; vice Brooke, “Who exchanges.” ANDREW THYNNE, Esq. M. D. Did you attend Mrs. Clarke, in your professional line, in July, 1805 I have attended Mrs. Clarke for the last seven years: I do not recol- lect that it was in July, 1805, more than any other time. I have known her for seven or eight years, and in different situations; I have attended her when she was ill. - Did you ever, by the desire of any person, apply to Mrs. Clarke respecting an exchange between Lieutenant-colonel Kiº. and Lieute- nant-colonel Brooke? I have applied to Mrs. Clarke respecting the exchange of Lieutenant-colonel Knight and Lieutenant-colonel Brooke. The application I made was in consequence of an application made to me by an old and valuable friend, Mr. Robert Knight, the brother of the lieutenant-colonel. He understood I was acquainted with Mrs. Clarke, he begged I would speak to her to expedite the exchange; and I did speak to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject, and delivered her the message I got from Mr. Knight, and his brother, the lieutenant-colo- nel to whom I was then introduced. What passed upon that subject between Mrs. Clarke and yourself? I was authorized to tell Mrs. Clarke and that she would receive a certain sum of money; I specified the sum of 200l. For what was the sum specified; upon what event was that sum offered? It was offered for the purpose of inducing Mrs. Clarke to expedite the exchange. The exchange was to take place in the office in a certain length of time; it began in the office; some delays and pit. ‘THYNNE’s Examination. 23 impediments were expected, and, in order to remove those impedi- ments and those delays, I was authorized to say, that such a sum would be given to her, if she would exert herself to expedite this ex- Achange. *śgh what medium was it expected she should obtain that ex- change? I am sure I cannot answer that question; I should suppose it was pretty well known that she was acquainted with a great person- age at that time; I know nothing about that ; I was desired to deliver a message, and I did nothing more than deliver a message, from an old friend to Mrs. Clarke, to induce her to expedite an exchange be- tween two officers. Was it not under the consideration and conviction of her, at that time, being under the protection of the Commander in Chief, that such application was made to her? Of course, if Mrs. Clarke was not thought likely to expedite the thing, no application would have been made to her. I understand you expressly to have stated, that you offered her 200l. for expediting this exchange: I wish to ask how many days, to the best of your recollection, there were between the application and the exchange being notified in the Gazette.” I really cannot be accurate in that respect, for it made so little impression upon my mind, that I merely recollect having delivered the message. I was anxious to oblige my friend, Mr. Robert Knight, but it did not concern me, and I cannot bring my mind to tell the exact period between the applica- tion and the Gazette; but I believe, it was a good deal expedited by Mrs. Clarke. & Do you think, to the best of your recollection, it occurred within a few days dra week? I protest I cannot bear it in mind; but, I believe, a fortnight or three weeks elapsed before it was done. I cannot speak positively to that. Ihad nothing to do with the transaction but barel $o deliver that message, and that message made no impression whatever upon my mind. Did Mrs. Clarke communicate to you the circumstance of the ex- Achange being gazetted? Mrs. Clarke sent the Gazette to my house, in consequence of the message I delivered to her from Messrs. Knight; the moment I received the Gazette I sent it to the parties. No money ever passed through my hands. If Mrs. Clarke received money she received it through some other quarter. I solemnly declare, that no money passed through my hands whatever, I sent the Ga- zette to the parties, and what they did with the Gazette I do not Caſe. g Did Mr. Robert Knight alone authorize you to offer the 200l. or was Lieutenant-colonel Knight a party to that offer; I was entirely influ- enced by Mr. Robert Knight; his lady was an old patient of mine: he was always a great friend of mine. I had nothing to refuse Mr. Ro- bert Knight. Lieutenant-colonel Knight I knew little of at this time; I was introduced to him by his brother; but I was certainly influenced by Mr. Robert Knight, and by nobody else. * Is the committee to understand, that Lieutenant-colonel Knight was present when this authority was given to you to offer the 2004. am sure I cannot answer that; for I saw Mr. Robert Knight at his own house, sometimes privately, and sometimes in the company of his brother; and the transaction made so little impression upon my mind, that, after a lapse of three or four years, it is not possible for me to re. 24 D.R. THYNNE’s ExAMrNArion. late all the circumstances; but I was influenced by Mr. Robert . ht, who, as a man, I have the greatest esteem and regard for to this hour. . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . Did you request Mrs. Clarke to apply to the Duke of York, for the purpose of expediting the exchange of Lieutenant-colonel Knight, in consideration of the 200l. she was to receive? I do not exactly un- derstand the question: I beg it to be explained. . . . . : Whether you requested of Mrs. Clarke to apply to the Duke of York to expedite this exchange between Lieutenant-colonel Knight and Colonel Brooke, and in consequence of that application, told her she would receive the 200l. 2 The thing is understood; I could not have applied, nor should have applied to Mrs. Clarke unless she had the means of expediting the thing; it was understood at the time that she had the means. y r - - How did you understand that Mrs. Clarke possessed the means of expediting that exchange : It was understood at the time that she had some influence. + - - - - - - * [The witness was directed to withdraw, and when re-admitted, was directed by the Chairman to answer to facts within his absolute knowledge, and not to his understanding or surmise.] - Did you or not request Mrs. Clarke to apply to the Duke of York to expedite that exchange I applied to Mrs. Clarketó beg of her to interest herself on behalf of Lieutenant-colonel Knight, and to expedite the exchange. * Did you or not apply to Mrs. Clarke to request her to apply to the Duke of York to expeditethat exchange 2 Yes, I did so, I acknowledge that, if she had it in her power. - - Was it for that purpose the 200l. was offered to Mrs. Clarke? For that sole purpose. - . . . . ; In this conversation, was the Duke of York's name personally men- tioned I am sure I cannot recollect, I cannot take upon myself to say so. It is impossible for me to recollect every circumstance of a mes- sage delivered between three and four years ago. . . . . * Was your application to Mrs, Clarke merely to expedite the exchange without inentioning the manner in which it was to be expedited? Cer- tainly, without mentioning the particalar manner; it was to facilitate and to expedite the exchange. . - - - - - - Through, what medium was it expected that she should obtain that exchange I am sure I cannot answer that question; I should suppose it was pretty well known that she was acquainted with a great personage at that time. I know nothing about that. I was desired to deliver a message, and I did nothing more than deliver a message from an old friend to Mrs. Clarke, to induce her to expedite an exchange between two officers. - - . . . | §: was that great personage? It was understood the Commander in hief. # * - At the time you spoke of this exchange to Mrs. Clarke, did you give the names in writing to Mrs. Clarke? I believe I did on a slip of paper; and on that paper I believe I wrote, Lieutenant-colonel Knight wishes to exchange with Lieutenant-colouel Brooke; if I did not write it down myself, she wrote it; it was given in writing. .. Subsequent to your application to Mrs. Clarke, did she at any time communicate to you, that she had used her influence, for the purpose expressed, with the Duke of York? I do not know that I had seen DR. THYNNE’s ExAMINATIon. 25 TMrs. Clarke from the first communication till she had sent the Gazette to my house; that Gazette proved that the exchange was accom- lished; that Gazette I sent to the parties; and that is all ſ had to do ith the transaction. 3 4. ..When that Gazette was sent by Mrs. Clarke, did she communicate to you, that it was by her means the exchange had been obtained Mrs. Clarke accompanied the Gazette with a note, to say that the ex- change was accomplished, and that she was going out of town in a day ..or two, and that the 200l. would be very convenient. Are you certain that those were the whole contents of the note *. That was the impression upon my mind at the time. This is a transac- tion between three and four years ago, and having thought so little about it, I cannot be supposed to know all the circumstances; but [. recollect receiving a note, and I recollect receiving a Gazette; the Gazette I sent to the parties: and I cannot recollect any thing more than I have stated. 4. w 4 -. Since that period, has Mrs. Clarke ever communicated to you, that it was by her means it was obtained? Mrs. Clarke never said any thing to me more than sending the Gazette; for, from my first application to the receipt of the Gazette, I do not recollect having seen Mrs. Clarke; or if I did see her, it was merely to enquire whether any progress was making in the exchange. Has any communication of that kind been made since the sending the Gazette I do not recollect having had any such communication; at the same time, I believe it was expedited by her means. Have you preserved that note No. I have not preserved it, cer- tainly; I considered the note as one not concerning me, and I sent it to the parties with the Gazette. * * Had you any reason besides your own surmise, for believing that this exchange was expedited by the interference of Mrs. Clarke : If I recollect right, I understood that the exchange would be ob- tained in the regular way, in the course, of time; but Mr. Knight, whether from ill health, or what other reason I know not, was desirous of having it done expeditiously; and it was in consequence of that, and his brother’s wish, that I applied to Mrs. Clarke in the first in- stance. , “ Have you any reason but your own surmise, for believing, that this exchange was expedited by the interference of Mrs, Clarke No other reason on earth. t 3. * --> When you made this application, did you not know that Mrs. Clarke was living with the Duke of York, and immediately under his protection? It was so understood at the time. Did you ever see the Commander in Chief at Mrs. Clarke’s? Never. Of your own knowledge, do you know of such a relative situation between those two parties? I liever saw the Duke of York there in my life. 'B'. you recollect the manner in which the proposition was at first made, engaging Mrs. Clarke's interest? When I first spoke to Mrs. Clarke, she seemed to suppose there were some difficulties in the way, and she spoke a good deal about secrecy, and of the danger that she should run if this ever transpired. i Do you recollect what words she used when she expressed that sentiment? It is impossible for me, at this length of time, to recollect the precise words, but the meaning I am clearin, & 26 MR. KNIGHT's EXAMINATIow, You have said that Mrs. Clarke expressed a great desire that it should be kept secret; did she mean secret from the Duke of York, as well as the rest of the world? That is a matter of surmise. - Did you not understand from Mr. Knight, that the exchange al- Juded to was in a train of being effected, previous to Mrs. Clarke’s in- terest being solicited? ... I understood the thing would have happened in the course of time. Mr. Knight wished to have the thing expedited, I know not from what motive; and it was to expedite it that he begged of me to speak to Mrs. Clarke. The exchange was a simple, fair thing, as I supposed, and would have gone through the office in the regular way. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. ROBERT KNIGHT, Esq. Did you desire Dr. Thynne to use his influence with Mrs. Clarke to have an exchange between your brother, Lieutenant-colonel Knight, and Lieutenant-colonel Brook, carried into effect? I did. Did you authorize Dr. Thynne to hold out sº sonal tempta- tion to Mrs. Clarke, to induce her to carry the point? Yes, To what amount did you authorize Dr. Thynne to offer Mrs. Clarke? Two hundred pounds. * * After the exchange was effected, did you, by yourself or any other person, give any sum of money to Mrs. Clarke? Yes. tº To what amount? . Two hundred pounds. 3- Had Colonel Knight any positive promise from the Commander in YChief for this exchange with Colonel Brooke, prior to such application to Mrs. Clarke? My brother applied in the regular way to †. Duke of York, and received the usual official answer on the subject, that whenever a proper successor could be found, there would be no ob- jection to the exchange taking place. Do you know of any positive promise of the Commander in Chief, prior to º application to Mrs. Clarke, that that exchange should take lace 2 No. Why was the application made to Mrs. Clarke? There was some delay in the business, from what cause I do nºt know, and I stated that circumstance to Dr. Thynne, who happened to be attending my family at the time. He replied that he thought he could be of ser: rice, by applying to a friend of his, Mrs. Clarke. I told him I should be much obliged to him if he would apply to her, and that I should be happy to give 200l. if the business could be carried into effect, as my brother was in a very bad state of health at the time, and I was very desirous that he should exchange to infantry, for the purpose of going upon half-pay, that he might recover his #. I believe he had served as long as any man in the country of his age, and suffered by it; he had served twenty-three years, and I believe he has been in every battle during the French Revolution; and it was my anxiet to serve him, that has placed me in this painful and distressing sir £uation. How did you send the 200l. to Mrs. Clarke? Under a blank cover, as far as my recollection serves me, by my servant. I do not think º I made any observation in the enclosure, but directed it simply to her. * * , iſ R. KNIGHT's ExAMINAT ion. 27 • Did you see Mrs. Clarke soon after the notice in the Gazette that the exchange was effected, and for what purpose did you see her ? I saw her, I think, in the month of September, for the purpose of thanking her. & - Upon that occasion did Mrs. Clarke desire you to be secret with respect to this transaction; and did she assign any, and what reason for that secrecy? She did intreat me to keep it a secret, lest it should come to the Duke of York’s ears. Have you seen Mrs. Clarke within the last month, and how did it happen that you saw her?. She wrote to beg that I would come to her, about a month ago; to which letter I made no reply. She wrote a second letter, as far as my recollection serves me, about ten days ago. I went to her, and she asked me the name of the officer who had ex- changed with my brother; I told her. She made a number of com- plaints of her having been ill treated by the Duke of York; that he had deserted her and left her in debt, I think to the amount of 2000l. ; and that she was determined, unless she could bring him to terms, to ex- ose him in the manner in which she is now endeavouring to do. I said that that was her affair, but that I trusted she would not introduce either me or my brother. She said, Q good God no, by no means, it is not my intention, you can have nothing at all to do with it. That passed in the drawing-room; and I took my leave, and heard nothing of her since; and I was very much surprized to hear of my name being mentioned in the way in which it has. I was thunderstruck at its being done without any notice. Had Colonel Brooke's name been mentioned to the Duke of York to exchange with your brother, previously to the application to Mrs. Clarke? I think I have already replied, that the application was made in the regular way. I do not know it; but by a reference to the office, the papers will speak for themselves. I cannot speak from my own knowledge to that. * - You have stated, that your reason for applying to Mrs. Clarke was, that a delay existed in the exchange taking place; do you, of your own knowledge, know where those delays took place, in what office? In the Duke of York's office, I suppose. Can you state in what department of the office? I fancy that Co- lonel Gordon was secretary at the time. You have mentioned that you sent the bank notes in a cover by our servant; at what time of the day did you send those notes? I ăm pretty sure it was in the former part of the day, rather early in the morning. - Were they bank notes that were sent? That I cannot charge my memory with. Was it one or two notes? . Upon my word I cannot venture to say, but I rather think in two bank notes. Can you say from whom you received the bank notes? Upon my word I cannot ; it is a long while ago, nearly four years. How long was this before your brother was gazetted? The sending was after he was gazetted. How long before your brother was gazetted did you speak to Dr. Thynne? fshould think the negotiation went on near a fortnight, or from a fortnight to three weeks, as far as my recollection serves me. Did you ever receive any note from Mrs. Clarke with the Gazette?’ No, it was from Dr. Thynne I received the communication. #28 MR. KNIGHT's ExAMINATION. Did you receive any letter from Dr. Thynne?, That I do not re. scollect. + - ' . T- t - * ‘. . . . ; From Mrs. Clarke to Dr. Thynne? No; I do not think that I saw any letter. t . . . . . id you ever receive any letter from Mrs. Clarke, except what you have mentioned in your former evidence? I have received se- veral letters from her, subsequent to the transaction. , , , , º, . . . . . Respecting this transaction? No; I do not think I received any from her respecting this transaction. . . . . . . . . . ; N Did you receive any answer to the note transmitting the bank notes? Oné, , • . ... " . . . . Did your brother, to your knowledge, ever apply to the command- ing officer of the 56th regiment, to recommend the exchange to the Commander in Chief ? I do not know, I believe he did; I am pretty. sure that he did. x . ... ." . . . . . Do you recollect about what time? Upon my word I do not. Did you receive from Dr. Thynne the Gazette containing the acr count of the exchange? It now occurs to me that I went to the office for the Gazette, myself, somewhere about Chancery-lane; I got it my- self from the Gazette office. Iłow long a time elapsed between the first application being made at the Commander-in-Chief's office, and the second application to Mrs. Clarke through Dr. Thynne? I think, as I said before, about from a fortnight to three weeks. . . . . * How long a time elapsed between the first applicatiou being made at the Commander in Chief's office, and the second application to Mºukº, through Dr. Thynne? Upon my word, I cannot say exactly. . . . Ajit what time? It might have been ten days; but I cannot speak accurately. **. * , T You have stated, that you went to the Gazette office to fetch the Gazette; had you any reason to suppose that the exchange would be announced in that particular Gazette, or did you go upon every pub- lication to fetch the Gazette, to see whether it was inserted? I think 1 went three times in the whole. - . In point of fact, before this transaction took place, had you ever learned from Mrs. Clarke that she did apply to his Royal #. the Commander in Chief to expedite this exchange? I cannot tell; I did not become acquainted with her till after the exchange was notified in the Gazette, about six weeks afterwards. ! In the conversations you have since had with Mrs. Clarke, did you ever understand from her that she had, in fact, applied to the Com- mander in Chief to expedite the exchange Of course, she took credit to herself for expediting the business. You have no reason for presuming it, but that she took that credit; you do not know that she actually applied? I am not bound to draw inferences. 4. - Did you ever, learn from Mrs. Clarke, that she actually applied ? She told me she had applied, certainly, when I saw her in September. To whom did she say she had applied ? To the Duke of York. At the time she said she had applied to the Duke of York, were the Duke of York and she living upon terms ? I do not know that of my own knowledge. - + Mr. KNIGHT's ExAMrNATIon. 29, • When this conversation took place, did Mrs. Clarke reside in Glou– cester-place? Yes.. - Was it after she said she had applied to the Duke of York, that she requested the transaction might be kept secret? Yes, it was after, certainly. In point of fact, did you send the 200l. to Mrs. Clarke for any other’reason than her interference in expediting the exchange? I certainly sent it her to do all in her power to accelerate the exchange. Did not Dr. Thynne transmit to you a Gazette, after the exchange had taken place between your brother and Colonel Brooke 2 I do not know but he might. . • • Was that accompained with any note from Mrs. Clarke to Dr. Thynne? I do not remember that it was. Was it after you had sent the 200l. to Mrs. Clarke, that Mrs. Clarke expressed her desire that it should be kept secret Certainly. as the fact which Mrs. Clarke desired should be kept secret from the Duke of York, the receipt of the 200l. which you sent her ? Yes. • Did she expressly desire you to conceal from the Duke of York your having paid her 200l.; did she use those words, or, as nearl as you can recollect, what words did she use She requested that the whole business might be kept a secret. Did she express herself particularly, during the conversation, as to the money, or was it one general conversation as to the transaction itself? As to the transaction itself. - Was that wish of Mrs. Clarke, that the matter might be kept secret, at the last interview you had with her about ten days ago? No; it was in the month of September, 1805, subsequent to the transaction in question. • How long, previously to that interview, had the money been trans- mitted? It was the day after the transaction was notified in the Gazette; I believe the next morning. * Did Mrs. Clarke, in expressing a wish that the transaction might be kept secret, express a , wish that the Duke of York might not know that you had any thing to do with it? . Certainly." • Was not her wish expressed, that it might be kept a secret from the public? From him, the Duke of York. Repeat, as nearly as possible, the conversation that passed upon that subject. Upon my word, I do not see how I can exactly; it is a long while ago. It is impossible that I should repeat her words. What expression did Mrs. Clarke use, that you now recollect, which enables you to state that it was not from the public, but from the Duke of York himself, that she wished it to be kept secret She begged it might be kept a secret from the Duke of York. I do not know how to shape my answer in any other way; it is impossible to recollect every word that passed four years ago. Did she add to that request, or did she join with that request, that our having anything to do with it might be kept from the Duke of ork? She was anxious that the whole transaction might be kept from him. - - Did she say, or give you to understand directly, that the Duke of York would object to your being a party in the transaction, more, pro- bably, than to any other person? No, Do you know that this exchange took place in consequence of your 30 MRs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATIow. application to Mrs. Clarke? I cannot say that I know it; it is impos- sible that I can say that, for the application had been in the War-office some time previous to the transaction with Mrs. Clarke; I should think it must have been in the office from ten days to a fortnight, but I can- not speak exactly; but that is a fact very easily §: at by reference to the War-office; the correspondence is to be found, no doubt. Did you ever ask Mrs. Clarke whether she applied to his Royal Highness the Duke of York to expedite the exchange It does not occur to my mind that I asked her that question. Did she ever say that she had applied to the Duke of York? I un- derstood that she had applied to the Duke, most certainly. Did Mrs. Clarke appear more anxious that the transaction might be kept a secret from the Duke of York than from the public? The public was never mentioned in the business. Was the Gazette, which was transmitted to you from Dr. Thynne, transmitted in a blank cover, or with any letter from the Doctor Ł do not remember. t - . *, *. When Mrs. Clarke told you, that, unless the Duke of York made terms, she would expose him; did she state what measures she was taking to expose the Duke of York? No. & Do you recollect the expressions that she made use of She stated that she had been ill-treated by him, and deserted by him, and left in debt; and that if he did not pay those debts (I understood her so, how- ever,) she certainly would expose him. . * - Do you recollect whether you, or Dr. Thynne, first mentioned the name of Mrs. Glarke, in the conversation you had together? I think it was Dr. Thynne; I became acquainted with her through him. Was the interview you had in September, 1805, the first personal interview you had with Mrs Clarke? Yes; but I will not be positive as to its being in September; it might have been the latter end of August; it was the latter end of the year. 1 That was the first interview you had with her? Yes, it was. Where did Mrs. Clarke reside when you sent the 200l. to her ? I have already stated, in Gloucester-place. : Had you any particular reason for sending the money early in the morning? No, no particular reason; I should have been sorry to have disturbed the family. - - [The witness was directed to withdraw. A member present observing that it would be proper to examine the commanding officer of the 56th regiment; general the honourable Chappel Norton said;—“I cannot speak to the time; but Colonel Knight certainly applied to me, and explained himself very fully and very satisfactorily to me, or I should not have recommended the ex- thange, which I did.” Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE. Did you reside in Gloucester-place, in a house of the Duke of York’s, in July, 1805 : Yes, I did. Did you live under his protection? Yes, I did. - Do you recollect Dr. Thynne about that period attending you in his professional line He attended me, I believe, about that time. Do you recollect that an application was made to you by Dr. # Rs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 3# Thynne, to effect an exchange between Lieutenant-colonel Knight and Lieutenant-colonel Brooke 2 Yes I do. Do you recollect that he urged great dispatch? Yes. Did he hold out any expectation of a pecuniary compliment pro- vided you effected the exchange? Certainly he did. Do you recollect his mentioning any particular sum ? Yes, I think he did say something about a couple of hundred pounds. Do you recollect that Dr. Thynne told you, that Colonel Knight had been longendeavouring to get the exchange? Yes, I do. Did you afterwards speak to the Commander-in-Chief upen the sub- ject? Yes, I did. How did you mention the business to him? I told him of it, and I gave him the slip of paper that Dr. Thynne gave me, with their names, just after dinner. - Did you at the same time state to the Commander-in-Chief, that you were to have any peeuniary advantage, provided the exchange took place? ... His Royal Highness asked me, if I knew the parties, and I said I did not, that they would make me a compliment. Did you state the amount of the compliment you were to have 2 # am not certain that I did. Are you certain that you mentioned to the Commander-in-Chief, that you were to have any pecuniary compliment? I told his Royal Highness, that I did not know the men at all, and certainly they woułd . me some sort of compliment; I did not know them then. When the exchange appeared in the Gazette, do you recollect send- ing it to Dr. Thynne? Yes, I do. Do you recollect sending any note with that Gazette 2 Yes. Do F. recollect afterwards receiving any pecuniary consideration? Yes, I do. f How much? A 200l. bank note was sent me. How was that 200l. bank note sent you? It was sent me inclosed in a note, with Dr. Thynne's compliments. Do you mean to say, that the person who brought it, brought com- pliments, or that there were any written compliments: l think it was written in the note. After receiving the 200l. do you recollect at any time making that sircumstance known to the Commander-in-Chicf Yes, I do. When did you mention it to him : The same day. What passed upon the subject; I only merely said, that they had kept their promise. #. the Commander-in-Chief know from you the amount of the money you had received He knew the amount, because I shewed him the note; and I think that I got one of his servants to get it exchanged .#for me through his Royal Highness. Where were you immediately before you came to the bar of this house? In some room about this place. Did you see any, and what, people there whom you knew? I saw Captain Thömson there; Mrs. Metcalfe, the wife of Dr. Metcalfe : Miss Clifford, the lady who was with me; Mr. Wardle came in for a minute; Dr. Thynne and his son. s: any, and what, conversation pass between you and Mr. Wardle OI) e. Not a word? He asked me how I did, and spoke to a lady there.” 82 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. No other conversation passed between you and him None. . . . Has any conversation passed between you and Dr. Thynne, since he has been examined in this house? Yes, he has been sitting with me nearly ever since. . . . . - i. - To what purpose was that conversation between you? Not at all relative to this business, it has not been addressed to me, it has been addressed to the two ladies with me, entirely, * Repeat as much of that conversation as you can recollect. I could not repeat after Dr. Thynne, if his character is known at all to the gen- tlemen here, it would be very indelicate; he has merely been i. at the gentlemen here. ºr . Do you know Mr. Robert Knight, and how long have you known him I know Mr. Robert Knight; he took an opportunity of calling upon me, to thank me for getting his brother so quickly through the business, soon after I came to town, about a month or six weeks after- wards, in company with Mr. Biddulph. . * - Was it in the month of September? I do not know exactly the month, it was soon after. - - . What was the conversation which passed between you at that meet- ing? It is so long since, it is impossible for me to recollect; but Mt. Knight thanked me for getting the exchange for his brother, as he had been trying some months before, and I did it so very quickly; and Mr. Biddulph had some favour to ask of me. - $ & Did you, upon that occasion, desire Mr. Robert Knight to keep se- cret this transaction ? Yes; I should think that I did, certainly I should say that; I do not recollect saying it, but it is very likely that I did. ' - - Do you recollect expressing a wish that it might be kept secret, lest it should come to the ears of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? O no, never. - Or any thing to that eſſect? Nothing like it. . 3. Are you quite sure of that ? Positive. - When you mentioned to the Duke of York, that you were to receive a compliment for promoting the exchange of commissions between these officers, did his Itoyal Highness make any remark upon that; and if he did, what was it? He told me, that he knew the business very well, that they had been trying at it some time, and that he thought one of them was rather a bad subject; but he would do it. When you mentioned to the Duke of York, after the exchange had taken place, that you had received a compliment, and shewed him the note of id: that compliment consisted, did his Royal Highness then make any observation? Not that I recollect; it was finished. * . . . - * At what time was this application first made to you? Two or three days before it took place, or a couple of days. Was it not gazetted on the Saturday . I do not recollect. Can you be sure it was not more than three days before it was gazetted, that the application was made to you ? I do not think it was... I think I might guess at the time of the year. What time of the year was it? His Royal Highness was going down to Weymouth on the night that I changed the note, which was the reason that I got the note changed ; my servants could not get it changed, and his servant got it changed for me, Lord Chesterfield's A Mrs. CLARKE's Examination. 33 family was going down, and he was going to be godfather to Lord Chesterfield's child: it was the end of July, or the beginning of Au- St. *When did you first mention this transaction to Colonel Wardle? I mentioned it to others before I ever mentioned it to him. r When did you first mention it to Colonel Wardle? I do not recol- lect. About how long ago? It must have been very lately. Why do you say that it must have been very lately Because I speak from the fact. - How long ago did you mention, it to Colonel Wardle? I should think within a month; he had heard it from other quarters than from me, and attacked me upon it. Had you any knowledge of Colonel Wardle before he attacked you upon it? Yes, I had. What had led to your knowledge of Colonel Wardle before that time 2 Himself. º Are you speaking of a time before the attack he made upon you with respect to this transaction? Yes, I knew him before ever he attacked me upon this subject. - How long? I suppose six months. . . Had you ever mentioned the transaction voluntarily to Colonel Wardle, till he attacked you upon it He asked me if it was true, and I told him yes. Had you stated this voluntarily of your own consent to Colonel Wardle, or only in answer to his enquiries When Mr. Wardle told me he had heard of it, and mentioned the circumstance to me, I said yes, it was true; that was all I said; I did not think I should be . brought here upon it, or I might have been very apt to deny it. Would you willingly have concealed it? I concealed it from the be- ginning, it was not a public thing: certainly, any thing which ought to be private, I have sense enough to keep as such. I believe Mr. Knight spoke of it himself—it had got round. Who were those other persons that you spoke to of it, besides Mr. Wardle? A few of my friends, I do not recollect who ; I am not without friends. How came you to mention to a few of your friends, whom you can- not recollect, a transaction which you say ought to have been kept secret, and which you think came forward only from Mr. Knighi’s mentioning it? I did not say that I mentioned it, I said that my friends mentioned it, and that then I said it was all very true. When you mentioned this transaction to Colonel Wardle, did you give the same account of it which you have given to-day ? No, I did hot. * w Which was the true account? Both. - In what did the two accounts differ? I do not see that they differ at all, I did not enter so into detail as I do now. Was the difference between your accounts, that you were shorter in the account you gave to Colonel Wardle, than in the account you have given to-day ? Considerably. • ' Can you recollect the day on which Dr. Thynne applied to you ? The day of the month, or the day of the week? ...' Either? I do not, it was such a trifling affair. 1. 34 Mrs. Cr,ARKE's ExAMINATIon. Cannot you tax your recollection upon either one or the other # ot upon such a trifling occasion. Have you not told Colonel Wardle on what day Dr. Thynne applied to you? No, I have not. • id ". tell Colonel Wardle that the application was made to Yºu on a Thursday, and that it was gazetted on the Saturday? No, I did not; I might as well have said Tuesday as Thursday, I do not recol- lect anything about days or dates. Have you told the House now, all that you told Colonel Wardle upon the subject? I have answered that before; I have told the ouse more than I have told him a great deal; I told them that I did not go into the detail with him that I have with the House. ... Have you told the House every thing that you mentioned to him? Upon what subject? * Upon this subject? Yes, I have, and a great deal more. at have you told the House to-day, which you have not told Colonel Wardle? I mentioned it but slightly to him, and I have told §yerything here that I recollect, except a slight conversation between his gal ighness and myself, which I suppose it is not necessary to repeat. [The witness was directed to withdraw, and a short discussion took place, in which the Attorney General disclaimed any disrespect to Colonel Wardle, in his examination: and the witness was again called in.] What circumstances have you mentioned to the House relative to this transaction, which you did not mention to Colonel Wardle? I did not mention to Colonel Wardle that I shewed the note to his Royal High- ness, nor did I tell him that his Royal Highness got change for it; it was for me that he #: change, he was going out of town at one o'clock, and I at four, and I wanted the change to leave some with my servants in town, and some I wanted with me; I did not enter into that detail with Colonel Wardle. Is that the only circumstance that you have mentioned to the House, and did not mention to Colonel Wardle 2 No, it is not. State the other circumstances which you did not mention to Colonel Wardle. I did not say much to Colonel Wardle at all, it was very trifling what I mentioned to him; he had heard it from other quarters, and asked me if it was true, and I said yes. * $ Had you any intention to have mentioned this, if Colonel Wardle had not asked you? It was in conversation it was mentioned. * * Should you have mentioned this to Colonel Wardle, if Colonel War- dle had not mentioned it to you? Perhaps I might, and perhaps I might not. * Had you any object in mentioning it either to him or to any other person? None whatever. Had you any end to acceomplish by making this known Certainly Il Ot, have you ever stated, that you had any ground of complaint against his Royal Highness? All my friends know that I have. Have you ever stated to any one, that you had grounds of complaint against his Royal Highness? To many I have stated it. Have you not stated, that if his Royal Highness did not comply with your demands, you would expose him f told Mr. William Adam, MRs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATION. 35 in a letter, that if he did not fulfil his promises and the Duke's by pay- ing me the annuity, for which Mr. Adam was the guarantee, and which Mr. Adam promised me should be regularly and punctually paid me, that I should be necessitated to expose his Royal Highness's letters, that was all. Have you never said, that if his Royal Highness did net come to your terms, you would expose him No, never in my life. Never to any one? Never to any one whatever; nor is it willing at all in me now. I was very angry, in that letter, and perhaps Mr. º will produce it; that goes to the worst part that ever I said or acted. Is it only in one letter that you have threatened to expose his Royal Highness? Two I have written to Mr. Adam; that is all, to any one. Were there threat in bºth the letter; They are not threats: I Solicited. * * * * Did you say in those letters that you would expose his Royal High- ness? Mr. Adam, I suppose, has the letters; and, if he is in the House, will perhaps produce them. Did you accompany your solicitations by saying, that if they were not complied with, you would expose the Duke I do not recollect that I did, but you had better ask for the letters. Did you never make any declaration of that sort to any other person No, never. Did you never state to any other person, that if your terms were not complied with, you would expose the Duke, or use any terms to that effect? I have told you before, I did not. t Are you quite certain of that? Yes, quite. Did you ever tell Mr. Wardle that you wanted this 200l. for a par- ticular purpose No, I did not. e Did you not say to Mr. Robert Knight, that if his Royal High- . did not come into your terms, you would expose him? No, I ld not. Did you ever say any thing to that effect to Mr. Robert Knight 2 No, I did not; I told him I was going to publish the Duke's letters, tº pay the creditors, which his Royal Highness had refused. His Royal Highness had insisted that I should plead my marriage to avoid the debts, or that I might go to prison, that was his last mes- Sage to me. * When was that message sent? I should think six weeks or two months since; my lawyer can tell, the message went to him. Who is your lawyer? Mr. Comrie was my lawyer. tº Who was your lawyer then? Mr. Stokes who lives in Golden- Square. tº He was your lawyer when that message was sent? He received the message, and came with it to me. Who carried the message to him A man in the employ of Mr. William Adam, a sort of lawyer. º * Did Mr. Knight come voluntarily to you, or did }. send for him? I was in the habit of writing to Mr. Knight, since we had been intimate, after the affair of his brother. I wrote him one or two letters, and told him where I lived, and told him to call when he came to town ; I dare say he has the letters, which will resolve the question at once. Did you not write to him, to desire him to come, particularly upon 36 wns, c1,&nke's ExAMINATION, the occasion when you told him you should publish the Duke's ſets . ters? No, certainly I did not. : * Did you not send to him, to desire that he would call upon you, and when he came, tell him, that you intended to publish the Duke's let- ters ? ... I must refer you to the letters; it was only a common sort of letter that I am in the habit perhaps of writing to many more gentle- men, besides Mr. Knight. You have mentioned, that you were advised to plead your mar- riage; are you married ? It is of no consequence at all about my hus- band, that has nothing to do with it; Mr. Adam can tell who I am. Are you a married woman or not? You have no reason to doubt it. [The witness was informed by the Chairman, that she must give a direct answer to the question.] I am a married woman; there is no'question which I will not answer, though it may be unpleasant. How long have you been married? I refer you to Mr. William Adam, he has my certificate. ,” How long have you been married? I believe fourteen or fifteen years. -> Is your husband living? I do not know. Have you not sworn yourself to be a widow His Royal High- ness, a very short time since, when I sent to him to ask him to send me a few hundred pounds, sent me word that if I dare speak against him, or write against him, he would put me into the pillory, or into the Bastille. He fancies that I swore myself to be a widow woman when I was examined at a Court Martial. But the Deputy Judge Advocate had more feeling than the gentleman who has examined me now; he told me I might say any thing out of the Court which it might be unpleasant to me to swear to; I told him it would be very im- roper for me to say that I was a married woman, when I had been Known to be hiving with the Duke of York. I did not swear that I was a widow, I said it out of Court, and it was put into the Court Martial Minutes as if I had sworn to it, but it was not so. The Judge Advocate, to whom I told it, is at the door, and I think he had better be called in, I know now what he is come for. Who brought that message from the Duke to you? A very particu- lar friend of the Duke of York’s. * Who One Taylor, a shoemaker in Bond-street; very well known to Mr. Adam. By whom did you send the request to the Duke for these few. hundreds, to which the Duke sent this answer by Taylor By my OWI) ben. * & #. did you send the letter? By this ambassador of Morocco. What do you mean by this ambassador of Morocco The ladies’ shoemaker. - Was it a verbal answer that was brought to you, or a letter? A verbal answer, in Mr. Taylor's own language or the Duke's; I do not know which it was exactly, but those were the words that passed. What is your husband's name 2 Clarke. What is his christian name? Joseph I believe. Where were you married to him At Pancras; Mr. Adam can: tell you. [The Chairman stated to the witness, that he felt it his duty to MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 37 inform her, that her manner of giving her answers was ex- tremely indecent, and unbecoming the dignity of the house; and that, if persevered in, it would call for a very heavy censure.] . . - * Have you not said, that you were married at Berkhampstead? I did when I was laughing at Mr. Adam. Did you not persevere in that story over and over again? No, I did not, I merely laughed at it. * * Was it true or not, that you were married at Beakhampstead I, tell you I told it him laughing; and I told the Duke I was making a fool of him when I said that; for which his Royal Highness said he was very sorry, for that he was entirely in Mr. Adam's clutches. Did you make Mr. Adam believe that you were: married at Berk- hampstead? I do not know what I made him believe. . . Did you not find, from i. conversations with Mr. Adam, that he had believed it, and acted upon it in some enquiries that he had made He set a man of the name of Wilkinson to make some engui- yies respecting me; so his Royal Highness wrote me in a letter; but ..I believe that Mr. Adam, nor no one, will go to say there was any thing improper in my conduct during the time I was under the Duke's protection; nor will his Royal Highness believe it, I am certain. Did you not represent your husband as a nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke? He told me he was: . Did you believe that your husband was a nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke 2 Yes, I did; he told me so. Did you ever see Mr. Alderman Clarke : I never saw any of #Mr. Clarke's relations, but two of his brothers, and his sister; I have seen the Alderman sometimes about, as any body else might have seen him. t & Do you now believe that your husband is the nephew of Mr. Alder- man Clarke? I have never taken any pains to ask anything con- cerning him, as I have quitted him; he is nothing to me, nor. I to kim; nor have I seen him nearly these three years, nor heard of him since he brought an action against the Duke, or threatened; I saw him about a month before that, What is your husband? He is nothing—but a man. What business? No business. Was he never any business? No, his father was a builder; he lives at Kettering, in Northamptonshire. * Was he not a stone-mason? No, he was not; he lives at Kettering with his younger brother, who was brought up at Cambridge, and his brother's wife; that is all I know of him. Did you ever live in Tavistock-place 2 Yes, I did. . . . When did you live there? I do not recollect; I lived there with my mother. & How many years ago? I do not recollect. When did you go to Gloucester place I do not recollect; I was with the Duke, in Park-lane, before. When did you go to Park-lane I do not recollect. How long was it before you went to Park-lane, that you were in Tavistock-place? I do not recollect. Did_you live at any other place between the time of your liv- ing in Tavistock-place, and in Park-lane I do not know; the Duke d 33 Mrs. CIARKE’s ExAMINATIon. knows if I did; I might have gone to some of his houses; I do not know. How long did you live in Tavistock-place : I do not recollect; I did not live long * ; I was backwards and forwards. Was not that before you knew the Duke 2 No, it was not. g Where did you live when you first knew the Duke? You will excuse me if I do not mention it. [The Chairman informed the witness she must answer the . I do not recollect, If you do not recollect, why did you desire to be excused from an- swering the question Because I do not recollect it. Was your only reason for desiring to be excused from answering the . guestion, that you do not recollect it? Yes; because it would be seem- ing as if I could not answer many of the questions you put to me: I wish to be very fair and very honest. . . . . . Recollect yourself, and say positively whether you did not live in Tavistock-place before you knew the Duke 2 I knew the Duke many years before that. I do not think it is a fair question at all to put to me; you hear that I am a married woman, and I have a family of children, and I have a daughter grown up. Did you not live in Tavistock-place before you were under the Duke's protection, as you expressed yourself? I was under his Fººtion ; I might have lived there : I lived under his protection there. Do you mean to say, you were under his protection when first you went to Tavistock-place? No; I was under my mother's; but I knew him before. Did you not live in Tavistock-place as a widow; did you not repre- §ent yourself as a widow No, never at any place whatever; but at that Court-Martial lately I did; I thought it was saving myself and my family something; and I thought it was saving his Royal Highness likewise, as he was married also. * Do you mean to say that you never lived in Tavistock-place till you were under the protection of the Duke? No; I say I was there with my mother and my children; I knew his Royal Highness previous to that, but I did not live with him. Did you not represent to the trades-people who furnished your house there that you were a widow Never to any one whatever. Have you not threatened the Duke, that if he would not come into the terms you proposed, and pay you what you required of him, you would put the letters into the hands of persons who would pay you? Would pay me what? f That which you required the Duke to pay you ? What is that? Willyou be so good as to state what I wanted him to do \ Have you not stated, that you had put upon paper, or would put upon paper, the transactions for the last fourteen or fifteen years, and that if he did not comply with your demand, that you would put that memoir into the hands of persons who would publish it? No, I have not; I cannot recollect what I said, but I must beg for the letter, and that will convince at once. te & You have stated, that you have mentioned this transaction to some other persons besides Colonel Wardle; who are those persons? In- MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 39 deed I do not recollect; my acquaintances; it might have been in a slight sort of way; I did not make a talk of it myself. ow long ago was it that you first mentiond it to Colonel Wardle? That must have been since I wrote that letter to Mr. Adam; I did not know Colonel Wardle at that time; Mr. Adam sent a messenger to me, but I would not see him. Who has been present besides Colonel Wardle when you have ever mentioned this transaction to him? I do not know of any body but my children, or a young lady now and then ; nobody of any consequence— 310 II.1311. To what man have you ever mentioned this, except to Colonel Wardle? To many ºntº, to my acquaintances; I do not recol- łect; I do not know. Do you know Major Hogan? Not at all; I never saw him in my dife, nor ever heard of him till I read a pamphlet. Mr. Greenwood sent a message a little time since, by this same man, Taylor, to say that he was very sorry to hear that I was acquainted with a Mr. Fin- nerty. I never saw the man in my life. I believe about eight or nine ears ago, at Margate, they said there was some newspaper men there, and he was there; that is all that I know. I never saw him since. And there is another man who writes, who says he is very intimate with me; I never saw him but once, and that was when his #. Highness was with me: That was at my mother's. * - Do you recollect the particulars of the last conversation which you had with Mr. Robert Knight? Yes; he asked me who had taken the house I was in, and if the Duke and I were upon intimate terms aow; it was a sort of general conversation; and then the subject of theſetters came up, and he asked me whether his º Highness had ºne my annuity; I told him no; that his Royal Highness º en any further notice of me, nor of the debts; that he had forgotteff the annuity, and indeed, that he had sent me word he had never made any ; that the trades-people were daily harassing me for the debts I had run into when I was under his protection, and it was impossible for me to lead my marriage to them all, the people not being contented, and that I would publish his letters, and give the money among the trades-people. Mr. Robert Knight then desired me, if I was going to publish any sort of memoir, that I would be sure to spare his brother. That was the heads of the conversation that passed be- iween us. Was there any other notice taken, in that conversation, of the bu- siness that is at present under discussion, except Mr. Robert Knight *|†: you generally to spare his brother? No, certainly not. id you make any inquiries of Mr. Robert Knight, concerning the business now under discussion ? Mr. Knight told me, I believe, as well as I can recollect: “Ah, by the byń, you got very well over the dif- ficulty that my brother could not;” and then I asked him the name of the other man, but I knew it before, and what sort of looking man he was; he said he was an Irishman. º - I understand you to have said, in the former part of your examina- tion, that Colonel Wardle had mentioned the circumstances to you; and that all the information you had given to him, was generally, ...that the circumstances he had so mentioned, were true; do you still abide by that answer? Yes. 40 Mns. CLARKE's ExAMINATIon. - Have you ever had any more than one conversation with Coloneţ Wardle upon this matter under discussion ? No, I have not; and I hope I shall never hear of it any more. --- - * Are you in the habit of seeing Colonel Wardle, or have you seen him more frequently than that occasion when he came to enquire into those circumstances 2 O dear, yes. . . . Do you recollect how long ago it was that that conversation relating to this business took place between you and Colonel Wardle? I have said before, it could not have been long since. * Has the only conversation you had with Colonel Wardle, upon this subject, taken place within these three days? No. 7. Has it taken place since Friday last? Indeed I do not know ; I do not recollect; I do not think that it has. Did that conversation take place since Friday last? No; to the best of my recollection not. Did you see Colonel Wardle on Saturday last? I see him very often; T think I saw him at the Opera on Saturday. Did you see him any where else but at the Opera on Saturday? He frequently calls upon me..., , h Did you know, and when did you know, that Colonel Wardle had, in this House, stated the present transaction, and mentioned his inten- tion of calling upon you as a witness? When I saw the newspaper. He called upon me soon afterwards, and I certainly was very angry with him; and we had some words, as he had made very free with a friend's name of mine, Mr. Donovan, without my authority, depreciating his selyices and abilities. Mr. Donovan has been wounded in the service £ºntry, and has not been in bed for these twenty years; and he is *āſeţitenantin some garrison battaltion. Mr. Wardle, one morning Aſſºwas calling upon me, took a parcel of letters away from me, withdut my giving him my sanction; and that has led more to the business than any thing, and I have never been able to get them back since. He laughed it off, saying that he should get into my love-secrets. They were letters between friends and myself. Do you not now recollect, that it was on Saturday last that you saw the newspaper that gave you this information? I do not recollect the day at all. -- -- Did you not see Colonel Wardle on Saturday last I see him al- most every day; sometimes every other day, or twice a week. I do not recollect. I dare say I did. I am in the habits of seeing him often ; but I did not know he was going to bring this thing forward; and I told him I would get out of town; and he told me, that if they caught me any where, they wºuld put me in prison, and I must not shew contempt to a summons from the house of commons. Did you see Colonel Wardle yesterday? I think I did. Have you any doubt; are you not certain that you saw him yester- day 2 No, I did not see him yesterday. Are you certain now that you did not see him yesterday 2 I think that I am; I do not think I was at home all day. Did you see Colonel Wardle on the forenoon of this day ? Yes, I did, two or three times. - * Do you still adhere to your former answer, that you have not, with- in these three days, or since Friday last, had any conversation with Colonel Wardle, relative to the subject at present under discussion ? MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 41 To-day he told me that I must come here and obey that summons; and one day last week, a few days ago, he told me I must abide by what he had done and speak the truth, and if I did not the house would commit me for contempt; that if I prevaricated at all, and did not speak the truth, the house would commit me, and send me where they had sent some sheriffs before. - You have stated, that his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief must have known you had received a pecuniary compliment for the service you had done to Colonel Knight, because he had seen a note ; did you shew the Commander in Chief that note before or at any other time, except when you asked him to exchange it for your own conve- nience, for the distribution of money among your servants? I shewed it him after dinner one day, when I was going out of town in the morn. ing, and his Royal Highness at night; I never shewed it him but that once, and it was changed on that night. - By whom was the message concerning Finnerty conveyed? By Taylor; he told me that he had just left Mr. Greenwood, who had been just reading one of Hogan's pamphlets, to him, and that Mr. Greenwood told him that he had been told by several people, that I was concerned with all the pamphlet writers, and among the rest, was very intimate with one Finnerty, which I denied, as I do now. Soon after you had received the 200l. Mr. Robert Knight and Mr. Biddulph called upon you? Yes, I do not know exactly how soon after. I went out of town the night after I had received the 200l. and staid perhaps a fortnight or three weeks, and they called after that time. He introduced Mr. Biddulph to me. Did Mr Robert Knight, after that, ever call upon you alone at any time, soon after you had received the 200l. 2 Many times alone. Did you ever at any time, in conversation with Mr. Robert Knight, either when Mr. Robert Knight was alone with you, or when any person was with you, eversay to him, that you were desirous that the transaction that had happened should be concealed from His Royal Highness the Duke of York? Never in my life; I never said that, and I have so stated before. Then, if any body has ever said that you said so, that accusation is false Certainly. You have stated, that you sent the Gazette, containing the exchange which took place, in a note to Dr. Thynne; do you recollect what was said in that note? No, I do not; very little, I dare say, as I sent the Ga- zette with the note. - You have likewise stated, that the 200l. was brought to you in a note with Dr. Thynne's compliments; are you certain as to that fact? Yes, I think I can say positively to that, because I told my own maid to go down and give the man who brought the letter a guința. Was the compliments a verbal message, or inserted in the note t am certain the note was inclosed in an envelope; I never recollected to speak certain as to there being a note on the paper, because I thought there was a finish of the thing, and that nobody would ever call upon me about it, but I think I read Dr Thynne's compliments. Do you know who brought that note to your house? No, it was a man servant, and I considered it to be Dr. Thynne's servant, as he had spoken to me. Do you recollect at what time of day it was received In the middle of the day. d º 42 Mrns. CLARKE’s ExAMINATIon. You have stated in a former part of your examination, that the ex: change was effected within a very few days after the application was made for the exchange; do you allude to the application made by Dr. Thynne to you, or the application made by you to the Commander in Chief? I spoke to his Royal Highness the same day at dinner. - And the exchange was effected within a few days? Yes, two or three days. 3. you recollect how soon after that it appeared in the Gazette : The same day as it was effected it was in the Gazette. . • Had you any reason to desire to conceal from the Commander in Chief Mr. Robert Knight's visits to you ; did you ever desire him to conceal his visits from the Commander in Chief? I never concealed his visits, or those of any gentleman who ever visited me, from the Commander in Chief. - Were those letters you referred to, taken away before the time that Colonel Wardle had the conversation first with you upon the subject of this inquiry Yes, I should think they were, because it is some time Ś ſlºt. Do you recollect how long since 2 No, I do not; but there was no- thing of Mr. Knight's business in those letters. Had you any conversation with Colonel Wardle upon the subject of those letters before he took them away : No, I had not. How happened they to be lying in his way Because I was looking over my papers, going into a new house; I had removed from my mother's, in Bedford-place, to Westbourne-place, and he took up those letters, and said he would take away the packet of love-letters; and he run away with them. Do you mean seriously to state, that Colonel Wardle took away those letters without your leave, and without your authority ? Yes, he did ; but he had run away with many others; which I suppose had induced him to take those nonsensical little notes he had run away with before, and then he told me he would give me those back again, if I wished it; that they were on a different subject to what he imagined them to be; that he was very sorry for it; but he should take care to read them before he gave them me back. Were those letters, from His Royal Highness to you? No, there might have been one or two of his interspersed; but they were Mr. Donovan's letters, and others. - Do you mean to say they were not the Duke of York's letters that were taken away by Mr Wardle No, they were not; he has not let me see them once. How came you to state, that the greatest part of this business has principally been occasioned by those letters having got into the posses-, sion .# Colonel Wardle 2 Because he has read them. Whose were those letters, that he had read, which led to this in- guiry There are more letters than I could really mention or recol. lect ; they are from different friends of mine, and on different subjects, which I suppose led him to make such free use of Mr. Donovan's Ilºilº C. - Do you recollect ever having been offered any money for the de- º of any letters from his Royal Highness, or from Mr. Donovan 3 AN, U*Yeſ'. Did you ever place any letters in the hands of any body, with intent MR. ADAM’s ExAMINATION. 43 to forward and facilitate any negotiation of your own? No, I have not. Have you never so said to any body ? Except to Mr. Adain, who was the confidential friend of his º Highness. Have you never stated, that you had put letters in the hands of any one, for the purpose of facilitating some negotiation of your own 2 No, I have not; except that once or twice that I wrote to Mr. Adam, I never did, nor never said it to any one. Have you ever, in point of fact, put any letter into the hands of any one, for the purpose of facilitating any negotiation of your's No, I have not. Have you never written to any one, to say that you had so done 3 To no one, but Mr. Adam. What is the name of the deputy Judge Advocate, to whom you have referred His name is Sutton. º At the time when you received the 200l. was the Duke of York pre- sent in the room 2 No, he was not. How soon afterwards did you state to the Duke of York, that Mr.s Kº: had fulfilled his promise? The same day, as it on the same day that you desired his Royal IIighness to get that note changed for you? I did not desire his Royal Highness to get it changed for me; he wished it himself, as I could not do it. What was the name of the servant by whom that note was changed? I do not know, I am sure; it is a very unusual thing to ask servants their names. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. a Member of the House, was examined in his place, as follows: You have heard the account which the last witness has given of the part you took in this transaction; will you give your own account of it? I wish to state to the committee, in answer to the question put to me by the honourable and learned gentleman over against me, that, I believe, in the year 1789, I was first desired by his Royal Highness the Duke of York to look into some concerns of his. From that time to the present period I have continued my attention to those concerns, and f have continued it upon the ground that I stated the other night to the house; namely, that it is not professional, that it is not attend- ed with any emolument whatever, but it has been perfectly gratuitous Oil º part. I felt it a duty, when engaged in it, to discharge all of it, and every part of it, with as much fidelity, and accuracy and atten- tion as I could. It came to my knowledge, late in the year 1805, that the husband of the person who has been examined at the bar, threatened an action for criminal conversation against the Duke of York: it was necessary to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and it fell to my lot, from the communications which I had had upon other subjects with his Royal Highness, and from the intercourse which had constantly and invariably subsisted (if I may use the expression) between his Royal Highness and myself, that I should give directions for those inquiries, . In the course of these directions, and in the mat- ter that was laid before me in consequence of the investigation, I had reason to believe, that the conduct of the person who has been ex- amined at the bar had not been so correct as it ought to have been, and that it had a tendency to prejudice his Royal Highness's interests, 44 Mit. ADAM’s ExAMINATION. not his character in a militarypoint of view, or in a public capacity, but his interests and his name with regard to money: This led to further inquiry; and I conceived it to be my duty to intimate the result of these things to the Duke of York: I found the Duke of York not in- clined to believe that there could be any thing wrong in that quarter, and that he continued of that opinion almost to the last, till the very close of the connection; and that the connection, as the facts will shew, closed in consequence of his conviction, that that investigation had disclosed the character of the person who has just been examined. The transactions of a pecuniary nature, which, as I have stated, had no relation to anything like the subject of this inquiry; these trans- actions came to be brought more directly home to his Royal High- mess's attention by a fact which I could state, if it were fit, accordin to the rules of evidence; but it would be stating hearsay evidence, an that hearsay evidence of the party whose conduct is the subject of in- quiry: I state it merely to make my evidence intelligible. I then directed the enquiry more at large, and had an accurate investigation made by employing Mr. Lowten, an eminent solicitor, who employed Mr. Wilkinson, as the person that he generally gets to superintend business until it is brought forward in proper shape, he not having leisure for those parts of his business. By Mr. Wilkinson, to whom the person at the bar alluded, these investigations were completed; and when they were completed, they were, I think, either upon the 6th, 7th, or 8th of May, 1806, submitted, in detail and in writing, to his Royal Highness, accompanied with the proofs: it was an unplea- sant task, because it is not pleasant to state to any person that which is contrary to their inclinations and their feelings: but it was a thin that I thought I was bound, in the dischaage of my duty to the Duke ef York, to do exactly in the manner in which I had received the in- formation. This information was considered. In the course of it, his Royal Highness wished that I should have an interview with the per- son who has just been examined; I accordingly agreed to have that interview, because I considered that no unpleasantness that might afterwards, or at the time, arise to myself, should prevent me from following up the business, and extricating that Royal Person from the person with whom he was at that time connected. Upon the score of those representations, I had this interview: it was an interview not of very long duration; but, of course, I conducted the conversation to those points which led me to discover how far, with perfect ac- curacy, there was truth or falsehood in the information which I had obtained in the manner I have stated. . It had been represented to me, that this person had defended an action as a married woman, having obtained the property for which the action was brought in the cha: racter of a widow. Investigation was made with regard to the place of her marriage; and it was found she was married a minor at Pan- cras. She had represented, at different times, that her mother was of a family of the name of Mackenzie; that her father was named Far- quhar; that they lived in the neighbourhood of Berkhamstead, and that accounts would be had of the family there. The Berkhamstead Register had been examined with that view, and it was examined with accuracy for forty years back. In the course of the conversation I had with her in the first interview, I took occasion to ask her where she was married; and she stated to me, seriously and distinctly, that MR. ADAM’s ExAMINATIo N. . 45 she was married at Berkhamstead. I then took occasion to put some questions with regard to the register at Pancras; and I took occasion likewise to state what I knew with respect to the registers of births, burials, and marriages at Berkhamstead; and, from the impression it made, I came away with a conviction in my mind that those facts which had been stated to me upon the investigation I had directed were cor- rect and true; because no doubt remained upon my mind from her demeanour and conduct upon that occasion. She stated seriously that her marriage was at Berkhamstead. She likewise stated, in that con- versation, that her husband was a nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke, now the Chamberlain of London. I know, from the same investiga- tion, that that was equally incorrect with the other. In a few days after this, his Royal Highness's mind-being made up to separate him- self from this person, I was again asked by his Royal Highness, whe- ther I had any difficulty in undertaking the communicating to her his determination. My being to wait upon her was announced in a short letter from the Duke of York to her; and I, accordingly, from the same motive which I have already stated, and feeling it to be a duty, as I had commenced the transaction which was to lead to this, not to flinch from any personal inconvenience, or any unpleasantness which might arise at the time, or in future,to make the communication; I made the communication, and I accompanied it with this declaration, that the Duke of York thought it his duty, if her conduct was correct, to give her an annuity of 400l. a year, to be paid quarterly; that he could enter into no obligation in writing, by bond or otherwise, that it must rest entirely upon his word to be performed, according to her behaviour, and that he might therefore have it in his power to withdraw the an- nuity, in case her behavionr was such as to make him consider that it was unfit it should be paid. That was the nature of the proposition which I made, and no other, The conversation lasted for a very short time. I left the lady, and I have not seen her from that time to the present moment. These circumstances seem to me in the narration, all that is necessary to be stated with respect to that part of the trans- action in which my name has been so frequently used. There are, however, two other matters, the one in which my name was used when it was first introduced, and the other respecting a particular persou, upon which I wish to state the facts to the committee, I did, at some time in the year 1808, receive a letter, I think the 11th of June; I will not be quite sure about the date, but I think it is marked, in my own hand, the 11th of June, 1808, which is the letter which has been alluded to. I am not in possession of the letter, I gave it into the same custody that had the papers which constituted the investigation I have stated; that letter I shall state nothing of the contents of; I only mean to say, that letter is in a situation to be produced, and, I suppose from what has passed, there will be no necessity for any thing more. The other fact to which I wish to speak, is with respect to the persons whom I employed. . With respect to Mr. Wilkinson the com- mittee have already heard the manner in which he has been employ- ed, and those who know him, know his capacity for that employment. With regard to the other person, of the name of Taylor, I can only say that I never happened to see that person in the whole course of my life. If, in what I have stated, in which the facts only can be considered as evidence, but which I have endeavoured to make in- #6 sin. warpLE's Examination. telligible by connecting circumstances, any thing has arisen for any question to be put to me, I am most anxious that all, or any, gentle- men in the house should all upon me to answer it. The separation took place upon the 11th of May, 1806; the transaction, which has been examined, took place in July, 1805, Did you guarantee this annuity ? Never; I stated that it was to depend entirely upon her behaviour, and not to be guaranteed, be: cause the Duke of York was to be at liberty to withdraw it, in case of her behaviour rendering it proper so to do. - Was the promise, whatever it was, made to her in a letter written by you? That was what I stated in conversation. When you ännounced the separation, it was not by conversation; but by a short letter written to her? I did not state that the short letter was written by me, but that the short letter was written by the Duke of York. On subjects of this kind, not having had any opportunity of refreshing my memory, I may not have been perfectly correct in trifling particulars, but now I can state, that the only letter I ever wrote to her was a very short note, that I was coming to wait upon her in consequence of the Duke of York's wishes that I should do so. Did Mrs. Clarke appear exasperated at the separation? She appear- ed very much surprized at the communication; she did not ...; CX3S- perated, but she declared her determination to see the Duke of York again; and I recollect, from what she said, that she expected to be able to prevail upon him to receive her again under his protection. Did she know that you had been active in explaining the nature of her conduct to the Duke of York? I had every reason to believe so, I do not know it of my own knowledge. GWYLLYM LLOYD WARDLE, Esq. a Member of the House, was examined in his place, as follows: Had you only one short conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of to-night's inquiry: That is a difficult question to answer exactly, there are such a variety of cases I have talked over with her from time to time. I do not know exactly the time when I talked this case over with her ; I had heard of it before, and, in short, got out of her more than she told me voluntarily. She attacked me very warmly with respect to another case which I mentioned, and I believe she spoke generally of the whole. When the matter was talked over be: tween us, I took my pen and ink, and entered everything which passed in a book.. I do not believe that I have altered any part of what I en- tered. I believe I never had but one pointed conversation on this case ; whether, in speaking of other cases, I have touched upon that, I cannot say; the case has remained in that book ever since; and I took a copy the other day, from that book, of what I had written. What you stated to the house, was what you had collected from Mrs. Clarke? What in part I had collected from Mrs. Clarke, and in part from other quarters. + Did you state to the house any thing as having passed between Mrs. Clarke and those persons who were immediate agents in this transaction, except what you collected from her? I fancy, a good deal. I know some points; but I believe a good deal of the main points were stated from the book, which I had written, when I had conversed with her upon the subject. * MR. wartole's ExAMINATIon. 47 Did she state to you that this passed on the 25th of J uly 3 No, she not, certainly. I do not think she was at all aware of the positive date. Iremember, at the time of the conversation, she mentioned the circumstance of Lord Chesterfield's christening, and seemed guided by that; that his Royal Highness was going down to that christening; and, by that, she made out the period to be in July, when the trans- action took place. Upon what authority did you state, with particularity, that this took Place on Thursday the 25th of July; this agreement for the 2001.* She, upon taking note of that christening, and taking note of the ga- &ette also, was positive then in her assertion (I remember perfectly weli) that the thing was proposed on the Thursday, and done on the Satur. day; that was her positive assertion, from the first to the last; and that it was that led me to state it. - I understand you to have stated, that she did not state it to be on the 25th?. She did not, in the first instance; the gazette was found, and the moment it was looked into, she was so positive as to the Thursday and the Saturday, that no doubt remained upon her mind. ave you a particular recollection, that it was at last brought to the Thursday, the 25th of July I have really no further recollection; I have no other guide. Do you remember that it was the Thursday preceding the Saturday on which the gazette was published 2 I do not know how to make the matter clearer; these were the two points that guided me in my asser- : if I was wrong in my assertion, it was a blunder arising from at. Is the committee to understand, that, while Mrs. Clarke and your- self were seeking to fix the day on which this transaction took place. the gazette was found; and, that finding the date of that, and cousi- dering the time which had preceded it, you fixed the date on which the offer was made to be on the Thursday preceding? I mean nuerely to assert, that, from the evidence Mrs. Clarke gave me, and from the information I got from the gazette, I fixed that it must be on the very day I mentioned; I had no other guide to go by of one description or another; and I do not see that I am to stand here, however willing may be, after the very heavy examination which that witness has gone through, which, I believe, many gentlemen think with myself, must tire any gentleman; I do not feel myself disposed to submit to the same sort of discipline; she never did, to the best of my recollec- tion, give me any other date than that I have mentioned, the christed- ing of my Lord ðj ; and I remember her stating, that the thing was petitioned on the Thursday, and done on the Saturday; more than that I really do not recollect on the subject. Any question which I can answer, I shall be willing to answer, but I do not know how fur- ther to answer that. I afterwards inquired, and ascertained, when that christening was; and, from that and the gazette, I mentioned the date, which I thought was correct; whether it was or not, I cannot $tate. * The gazette was referred to as a medium of proof at that time No, I referred to the gazette since. f • Was that in the presence of Mrs. Clarke? No, it was not. was that circumstance communicated to her? Not by me; I do not know that it was. - t t 48 M.R. wa RDLE's ExAMINATION, I understood you to have said, that you and Mrs. Clarke, upon re- ferring to the gazette, and other circumstances which occurred to you, fixed, that the time must have been about Thursday, the 25th of July 2 Then I said what I did not mean; the conversation was respecting the christening; I made enquiry when the christening was, of a friend or two of my own; and I mentioned it from that: whether between that period and this I may have named the date to her, or she got it from another quarter, I cannot say ; that of the three days was all the infor- mation that I obtained from her as to the date. " * * : : Is it true that you took away some papers from Mrs. Clarke against her will, and without her consent? I certainly did-take some letters away from Mrs. Clarke, which I did not believe she exactly approved at the moment; I did it in that sort of way, there was no #: in the business; but amongst papers, she was in the habit of §"É. letters respecting the cases; and she gave me one or two of Mr. Donovan's : there were one or two of Mr. Donovan's, and one or two of light mo- ment from another quarter on the table. I said, I will take this away; and she said, those are from a friend of mine, and he must not be touched; that made me curious about the letters; and they were cer- tainly letters of very great moment: I have had them in my possession ever since. - Mrs. Clarke had been in the habit of communicating letters to you upon this subject before that time? One or two letters, not relative to this case; but one or two letters much about that time, just about that period, she communicated to me. 2 * * * Relative to the Duke of York? No, not relative to the Duke of York; that had nothing at all to do with this business. Why was it that he was not to be touched It was Mr. Donovan. Did Mrs. Clarke ever state to you, that she had stated to his Royal Highness the Duke of York her wishes to go into the country and that those wishes might be gratified without any expence to his Royal Iłighness, as an opportunity had occurred to her of obtaining the sum of 200l. 2 No; she stated to me, to the best of my recollection, that she wanted to go into the country; that she told his Royal Highness that there was 200l. could be had for that exchange, and that she got it, and went in consequence. . I do not recollect any thing further. Did she inform you that she had stated this to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, previous to the receiving the 200l. and with a view to obtain his Royal Highness's consent so to receive it I un- derstood that she had stated, three days before the occurrence took place, that she should have a pecuniary consideration; that that pecu- niary consideration was 200l. and that she went into the country im- mediately after she received it. I understood her, that she had told his Royal Highness that a pecuniary consideration was to be given for the exchange, and that that pecuniary consideration proved to be 200l.; and that was told him on the day when the application was made, which I understood from her was three days before it took place. Three days before the person was gazetted, or three days before the 200l. was received Three days before the person was gazetted; I understood the person was gazetted, and the money was received, on the same day, or the next day. * * - Did Mrs. Clarke state to you, that she had stated to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, previously to her actual acceptance of MR. W.ARDLE's ExAMINATIon. 49 the offer of 200l. that such an offer, in fact, had been made to her, and that the acceptance of it would enable her to go into the country, which she desired to do? I understood from her, that when she made the re- quest to the Commander-in-Chief, she had mentioned to him that she was to receive a pecuniary consideration; as to the going out of town, that was a fixed thing before; they were both going out, as I under- stood; but in justice to her I will state what I this moment recollect, that a few days ago, after my motion, she stated that I had been very incorrect, if the papers stated truly what I said, and whether it was that, or what other circumstance, I will not undertake to say; but to the best of my recollection, I understood from her, that on the day she made the application, she gave the Commander-in-Chief to un- . that a pecuniary consideration was forth-coming for the ex- Change. Did you receive any other information from any other person than those who have been examined here to-night, and Colonel Knight, as to this point, upon which you founded the statement which you made to the house? I had, as I before stated to the house, had other informa- tion from other quarters; it will not become me to state to the house. who those persons were; that I conceive would be very indecorous. Did that expression which Mrs. Clarke used to a particular person, who was not to be touched, imply that there were some proceedings to be instituted concerning some other persons? I have no reason to think that she meant any more than exactly what she said, that when I got hold of those letters, she knew I was possessed of facts that would º Mr. Donovan: I do not think she connected any other matter with it. With respect to these letters which you carried away from Mrs. Clarke's, has Mrs Clarke since made frequent application to you for those letters Yes, she has ; and was very much enraged with me, particularly for having said what I did respecting Mr. Donovan. Was the conversation which took place on Saturday, the conversa- tion to which you alluded, in which you received the information upon which you proceeded? That was subsequent to my motion. Did you see Mrs. Clarke yesterday ? I was at her house late last night, about nine o’clock; I was in the drawing-room for a few mo- ments, there was company with her. Did you see Mrs. Clarke yesterday ? Yes, as I have said before, I was in her drawing-room, when she had company last night. She was in that drawing-room 2 Yes, certainly. Is it possible that she should not have seen you in the drawing-room, at that time 2 No, it is totally impossible. © I understand you to say, that being informed that the gazetting took place within two or three days after the original order, you provided yourself with the gazette of Saturday in which that appointment ap- peared, and so, calculating backwards, fixed Thursday as the day on which the proposition had been made 2 I understood from the first, that it was on the Thursday that the exchange had been applied for, and that the business was completed on the Saturday; that is entered in my book in the first conversation, that she understood it was gazetted on the Saturday, or in two or three days. The gazette in which this is announced is dated on the Tuesday es, I am perfectly aware of that fact: that is a blunder of her's; $ 50 MR. AD Aw’s ExAMINATIon. but * heard any one thing to make me doubt that it was so tilt to-night. - • tº #. asked whether you were not at Mrs. Clarke's yesterday, you answered that you had been there about nine o'clock in the evening; were you not at Mrs. Clarke's house at any prior hour of yesterday? Í called at Mrs. Clarke's yesterday morning, she was not at home ; I returned in the evening, and had a conversation with her for a few miitutes: - Did you merely call at Mrs. Clarke's house; did you not go into it, and wait a very considerable time at Mrs. Clarke's house? I was up in Mrs. Clarke's drawing-room for some time in the morning, I did not ‘see her then, but I saw her in the afternoon. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. was again examined in his place as follows: Having mentioned the annuity which was conditionally promised,. can you state whether that annuity was actually paid, and if so, for Thow long? I can state nothing respecting the payment; I had nothing at all to do with it; I never heard anything of it from the time .# had the second and last interview. * You have stated, that the annuity was to be continued so long as: Mrs. Clarke's conduct was correct; will you have the goodness to ex- plain that term The term I used I meant in this sense; that her con- ‘duct was to besuch as not to have any reference to any pecuniary transac- tions, such as I stated to have been the cause of the investigation, and, the subject of the subsequent communication-to: her by me, that the Duke of York was to have no further connection with her; and I stated in my evidence, that at that time, nor at any time till recently, had I any. notion that there were any transactions of this kind in which she had. been in any way concerned: Those pecuniary concerns to which I al- luded, were the use of the Duke of York's name for the purpose of rais- ing money, so as to involve his credit and character, but not by the sale of commissions. * Do you mean by getting in debt with tradesmen, and borrowing mo- ney Any mode by which she could raise money. Did you continue from the year 1806, to have the management of his. Royal º finances, and his money concerns?' I had not, pro- perly speaking, the management of any part of his Royal Highness's. But I wish to mention this to the house;—the Duke of York, from, causes which it is unnecessary to refer to, found his circumstances em.* barrassed; at a very early period he applied to me to look into them, and to get matters arranged: he appropriated to that arrangement, as soon as his income was such as to enable him to afford it, a very large sum of money, annually, 12,000l. a year, that was put under the adminis- tration of Mr. Coutts and mysélf, as trustees for the creditors, to settle the payments. Frpm the circumstance of the Duke of York being a- mere annuitant, and from other causes, which I should be extremely" glad to explain, to render my ev dence intelligible, particularly from: 'one cause, that in the arrangement of his estates he had cast upon him the expense of a large inclosure, which by act of parliament he was bound to see executed, which took a great deal of money, and his being, under the necessity of buying tythes to a large amount, together with, the property tax coming on him, we were not enabled to operate the colon EL Go RDON's ExAMINATION. 51 redemption of the debts by the payment of 12,000l. a year; it was therefore the Duke of York's wish to appropriate a larger sum ; this was done, and it is still to go to a greater extent, in the hands of Mr. Coutts and myself, for the same purposes. These are the monies which come within my management, and no other. I know nothing about the Duke of York’s private expenditure ; I know nothing about the pension he pays to any one, but only the fund raised for the pay- ment of debts, and also that for the reduction of the debt he owes to the public, a sum lent to him from the civil list, when Mr. Pitt was minis: ter, and which Mr. Pitt and other ministers suspended the payment of to a certain time, and which was last year begun to be paid : a fund was vested in me for the payment of 4,000l. a year of that ; this will ex- tend to the sum of from 26 to 30,000l. a year; and when it is consider- ed that the income tax falls upon that, as well as the whole of his other property, I believe that his Royal Highness will be found to give up as large a sum of money as his present circumstances will afford. These are the only funds which fall under my knowledge; and therefore it is impossible for me to know whether a pension is paid to this or that person, and it is not correct to suppose that I am in the administration of his affairs further than I have stated. Did Mrs. Clarke apply to you at any time since 1806 for the pay- ment of this pension ? It is extremely difficult for me to state positively that she did not, but I believe the two letters which she mentions are the only letters I have ever received from her. I cannot undertake to say, in the variety of transactions I have, that there were no others.; the prominent letter was that of the 11th June, 1808, which I immedi- ately indorsed, and delivered over to, Mr. Wilkinson. COLONEL GORDON. Do you hold any office under the Commander in Chief? Yes, I do. What is it? His military or public secretary. Does the business of exchanging commissions pass through yout office? It does. Can any transaction of that nature pass without your knowledge It is quite impossible. o all the documents by which the persons, who apply to exchange, are recommended, pass through your office They do, Do they pass first under your examination and consideration? Gene’ ra, ; I might almost say always. o you report the result to the Commander in Chief? Most un" doubtedly, without fail. How long have you held the office that you do at present? About four years and a half. J Did you hold it in 1805? I did. * When any exchange has obtained the approbation of the Commander in Chief, is there a minute made of it Always. After that, are the commissions made outpursuant to that minute? After an exchange, or any commission has obtained the approbation of the Commander in Chief, it is immediately submitted to the considera” tion of his majesty; after his majesty's approbation and signature has been affixed to the paper so submitted, it is sent to the Secretary at War, for the purpose of having * made out corresponding to the p \ 2 52 colo NEL GORDo N’s ExAMINATION. names placed in that paper previously submitted to the King and then to be put in the Gazette. .* Are the commissions also signed by his majesty before they are ga- zetted No; perhaps I should explain, that they are made out in the war-office after the gazetting; the gazetting is the immediate act fol- lowing the signature of the king, a notification to the army, that his ma- jesty has approved of those appointments, and he desires his Secretary at War, to prepare the commissions accordingly: they are made out more at leisure. You will see mentioned in the gazette the exchange between Colo- nel Knight and Colonel Brooke; when did that exchange receive the approbation of the Commander in Chief? On the 23d July, 1805. When you say that that approbation took place on the 23d of July 1805, you refer to some document in your hand; is that any memo- randum made in your office? It is. Is it the course of your office, that, when the approbation of the Commander in Chief is signified, there should be a memorandum made of it 2 I think I may say invariably. Was the approbation of the Commander in Chief to this exchange finally obtained on the 23d of July It was. Do you keep records in the office of all the applications that are: made for promotions or exchanges 2 Yes, I do, very carefully ; and every paper of every kind, and every sort, that comes into that office, I preserve with the greatest possible care. Is that paper which you hold in your hand, the original document which is brought from your office Yes, it is. That which you hold in your hand being the original document which you brought from the office, is it also the document to which you just looked, and declared that the approbation of the Commander in Chief was obtained on the 23d Yes; it is the only paper I have looked at since I entered this house, except the gazette. You stated, that you keep an account of all the applications that are made for promotios or for exchange, and that that is preserved in the office I did state so. Could you, upon any other occasion, with reference to any othet exchange, as you have with reference to this, find the memorandum which denoted the time at which the approbation of the Commander in Chief was procured? ... Yes, I think I could, with the same felicity with which I have put my hand upon this. Are you able to state who recommended Colonel Knight and Color . nel Brooke for that exchange? This paper, with your permission, I will read; it will speak for itself. [Colonel Gordon read, and then delivered in a letter, from Messrs. Greenwood and Cox to himself, dated Craig's-court, July 1st, 1805. (a) ,-- (a) BRooke's services. Cornet, 8 Dns. - 29 June 93 Placed on half-pay Mar. 98. Lieut. 83 F. - - 7 Oct. 93 Bt. Lt. Col. - - 1 Jan. 1800- Capt. Ind. Co. - 14 Dec. 93 Maj. 48 - - - 24 May, 1804 *— 96 - - - - 25 Mar. 94 Cancelled - - 9 June, 1804 Maj. - - - - 13 Dec. 94 Maj. 56 - - 5 Jan. 1805. * 23 July 05 His Royal Highness does now approve of this exchange. * The words in italics are in pencil marks in the original, colonel GoRDoN's ExAMINATIox. 53 Is it your course, upon a recommendation of this sort being put in, to enquire into the merits of the applicants? Most undoubtedly, in every case; but particularly in the case of field officers of regiments. Is it your course to report to the Commander in Chief the result of those inquiries 2 Invariably. * When the Commander in Chief has ever drawn a different conclu- sion upon the facts stated, than that which you have drawn, has it al- ways been his course to assign to you a reason for that 2 I think he has ; but if he did not, I should most undoubtedly have taken the liberty to have asked him. Where, in such a case, no reason has been assigned, are you certain that you have always asked him 2 Most undoubtedly. * ~ In this case, have you any doubt that you made the necessary en- quiries upon the representations made to you by this memorial? None whatever; I am quite positive that I did do so. - Was the ultimate approbation of this exchange the result of those en- quiries I firmly believe so. r—r-—r—r- ~x. 3.7 ~…" C. L. cannot be acceded to, His Royal Highness does not approve of the exchange proposed. * - Sir, By direction of General Norton, we have the honour to inclose a form signed by Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Brooke of the 56th regiment, to ex- change with Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards, together with a copy of a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Knight, stating, that he is satisfied with the security given for payment of the regulated dif- ference between the value of the two commissions; and being informed the counterpart of the exchange has been sent in through the agents of the 5th Dragoon Guards, you will be pleased to submit the same to Field Marshall bis Royal Highness the Duke of York. * We have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient, humble servants, GREEN wooD AND Cox. Craig's-court, 1st July, 1805. It. Colonel Gordon, &c. &c. &c. I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me his Majesty's permission to exchange with Brevet Lt. Col. Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards. In case his Majesty shall be graciously pleased to permit me to make the said exchange, I do hereby declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer, and a gentleman, that I will not, either now, or at any future time, give, by any means or in any shape whatever, directly or indirectly, any more than the regulated difference. + I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient, and most humble Servant, - W. BRooke, Bt. Lt. Col. & Major 56 ft. To the Colonel, or Commanding Officer, of the 56th Regiment. * ! approve of the above exchange, and, I verily believe, no clandestine bar- gain subsists between the parties concerned. G. Nor Ton, Colonel. 54 colon EL GORDON's ExAMINATION., Do you firmly believe that it was in consequence of your report to his Royal Highness? Yes, most decidedly I do. t If his Royal Highness, in approving this exchange, had acted other. wise than according to your report, is it possible that that fact could have escaped your memory? It is some time since this exchange took place; but I am much in the habit of transacting business of this kind, and I do not think that it could have escaped my memory. Would it have struck you as an extraordinary and unusual transac- tion, if the Commander in Chief had acted contrary to the result that was drawn from the communications made by you, without assigning any reason for it? Unless his Royal Highness had assigned a reason for it, it certainly would have struck me as very extraordinary. Have you any doubt, upon refreshing your memory as well as you ‘can, by all the papers you have, and recalling the facts to your recol- ‘lection, that the approbation of his Royal Highness was gained to this ex- change, as the result of the memorial presented to you, and the inqui- ries made by yourself, and communicated to his Royal Highness I cannot doubt it for a moment. This representation, I observe, is made on the first of July, and it is not completed till the 23d; do you find that there was any delay in bringing the business to a conclusion, and that it was at first stopped 2 Yes, there was; and it was stopped. * Are you now able to state, from your recollection, upon what ground it was at first stopped 2 To the best of my recollection, it was 'stopped upon this ground; upon referring to the services of the re- spective officers, as is invariaby the practice, I found that the services of Lieutenant-colonel Brooke, for the last seven years, had been upon the half-pay; consequently, it became necessary to make mor than usual inquiries respecting Colonel Brooke, before he coul be recommended for the situation of major to a regiment of cavalry : when those inquiries were made, and I was satisfied that Colonel Brooke was a fit and proper person, I made that report to the Com- mander in Chief; and, as I have said before, I believe it was upon my report so made, that the Commander in Chief acceded to the exchange. Are you quite sure that there was no difficulty or rub on the part of Colonel Knight? I am perfectly sure; if the house will permit me, I will read my answer to Colonel Knight upon this subject. [Colonel Gordon read, and then delivered in, a letter from him- self to Colonel Knight, dated the 21st June, 1805, viz.] - “Horse Guards, 21st June, 1805. “SIR, “Having laid before the Commander in Chief your letter of the 19th instant, l am directed to acquaint you, that his Royal Highness has no objection to your exchanging to the Infantry, receiving the difference; and when an eligible successor can be recommended, your request will be taken into consideration. t I am, &c. (Signed) J. W. GORDON.” Bt. Lt. Col. Knight, 5 D3n. Gds. The eligibility, therefore, must have depended upon Colonel Brooke. r Then I am to understand from you, that Colonel Knight had made colon EL GoRDoN's ExAxiſ Nations 55 an application to exchange, previous to this memorial presented by Greenwood and Cox, in the name of General Norton? Yes, he had. And that by this letter of the 21st of June, it was signified to him, that his proposal was accepted; that is, that the exchange so far as re- garded him was accepted, if an eligible successor was found? Cer- tainly. - • * - * %. are satisfied that the delay arose from the doubt with respect to Colonel Brooke 2 I have so stated it. - Have you any doubt that, you pursued the necessary inquiries for clearing up that difficulty None, whatever. Have you any doubt that the approbation of the Commander in ‘Chief was ultimately obtained, in consequence of those inquiries having scleared up the difficulty None, whatever; I understood that I had ‘stated that before. ' ' , , . . . Was there any greater delay in this case, than was necessary for the purpose of prosecuting such inquiries? None, whatever; similar de- Hays occur in similar transactions, almost every week. . Was there any thing, from the beginning to the end of this transac- tion, which distinguishes it from other transactions of the same sort, relative to the same kind of exchanges? Certainly not; I was much surprised when ſheard of the difficulty first started in this honourable house, about three nights age. . . . . . . . x In any conversation that you, have had, upon the subject of this ex- change, with the Commander in Chief, do you recollect a wish being expressed, that the conclusion of the exchange might be expedited? No, certainly not; the expression of such a wish would have been very futile, for it would not have expedited the exchange one half instant; it would have gone on in the usual course. . º - Do you recollect instances upon the part of the Commander in Chief, since you have been in office, tending to create a greater expe- dition than the necessary course of official business permits 2 Never in the current business of the office. . i beg to explain to the House; the common business of army promotions is laid before the King once a week, and never twice a week, when any expedition is fitted out, and that officers are suddenly appointed to such expeditions; then, and Athen only a separate paper is submitted to his Majesty, with their names exclusively, and they are not included in the common weekly 2001'. P %. the committee to understand, that, in the ordinary course of military promotion or exchange, the office is always permitted to take its course Invariably; I never recollect an instance to the con- trary. e - You have stated, that Colonel Brooke had been for seven years on half-pay; in proportion to the length of time that an officer has been upon half-pay, and consequently been moved out of sight from ordinary military observation, is it not necessary that there should be a much longer period of inquiry to discover what his conduct has been 2 Per- haps it may be so, but I cannot exactly say that, as I am in the habit of seeing twenty, thirty, and forty officers, in the army almost every day in my life; and generally, from some of those; I can ascertain par- ticulars respecting any officer J choose, and that without letting them know the purpose for which I require it. Was the period of time required for this exchange beyond the ordi- nary period in such cases? Certainly not. f 56 colonel soapon's ExAMINATIon. , , Did the Commander in Chief ever state to you, or did you ever hear that he thought that one of these persons, either Colonel Knight or Colonel Brooke, was a bad subject? I never heard him express any such thing. Can you take upon yourself to say, that no opinion of the Command- er in Chief's, that one of these was a bad subject, was the occasion of any delay in the completing this exchange 2 Yes, I certainly can ; the Commander in Chief is very: cautious in expressing himself so strongly on the conduct of any officer; if the Commander in Chief was to express himself so strongly upon the conduct of any officer, should conceive that there was something in the conduct of that officer that required more than common inquiry. Then are the Committee to understand, that no more nor further delay took place, than that which was necessary to complete the in- quiries, which you thought it your duty to make Certainly. ... As you werein office at that time, supposing the negotiation between Colonel Knight and Colonel Brooke to have gone .# in consequence of the objection made to Colonel Brooke, or from any other cause; was it probable that Colonel Knight might have had to wait some time before he might have had another eligible opportunity of making an exchange? Yes, I think he might. - * * * What day of the week is it that the lists are generally sent in to the King? They are commonly submitted by me to the Commander in Chief on Wednesday; the are submitted to the King on Thursday; and if they come back on Friday (which nine times in ten they do) they are ſº on Saturday; if they do not come back in time on Friday, they are gazetted on the following Tuesday. s Did you keep any enemorandum of the inquiries you made respect- ing the exchange between Colonel Knight and Colonel Brook None whatever. * - $ You have stated, that the application to the Commander in Chief for this exchange was communicated on the 23d of July; when was that application to the Commander in Chief submitted for his Majesty's approbation ? The date is accurately marked upon the original paper: it was submitted to the King upon the 24th, as you will find, by refer- ence to the paper on the table. ' * r * When did it appear in the Gazette The Gazetteis dated July 30th. Then the approbation of the Commander in Chief was signified seven days before it appeared in the Gazette Allow me to mark this distinction: the approbation of the Commander in Chief is never signified to any body, until the King's pleasure has been subsequently obtained upon it. - I understood the Commander in Chief consented to this exchange on the 23d ; that on the 23d it was known to you; that you then pre- pared the proper communication to be laid before his Majesty, but that communication was submitted to his Majesty on the 24th; that on the 24th his Majesty signified his approbation, and that it did not ap- pear in the Gazette till the 30th, being seven days after the Commander in Chief had given his consent, and six days after his Majesty had coni, firmed that consent? Exactly; I beg it may be understöod, that after his Majesty's signature is affixed to a paper of promotions, it is part of my duty to make such of them public as may be necessary. The Gaº zette is a notification, but it is not a ratification; the thing is finally done before it appears in the Gazette, . . . . . . . . * * * * ! ! coloneL Gordon's ExAMINATIon. 57 You have stated that being in the habit of seeing twenty, thirty, or imore different officers every day, you take a proper opportunity of collecting from them the character and conduct of those whom you see occasion to inquire into ; is it your habit to make minutes of the result of those inquiries? There scarcely a day passes over my head that I have not occasion to obtain information of that nature; but to make a minute of it would be absolutely impossible, I mean to any extent: I could not carry on the business. jº Between the first of July, when the application was made on behalf of Colonel Brooke, and the 23d, when it received the sanction of the Commander in Chief, did any conversation pass between yourself and the Commander in Chief, otherwise than that which originated in your addressing yourself to the Duke upon the subjectin the ordinary course of office? . To the best of my recollection, certainly not; 1 speak more decidedly upon this point, because I am in the habit of laying numbers of papers before the Commander in Chief, and of confi- ning my conversation strictly and exclusively to the matter before Uls. If his Majesty's approbation was received on Wednesday, why was it not notified in the Saturday's Gazette I think I have said before, that if the papers were returned from his majesty in time, it would have been gazetted on the next day; I take for granted, therefore, that they were not returned in time. - Whāt space of time was there between your making your report of the inquiries made by you respecting Colonel Brooke, and the Duke of York’s directing you to make out the necessary papers for the King's inspection? I think I have stated, that I received the expression of the Commander in Chief's pleasure on the 23d ; the papers were made out for his Majesty on the 24th. ” What time elapsed between your making the report of the inquiries respecting Colonel Brooke to the Commander in Chief, and the Com- mander in Chief giving his consent 2 A reference to the paper on the table will explain the dates. Did you make your report on the same morning that the Com- mander in Chief gave his consent, and directed you to make out the necessary papers? I beg pardon, but I do not comprehend that ques- tion. . t When did you state the result of your inquiries respecting Colonel Brooke 2 I have already stated, that I made my report to the Com- mander in Chief on the 23d, and received his pleasure upon it. Upon casting your eye over the Tuesday's Gazette, can you tell whether there are any promotions or exchanges in the Tuesday's Ga- zette which received his Majesty’s approbation at the same time as the exchange in question? I beg to state, that I firmly believe it is the usual practice, at least, that every exchange, and promotion and ap- pointment, went in the same paper before the King. * * t * • * f - * : * • * - º The Chancellor of the Eachequer now proposed that the committee should adjourn till Friday next, giving the honourable member (Mr. Wardle) an opportunity to col- lect his other witnesses; for the remainder of the evidence ën behalf of his Royal Highness was very short. The £58 PROCEE BINGS RELATIVE TO right honourable Chancellor was convinced that the hon. *ourable member would not consume a day more of the itime of the house than was necessary, and as he had several more charges to prove, the right honourable Chan- cellor would take the liberty of asking upon which he would next enter. * {-- Mr. Wardle replied that this must depend upon the arrival of Captain Huxley Sandon with the royal wag- gons at Portsmouth, and of General French from the West Indies. . . . . . t - Mr. Adam said, that the present was one of the most cruel and severe cases that he had seen for a length of time. His Royal Highness the Duke of York was charged with matters of the most criminal kind; and notice was given of this charge at the earliest period of the session, when military men were absent on duty, or had fallen by the sword, and when those inquiries could not be made, which the honourable and learned gentleman had no doubt would prove that the promotions of those men were equally honourable to those who had fallen, and to those who had made them. Under these hardships, the hon- ourable and learned gentleman thought that the house had a right to ask whether the honourable unember had not some witnesses ready to be called on Friday ; and espe- cially as the committee had now taken the trouble to go through a tedious examination of six or eight long hours. The honourable member would recollect, that there were other charges which he had to establish ; and if the com- mittee were told of the non-arrivals of Captain Huxley Sandon and General French, they would have no reason to think, but that there was more of charge without founda- tion in the honourable member's inquiry, than of proof altogether. The honourable member therefore, should be required to select some one charge upon which the com- mittee might immediately resume their proceedings If the honourable gentleman had taken the advice of any other member upon his present inquiry, he would not have been so rapid in giving his notice, and in saying things that remained upon persons without immediate confirmation or refutation. Many of the persons mentioned in the open- ing of the honourable member's charge were known to be. in London ; and therefore his Royal Highness was not to be placed in the cruel situation of suspense. If ever it was at all desirable that justice should be administered / The comm ANDER IN CHIEF. 59. quickly, it was so in a case where the honour of the second subject in the realm was impeached. Mr. Wardle said, that there was one charge (that re- specting Captain Maling) upon which he was prepared to go at once. - The house was then resumed, and it was ordered that the present committee should sit again on Friday next. February 2, 1809. Mr. Wardle expressed a hope that he should be per- mitted to-morrow to examine some further evidence upon the points under consideration of the committee yesterday. He asked leave at the same time to correct an answer he had given yesterday to the question of an honourable member through mere error of memory. He had stated that he saw Mrs. Clarke but once on the evening of Tues- day last, forgetting at the same time that he had seen her also on the morning of that day for about two minutes. The Chancellor of the Earchequer said it was competent for the honourable gentleman to explain the circumstance in his place. Mr. Wardle moved that a proper person from the office of the secretary to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, do attend this house to-morrow, with the books containing all applications made by subaltern officers to purchase promotions, within the period that three commis- sions were given to Captain Maling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection to t the attendance of any person from the office of the Com- mander in Chief; but he thought the house ought not to be too prompt in making orders for the production of such books, without knowing whether such were in existence. 60 PROCEEDINGS RELATIYE fo SECOND DAY. rhibay, FEBRUARY 3. . -º- List of Witnesses examined. , G. L. WARDLE, Esq. (a Member.) WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. (a Member.) M.R. LUDOWICK ORRAMIR. COLONEL GORDON. - - j* Mr. WHARton in the Chair. Mr. Wardle, previous to going into the committee of inquiry into the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, wished to correct the error to which he had alluded yesterday, in his former evidence. + - The Speaker informed the honourable member, that the time for offering any thing relevant to his former evi. dence, would be, when the house should have resolved itself into a committee. The matter then immediately be: fore the house, was the notice the honourable gentleman had yesterday given, of a motion for certain papers of books, from the office of the commander in chief. ‘’’ After a short conversation, which led to the omission of a part of Mr. Wardle's original motion, the following motion was agreed to:—“That the proper officer from the office of the commander-in-chief do attend the com- mittee of the whole house, appointed to inquire into the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, with the book containing the applications for purchase by subaltern officers, within the period in which Captain Maling had his three commissions given to him.” THE COM M A NK ER IN CHIEF. 61 The house having then resolved itself into the com- mittee, Mr. Wharton in the chair, Mr. Wharton observed, that perhaps it might be for the convenience of the committee, that he should state, that any gentleman who might have questions to put to any of the witnesses, should mention to him when he closed his examination, in order that no interruption should be experienced from any other gentleman putting questions, which could not otherwise be prevented by the chair. Mr. Wardle begged to call the attention of the com- mittee to the correction he had to make of his former evi- dence. He had on the former night stated that he had not seen Mrs. Clarke on Tuesday morning, though he had waited a considerable time in her drawing-room for the purpose of seeing her. On recollection, however, he found that it was on Monday he had waited a long time in the drawing-room, and that on the morning of Tues- day he had seen Mrs. Clarke for a few minutes, as well as in the evening, as he had before stated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that in the explanation of the honourable member, there was some ambiguity, in as much as the words “as I before stated” might be construed to the correction of the former evi- dence now first given, as well as to the former statement of the honourable gentleman. $ Mr. Wardle declared, that he meant the words “as I before stated” to apply solely to the interview which he had with Mrs. Clarke, for a few minutes in her draw- ing-room, on Tuesday evening, and which he had stated in his former examination. - - On the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the questions and answers relative to Mr. Wardle's in- terviews with Mrs. Clarke on Tuesday, were read from the notes of the short-hand writer, from which it ap- peared, that in his former examination Mr. Wardle had fallen into an error, which he had in this instance cor- rected, namely, by stating that he had not seen Mrs. Clarke at all on Tuesday morning. The admission there- fore, that the honourable member had seen Mrs. Clarke on the morning of that day, was added to his evidence but in order to avoid ambiguity, the words “as I state before” were expunged. - 62 M.R. war DLE's ExAMINATION. G. L. WARDLE Esq, examined in his place. You were at Mrs. Clarke's, as you state, on the Tuesday morning? &S, And saw Mrs. Clarke? Yes. - Was Mrs. Clarke at home when you called I believe she was up stairs. How long might you be at her house before you saw her? I do not think very long. A short time. ) How long did you stay there 2 I cannot speak very correctly; it is impossible for me to say exactly ; perhaps half an hour or thereabouts. ºf believe I was in my carraige ; but I am not certain. You came there in your carriage? I think so; but I am not very positive. ... I have been so constantly in the habits of going there, that it is impossible for me to say; but I rather think I was in my carriage. Do you recollect how long you were there Upon my word I do not, or else I would answer most fully ; but to say positively that I can name a time, it really is not in my power. g At what hour of the day did you go there? . Upon my word I can- not exactly say; I think the first time I saw Mrs. Clarke on Tuesday was early in the morning. d About what time 2. tion my word I do not know the hour; but I ºber going down in her carriage with her to the end of the King's O36. Qn the Tuesday morning? Yes, on the Tuesday morning, You called upon her in the morning Yes. At what time in the morning did you call upon her first? It was after breakfast; I should think about eleven or twelve o'clock. I do not speak positively. & Was it at that time that you called upon her in your carriage 2 No it was not; I think I walked there. - ... How long did you stay with her on that occasion when you called there, º walked there? To the best of my recollection, there were a parcel of workmen putting up looking glasses, and things of that kind, in the house; and I do not think I was there more than a short time. } - Half an hour? . Upon my word I cannot say; if it is of any conse- quence, I will endeavour to recollect. I rather think, to the best of my recollection, but I speak without certainty to these points, that her car- riage was at the door. I am not certain. id you go out with her in her carriage? I did. Rºi that morning Yes as far as the bar at the bottom of the King's O3Cl. * Did you call upon her afterwards in your carriage on that day ? I think I did in my carriage. I called upon her that day. - At what time did you call upon her in your carriage? I really cannot exactly Say; I should thinkit might have been three o'clock. I do not speak to an hour, but, as far as I can recollect, that was the time. It has since occurred to me where I had been; I had taken a long walk, and returned and went to her house in my carriage. v' Did you see her when you called-upon her in your carriage?. I did, * R. w A R DLE’s ExAMINATIow. 63; . She was at home then? I think she was up stairs, and came down SOOI). .* Then Mrs. Clarke saw you the second time She saw me the second time. Do you recollect how long you staid with her the second time? I do not think long; I should think about half an hour: I do not know? whether it was so much. I cannot be positive as to the time. , Then I understand you to have said, that you saw her a third time in the evening As I have before stated, I saw her at night in her draw- ing-room, with some company, for a very short time. You called upon her the morning before; the Monday I did. Mrs. Clarke was not at home then She was not at home; and F. was under a mistake on the former night, in supposing that what occur- red on the Tuesday, had happened on the Monday. Did you see her at all on the Monday? As I was coming away, having waited about two hours, she came in after driving about in town. Did you stay any time after she came in 2 No, I did not; I came away immediately. * Then both on the Monday and on the Tuesday you had seen her in the course of the morning As I have stated, I saw her for a very short time, just as she came in on the Monday. On the Tuesday, had you any conversation with her on the subjeet of these charges I do not really recollect that I had ; positively no. pointed conversation at all. Did Mrs. Clarke first mention this subject of the charges against his Royal Highness the Duke of York to you, or did you first mention it to her? I fancy in the first instance I asked her questions respecting them. * . Do you recollect from whom you first derived your information on this subject To say from whom is totally impossible. I could note with propriety, state many of the names. Have you received the information from Mr. Finnerty? I never re- ceived any information from Mr. Finnerty in my life upon this subject? Within these few days he spoke to me, but not any information respecting, these charges. I did not know Mr. Finnerty, and as to his giving me any information, he never did. Within these few days, Mr. Finnerty spoke to me respecting Dr. Thynne; I believe the very day before Dr. Thynne was examined. I think it necessary to add, that when Major Hogan's pamphlet was published, on seeing the matter held out there, of information being ready to be given to any member of parliament who asked for it, I wrote a letter addressed to Major Hogan, and, in eonsequence of that letter, I had an interview with Mr. Finnerty, I put some questions to Mr. Finnerty, and I found, or, at least, I had every reason to believe, that he had not any information at all upon the sub- ject; and none did he give me. I never had any information whatever, from Mr. Finnerty that led to any chargé which I have made. Inever, to my knowledge, saw Mr. Finherty in my life till be came, in conse- quence of my letter to Major Hogan, and then I had not any informa- tion from him; which led to the charges I have made. --- - When was it that you saw Mr. Finnerty, in consequence of your letter to Major Hogan; was it before or after the communication respectin Jºr. Thynne? The communication .."; Dr. Thynne occurred in this lobby, or near it? I believe the night Dr, Thynne gave his evi. 64 MR, ADAM's ExAMINATIon. dence. It was some months ago when I applied by letter, perhaps a month after the publication of Major Hogan's pamphlet. * - - -, Was the day, on which you now recollect to have seen Mrs. Clarke three times, the day before your last examination ? I have before stated, that I was led to believe, that what occurred on the Tuesday had happened on the Monday; as soon as I got home from this house, I made some inquiries that set me to rights on that subject, and I took the earliest opportunity yesterday of communicating, in this house, my mistake to the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, and to the right honourable gentleman the Speaker. *. Are you certain, that the day on which you now recollect to have seen Mrs. Clarke three times, was the day before your last examina- tion ? Yes, it was on Tuesday last. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. a member of the house, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: - Have you the letters to which you referred on a former evening? I wish to state that I have a letter dated Sunday morning, June 19th, without any year; it is indorsed in my hand-writing, June 19th, 1808. I have another letter, dated Saturday morning, without any day of the month; I have not, I observe, put any indorsement of the day of the month or of the year, upon that letter, but it will appear, that that of the 19th of June, 1808, was the first, and that dated Saturday was the second letter. When those letters were the subject of examination on a former evening, I wished to be possessed of them, in order to have produced them. I had it not in my power to produce them then, not supposing that such a subject would be alluded to ; I have now pro- duced them. 3. - [The following letters were read.] {g y “ON the 11th of May, 1806, you waited on me, by the desire of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, to state His Royal Highness’s intention of allowing me an annuity of four hundred per annum. His Royal Highness by his promise, is now indebted to me five hundred pounds. I have written repeatedly, but of no avail. His Royal High- ness's conduct towards me, has been so devoid of principle, feeling, and honour; and as his promises are not to be depended on, though even given by you; I have come to the determination of making m intentions known to you, for the consideration of his Royal Highness; —and thus it is:—I solicit his Royal Highness to make the annuity se- cure for my life, and to pay me the arrears immediately, as my neces- sities are very pressing—(this he knows.) If his Royal #. refuses to do this, I have no other mode for my immediate wants, than to pubs lish every circumstance ever communicated to me by his Royal High- ness and every thing which has come under my knowledge during our intimacy, with all his letters; those things amount to something serious: he is more within my power than may be imagined. Yet I wish, for his Royal Highness's sake and my own, that he will make my request good, as I know full well I should suffer much in exposing him in my own mind; yet, before I do any thing publicly, I will send to every one of his Royal Highness's family, a copy of what I mean to publish. Had his Royal Highness only been a little punctual, this request had MR. W.A RDLE's ExAMINATION. 65 never been made. One thing more: should his Royal Highness throw up his protection to my boy, (for I thank him much for the past) I hope he will place him on the foundation of the Charter-house, or any other public school: the child is not accountable for my conduct. You will please then, Sir, to state this communication to the Duke of York; and, on Wednesday, I will send to your house, to know what may be his Royal Highness's intention; which you will please to signify by a letter to “Your most obedient, - “humble Servant, “Sunday Morning, June 19. “M. A. CLARKE. “His Royal Highness must feel, that his conduct, on a late affair, deserves all this from me, and more. “h'illiam Adam, Esq. Bloomsbury Square. ** Prºvate.” Indorsed Mrs. Clarke, 19th June, 1808. S “ 11, Holles Street, Cavendish Square. “SIR, “ON Wednesday, finding there was not any answer to my letter, I am led to enquire, his Royal Highness the Duke of York, thinks proper not to make good his promise given by you, and that you encourage him in it. “I have employed myself since, in committing to paper every cir- cumstance within my recollection during the intimacy of his Royal Highness and myself. The fifty or sixty letters of his Royal Highness will give weight to the whole. On Tuesday I have promised to give these up, if I hear nothing further after this last notice; and when once given out of my own possession, it will be impossible to recall. It is to gentlemen, and not any publisher, they will be committed; and those gentlemen are just as obstinate as his Royal Highness, and more independent: they are acquaintances of your's; and to relieve my wants, in pique to others, will do what the Duke will not : however, he has it all within his own power, and so he may act as he pleases, “I am, Sir, “Your most obedient, “M. A. CLARKE. “Saturday Morning. “William Adam, Esq. Bloomsbury Square.” Were those the two letters that the witness alluded to in her exam- ination 2 . They must have been the two letters that she alluded to, because I am conſident I never received any other letter from the wit. ness, unless that I received a very short note of a few lines; I rather think I did, but I am not possessed of that. Did his Rºyal Highness ever betray any apprehension to you as to any thing which the witness could communicate respecting his Royal Hi º: Never at any time, or on any occasion. .* id you communicate the contents of these letters - w Hi º I did. - to his Royal id you shew the letters themselves, or state the full contents of them : " I shewed the letters themselves, and his Royal Highness pe- rused them in my presence. F 66 LUDow 16K on RAMIN's ExAMINATION. After you had communicated those letters to his Royal Highness, and shewn them to him, did he betray the slightest apprehension of : thing the witness had in her power to communicate 2 Not the Slightest. Did his Royal Highness deny that there was any thing that could be }}. against him : I cannot be precise to the words which his Royal Highness might have used ; but I can say with confidence, that his Royal Highness expressed himself as not at all apprehensive respecting any thing which could be published. I wish to state, that the boy, re- terred to in Mrs. Clarke's letter is not any boy of the Duke of York's. LUDowiCK ORRAMIN was called in, and examined as follows: In whose service are you ? his Royal Highness the Duke of York's. How long have you been in his Royal Highness's service: Eighteen years next September. Have you been constantly in his Royal Highness's service during that period? Yes. - Do you remember when his Royal Highness used to visit Mrs. Clarke, in Gloucester Place : Yes. t Did any, and which of his Royal Highness's servants, ever use to attend his Royal Highness there? None but myself. In what capacity do you serve his Royal Highness? As footman. At what time in the day did you use to go to his Royal Highness? Sometimes at eight o'clock in the morning. I never went to his Royal Highness in the day. For what purpose did you use to go to him 2 To take his clothes. IXid you eversee Mrs. Clarke there? Once. * During how long a time were you in the habit of going to his Royal Highness at Gloucester-place : From the year 1804 to 1806. Are you sure that no other of his Royal Highness's servants, but yourself, went to him there? Yes, Were you there very frequently during that time Yes. What was the single occasion on which you saw Mrs. Claike A prompt message I received to take a favourite dog of his Royal IIigh- ness's for Mrs. Clarke to see. Was his Highness there at that time No. Are you sure that you never saw Mrs. Clarke at any other time but that at Gloucester-place Not at Gloucester-place. Were you ever directed, either by Mrs. Clarke or by his Royal Highness, to carry out from Gloucester-place a bank mote to be changed? No. Did you ever carry out a bank note from Gloucester-place to be - * changed ; No. Are you quite certain of that fact? Yes. Upon what ground do you assert, that no other servant of the Duke of York's ever went to Gloucester-place? Because I had an order from his Royal Highness, that I was to bring those things, and no other ser- vant; and no other dared to do it. Do you assert, from your own knowledge, that no other servant of the Duke of York's ever went to Gloucester-place Yes. Can you speak to your own knowledge, that no other servant, ex- cept yourself, ever took a letter from the Duke of York to Gloucester- place to Mrs. Clarke None but me. LUDow Ick or RAMIN's ExAMINATION. 67 k How many men-servants were there in Gloucester-place? I do not In OW. State, as nearly as you can, how many men-servants there were there 2. There were sometimes two in general. I never saw more than two livery servants. How many servants out of livery One. What was he Butler. Was there no other servant out of livery No. Was there a man-cook I do not know that ever there was. How often were you in the habits of carrying letters to Gloucester- place? Very seldom. No other servant of the Duke's ever did carry them, to your know- ledge 2 No, not to my knowledge. Do you know of any other person who took those letters ? No, I do In Ot. Did you carry any letters from the Duke, that were sent from the Horse-Guards to Gloucester-place : Yes, some I did. A great many No. * You stated, that you never saw Mrs. Clarke but once at Gloucester place in your life 2 No, I never did. To whom did you deliver these letters which you took? Mostly to the housekeeper. What was her name Favorite. What was the butler's name 2 I do not know ; I believe, to the best of my recollection, it was Pierce, one of them ; the name of the last I do not know. Did you ever see Mrs. Clarke any where else but at Gloucester- place 2 Twice. Where 2 I met her opposite Somerset-house. Walking in the street? Walking in the street. Three times only have you seen Mrs. Clarke in your life? Only three times. Have you had any intercourse with any one, previous to your com- ing to this bar, respecting the evidence you have given this night? His Royal Highness asked me if I ever did receive a note from him or Mrs. Clarke. Had you had any intercourse with any other person besides his Royal Highness previous to your giving your testimony this night? I was asked the same question by Mr. Adam. Had you any intercourse of the same kind with any other person f A Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr Lowten. Who is Mr. Wilkinson 2 A gentleman with Mr. Lowten. Have you had any other intercourse with any other person, respect- ing the testimony you were to give at this bar No. Were the servants, you speak of as being at Gloucester-place, Mrs. Clarke's servants To the best of my knowledge they were. Are you a foreigner? Yes. - Do you know that they were not the Duke of York's servants? To the best of my recollection, I believe they were not the Duke of York's Sel"VáI) tS. * Were the directions from the Duke of York to you, that no one but yourself should go to his Royal Highness, at Gloucester-place I had F 2 63 MR. An AM's ExAMINATIon. his-Royal Highness's instructions, that nobody, if a letter came, was to go with it but myself. When his Royal Highness asked you, whether you had ever carried a bank note to change from Gloucester-place, what answer did you. give him 2 I told him, I certainly did not recollect that ever I carried; any note whatever to be changed. Uan you now take upon yourself, upon recollection, to state that you never did? Yes I can. Did you give the saiae answer to Mr. Howten, and to the other per- sons who asked you? I did. Are you certain that the Duke of York never went in his carriage to Gloucester-place?' He certainly never did. -- ** Nor on horseback As far as I know, he never did; Repeat as nearly as you can, every thing that passed between Mr. Adam, Mr. Lowten, Mr. Wilkinson, and yourself, upon this subject. Mr. Adam asked me if I was in the habit of going to his Royal Highuess's occasionally, and I answered yes; .# then Mr. Adam asked me if ever I recollected receiving a note either from Mrs. Clarke of his Royal Highness; I said I never did; upon which Mr. Adam sent me to Mr. Lowten and Mr. Wilkinson. Mr. Wilkinson asked: me my name again, and how long I had been with his Royal Highness, and then asked me concerning these notes, if I ever changed any note for Mrs. Clarke or his Royal Highness, of that description, there ; I answered no. That is as nearly as I can recollect what passed. Has the IXuke no valet de chambre that ever went to him at Gloucester-place, either at night or in the morning To my recollec- tion, his Royal Flighness had no valet that exer went to Gloucester- lace. P [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. was further examined, as follows: Having stated that you have served his Royal Highness the Duke of York gratuitously, may I be allowed to ask, have you a son in the army 2 I have, he is a lieutenant-colonel of the 21st regiment of foot. At what age was he made lieutenant-colonel 2 I will answer that question. But as I have received a letter which I will presently read to the house, they will see the necessity of my answering that question by stating the introduction of that person, and the progress he made in the army. General Sir Charles Stewart, who was a friend of my early life, asked me if any of my five sons had a disposition or inclinas tion for the army. I told him that there was one of them, then four- teen or fifteen years old, who I thought had a strong tendency that way. He said, you know my friendship for you, and the rules of the service, permit my making him an ensign. He gave him the commis- sion of ensign ; his regiment was in Canada, and the young person. never joined it, but was sent by me immediately to Woolwich, to º ceive a military education regularly ; and as I am asked a question of this sort, and know its tendency, from the letter I have in my pocket I do not think it unbecoming in me to state, of so near and so dear a. relation, that he distinguished himself extremely in his progress at Woolwich. He received a second commission of lieutenant from. tº eneral Sir Charles Stewart, equally gratuitously with my services tº: * MR, ADAM’s ExAMINATIox. 69 the Duke of York. When Sir Ralph Abercrombie, whom I likewise had the honour to call my intimate friend, was about to-go out to the Helder, he went under him at the age of sixteen as a volunteer. The house will pardon me, for it is impossible for me not to feel upon this subject; I must state his merits. That youth landed in a hot fire, and the behaved so as to receive the thanks of every body around him ; he remained actively engaged in every engagement during that expe- dition; he had the command of such a subdivision of men as a lieu- tenant commands, and they were of those troops that were raised as volunteers from the militia; they were raw to service, they required much management, and yet he contrived to conduct them well: when he returned to this country, he received from his Royal Highness the Puke of York, without any solicitation whatever en my part, so help me God, a commission in his own regiment, the Coldstream, having paved the way to make him a lieutenant in his own regiment, by giving him a commission in one of the regiments that was raised just after the #ffair of the Helder. I do not recollect the particular circumstances, but it will be easy to get them at the war-office, if that is necessary. He remained in the Coldstream regiment at home until the expedition to Egypt, when he went again under Sir Ralph Abercrombie, where he was accompanied by his friend at Woolwich, who had made a similar progress with himself, the son of Sir John Warren, who was killed by His side. He was one of those who landed with the guards in the illustrious landing commanded by Sir Ralph Abercrombie, and cover- ed by Lord Keith. I have the happiness to say, that he distinguished himself equally upon that occasion. When he returned home, the Duke of York again gratuitously transferred him to his own regiment with the rank of major; and he rose, as a matter of course, at the age, I believe, of not quite twenty-one, to the rank of lieutenant-colo- nel in the second battalion of his own regiment. When Colonel Wilson went abroad with General Maitland, Colonel Wilson intimated to me, that it would vacate his lieutenant-colonelcy ; and the only time I ever mentioned his name to the Duke of York was to mention that fact, and to leave it to his Royal Highness to do as he thought fit: his Royal Highness put him in the first battalion: And I have the happiness to think, that he has been a constant credit to his country, 4nd has commanded as well, from the moment he was appointed iieutenant-colonel, as any one in the service; and I desire general officers in the service to speak to that. If General Moore were alive, he could do it. I now beg leave to read this letter, which I should have considered a mere trifle, if it were not for this question, and put it into my pocket, and probably into the fire: it is written in red ink. [* - - [Mr. Adam read an anonymous letter. To W. Adam, Esq. SIR,--Your character was once respectable—that is now over; 3 our shifting of sides in the hºuse, and your interference in the Duke of York’s lechery, would have dubbed any other man with the epithet of Pimp. By your perpetual subserviency to the Royal interests, one of your sons has obtained a lieutenant-colonelcy, and the other a ship— (“I wish I was questioned as to that appointment—”) Bravo–go on— see if you can persuade any m.an you are not acting for profit, when 70 colonel, GoRDON's ExAMINATION. your family is thus provided for. What!, the Duke's conduct is not to i. canvassed—no, nor his profligacy to his w , because he is the second in the kingdom, and a prince forsooth. Decide as you will, the public can form their judgment; nor will a heavy burthened people be persuaded, by the vote of a bear garden, that black is white. }. honest; change your principles with the colour of your hair; let this rubrick prove to you typical of my feeling, blushing as I am at your misconduct: and as for the house, it may discuss the subject; but on its decision depends its own damnation or salvation.” - Having given the answer which I have to the honourable gentle- 'man, I am in the judgment of the house, whether I have not a right to say, that I have gratuitously served the Duke of York. COLONELGORDON was called in and examined as follows: What were the merits and services that obtained Captain Maling his rapid promotion, and the gift of his three commissions 2 I will state them to the house. The first recommendation for the ensign's com- mission of Mr. Maling I have now in my hand. * [Colonel Gordon read the following letter:l “ London, 20th Nov. 1805. C. L. agreed to. SIR, “As I am very anxious to have the regiment under my command complete, I took the liberty of sº to his Royal Highness the Oct. 1804. Nov. 1804. * names of Ensigns Budd and Warren, (the senior of their rank and of the year 1804) for two of the vacant lieutenancies, which his Royal Highness was graciously pleased to accede to ; I should humbly beg leave to recommend in their succession - Murphy and John Mal- ing, gents. They are both very promising young men, and of the full age prescribed by his Majesty’s regulations. ' ', " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' “I have the honour to be, * Sir, t “Your most obedient, and most humble Servant, º “J. Doyle, Lt. General, ' ' “Colonel 87th, “Lt. Colonel Gordon, &c. &c. &c. “Horse Guards.” º On the formation of the garrison battalions in November, 1806, when the men for limited service were taken out of the body of the army and placed into separate battalions, it became necessary, of course, to officer those battalions. Ensign Maling then with the 87th regiment, was, with four other ensigns, selected for the fourth garrison battalion, then in Guernsey—in the same place in which he was serving, Ensign Māling was the senior of three of those ensigns, and he was of that standing in the army; which entitled him, not only to promotion in that corps, but into almost any other corps in his Ma- jesty’s service. That will account for his promotion to a lieutenancy. Lieutenant Maling joined the garrison battalion to which he was ap- t & - colo NEL GoR pos’s ExAiſin;Tſon. 71 pointed, and remained with it a considerable period. In August 1807, this letter was writtell to me. * [Colonel Gordon read the following letter:} . & “August 17th, 1807. “Cox and Greefwood. “SIR, - - - “I have to beg you will be pleased to lay before his Royal #. ness, the Commander in Chief, my request, that Captain Charles Doyle, of the first garrison battalion, may be transferred to the 87th regiment, in which corps there is a vacant company, vice Edwards cashiered. g “I take the liberty to enclose a request on the part of Lieutenant Maling of the fourth garrison battalion. “I have the honour, Sir, *N to be your obedient Servant, “ C. W. Doyle. “To Lt. Col. Gordon, “Lt. Colonel 87th, “ &c. &c. &c. “Commandiñg 2d Batt.” “Lieutenant Maling of the fourth garrison battalion, humbly re- quests to be removed back into the 87th, there being vacancies in that corps, and the ensigns who were senior to him are all promoted. “ August 17th, 1807.” Colonel Gordon.—Consequently he could not be an Aid-de-Camp. The statement of the thing was considered as sufficient; the regiment being ordered for embarkation, the Commander in Chief would not permit it, nor could the officer, consistently with his. own honour, ac- cept it. The next that we heard of lieutenant Maling, now captain Maling, was on the augmentation of the Royal African corps from four companies to six companies. In the month of last September it be- came necessary for the Commander in Chief to recommend to his Ma- jesty two officers to fill those vacant companies. Lieutenant Maling having been recommended to the notice of the Commander in Chief, from the paper now before the House, he was selected for one of those vacant comparſies; but before he was so selected, I spoke to his bro- ther, and asked him if he could answer, that if his brother, Lieutenant Maling, was appointed to a company in the African corps, that he would join that corps, and go with them instantly to Goree; the bro- ther assured me that he would answer for his doing so; in consequence of which I submitted his name to the Commander in Chief for one of those vacant companies, to which he was accordingly appointed. Af- ter he was appointed, I sent for captain Måling, and repeated to him, as nearly as I can recollect, the very words I repeated to his brother. He expressed himself much, honoured in the appointment, much flat- tered with my notice; and that he was in readiness to set off instantly to the army, depôt, to which place I believe he did set off. Many of the African corps were at that time on board a prison-ship. When this prison-ship became too crowded to hold all the men that it was necessary to put into it, a detachment was sent to Castle Cornet, in the island of Guernsey, the only place of security to which men of that description could be sent; captain Maling went with it: and the next that I heard 72 colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. of captain Maling was this letter, two months and a half after he had been appointed: [Colonel Gordon delivered in the following letter :] - “Guernsey, 25th July, 1808. Čá' SIR, “THE Secretary at War having notified to me, that I am to be allowed one Aid-de-Camp from the 25th of April, I beg you may submit to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief my request to be permitted to recemmend Lieutenant Maling, of the 87th regiment, for that situation. , “I have the honour to be, Sir, “Your most obedient, humble servant, “The Adjutant General of the Forces, “John FRASER, * &c. &c. &c.” * M. G. (Copy.) w “Horse-Guards, 30th July, 1808. “SIR, t - “I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th ult, and to acquaint you, that the 2d battalion of the 87th regi- ment, to which Lieutenant Maling belongs, has been ordered to be held in readiness for immediate embarkation for foreign service. J “I have, &c. (Signed) “HARRY CALveRT, * M. General J. Fraser, &c. &c. &c. “A. G. * Guernsey.” (Copy.) “Guernsey, 20th Dec. 1808. “SIR, “I beg leave to request permission of his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief, to employ as my Aid-de-Camp, Captain John Maling, of the Royal African Corps, who is at present stationed in this island with part of that corps. n “I have the honour to be, Sir, “Your most obedient humble servant. “John FRASER, M. G. “The Adjutant General of the Forces.” - Indorsed: Dec.,27th. “There was a very large proportion of these men at the depôt, on board the prison-ships, and in other places of confinement; and of these it was reported that some were men of less bad conduct than others, and might be usefully employed as soldiers, but that it was hard to keep them as prisoners for such a length of time as might elapse before they could possibly embark for Goree. The only place for them is Castle Cornet, in Guérnsey, where their predecessors were, and where these men may be trained and formed prior to embarkation for Africa. 1 " . . ; ( , ; - ? “Captain Maling is a good young man, and I should imagine, so long as the corps REMAINS IN Guernsey, there could not be any ob- jection.—Major Chisholm left town yesterday, for Guernsey.” colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 73 (Copy.) o “ Horse-Guards, 28th Dec. 1808. * SIR, e “I have had the honour to lay before the Commander in Chief, your letter of the 20th instant; and am directed to acquaint you, that his Royal Highness approves of Captain John Maling of the Royal African Corps, being employed as your Aid-de-Camp, upon the staff of Guernsey, so long as a detachment of that 'corps remains in Guernsey. I have, &c. º H. CALVERT, A. G. “Major Gen. Fraser, &c. &c. &c. “Guernsey.” Is it within your knowledge that there are several subalterns now in the army, who have served longer than Captain Maling? Unques- tionably, there are a very considerable number. May I explain to the House: it is the invariable practice of the army, at least it has been the invariable practice of the present Commander in Chief, without one single exception, that no junior officer can be promoted over the head of his senior, I mean in the regiment into which he is so pro- moted: but it never has been the practice of the army, that the promo- tion goes in a regular routine of seniority through the whole army; I never heard of such a practice. I beg further to explain: I conceive it my particular duty to take care, and report to the Commander in Chief, that any officer whose name is submitted to his Royal Highness is a fit and proper person, duly qualified in all respects, as to character, as to points of service, and as to his Majesty’s regulations, for the service into which he is so recommended; that Captain Maling is so, I did certainly conceive; and I do now feel, that he is not only an honour to the corps in which he is placed, but I do firmly believe that he is as f. an officer as any in the army, and as likely to do honour to his country. Do you mean, that no officer is promoted over the head of another who is his senior; do you mean, that no officer is taken out of one regiment and put into another, over the head of an officer of older rank than himself, who was ready to purchase in that regiment? I mean distinctly this: if there should be a vacant company, for instance in the 5th regiment of foot, that any lieutenant that the Commander in Chief recommends for that purpose, must be senior to all the lieute- mants of the 5th. Then a major of one regiment could not be put as lieutenant-coloneţ into another, over the head of a major in that regiment of senior date and rank to himself? Most undoubtedly not. - Wäs hot Colonel Pigot, of a dragoon regiment, promoted over the head of a senior major who then was in that regiment? I beg to ex- lain, that, when I say this never takes place, it is made a special instruction from the Commander in Chief to every general officer commanding, that he invariably pursues the practice I have pointed out, except in such cases where he can give strong and sufficient rea- sons to the contrary. With respect to Colonel Pigot, I cannot ven- ture to take upon myself to speak so decidedly from memory; but I believe ; Honourable Member means Colonel Pigot of the 21st Dragoons, now at the Cape; what the specialſ, circumstances º 74 .com.0NE1, Gohpon's ExAMINATIos. of his appointment were, I do not now recollect; but whatever they were, they were on the special recommendation of the Lieutenant- General, and Colonel of the regiment, Lieutenant-General Tarleton, that I do recollect. - - - - -: Do you recollect any unpleasant occurrence happening in conse- quence of that appointment? I cannot say that I do. . Can you, from your own knowledge say, whether, at the time of Lieutenant Maling being promoted to a company, any recommenda- tions for purchase from the commanding officers of regiments, of subalterns of senior date to Lieutenant Maling, were before the Com- mander in Chief? Certainly, a great many; but this vacancy was not by purchase. r Were there any recommendations of senior subalterns for promotion without purchase before the Commander in Chief? It is very likely that there were. - Can you speak positively to that fact? I think I can. Do you think that they were to any great number The army is so very extensive, I cannot have any hesitation in saying, that they must have been to a very great number. - Is it not a regulation, that no officer shall Fº a company, unless he has been two years a subaltern ? It is a regulation of the Army, His Majesty's regulation, that no subaltern can be pro- moted to a company, either by purchase or without, under a service of two years. -- , , -- Do you command the Royal African Corps ? H do, State what has been the length and nature of your services in the Army 2. I have served His Majesty very nearly for twenty-six years; for the last twenty-four of which I have been employed in every part of the world (the East Indies excepted) where His Majesty's troops have been stationed, and with very little intermission. I have been four times to the West Indies, and have been there nearly six years; I have been twice to America; I have been all over the Mediterranean ; I have commanded a regiment in America; I have commanded a regi- ment in the West Indies. It has been my fortune, very undeservedly, perhaps, to have a sword voted for my services; to have been repeat- edly thanked by General Officers under whom I have been placed. It is, perhaps, a singular part of my service, that I have not only served in every situation in the Army, from an ensign up to my present rank, that a gentleman could serve in, but I have, also, served in every situ- ation, upon the staff of the Army, without one single exception. Of this service, twelve years I was a subaltern, nine of that in constant, regimental duty, five years, I think, as major, two or three years as iieutenant-colonel with my regiment, the greatest part of that time abroad. - Were not the regulations for the promotion of the Army, which you have mentioned, set on foot originally by the Duke of York? They certainly were, when the Duke of York became Commander in Chief of the Army. Prior to his being appointed Commander in Chief of the Army, an officer who had money might purchase up to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in three weeks or a month, as fast as his separate appointments could be passed through each separate Gazette. * * Does the rule that you have stated, of not promoting an officer into another regiment where there are officers senior to him of the colonel, GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 75 same rank that he filled in the regiment from which he comes, apply to appointments with or without purchase? It applies to both ; that is, no junior officer can be permitted to purchase over the head of a senior officer, provided that senior officer is also willing to purchase, I always, mean ; or unless there are special reasons to the contrary; something relating to the misconduct of the person. Can you take upon yourself to say, that there has been no instance of an officer being promoted into another regiment, where, if it is not a case of purchase, there is an unexceptionable senior officer in the same rank; and where it is a case of purchase, where there is an un- exceptionable officer, able and willing to purchase ?, I have already said, that no junior officer can be promoted over the head of a senior officer in the same regiment, and that the same rule applies to purchase; that is, that no junior officer can purchase over the head of a senior officer into a regiment where a senior officer is willing to purchase; that I never knew that rule deviated from, except in Some particular case or cases, upon which a special explanation could be given. - pon reference to any paper since you were last examined here, have you any means of accounting for the exchange of Lieutenant- Colonel Knight and Lieutenant-Colonel Brooke not being in the Ga- zette till the Tuesday ? I stated to the House, I believe, in my evi- dence the last time I had the honour to give it in this House, that I received the Duke's pleasure, his final pleasure, upon the subject of this exchange, on the 23d of July, which date was º the original paper now on the table of the House. Since that time I have obtained pos- Session of the original paper which was submitted to his Majesty; I now hold that paper in my hand. The exchange was final with the Commander in Chief on the 23d of July, the Tuesday; on Wednes- day the 24th it was made out to be sent to the King, but not in time to go by the mail of that day. I beg to inform the House, that the mail passes through the arch-way of the Horse Guards exactly at three o'clock; the King being at Weymouth on Thursday the 25th, I sent this pāper to his Majesty by the mail. Here is his Majesty's signa- tire to it. . . . “Weymouth, July the 26th, 1805; Commissions agreeably to the above List, to be prepared for My signature.” . . . . This paper was returned to me on the following day, on Saturday, but too late for the Gazette; it was therefore gazetted on the next Gazette day. I believe I stated to the House, that when I talk of he next Gazette, I mean the next Gazette in which Military Pro- motions are announced ; and it will be found that no military promo- tions were announced in the Gazette on Saturday. I have said that the Commander in Chief had decided upon this exchange on the 23d of July; on reference to my correspondence for the month of July, I find these papers:–this is an application to the Commander in Chief (through me) from an honourable Member of this House; on behalf of his brother, to exchange into the cavalry, with Lieutenant- Colonel Knight ; : . . . . . t [Colonel Gordon read, and delivered in a letter from Mr. Hus- kisson, dated Treasury Chambers, 22d of July, 1805.] Colonel Gordon. My answer is on the 23d of July, the day I men- tioned before. . . . . . . . . * * , - ºf6 colos El Gordon's ExAMINArios. * [Colonel Gordon read and delivered in the answer, dated the 23d of July, 1805.] - - (Copy.) “Treasury Chambers, 22d July 1805. * My dear Sir, “The condescension I experienced lately from his Royal Highs ness, in allowing my brother to purchase a majority in the 8th foot, is not unknown to you, to whose friendly assistance I was much indebted on the occasion. You will probably recollect, that at the time I men- tioned to you the probability that my brother would feel anxious for an opportunity of getting back into the cavalry, both on account of his never having served in the infantry, and frem the circumstance of his health having suffered so much whilst serving with the 25th light 'dragoons in the East Indies, that he is strongly advised against return- ing, at least for some years, to a hot climate. Under these circum- stances, I cannot help requesting, if it should not appear too unuch pre- sumption on my part, that you would submit to his Royal Highness my humble request, that he would afford my brother an opportunity of exchanging into the cavalry. Feeling the great obligation I am already under to his Royal Highness, I should not venture again to trespass so soon on his indulgence, if I had not understood that one of the majors of the 5th dragoon guards had signified a wish to exchange into the in- fantry, and that it might be a long time before any other opportunity might occur of bringing my brother back into that service, to which, for the reasons I have now troubled you with, he is so anxious to be re- -stored. * I remain, &c. | (Signed) “W. Huskissox. * Lt. Col. Gordon.” KCopy.) “My dear Sir, - “I have not failed to lay your request, in behalf of your brother, be- fore the Duke of York; and am commanded to acquaint you that his Royal Highness will be glad of any favourable opportunity, by which he can be enabled to accede to it. The exchange with Brevet Lieutenant-colonel Knight, 5th dragoon guards, has already been de- termined upon in favour of Brevet Lieutenant-colonel Brooke, whose services his Royal Highness was of opinion could not but be favourably considered; but if your brother can find any major in the cavalry who is disposed to exchange to the infantry of the line, the Commander in Chief will have much pleasure in recommending the same to his Ma- jesty. * Horse-Guards, 23d July, 1805. - “Your's very faithfully, ... (signed) “J. W. GoRDon. “W. Huskisson, Esq. &c. &c. &c.” •º: State what are the regulations that have been established by the Duke of York with regard to regimental promotions, having regard to the period of service in each rank. The regulations are briefly these; an officer must serve as a subaltern two years before he can be a cap- tain, and he must have served six years before he can be a field-officer. I never knew any instance of those rules having been broken through, always, as in merchants' accounts, saying errors excepted. . colonel, GornoN's ExAMINATION. 77 How many hours in every day does the Commander in Chief devote te, the duties of his office The Commander in Chief commands my at- tendance upon him every inorning a little after ten; and he very rarely gives up business until past seven in the evening, there or thereabouts, very often past eight. Is not his Royal Highness particularly punctual in taking care that the business of his office is conducted in such a manner, that reference ; always be had to the cause of any promotion 2 Most undoubtedly © IS. e. Has not his Royal Highness taken, in the instances where commis- sions are permitted to be sold, particular precautions to confine those commissions to the regulated price only 2. He certainly has. , I be- believe it will be necessary for me to trouble the House still further upon this : in the year 1804, when a great augmentation was added to the army of fifty battalions, I did understand that very great abuses were practised with respect to the purchase and sale of commissions: that people endeavoured to obtain commissions unduly; that they en- deavoured to impose upon the officers of the army in taking money under the pretence of obtaining commissions, and that this went to a very great extent. I did represent this in the strongest manner to the Commander in Chief, who felt it very sensibly, and expressed the strongest indignation at it, and commanded me to frame an instrument, a copy of which I now hold in my hand, and which was circulated to all º corps of the army. With the permission of the House I will read it. {Colonel Gordon read the following letter:] ~~ “Circular to Army Agents. {Copy.) “Horse-Guards, Sept. 28, 1804. “ Gentlemen, “His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief having the strongest reason to believe, (from the advertisements that have frequently ap- peared in the public papers) that an extensive correspondence is carried on with the officers of the army, by persons styling themselves army Brokers, to induce them to enter into pecuniary engagements for the purpose of obtaining commissions, contrary to the established regula- tions; and it being the earnest desire of the Commander in Chief to check as much as possible a practice so extremely prejudicial to the service; I am commanded to call your attention to this important point, and to impress upon you the necessity of the utmost vigilance, in preventing, as far as may be in your power, any communication whatever with those persons and the officers in your agency. And should it at any time appear that any such commissions shall have been negotiated through your offices, the Commander in Chief will consider it his duty to recommend to the Colonels of the respective regiments to notice such irregularity, by withdrawing their regiments from that agency, and placing them in other hands. “I have it further in command, to desire that you may be pleased to convey to the officers commanding regiments in your agency, the most, raarked disapprobation of his Royal Highness of this improper and secret traffic; and to assure them, that if subsequent to the date of this letter any conmission shall be discovered to be so obtained, such com- © 78 ... colonel Gondon's exAMINATIon. * mission will be immediately cancelled, and the officer be reported to the King, as having acted in direct disobedience to the orders of the Commander in Chief. - - (Signed) * J. W. GoRDoN.” . Colonel Gordon. ... In consequence of this letter, it was necessary to issue certain regulations, which, Pºiº it will be unnecessary to trou- ble the House with, but which I will deliver in with my letter.” I -us . (Copy.) * Horse-Guards, 19 October 1804.” “l. His Majesty's regulations, in regard to the sums to be given and received for commissions in the army, having in various instances been dis- regarded, to the great prejudice of his Majesty's service, his Royal High- ness the Commander in Chief is pleased to direct, that when an officer is desirous of retiring from the service, and of having leave to sell his com- mission, if his regiment is in Great Britain, he is to send his resignation in the usual manner, through the Commanding Officer of his regiment, to his Colonel, who, in transmitting the same to Commander in Chief, may at the same time, if there are purchasers in the corps, recommend in succession the senior of their respective ranks for purchase, both the colonel and com- manding officer, certifying that they are satisfied that no more than the sum stipulated by his Majesty's regulations is given or received. - “2. Should there be no purchaser in the regiment, the resignation of the officer desirous to retire is alone to be transmitted in the manner and form above-mentioned; when, should the application be deemed proper to be granted, his Royal Highness will recommend to his Majesty such officer for the purchase as to his Royal Highness may appear most eligible. “3. Officers belonging to regiments stationed in Ireland, must make their applications in a similar course to the commander of the forces there; and on foreign stations through the commanding officer to the general officer under whose command they serve; their applications being uniformly sanctioned by their respective commanding .#. who are to certify, in the same manner as colonels of regiments at home, that they are satisfied in regard to the sums given or to be received being in strict conformity to his Majesty's regulations. - “4. Colonels, when absent from Great Britain and Ireland, may empower the officer in actual command of their regiments, or their regimental agents, to recommend purchasers for vacant commissions, in which case the neces- sary certificates, in regard to the sum to be paid in regimental successions, must be signed by them in the colonel's absence, as well as the recom- mendation for the purchase; and the person so recommending to cornet-. cies or . vacant by purchase, will be held responsible for the eli- gibility of the person recommended. “5. The Commander in Chief is further pleased to direct, that when an officer is desirous of returning to half-pay, receiving the difference, the same rules are to be observed in regard to transmitting his application; but no recommendation in succession is to accompany the request to retire, as his Royal Highness will himself nominate the officer to be proposed to his Majesty for the exchange. “6. To enable the Commander in Chief to recommend officers for pur- chase, it is necessary that regular returns of all officers prepared to pur- chase promotion should be transmitted from each regiment and corps in the service, to the Commander in Chief's Office, Horse-Guards, London, on the .* 25th March, - . . “ 25th June, “25th September, and - “25th December in each year, under cover, to his Royal Highness's colox EI, Gort DoN's ExAMINATION. 79 beg leave to add, that that strong letter was found totally insufficient for the purposes; that it did come to my knowledge, and that I had +– Military Secretary; and these returns must particularly state where the money of each individual desirous of purchasing is lodged, or to be ob- j ; and similar returns must be forwarded to the regimental agents, for the information of their respective colonels. “7. Officers on leave of absence from corps on foreign service, may transmit their applications to purchase or sell through the colonels of their regiments, and in the event of a change in an officer's circumstances between the quarterly returns, he may make a direct communication to head-quar- ters, in order to prevent any purchase taking place in his own corps, by which he may be passed over by a junior officer. “8. This rule is applicable also to officers on the recruiting service, or on other military duties. whose corps may be on a foreign station. “9. Officers on half-pay, desirous of exchanging to full-pay, giving the regulated difference, must address themselves to head-quarters, stating where their money is lodged, or to be obtained, to enable the Commander in Chief to recommend them as vacancies occur. “10. After these orders have been circulated, no attention will be paid to representations of officers who have neglected to return themselves pre- pared to purchase; as whatever hardships they may suffer in that case must be entirely owing to their own neglect. - “ 11. In causing these orders to be circulated to the army, the Com- mander in Chief thinks proper to declare, that any Officer who shall be found to have given, directly or indirectly, any thing beyond the regulated price, in disobedience to his Majesty's orders, or to have attempted to evade the regulation in any manner whatever, will be reported by the Com- mander in Chief to his Majesty, in order that he may be removed from the service; and it is also to be understood, that the prescribed forms of ap- plication for the sale and purchase of commissions, and the usual certificates annexed thereto, are in all instances to be complied with. “By Command of “His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, (Signed) “J. W. GoRDon, “Military Secretary.” FORM OF RETURN. Names and Rank Where their of Officers Money is lodged, desirous to pur- or to be chase Promotions. obtained. REGIMENts. RE MARKS. -º- -A- -a-ºº- —º- *- i- - -——º. y N. B. The Returns to be transmitted to Head Quarters, are directed to be *- on a sheet of foolscap paper. 80 colon EL Go RDON's Examin Ation. proof, that those abuses did still exist; that I put that proof into the ands of the most eminent counsel at the time, and they assured me, that I could have no redress against the parties, there was no law to the contrary, and that it did not amount to a misdemeanour. Having mentioned it to the Commander in Chief, I had frequent communica- tion with the then Secretary at War, now a Right Honourable Mem- ber of this House, and whom I see in his place; and after frequent conferences with this Right Honourable Gentleman, he did bring into this House, and submit to its consideration, a clause, which is now part of the Mutiuy Act, inflicting a penalty upon all persons, not duly au- thorized, who shall negotiate for the purchase or sale of any commission whatever. You are in the habit of almost daily intercourse with the Commander in Chief? When the Commander in Chief is in town ; I do not recol- lect that I ever passed a day without communicating with him. At the time that this exchange was effected between Colonel Brooke º Colonel Knight, the king was at Weymouth? I have shewn it to 6: SO. Did that paper, cºntaining commissions to be submitted to his Ma- jesty, go down to W. by the mail coach I believe so, I had no other mode of sending it. Do you recollect the Duke of York's going down to Weymouth about that time? Perfectly. Do you know on what day he went down to Weymouth I de exactly. - Qin what day? It was the 31st of July. You have stated, that according to the new regulations introduced since the Duke of York has been º: in Chief, a certain num- ber of years must elapse before an officer can be promoted to a cer- tain rank in the army; is any service required by those regulations be- sides length of time? It is generally understood that an officer must serve six years. Has it ever come within your knowledge that any officer has been. promoted without any service whatever ? No, it has not. Has it ever come within your knowledge that a boy at School has had a commission of ensign? Yes, it certainly has, I think in some three, four, or perhaps some half dozen instances; not exceeding that; but those commissions have been surreptitiously obtained ; and when it was known that the boy was at school, the commission has been cali- celled, and that reason given in the gazette. Have they been cancelled in every instance? In every instance that has coine to the Commander in Chief's knowledge; and the Commander in Chief will be obliged to any gentleman that would point out an instance. Could you name those instances? Not immediately from my recol- lection, but I can obtain them from reference; but one I can name. I recollect the Barrack Master of liythe, I think; the name I do not immediately recollect; but the person I do perfectly, recommending on the score of his own service and great distress, that his son should be recommºnded for a commission; I recollect also having some sus- picion at the time, that this son was net of a proper age; and I do further recollect desiring the oſticer commanding there, then in com- mand, to examine the young man; and the report of that officer was, colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATIon. 81 that he thought him, though young, eligible for a commission, upon such report the young man was appointed, but when he joined his regiment, the officer commanding that regiment was of a different opinion, and reported him as too young, and I do perfectly recollect that commission was cancelled. * Is that the only instance which occurs to your recollection * That is the only instance that occurs; the name of the boy was Kelly. You have in that box by you, papers ready to answer questions which have been put to you ; had you before you came here any idea of the questions that would be put to you? ū. my word I had not. The papers that are now in this box relate to the exchange of Lieu- tenant-colonels Brooke and Knight, part of which I have shewn to the House. All the others relate to the appointment of Captain Maling; to the appointment of all the officers of the African corps, and to every thing in any manner connected with the African corps. You had no information of the other questions that would be asked you to night? Most undoubtedly not. You have stated, that you recommended Lieutenant Maling to be made a captain in the African corps; did you recommend him in your capacity of lieutenant-colonel commandant of the African corps? I most undoubtedly did ; because I know it is an extremely difficult thing to get officers to join such a corps as that in such a place; and I thought it my duty to take particular care, that whatever officer was appointed to the African corps, should clearly understand, that nothing was to prevent him from joining it. Whom did you recommend to the other company which was added to the African corps at that time The other officer that was recom; mended for the company of the African corps was a Lieutenant Edward Hare; his º I now hold in my hand, if the House would choose to have it read. S [Colonel Gordon read the following memorial :] & & ir, “I have the honour to transmit to you, the memorial of Lieute- nant Hare of the first Garrison Battalion, which I request you will take the earliest opportunity of laying before his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief. “I beg leave to state, that Lieutenant Hare was remarkably well recommended to me, previous to his accepting my Adjutancy, by the Earl of Dalhousie, under whom he served upwards of two years. During the time he was in my volunteer corps, his behaviour was such, as to afford every satisfaction to myself, and to all my officers. “I have the honour to assure you that I am, Sir, “Your most obedient Servant, J. LAwson, “Lt. Col. Com. Catterick & Richmond Vol. Infantry.” “ Brough-hall, 30th August, 1808.” “To Field-Marshal his Royal Highness the Duke of York Commander an Chief, &c. &c. &c. . * The Memorial of Lieutenant Edward Hare, of the 1st Garrison Battalion; “ Sheweth," & - º e “That your memorialist has had the honour of serving his Majesty 82 colo NEL GORDoN’s ExAMINATION. as a subaltern officer for near fifteen years, the particulars of which he has had the honour of stating to your Royal Highness in a former me- morial, accompanied by testimonials from those under whom he has had the honour to serve; when your Royal Highness was graciously pleased to promise him promotion. w “Your memorialist is induced from the length and nature of his services, humbly to solicit, that your Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to recommend him to his Majesty for a company in the Royal African Corps, or any other regiment your Royal Highness may be pleased to appoint. f “hºhich is submitted, August 24th, 1808. C. T. i J “The Cr. C. has no oppportunity of recommending him for pro- motion, but he may be recommended to a regiment of the line, if he is desirous of more actual service. « G. W.” C. T. “2d Sept. “He may be recommended for the vacant company, R. A. Corps. “Sept. 19th, 1808.” i “ J. W. G.” “To Field Marshal his Royal Highness the Duke of York, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Forces, &c. &c. &c. “The Memorial of Lieutenant Edward Hare, of the 1st Garrison Battalion; “Sheweth, That your memorialist has been actively employed as a subaltern officer for upwards of eleven years; that he served in the 2d West York regiment of militia from March 1794 till August 1797, when he purchased an ensigncy in the 2d or Queen's regiment, in which he served the campaign in Holland under your Royal Highness's command; that he was appointed lieutenant in the 35th regiment on the 2d November, 1799, in which he served nearly three years in the Mediter- ranean; that in consequence of bad health he was obliged to retire upon half-pay in June 1803, without taking the difference of exchange; that in February, 1804, he found his health recovering, when he gotthe appointment of adjutant in the Catterick and Richmond Volunteers, where he served till he found himself enabled to return to his duty in the line, when he applied to be restored to full pay. “Your memorialist begs leave to offer his best thanks for your at- tention to his memorial of the 11th of August last, when your Royal Highness was pleased to order his name to be noted for promotion; mosthumbly and confidentially hoping, that the length and nature of . his services, together with the testimonials enclosed, may entitle him to your Royal Highness's recommendation for a company. “ Edward Hare, ... “ Lieut. 1st Garrison Bat.” H'hich is submitted, January 4th, 1806. - “I certify that Lieutenant E. Hare served in the 35th regiment, * colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATIon. 83 from the year 1799, with attention and credit, till June, 1803, when, in consequence of bad health, he was placed on half-pay. “CHARLEs LENNox, “Col. 35th regt. and Lieut.-Gen. ** Dec. 9th, 1805. w “ Lieut. E. Hare, 1st Gar. Bat.” “Stockton on Tees, bec. 1805. “Dear Sir, “I have great pleasure in bearing testimony of your exertions and inremitting attention, in promoting the duty and discipline of the Catterick and Richmond corps, which, from being placed under my inspection, I had every opportunity of observing; and I trust, before long, you may again be placed in a situation where your zeal and abilities may be of service to your country. “I am, Dear Sir, “Your very obedient Servant, - - “THo. B. GREY, “Lieut.-Col. & I. F. O. Yorkshire District. “ Lieut. Hare, 1st Gar. Battalion.” “At the request of Lieutenant Edward Hare, I certify that he was appointed ensign in the 2d West York regiment of militia, in March, 1794; was promoted to a lieutenancy in the same year, and continued to serve till August 1797, when he purchased an ensigncy in his Ma- jesty’s 2d or Queen's regiment; and during the time he was under my command, always conducted himself with propriety, and with attention to his duty, “ Down E, ** Col. 2d West York.” Colonel Gordon.—This memorial was forwarded by John Lawson, Lieutenant-colonel of the Catterick Volunteer regiment, and certified by the Duke of Richmond, and by Lieutenant-colonel Grey, the in- specting field officer of the district. - What were the services of Captain Maling's brother, who is, Ibelieve, a captain in the army, who is in the War-Office There is a Captain Maling, an assistant of mine, in the office of the Commander in Chief; I take for granted, that is the person referred to. What his services are as a lieutenant I really do not know ; I found him as a lieutenant in the office of the Commander in Chief; and in consideration of his ex- traordinary good character, and more than common abilities, the pro- motions of the army going through his hands under mine, I did recom- mend him to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, to be placed upon the half-pay as a captain, upon which half-pay he most assuredly will be placed as soon as an opportunity offers; but the Commander in Chief has it not in his power. e Do you know whether or not that Captain Maling ever joined and did duty with any regiment? I do not know that he did ; and I do not think that he did. - Does not the Conmander in Chief require testimonial, that each candidate for the army shall be at least sixteen years of age 2 That is the general rule; but it sometimes happens that a boy of fifteen may be more strong than a boy of sixteen or seventeen; and all that the / 84 PRoceſſ DINGs RELAfrve to Commander in Chief requires is that he shall be competent to do his duty. - - Is it not a general order, that every officer shall join his regiment within one month after his appointment, except in some special in- stance It is very probable that it may be so, but I really cannot speak to that, * wº You are very positive as to the date of the Duke of York's going to Weymouth in the summer of 1805 ; do you know at what time of the day his Royal Highness went * Upon my word I cannot speak with any degree of accuracy; but it is the custom of the Duke of York to travel in the night, and he probably went in the night. Do you apprehend that he did go in the night? I cannot give a more positive answer than I did before. - [The Witness was directed to withdraw. The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.] Mr. Croker was anxious, as the committee had arrived at the end of this charge, that they should come to an immediate decision upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was of a different opinion, and thought that the whole should be gone through before the sense of the committee was obtained. Lord Castlereagh informed the honourable gentleman opposite, that he had inquired whether Captain Huxley Sandon had arrived at Portsmouth, that he found he had, and that orders had been sent to him to come up to town. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that if that officer should not arrive in time for the next examination, the honourable member might proceed with some charge in which his testimony was not necessary. It would be desirable to proceed with the business on Monday, and he begged to know what charge the honourable member meant to bring forward on that day ? Mr. Wardle seemed to think Monday too early a day, and said that it was impossible for him to state what parti- cular charge he should bring forward. Mr. Sheridan expressed his surprise, that his honourable friend was not disposed to proceed with this business on Monday, and also to declare the particular charge which he meant first to adduce. It was impossible but that he himself should be ready, and if his witnesses should not be here at the time, it would be competent to him then to defer the proceeding. * -A Mr. Wardle observed, that Captain Huxley Sandon was a material witness in every charge, and that the probability of his being able to attend on Monday, did not seem to be very great. - & THE COMMAN DER IN CHIEF. $5 Mr. Canning pressed the honourable gentleman to state the particular charge with which he meant next to pro- ceed. He could not believe that the honourable gentleman would come forward on such a grave occasion, relying on the absence of his witnesses. Mr. Wardle said, that he was under some difficulty on the subject. He had heard that Mrs. Shawe resided at Bath; but he had not yet ascertained that point. To- morrow he would be prepared to state what should be his next charge, and the delay of a day could not make any material difference. - Lord Folkstone remarked, that the Order Book contained an abundance of business for Monday, without any addi- tion. He thought the honourable gentleman asked only a common indulgence, when he wished for the delay of a day. Mr. W. Smith allowed that he could not see why the honourable gentleman could not at once make up his mind with respect to the charge that he would next endeavour to maintain. But still he might have reasons for not doing so. It was important, however, to the character of the house, that the honourable member should not be treated with any thing like unkindness. Neither he (Mr. 8.) nor any of those on the same benches were implicated in the manner in which the honourable gentleman thought proper to bring his charges. None on his side of the house łład been consulted as to the matter or the manner of those charges : but in proportion as the honourable gentleman had taken the business entirely on his own shoulders, he ought to be dealt with fairly and impartially. Mr. Canning combated the assertion that it was at- tempted to treat the honourable gentleman with unfairness or partiality. The honourable gentleman disclaimed for all those with whom he generally acted, all participation in the proceedings of the honourable accuser: he (Mr. C.) believed that the honourable gentleman made this decla- ration without any authority whatever. Mr. W. Smith said, that he had heard it asserted by all from whom he had heard any assertion whatever on the subject (and those were not a few), they had no concern whatever in the business; though he had not spoken with authority, he had spoken with knowledge. Sir Francis Hurdett was persuaded that if this was the way in which any honourable member who attempted to 36 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO correct public abuses, was to be assisted by the wisdom of the house, very few would henceforward enter on such an undertaking. For himself he should be ashamed to make any such disclaiming as that made by the honourable gentleman near him. The gentlemen opposite might think what they pleased : what he did he did as his duty. It did appear to him that the honourable accuser had acted in the most fair, candid, and even incautious manner; and that much of the reproach which he had unjustly in- curred, had arisen from his desire to comply with the in- decent hurry of the gentlemen opposite. Mr. Canning admitted that the honourable baronet had taken a manly part—that he had stated his reasons frankly, and he knew he had ability to maintain them. But what would be said if there was a person who had secretly ad- vised—who had secretly been consulted, and who sheltered himself in silence under that broad disclaiming shield which an honourable gentleman had thrown over himself and his friends. If such a person existed, he must apply to his conduct terms very different from those which he had in justice applied to that of the honourable baronet. Mr. Whitbread, with great warmth, accused the right honourable secretary of making a covert attack on some individual, whom he did not venture openly to denounce, and called upon him, with the same manliness which he had praised so highly in the honourable Baronet to name, the person to whom he alluded. (A pause of half a minute, cries of “Name ! Name 1”) if the right honourable gentleman would not name the person, it must be taken for granted that he had no ground for his insinuation. Mr. Barham asked the right honourable gentleman the cause of his disbelief, when his honourable friend near him disclaimed for himself and his friends any participation in the conduct of the accusation at present before the house. Mr Canning replied, that the honourable gentleman himself had afforded the best possible ground for his dis- belief. . Mr. W. Smith said that it was impossible that what he had stated subsequently to the right honourable gentleman's observations, could have produced those observations. Mr. Whitbread repeated that this was too scrious a thing to be passed over, and he again called on the right hon- ourable gentleman to name the person whom he described as having sheltered himself in unmanly silence. THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 87 Mr. Yorke protested against this unparliamentary mode of calling on one honourable member to name another. Mr. Whitbread replied, that if the honourable gentle- man had sat near him, he would not have been surprised at his feelings; when the right honourable gentleman, by a direct insinuation, and by his gestures and looks evidently directed towards himself, had pointed him out as the object of his attack. - After some conversation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wardle, the latter gentleman stated that if he found he could go on with the case of Colonel French (now in Jamaica), without the presence of that officer, he would do so on Tuesday; if not, he would pro- ceed with that of Captain Tonyn. On Mr. Wardle's motion the following witnesses were ordered to be summoned for Tuesday :—Mr. Grant, Cap- tain Huxley Sandon, Mrs. Shawe, Mr. Cockayne, Mr. Corri, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Sutton, and Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Sheridan expressed his surprise that his honourable friend had entered on this business without more serious preparation and knowledge. When he knew that his honourable friend had in contemplation to institute the proceeding, and when he heard that he was lending him- self to an association of the most infamous nature, he had warned him of the dangers to which he was exposed. He was sure that this honourable friend was not influenced by unworthy motives, but he was also sure that if his hon- ourable friend knew the real character of those by whom he had been deluded, he would shrink from them with hor- ror. Having begun, however unprovided, he must now proceed. It was impossible that such an accusation should stand over, because the evidence by which the accuser ex- pected to support his charge could not be immediately produced. Good God What was the business before the House : It was whether at this peculiarly important crisis, the Commander in Chief of the forces should be re- probated and impeached, or his character restored fair in the public estimation ? It was a case of vital conse. quence, * ( 88 ) THIRD DAY. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7. \ List of Witnesses examined. MR. JOHN FEW. MR. THOMAS STOWERS. MR. DAVID PEIRSON. CAPTAIN HUXLEY SANDON. MR. DOMINIGO CORRI. # * WILLIAM MELLISH, Esq. (a Member.) WILLIAM DOWLER, Esq. WILLIAM HUSKISSON, Esq. (a Member.) W. STURGES BOURNE, Esq. (a Member.) MR. JOHN GRANT, MRs. MARY ANN CHARKE. Mr. W.H.A.R.To N in the Chair. Mr Wardle moved the order of the day for the house to resolve into a committee to inquire into the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. he house resolved accordingly. follows: What business do you carry on 2 An auctioneer. Do you know Mrs. Clarke? Not now, I do not. Did you ever know her? In the year 1803. Where did she then live? In Tavistock-place, next door to Tavis- tock chapel. Did she order any furniture from you? No; at that time I lived in Bernard-street, Russell-square, and I had a share in a glass concern in Holborn. She called ; and, by direction of my partner, I waited upon her; it was to consult me about fitting-up a Grecian lamp in her back room. After she had talked a little while, I sat down, and drank some wine with her. In the matter of conversation, from one thingleading to Mr. JOHN FEW was called in, and examined by the committee as * MR. Few’s ExAMINATION. 89 Y another, she seemed to be acquainted with almost every person that I knew. I sat there perhaps about half an hour; a person, whom I un- derstood to be her sister, was present. Did she represent herself as being a married woman, or a person who had been married? She talked of her late husband, and of her children, who were then at school. What further passed ? Nothing more than general conversation; I conceived that she knew almost every body that I knew.. I can hardly describe her to you; for I never met with any person who, on the first interview, behaved so extremely polite and genteel to a stranger: I saw her two or three times, and drank wine with her ; and she consulted me about the placing of some glasses, and the size and shape of some figures, whether they were too large for the room. id she give any orders to you? Yes; she desired I would have a Grecian lamp made, to fit up in the back room, which, I believe, came to about 201. What was the price of that lamp 2 About 201. I cannot say exactly the whole of the account with me was 20!. odd. - When was the order given for this lamp 2 About the middle of May, about the 18th or 20th of May; the first delivery to her was the 24th of May, 1803. Did you see any one but Mrs. Clarke at this house I saw her sis- ter, and I saw her mother, but that was subsequent to my bringing an action against her. When I arrested her, she mentioned to me at the time, that she had purchased that house of Mr, Burton, and given 1,2001, for it: I applied to Mr. Burton, and he corroborated her having bought it, but I do not recollect the amount. Did you ever observe anything which led you to believe she was not a widow I once called, I believe in the morning, to see whether the lamp was properly hung, or I was asked by an upholsterer to get him a sight of the house, and I saw a cocked hat; I made an observation to the servant, and the servant said her mistress was a gay young widow, and had been at the masquerade the night before, and of course I did not suspect any thing after that. } Were you paid for those articles you furnished 2 Subsequently I was; I brought an action against her, but I was nonsuited. How so? I do not understand the distinction, but she either pleaded her coverture, or gave it in evidence; I believe there is a distinctiºn, but I do not know which it was. You were defeated, upon the ground of her being a married woman? Certainly ; I was in court at the time. Did you ever write any letter to Mrs. Clarke, upon the subject of this demand? I am pretty certain I did not, I am almost certain I did not: do you mean the demand after my action or before ? I believe I did not in either case. - Do you recollect writing any letter, threatening to expose her? I cannot say; I might; I drew up a hand-bill and sent it to her, but whe- ther I sent any note to her with that I cannot say ; that hand-bill was warning the tradesmen in the neighbourhood of Gloucester-place, from trusting her. * Do you recollect sending the hand-bill to any body else in a letter ; Yes, I do recollect, ; enclosed one to the Duke of York, directed to Portman-square; I think it was. 90 r M. R. Few's ExAMINATIon. Do you recollect whether you wrote to the Duke of York when you sent the hand-bill I do not think I made one single letter inside; I am pretty certain I did not. * - - - - Are those letters your hand writing: 'Yes, this is my hand-writing ; I had not the least recollection that I had ever written it. Is that the hand-bill? Yes, that is the hand-bill ; I tried to get a copy of it when I was served with the order of the house, but could not, [The hand-bill and letter were delivered in, and read.] “ MADAM, - “As I have not heard from you in reply to my last letter, I think myself justified in informing you, that in the course of a week the enclosed hand-bill will be published, which ao doubt will prevent any other tradesman from subjecting himself to similar treatment. As the wording of the bill has received the legal sanction of very able men in the profession, I am perfectly at ease in regard to any additional threats that may be held out to me. / “I remain your obt, servt. “22d June, 1804. “John Few, Junr. “Mrs. Clarke, Gloucester-place, “No. 18, Portman-square.” , “ CAUTION TO TRADESMEN. “THIS is to give Notice to the Tradesmen in the Neighbourhood of PortMAN-SQUARE, that they cannot recover, by Law, any Debt from MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE, formerly of TAvistock-PLACE, RUSSELL- SQUARE, but now of GloucestER-PLACE, she being a married Wo- man, her Husband now living, though his Place of Residence was un- known even to herself or her mother. These Facts were proved on the Trial of an Action, lately brought by a Tradesman in Holborn, against this MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE, for Goods actually sold and delivered to her ; but she availing herself of her Coverture, (which, to the great Surprize of the Plaintiff, she contrived to prove,)he could not by law 9btain any Part of his Demand ; and, being consequently non-suited, an Execution for her Costs was, by her Attorney, actually put into his, the Tradesman’s House !!! w “W. MARCHANT, Printer, 3 Greville-Street, Holborn.” I understand you to have stated, that you were paid your bill; was that subsequent to that hand-bill being published Of course it must be, I should hardly have published it, if I had had my bill. I received the debt and costs. Did you recover your bill by any process of law: I could not. You were paid it entirely through the will of Mrs. Clarke It is im- possible for me to say; I did not receive it from Mrs. Clarke. After being non-suited, and after that hand-bill had been published, Mrs. Clarke paid you your bill? I cannot say it was Mrs. Clarke, I received the money through a Mr. Comrie; it was immaterial to me who paid it. Did you know Mr. Comrie to be Mrs. Clarke's professional man That was impossible to say, Mr. Stokes defended the action, and after- wards Mr. Comrie paid me the money. Is Mr. Comrie a lawyer? I believe so. Do you know that he was Mrs. Clarke's lawyer It is impossible for MR. Stow ERs's ExAMINATIon. 91 me to know that, because one defended the action, and then it came to Mr. Comrie ; it was impossible for me to tell. Did Mr. Comrie defend the action against Mrs. Clarke 2 No; Mr. Stokes. I believe so, because Mrs. Clarke told me afterwards, that she never authorized Mr. Stokes to give that plea. Mr Comrie paid you the money? ... By his clerk. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. THOMAS STOWERS was called in, and examined by the, committee as follows: I º you know Mrs. 'Clarke before she was married to Mr. Clarke? did not. * Did you know her after she was married to Mr. Clarke I did. Do you remember the time when Mr. Clarke was married to her? I never knew the time. What business did Mr. Clarke then carry en? . When I first knew Mrs. Clarke, by being wife to Mr. Clarke, he was not in business just at that time; he was a young man. What business did he afterwards carry on 2 That of a stone-mason. Was that soon after his marriage I cannot speak to that ; I did not imagine that he was married so soon, as I understood he had an *. with this lady. id he carry on the business of a stone-mason while she was living with him He certainly did. For how long? Not less than three or four years. Was she living with him all that time As I never visited them, I cannot undertake to say she lived with him all that time, but I conceive she lived with him the principal part of the time. Had they any children? Not less than three. * Were those children born during the time he was carrying on the business of a stone-mason 2 Some of them were. Where did Mr. Clarke live at that time you speak of The first part of the time he lived in Charles's-square, Hoxton; then he was not in business as a mason. Was Mrs. Clarke with him at that period 2 Certainly she was. How long did they live there As I did not visit them, I cannot speak positively; I know it was not less than one year, and, I should imagine not more than two. Where did they live afterwards? I do not know of their living any where else, till they went to live in Golden-lane, where he carried on the business of a mason. When was this He commenced there somewhere about 1794, and he lived there about three or four years. Had Mr. Clarke a stone-mason's yard there He had. At the first place he lived at? In Charles’s-square, Hoxton, he lived on his fortuue; he had no business. p Did you visit at his house : I never did visit him at any time where- ever he lived. * i Did you know Mrs. Clarke by sight? Yes, I did. Did you know when Mrs. Clarke parted with her husband 2 No, indeed, I did not. You have no guess when she parted from her husband . No further than that it was after they quitted Golden-lane I understood. 92 Mr. combie's ExAMINATIon. Do you recollect who told you so : No : public report. You know nothing about the matter, of your own knowledge? I do not, Where do you yourself live? In Charter-house square. ... [The witness was directed to withdraw, Mr. JAMES COMRIE was called in, and examined by the committee, as follows: Do you know Mrs. Clarket . I do. Have you been employed by her in your professional line : I have. What is your profession ? A solicitor. Had you ever any conversation with the Duke of York respecting Mrs. Clarke? In consequence of Mrs. Clarke's wishing me to wait upon the Duke of York, I said that I should wish to receive a message for that purpose from his Royal Highness. I did receive such a message, 1 think in writing; in consequence of which, I waited upon the Duke of York in Portman-square. & State what passed. The Duke of York spoke to me upon private professional business; I therefore appeal to the Chair with great sub- mission, whether, under those circumstances, I am bound to divulge it. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Fuller objected to any question being put to the witness, which might lead him to disclose the secrets of his Royal Highness as his client. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he apprehended that it appeared by the witness's own account he was sent for as the solicitor of Mrs. Clarke, and not as the solicitor of the Duke of York, and he was therefore bound to an- swer the question now put to him by the house. [The witness was again called in, and informed, that it was the plea- sure of the committee that he should answer the last question.] His Royal Highness wished to know whether I could raise him the sum of 10,000l. upon mortgage. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Wardle said, it was because he knew it was impos- sible for Mrs. Clarke to obtain money to the extent she did without such aid, that he had said on a former night, that a professional man was introduced to the Duke of York for that purpose by Mrs. Clarke, and he hoped he should be allowed to prove that fact, more especially as he had been so flatly contradicted upon this point. Mr. Adam, feeling the last remark of the honourable gentleman applied to something which had fallen from him on a former night, begged leave now to explain what he did say, and meant to be understood, namely, that the affairs of the Duke of York, with which he was confiden- tially intimate, were those with which he was charged confidentially as a trustee for liquidating the debts of his MR. comr1e's ExAMINATION. 93 Royal Highness. But with that part of his Royal High- ness's revenue reserved for his own private expenditure, he had had no inteferrence. [The witness was again called in, and proceeded as follows.] I answered, that I believed I could. His Royal Highness, after some conversation, referred me to his man of business, Mr. William Adam of Bloomsbury-square. ... His Royal Highness asked me if I knew him I replied, not personally, but by reputation. ... I mentioned that I knew him to be a man of very high character. Shortly afterwards, I called upon Mr. Adam, and saw him; I think he mentioned that his Royal ighness had told him I was to call upon him (Mr. Adam), we pro- ceeded to discuss the business, and Mr. Adam said, that his royal High- ness had occasion for that sum, I think he said to complete the pur- chase of some tithes in the vicinity of Oatlands; I am not quite sure as to that, but I think it was so; and he said his Royal Highness's then so- licitors, Messrs. Farrer and Atkinson, would shortly send me the neces- sary abstracts, which they did. . In the mean time, I had applied to a client of mine, a rich client, and he had agreed to lend his Royal High- ness the money. The abstracts were laid before a conveyancer, Mr. Walker, of the Temple. We made some objections, I think, which is usual in those cases, questions to be answered; it generally happens so. The money was ready to be advanced, and the abstracts were re- turned to Messrs. Farrer and Atkinson, to answer those queries. I should state, that for expedition, (for it was mentioned that expedition was necessary), I had copies made of those abstracts to accelerate the business. I returned the abstracts to Messrs. Farrer and Atkinson, but those that I returned were never sent back to me, and the loan was af- terwards declined, and Messrs. Farrer and Atkinson desired me to send in my bill, which I did. Had you ever any conversation, either at that time, or any other, with the Duke of York, about Mrs. Clarke? I had. Do you recollect that he ever assigned any reason that was prejudi- cial to her character, when he parted with her ? The Duke of Yor': stated to me, that he had been served with a subpoena to appear in the Court of King's Bench; I think it was on a trial which was then pendil.g, in which Mrs. Clarke was the defendant; which subpoena had been a...- companied by a very severe letter, describing her very improper cos- duct in having pleaded her coverture to an action brought for goods sold and delivered ; and I think, upon a bill of exchange, one or either, I do not immediately recollect which. His Royal Highness stated that that was the reason which occasioned the separation. Do you mean to state, that you understood, from the Duke of York, that she had done so without his knowledge? He did not state that; but he said, after such a thing as that, it was impossible but that they must separate, or words to that effect. Did he complain of any other bad conduct in Mrs. Clarke 2 I do not recollect that he did. I think his Royal Highness said, that he had sent the letter and subpoena to Mr. Adam. t Do you recollect any thing further that passed in the conversation ? There was something passed about the allowance to be made Mrs. Clarke. Do you recollect what that allowance was His Royal Highness the 94. MR. PIERson's exAMINATION. Duke of York and Mr. Adam being present, it was mentioned and, agreed to, that she should be allowed 400l. a year; but it was expressly mentioned that she must pay her own debts. Upon my mentioning the difficulty of that, for she had told me she was very short of money; his Royal Highness said it was not in his power then to pay them, but that she had somie furniture and valuable articles with which she could easily pay her debts. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Here the Chancellor of the Exchequer interfered, and appealed to the house and to the honourable gentleman (Mr. Wardle), whether it was at all proper to proceed any fur- ther in a species of interrogation totally foreign from and irrelevant to the subject of enquiry, and which could throw no light whatever upon the charges of corruption prefer- red by the honourable gentleman. He would rather, in- deed, put it to the good sense and discretion of the hon- ourable gentleman himself whether he thought it would at all coutribute to his purpose, or be decorous towards the house thus to occupy its time with a species of examina- tion so foreign to the object proposed. - Mr. Wardle acceded to what appeared to be the wish of the committee, and consequently withdrew the ques- tion ; but having one or two other questions to ask, de- sired that the witness should be called in again. [The witness was again called in.] Do you recollect paying a bill due to Mr. Few, for Mrs. Clarke? There was a Mr. Few who had a demand upon Mrs. Clarke, and I paid that; I do not know the amount. You paid it on her account? I did. [The witness was directed to withdraw. DAVID PIERSON was called i. and examined by the committee as follows: With whom do you now live as butler 2 The Honourable Mr. Turner. Did you live as butler in Gloucester-place when Mrs. Clarke was under the protection of the Commander in Chief? Yes I did. Do you recollect in the summer of 1805, the Duke of York going to Weymouth, and Mrs. Clarke to Worthing? Yes, I do. . Do you recollect Ludowick, the servant that used to attend the Duke of York, being ordered by the Duke, on an evening about that period, to take a bank bill out, and to get it changed I do not. . Do you recollect any servant being ordered by the Duke to get a bank, note changed I recollect the housekeeper, Mrs. Favorite, bringing down a bill in a morning, and Ludowick going out and getting it changed and coming back, and giving it to Mrs. Favorite again, and she took it up stairs. Do you recollect any servant being ordered by the Duke to get a bank note changed No. - * CAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATION. 95 Do you recollect Ludowick taking out a bank note to be changed? Yes I do, on a morning: Did you hear him ordered to do so by any body? The house- keeper gave him the note; I saw her give him the note, and he took it out. * Do you know the amount of the note? No, I do not. Did you hear the housekeeper give him the order 2 Yes, I did. Do you recollect what order she gave; in what words 2 No, I do not in particular recollect what order she gave him ; but she gave him a note, and he was to go and get it changed. - Are you positive that that note was not given on the night, and the change brought back in the morning? I am positive I saw it given. Was his Royal Highness the Duke of York in Mrs. Clarke's house at the time this note was delivered to Ludowick to get changed? Yes, he was up stairs. At what time in the morning was this? ... Near eight o'clock. Do you know that the Duke was up I am not certain of that. How long did you live with Mrs. Clarke in Gloucester-place? About fifteen months. State whether any and what servants of the Duke of York came to Gloucester-place during that time? I never saw any one but Ludowick. Can you state, as far as it came within your own knowledge, that ho other servant of the Duke of York’s came there? I never saw any other servant of the Duke of York’s come to the house, but Ludowick. In what year, and in what month in what year, did this transaction happen? About three years ago. º o you know the amount of the note: I do not. To you mean that this passed about the month of January, 1806? I mean in July or August, some time then about; it was hot weather when Mrs. Clarke went to Worthing; I do not recollect exactly the time, but it was in the summer time. How long was it before Mrs. Clarke went to Worthing; was it the day before, or two days before, or three days before? I do not recol- lect exactly ; but it was a short time before she went to Worthing. Was it more than three days? I cannot be exactly certain to the time. Is this the only note that you ever recollect Ludowick to have changed 2 The only note. Did Mrs. Clarke go to Worthing the same day that the Comman- der in Chief went to Weymouth; did they both leave London the same day ? I think the next day in the morning; that his Royal Highness went away between twelve and one o'clock, and Mrs. Clarke at four or five next morning. * Was it the morning of the same day that his Royal Highness went to Weymouth, that Ludowick took the note out to be changed 2 It was some morning a little time before. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. Captain HUXLEY SANDON was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows; What interest had you in Colonel French's levy 2 I was concerned with him in the levy. 96 cAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATION. In what way, and to what extent? A letter of service was given to us both, Colonel French and Captain Sandon. Do you know Mrs. Clarke? I do. Did you or Colonel French apply to Mrs. Clarke for her influence with the Commander in Chief, in order to your having this levy In the first instance we were informed, that it was a person who had great interest with a leading person in this kingdom; we did not know at the moment that it was Mrs. Clarke. I When you discovered it was Mrs. Clarke, state your proceedings. We did not discover it till we had the letter of service. What passed with the person whom you afterwards discovered to be Mrs. Clarke, before you knew her to be so? We proceeded upon our letter of service. * Who gave you the information that took you to Mrs. Clarke? Mr. Cockayne, who was my attorney, informed me, that if I had any thing particular to ask for in the War Office, or at the Commander in Chief's Office, in all probability he could recommend me to a person who could do any thing in that way for me that I chose to request. Did he recommend you to Mrs. Clarke? He recommended me to her agent. - C Who was her agent I understood a music-master of the name of OTTI. [The witness was directed to withdraw, when Sir George Hill wished the honourable gentleman to confine his course of examination to points immediately connected with the subject of the charges before the com- mittee. This circuit through Mrs. Clarke, Mr. Cockayne, Mr. Corri, or any other third person, ought not to be ad- mitted, because such a chain of evidence could not possi- bly lead to any direct, fair, or reasonable point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the honourable baronet was rather premature in the observa- tion which he had made on the nature and tendency of the examination pursued by the honourable gentleman. If the evidence were to be at a close, there might have been some ground for the observation; but as the evidence was only at its commencement, and it would be necessary to trace it through a great number of persons, he was of opinion, that the honourable gentleman should be per- mitted to proceed with the examination in his own way. [The witness was again called in.] Through the means of Mr. Corri had you any interview with Mrs. Clarke 2 I really do not know. Had you any interview with Mrs. Clarke It was a long time afterwards that F ever saw Mrs. Clarke. - How long afterwards 2 I should presume a month after the letter was granted ; near upon a month ; I cannot exactly say, perhaps, to a week; it might be three weeks. When you had an interview with Mrs. Clarke, can you recollect cAPTAIN SANDoN's exAMINATIon. 97 What passed between yourself and her ? Nothing passed between Mrs. larke and myself, because every thing was arranged and settled. For what purpose did you apply to Mrs. Clarke?. It was settled previous to that; the letter of service was granted, and I had every thing that was asked. For what did you apply to Mrs. Clarke? Mrs. Clarke wished to See Ime. What passed when she did see you ? Very little. Colonel French asked me to go to Mrs. Clarke, who was, as we supposed, the lady, or the person, or the agent, for we did not know at that time whether it was male or female, at least I did not know : when I went to Glouces- ter-place, I found it to be a female. Do you know whether Colonel French had, previously to that, seen Mrs. Clarke? Most assuredly he had. Do you know when Coloneſ French saw Mrs. Clarke 2 No I cannot pretend to say when. Do you know whether Colonel French saw Mrs. Clarke before he received his letter of service? I rather think not; the letter of service was granted before he saw Mrs. Clarke. Then you do know when Colonel French saw Mrs. Clarke 2 No, I do not, for Colonel French was going to Ireland, he was taking that part of the letter of service; the letter of service was so extensive, it was for England, Ireland, and Scotland; he took for Ireland and Scot- land, and left me to take that for England. At this interview between yourself and Mrs. Clarke, what passed? I really cannot recollect. , Do you recollect the substance of it? No, he came to introduce me, merely to say, that was Captain Sandon, and this was Mrs. Clarke. Do you recellect that the levy was spoken of that day 2 No, I can- not take upon me to say that it was mentioned. Can you take upon you to say that it was not mentioned? No, nor can I take upon me to say it was not mentioned. - Do you recollect when you or Colonel French mentioned the levy to Mrs. Clarke? Colonel French had seen her previous to my having 'ever seen her. Had Colonel French mentioned the levy to her, previous to your seeing her? I really cannot say that. º own knowledge, do you know that the levy had been men- tioned to her? I really cannot say, Colonel French had seen the per- son who was to get that; he never mentioned to me whether it was male or female. , -> Who was that person? ... I really cannot say; I never knew her till I had the pleasure of being introduced to her, and then I found it was Mrs. Clark When was the first time that you recollect having spoken yourself to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of the levy? I really do not recollect any thing about it, for this reason, the business was entirely settled be- tween Mrs. Clarke and Colonel French, and I thought I had nothing at all to do to interfere in it. State the way and the terms on which the business was settled be- tween Colonel French and Mrs. Clarke and yourself. Colonel French and Mrs. Clarke made it their agreement, which I did not understand; I was not present when they spoke * it. e 98 cAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATIGN. What passed between Colonel French and yourself upon the subject? Of course we wished to get the levy; the letter of service. What means did you take to get the letter of service? I under- stood from Colenel French, that he was to give a certain sum of mo- ney for it. What passed between you and Colonel French upon that subject? [The witness was directed to withdraw. The Attorney General had not wished to interrupt the examination, or the course of evidence pursued by the honourable gentleman; but as an objection had been taken by his learned friend, he must say, that the evidence were irrelevant. - Lord Folkestone, notwithstanding the legal opinion just pronounced, thought that any conversation between the witness and Colonel French, relative to the means of ob- taining two letters of service, ought to be received as evi- dence upon the charge against the Duke of York. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the noble lord’s argument did not apply to this case, because putting Mrs. Clarke out of the question, and supposing the witness and Colonel French to have conversed upon what passed between the Duke of York and Colonel French, his statement of such conversation would not be evidence. If they were to have what passed between Colonel French and the Duke of York, they must have Colonel French himself. He had not objected to the course of his examination, because the honourable gentleman having had notice not to proceed to the charge respecting Colonel French's levy without Colonel French, ought to have been sufficiently prepared, when he did enter on it, to go through with it." Besides, it would have been un- pleasant to the house, that the honourable member should, under such circumstances, have been stopped in the course he was pursuing. " . Mr. Yorke agreed with his right honourable friend, that the course of the examination ought not to be inter- terrupted, because it was desirable that the matter ought to be sifted to the bottom. Though he did not think that infamy would rest with the honourable gentleman, yet he was convinced there was something foul in the transaction, and that it would be found that bribes had been given to witnesses on this subject. It was the duty of the house to inquire into the matter to the bottom. The witness was again called in, and the question was proposed.] When I saw him, he told me, as he had before, that he had settled every thing with Mrs. Clarke, CAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATION. 99 Do you know what were the terms concluded by that settlement? Yes, he informed me that he was to give her five hundred guineas. What further? I understood that he gave her the five hundred guineas afterwards. Do you mean, that that was the only agreement with Mrs. Clarke, upon the subject I cannot take upon me to say what he made with her, that was the only agreement that I know of Did you yourself make any agreement with Mrs. Clarke? None. You have stated, that of your own knowledge, you were not aware of any other bargain than the five hundred guineas F. Not till he went to Ireland; but previous to his taking leave of me, he told me that if she wanted more money, I was to give it to her. + To what amount did he authorise you to go As far as five or six or seven hundred pounds more. w Do you recollect any application being made to Mrs. Clarke, for any alteration in the original letter of service . There were a variety of alterations in the letter of service, because the bounty of different re- cruits was raised; in the first instance, we had it at 13 guineas; the bounty was raised to 19; we thought of course we were entitled to that 19 guineas; we applied to Mrs. Clarke to get that enlargement, without any occasion for doing it, for of course we could not get men at 13 guineas when the line allowed 19 guineas. You mean, that the other recruiting parties were allowed 19, and that you were allowed 132 Of course. And that you were not allowed the 19 till after you had applied to Mrs. Clarke to use her influence to get the 19 allowed to you ? All recruiting parties were precisely in the same situation, though we ap- plied to Mrs. Clarke, it must come otherwise, or our recruiting was at an end; we could not get a man. You stated, that the other recruiting parties were allowed 19, but that Colonel French's levy was not then advanced It was the order from Government, that every recruiting party should receive 19 guineas, it was found that the 13 guineas was not sufficient, the bounty was raised; and though we had engaged to do it for 13, we could not do it for that ; and on the general bounty being raised, we applied, and had ours raised too. To whom did you apply? To the Commander in Chief, of coufse. . Then you did not apply, upon that occasion, to Mrs. Clarke There was no occasion for it. ** Do you recollect that you ever applied to Mrs. Clarke upon any other occasion relative to the levy I do not recollect that we did. As to boys?, That brings something to my recollection about boys; that in every hundred men we were to have ten boys, which were to be allowed the bounty of the men ; but the letter of service will state it better than I can, for it is in the letter of service. ". Do you mean to state, that there was no alteration made or applied for with regard to boys, after the original letter of service Not after the letter of service. What alterations were made in the letter of service The ten boys to the hundred men. , Was that done through the influence of Mrs. Clarke I cannot take upon myself to say, for Colonel French was the person who entirely finished the business with Mrs. Clarke. § s . H 2 I60 CAPTAIN sannon’s ExAMItN Affort. Do you recollect that you ever went to the Commander in Chief, it consequence of any communication or message sent to you by Mrs. Clarke, at Lyon's Inn I do not recollect it in the smallest degree, Po you recollect any gentleman bringing you a note or message to such éffect? I cannot take upon myself to say any thing about it; i do not remember. * - Do you know Mr. Dowler? I once had the pleasure of seeing him at Mrs. Ciarke's, - Do you recollect anything particular that passed Not a syllable whatever pâssed between Mr. Dowler and myself upon the subject. * Do you recollect Mr. Dowler calling upon you at Lyon's Inn Mr. owler was never at my chambers; at least I never saw him there. Do you recollect that, in consequence of any communication with any person at any time from Mrs. Clarke, you attended on the Duke of York? I once, in company with Colonel French, waited upon the Sommander in Chief, to return him thanks for having given us the levy, I never saw the Commander in Chief afterwards º that subjeet. State what sum or sums of money were paid to Mrs. Clarke by Yourself, or with your knowledge, upon this levy business. At various times, I conceive that I paid her 800l.; it might be 850l. but not more. Po you recollect giving a check upon Mr. Grant for 200l. in favour of Mr. Corri, on account of the levy: Perfectly well; but it was not a check, it was a draft of two months; but it was not for Mrs. Clarke. # was entirely for Mr. Corri, who had acted as the agent from her to ſ: Cockayne, the attorney. - ...Do you recoilect any thing of a loan of 5,000l. to the Commander in Shief, that it was in agitation should be advanced him by Colonel French: l never understood Colonel French to have 500l. in the world: therefore how he could advance 5,000l. I cannot tell; for our account with our Agent will shew we were very minus indeed, for we owe him 3,800l. upon the levy. You do not recollect any mention of such an advance upon the part of Colonel French : Most assuredly not. You have stated, that five hundred guineas was so be paid Mrs. Clarke at first; and then, that you have paid her from 8 to 900l. since? I think 850l. I have the exact sums in my pocket-book; it appears by: that, that it is 850l. Can you state, whether that 850l. arose out of any particalar agree- ment, at so much a man raised, or in what proportion Mrs. Clarke was paid? It was to be general; if our levy had succeeded, we were to nave made her a present of, perhaps a couple of thousand pounds: If appeared to me §: was no explicit agreement that a certain sum should be given. But our levy failed, and we were very much out of Pocket; she was the only gainer; I believe, upon the business. - Do you recollect how you remitted her these sums you have men- º Generally by bank notes; I generally gave 'them to her myself, • - Did you ever give her any large sum of the 850l. at once? Two. hundred pounds was the largest sum I ever gave her at once. Endeavour to recollect, whether Mr. Dowler did not call uponyou at Lyon's Inn, and that you yourself might state that Mrs. Clarke was overpaid, and that you had no money for her at the time No. . . You do not recollect any thing of that circumstance 2 No; Mr. Dowler never ealled upon me with that message. cAPTAIN SANDON's ExAMINATION. 101 Colonel French never stated exactly to you the original bargain be- tween him and, Mrs Clarke I understood the 6. guineas in the first instance, and 200l. to Mr. Corri, and it was left to my dis- cretion to make up the 2,000l. as the levy succeeded, or not; if we succeeded in the levy, we might have gone on to the 2,000l. perhaps ; if not, it was left to my discretion. * * * You have stated, that you never saw Mrs. Clarketill after, the letter of service was granted; but in a former part of your evidence you have stated, that you had some dealings with respect to this business with one Corri, a music master: what passed between yourself and Mr. Corri” Precisely what I have related; that he was to have 200l. for the intro- duction, and any thing that Mrs. Clarke and Colonel French settled; he had nothing more to do with it. * I understand you to have stated that to have passed previous to the granting of the letter of service? The two hundred pounds was paid to him after the letter of service was granted ; because, if nothing was carried, he was to receive nothing. This stipulation was made ºr. Corri, in case he should succeed, by means of Mrs. Clarke, in procuring the letter of service? He did not precisely know what it was we wanted of Mrs. Clarke; we did not tell him what we wished to speak to Mrs. Clarke upon. You mean to state, that you only applied to Mr. Corri for an intro- duction to Mrs. Clarke, without stating what use you meant to make of that introduction ? We certainly did not inform Mr. Corri, .the music-master, what we meant to do with Mrs. Clarke. You mean to state, that you only applied to Mr. Corri for an intro- duction to Mrs. Clarke, without stating what use you meant to make of that introduction 2 Mr. Corri spoke to Mr. Cockayne, to make him a friend; Mr. Cockayne was the person that we had to do with upon the business altogether; Mr. Corri had nothing to do with it, he did not know what we were to do with Mrs. Clarke; it was merely that he could get letters or any proposition conveyed to her. What passed with Mr. Cockayne? I do not know what passed be- tween him and Mr. Cockayne. - You have mentioned, that several sums were agreed to be paid to Mrs. Clarke; state whether you know that fact of your own knowledge, or whether it is by hearsay from Colonel French: The 850l. I paid #. º the 500 guineas, I understood from Colonel French, that hº 3Cl. DalCi. #. often did you see Mrs. Clarke during the negotiation respect- ing . levy? Previous to the letter of service being granted, I never S3W Ileſ. - How often did you see her during the whole negotiation ? I dare say fifty times. º - * Was any direct application made to the Commander in Chief, upon the subject of this levy, from Colonel French and yourself? Of course, a regular application was made from Colonel French and myself, to grant us this letter of service; that went through the regular office, and we received the regular answer. It was long subsequent to that, that you and Colonel French applied to other individuals upon the subject. That I cannot take upon me to say. Colonel French came to town, he had been raising two levies in Ireland, he had raised them with promptness and credit to himself, 102 cAPTAIN SANDoN’s ExAMINATION. and great satisfaction to the Commander in Chief; he, asked me, whether I would join him in getting the levy, and I imagined that the length of my service entitled me to ask of the Commander in Chief for this levy with Colonel French. For what purpose was the sum of 500 guineas promised by Colonel French to Mrs. Clarke? When we understood that this music-master could introduce us to a person in very great power, we thought that we had better give the five hundred pounds for their assistance, whoever it was, whether male or female; and, then in the regular form, we ap- plied to the Commander in Chief. Had you not reason to believe, that the application would be refused by the Commander in Chief at that time? It had not been refused, we never had a refusal; we did not put it to the trial. I really cannot say whether the Commander in Chief would refuse it or not, I do not see why he should refuse it. f Had you not reason to believe, that the application would be refused by the Commander in Chief at that time : I had no reason to believe it would be ; we had done nothing that was improper, and why should it be refused : I do not think it would have been refused. If you did not think that the letter of service would be refused, how happened it that any application was made to any other person than the Commander in Chief, and why was the sum of money promised to obtain it? It would facilitate the letter of service when we presented the letter, of course; and that was the reason why we applied to the person in power. How long was the promise of 500 guineas, before the letter of ser- vice was granted? It was a long time before we got the letter of ser- wice ; it was very near upon two months, or ten weeks, before we got it, after the first proposal. What was the reason alleged by Colonel French to you, for the further advance of the 7 or 800l. He gave me no particular reason; he said that I had better give her that sum; he gave me no particular TeaSOI), & r Have you any, and what reason to believe, that the letter of service was expedited by the money given to Mrs. Clarke 2 My own private opinion was, that it was not; for, I think, she had very little influence with the Commander in Chief. Have you any reason to believe, that the Commander in Chief was privy to the money given to Mrs. Clarke None in the world; I never could have the idea. * Having stated, that you considered the influence of Mrs. Clarke to be very small, upon what grounds do you found that opinion ? The length of time we had been in obtaining the letter of service. Had you any conversation yourself with Mr. Cockayne, respect- ing this transaction No, it was merely we were to be introduced to i. person who had great power, and there to state what we wanted to . Cl] CIll. - . You have continually said, you were informed that a person had an influence with a great personage; by whom were you so informed : Mr. Corri, the music-master. What communication had you with Mr. Corri, the music-master, with reference to this transaction ? He was a client to Mr. Cockayne, and he propesed, or mentioned, something of this nature to Mr. Cock- CAPTAIN SANDGN's ExAMINATION. 103 ayne, saying, that if any of his friends were military, and wished any assistance in the War-office, or the office of the Commander in Chief, he could assist them, through his introductien. What did Mr. Corri mention to you; what personal communication was there between you and Mr. Corri” Nothing inore than I say; I saw Mr. Corri once or twice, and he would not tell me the name of the person; but he still persisted, in repeating what I have mentioned, that he had interest with this person. Did the proposal come from you to Mr. Corri, or from Mr. Corri to you, and in what terms and what manner? Mr. Corri proposed it to Mr. Cockayne, Mr. Cockayne mentioned it to me, and then an inter- view took place between Mr. Corri and me. Then I now understand, you had a personal communication with Mr. Cockayne yourself? Mr. Cockayne was the person who introduced Mr. Corri to me. How did he introduce him and open the subject? Exactly as I have mentioned. This man was a client of Mr. &: be informed Mr. Cockayne, that if any of his friends were military, and wished for assistance in the war-office, or the Commander in Chief's office, he had a person of his acquaintance that could be of very great use to them. You are now only stating the conversation between Mr. Cockayne and Mr. Corri; did Mr. Cockayne relate to you, that he had had such a conversation with Mr. Corri, and what he would propose to you in consequence of that conversation? He did relate it to me, and I begged to be introduced, or have an interview with Mr. Corri. iyid M. Cockayne come to search out you, or did you go to search out Mr. Cockayne 2 I really cannot say ; he was a client of Mr. Cockayne; Mr. Cockayne is an attorney. Mr. Corri was a client of Mr. Cockayne Yes. You have been relating a conversation between yourself and Mr. Cockayne ; did Mr. Cockayne come to you to inform you of this chan- nel, or did you go to search for Mr Cockayne Mr. Cockayne was Iny attorney; and going there upon other business, he then related this to me. Did that interview with Mr. Corri, in which 200l. was offered to Mr. Corri for his good services, take place previous to the regular ap- plication to the Commander in Chief? R. I believe it was not; we did not mention anything to him about the 200l. then. | When was any thing mentioned about the 200l. to Mr. Corri: After the letter of service was graned. - For what purpose was the 200l. offered to him He had previously mentioned, that he expected something for his trouble, in the event of the letter of service being obtained, but no sum was named. Was the application to Mr. Corri previous to the application to the Commander in Chief? No, certainly not. Was your first interview with Mr. Corri previous to your regular application to the Commander in Chief? Assuredly. And in that interview, it was understood, that Mr. Corri would give you his good offices With his friend, which was Mrs. Clarke. Was the offer of 500 guineas to Mrs. Clarke made with your privity? Certainly it was ; I empowered Colonel French to write thus much to the person who, we understood, was to be our friend in the busi- IMºS8. A. - Was that previous to the regular application? Certainly. 164 cAPTAIN SANDon's ExAMINArion, Did you ever mention to Colonel French your idea, that Mrs, Clarke had not much interest with the Commander in Chief? Repeat. edly. - S * What was Colonel French's observation ? “We had better see what she can do.” - - Did Colonel French mention to you the necessity for keeping this transaction secret? Most assuredly he did; certainly. From whom did you suppose it was to be kept secret? It was re- quired, from the person who was unknown to us, that it should be kept Secret. - Do you mean the person who was then unknown to you, as being Mrs. Clarke As it proved afterwards. * Do you mean to say, that Mrs. Clarke required that this transaction should be kept secret? Not a doubt about it; that she requested it upon all occasions; and when I have seen Mrs. Clarke, she requested I would not mention her name, or the Commander in Chief's name. From whom did Mrs. Clarke wish it to be kept secret? From all the world, from every body. Did Mrs. Clarke ever mention a wish that it should be kept secret from the Duke of York, her having received any money Most as- suredly, she begged that it might never escape my lips to any body. Then from conversation you have had with W. Clarke from time to time, had you reason to suppose that she kept it secret from the Duke of York? I cannot pretend to say that; I know nothing about what she did with the Duke of York. Do you mean in the last answer but one, that she wished you * {..., it secret from the Duke of York? And every body else 3S Well, I ask particularly as to the Duke of York? Yes, certainly she did. Was any money paid to Mrs. Clarke before the letter of service was obtained No, nothing. - I understand you to have stated, that you have seen Mrs. Clarke to the number of fifty times; in any of those times did she ever inform you that the Duke of York was privy to the transaction of her taking "º. Never. id she ever, at any of those times inform you that the Duke of York knew of the application to her? No, she did not. Was the money which was paid to Mrs. Clarke, paid solely on ac- count of Colonel French, or were you interested in that money your- self? I had part of the levy, and the money that was paid by us was from the joint stock. When you had conceived from the delay of the letter of service that Mrs. Clarke had very little interest with the Duke of York, with what motive did you consent that your money should be thrown away afterwards to the amount of 850l., to a person who had in your opinion, no interest? I have only to say, that she persuaded us to the contrary, § id she had a great deal of influence over the Commander in \ } Illèſ. - I understood you to say, that you had concluded, from the delay rof the letter of service, she had very little interest with the Duke of York? That was my opinion. - And I understood you to say, that, subsequent to the letter, you had paid her 850l. consequently your payment of 850l. was subsequent 4- MR. coh Bi's ExAMINATIox, 105 to your conviction that she had little interest with the Duke of York; state therefore why, having that conviction at that time, as you have stated, you consented that your money, to the amount of 350l. should be thrown away ? It was my opinion, but it was not Colonel French's. Do you recollect the date of your application for the letter of ser, yice 2 No, I do not. State by what sums the 850l. which you paid to Mrs. Clarke, was made up; 100l. 100l., 200l., 100l. 150l., 100l. and 100l. Will you state the dates ? I have no dates. [The witness was directed to withdraw. MR. DOMINIGO CORRI was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee as follows: w Do you know Colonel French and Captain Huxley Sandon? Only Captain Sandon ; I never saw Colonel French. §. you recollect introducing Captain Sandon to Mrs. Clarke? I never introduced him ; he introduced himself. Did you give him the direction that enabled him to introduce him- self? Quite the contrary; he asked me very often, but I never woul tell him ; he asked me several times, and I always told him I coul not say who the lady was; but he found it out himself, and told me he tº the name of the person, and that Colonel French had gone to CT. Do you of your own knowledge know what the consequence of their going to her was 2 Yes. º Say what it was.-Captain Sandon was introduced to me by Mr. Cockayne; and he told me that he knew that I was acquainted with the lady who had a great influence in the war-office; and he told me that if } would speak to this lady, she would have 2000l. for what, I re- collect, for the levy of the troops. I told him I would speak to Mrs. Clarke, and so I did; and gave him the answer, that she would try what she could do; but she said at the same time, it was a very difficult matter, that she was obliged to break through it gradually, and could recommend nobody but people of character, and qualified for the place, and to go through the war-office, as every body else was, and this I told Captain Sandon. - Bo you of your own knowledge, know anything more of the bargain between Mrs. Clarke and Colonel French and Captain Huxley San- ºdon : Yes; Captain Sandon came to me, and said that the Duke had screwed them dewn very hard; and that he could only give 700l. * Well,”, Isaid, “it is all the same to me what you will give, and I will tell her what you say;” and I told Mrs. Clarke of this new propo. sal. In this intermedium Captain Sandon introduced himself, as I said before, to Mrs. Clarke, and I never heard any more of the business; they settled it by themselves; except in the month of June,1804, Mr. Cokayne sent to me at the coffee-house, the Cannon coffee-house, and he brought a bill, I believe, which I never looked at, for 200l. payable to my order, he said upon Mr. Grant. I did not look at the bill; I put my name, and gave it to Mr. Cockayne, and said, you had bet- ter keep it yourself, I.am under an obligation to you, you had better keep it. And that was the end of my business. * de Do you of your own knowledge know nothing further of the bargain. 106 Mr. Cóit Ri's exAMINATION. that was made? Nothing thore; several people came to me applying to me for places, and I told Mrs. Clarke; but I never heard any more. She was very anxious to get the Gazette every night, expecting places; but I know nothing more of the parties, for I introduced them to her, and I had nothing more to do, with it, and no more business of any sort passed between Mrs. Clarke and me, except the music. Have you, since this business came before the House, destroyed any papers? I destroyed a paper in the month of July; the same year, soon after Captain Sandon's business. One day I went to Mrs. Clarke's house, and she told me she was coming to me; that there was a ter- rible noise; that the Duke was very angry, and desired I would burn all papers and letters that I had; consequently I burned all the letters at that time. - Have you burned any papers since this busines came before the House I had none; I have four letters in my pocket now, which I received from Mrs. Clarke since the first of January ; but I was ter- rified at that time, and did not like the business, and I destroyed the papers which I had at the time of this transaction immediately after it had taken place. f Are the four letters, which you have now in your pocket, to the same purport with the papers you burned before ? No, invitations to go and see her, to go and spend the sixth day of the year with her; the first was an invitation to see her. The first day I went there was the sixth, and she desired me to dine and sup, and to remain the whole evening, which I did; and on the 15th I went and supped there again. Has Mrs. Clarke ever stated to you any thing respecting the Duke of York’s opinion respecting these transactions? She never talked any thing to me; she always told me the same thing she had before, that it was always a very delicate thing to open such matters to the Duke. When Mrs. Clarke stated to you that the Duke was very angry at what had passed, upon which statement you burned the papers, did she explain herself any thing further, and state at what the Duke was angry Yes, she told me at that time that the Duke was watched very close by Colonel Gordon, and that Mr. Greenwood also watched her motions; therefore she was so situated, she could get nothing almost. º What was the paper which you destroyed O, just common things; I could not remember five years ago; a desire to Capt. Sandon to go such a day to the war-office, or something of that kind. I was there every day of the year, consequently we had plenty of time for conver- sation, and she need not send letters to me. * What do you mean by saying you destroyed papers? I mean, that Mrs. Clarke said to me, that I should destroy every paper, (because the Duke had heard of something of the kind, and He was very angry indeed) “for God’s sake;” and my wife was present at this conver- sation, and she went home and burned the letters; further she told me that perhaps we should be called where I have the honour to be now. Did Mrs. Clarke mean to state, that the Duke of York suspected that there had been some correspondence between her and Captain Huxley Sandon, and that the fear of the Duke's discovering that in- duced her to desire you to destroy all letters that had passed upon that subject? She was just going to Kensington Gardens at the time, the carriage was at the door, and she said in a great hurry, “Før God's MR. Con R1's ExAMINATION. 107 fake go home and burn the letters;” and there was very little more passed in the hurry. * You have stated, that you put yourname upon a bill for 200l. and returned it to Mr. Cockayne, saying that you had obligations to him : do you mean to say, that you got no remuneration or reward for your services in the transaction between Mr. Huxley Sandon and Mrs. Clarke? None whatever, not one shilling. What induced you to put your name on that bill ? Because Mr. Cockayne told me it was payable to my order; I did not read the bill. Did you owe Mr. Cockayne any money? Yes, I have Mr. Cock- ayne's account here from the year 1802 to 1806, debtor and creditor, * one penny creditor but the 200l. which took place in the year 1804. What obligations did you mean in consideration of which you gave Mr. Cockayne this bill of 200l. 2 I thought in the first place, that he was entitled to the half, if it had been for us, for I never asked any thing; and I thought he should have the half; and at the same time I said, “You may as well keep the whole, you are very welcome;” and he said, it is a very good act of generosity, Mr. Corri. Do you know whether Mr. Cockayne got the money for that bill 2 Iknow nothing about it; he wrote me a letter thanking me for this act of generosity. In this letter of Mrs. Clarke's, which you state yourself to have de- stroyed, did she express any apprehensions of the Duke of York's know- ing any thing about the transactions in which yourself and she were concerned 2 Yes, it was in consequence of that, that the Duke had heard something which had transpired, and that he was very angry, and that we should be called to this House. ". You have stated, that you have seen Mrs. Clarke twice since the first of January, on the 6th and the 15th ; was there any conversation at either of those meetings, when you supped each time, respecting the transaction to which this related Yes, 1 was a little surprised, because soon after dinner she sent for the twelfth cake, and they sent for a com- pliment, to some gentlemen, and two gentlemen came in the evening; and as soon as they came, the conversation of this affair of Mr. San- don was introduced, and I repeated every word there just as I have here, that Captain Sandon told me she had received the 500l. and Mr. Cockayne had received the 200l. ; and they were laughing at me, saying what a fool I had been; and this was the topic of the conversa- tion of the whole night almost. # You have stated, that you were surprised at that conversation having been introduced by Mrs. Clarke that evening; did Mrs. Clarke assign any reason for introducing that conversation on the arrival of the two gentlemen you have mentioned No. + Did Mrs. Clarke allude to any other transaction of a similar nature, before these gentlemen? No, the rest was spent in convivial conversa- tion and merriment, and I left the gentlemen there at twelve o'clock, or a little after twelve, drinking there. Do you know who the gentlemen were 3 I could describe the person; one I know, and knew the second time; she did not tell me the first time; but the second time she did, and introduced me to him; she asked me the first time, whether I could tell who he was, I told her he appeared to me to be a lawyer; he laughed very much, this gentle- 108 MR. Cortiti's ExAMINATION. *s s man did, and I knew no more the first time; the second time I could tell you who he was if you please. * ... Were the same gentlemen present both upon the 6th and upon the 15th : The 15th I am not altogether certain as to the little one; the long nosed one, the friend of Mrs. Clarke, he was there, and she intro- duced me to him; but I believe the other one was there too, from my recollection. Who was the gentleman whom you do know? Must I tell, for she told me in secret. - The witness was directed to answer the question. She told me it was Mr. Mellish, the member, who I suppose is in the House: * f. ^ Do you know who the other gentleman was?. I could describe the figure, if I could see him ; my sight is not very plain; but I should not be surprised if he was here. Was there any other person present besides these two gentlemen? The first time there was a young lady, besides Mrs. Clarke. Wasthere no other gentleman present besides these two you have referred to? No; only Mrs. Clarke, a young lady, and two gentle- men, and myself, the first time. The second time 2 The second time there was another new gentle- Ii. Did Mrs. Clarke inform you who that third gentleman was Yes, she told me he was a writer of some paper; she told me the name, but I do not remember his name at all; some writer of some paper; and she mentioned some paper, but I forget what paper it was; I took no notice of these things; she said that this man was to take care of her, she was obliged to have him with her to take care of her. s Did that person seem acquainted with the other gentlemen, or either of them 2 Yes; when he came, he shook hands with Mr. Mellish. You have stated, that in the letter which you destroyed by Mrs. Clarke's desire, she expressed great apprehensions of the Duke's know- ing she was concerned in any such transactions; state, upon your re- collection, whether or not Mrs. Clarke did not more than once in this letter express her apprehensions of the Duke of York's knowing that she received money in the way in which it was stated that she had... I could not remember the contents of the letter; but this conversation was repeatedly with me, to take care that the Duke should know no- thing of the kind; this was done every day; and that she was obliged to have great caution, to break the matter cautiously to him. [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM MELLISH, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was, at his own request, examined, as follows: Did you meet Mr. Corri at Mrs. Clarke's, on the 6th or the 15th of January last? I never was at Mrs. Clarke's in my life, nor did I ever see her, to the best of my knowledge, before I saw her here. MR. DOMINIGO CORRI was called in again, and examined, as follows: Did you ever see me (Mr. Mellish, the member for the county of Middlesex) at Mrs. Clarke's No, it is not you; but I only say what r Mit. Dow Left's Ex Axtin Arrow. 105 she said to me; the person I saw was a gentleman of a darker com- flexion than you; if she tell me a lie, I cannot help it. (From another Member of the Committee.)—Can you describe the thin person you saw at Mrs. Clarke's; the newspaper man? Yes, he is a very awkward figure, sallow complexion; I would call him rather an ugly man; very badly dressed; dark hair, and rough in his manner of speaking; he appeared to me not to be an Englishman, he had such a broken accent; he was not elegant in his speaking. Did this man squint? I think a little; I am not positively sure; if he squinted, it must be on the left side; I sat on his right hand. as not his name Finnerty? No; I do not remember the name at all, I have a very bad memory for names. She told me the name, and the paper. He told me that he had travelled a great deal; and that he had been in Africa; and said that he did not like any music but Scotch music, and he made me play a tune fifty times over, the same tune over again. Did the person wear his arm in a sling? No; he wore them very careless, in that way. (Describing it.) - You have mentioned, that Mrs. Clarke told you the name of the paper to which he was writer; was he not a writer for the Morning Chronicle? It must be either the Morning Chronicle, the Times, or the Post, one of the three. Did you hear any person call him by the name of Finnerty? No. Have you any reason to think that that is his name, from what you have heard? ... Nobody told me his name; but we went into the back- room, meand Mrs. Clarke, and left all the gentlemen in the other room, and there she told me about Mr. Mellish and this other person. s.” did not hear the name of this other person mentioned at all? O. Do you know the person of Mr. Finnerty No; I could not re- collect him at all ; but I thought the name to be something like a . foreign hame; if I could see him I could tell. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM DOWLER, Esq. was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Are you not just returned from the Continent with dispatches? On Thursday last I arrived from Lisbon with dispatches. Have you known Mrs. Clarke long? Several years. How many years have you known her? I believe eight or nine at least; I am not confident. Do you recollect ever seeing Colonel French and Captain Huxley Sandon in Gloucester-place, while Mrs. Clarke was under the protec- tion bf the Duke of York 2 I have. Did you ever hear either of them speak to Mrs. Clarke on the sub- ject of the levy I have: - Did you ever speak to Colonel French or Captain Sandon yourself, . by desire of Mrs. Clarke, on the subject of the levy I did. Do you recollect any conversation that you had with Colonel French. on that subject? I do. State as nearly as you can, what you recollect to have passied at that. time. I saw Colonel French several times. lf.0 MR. powler's ExAMINATron. * Relate, as nearly as you can, what passed between Colonel French and yourself upon that subject. I saw Colonel French at Mrs. Clarke's house, and was informed that he was there on the subject of the letter of service. I asked Mrs. Clarke, from curiosity, the nature of it; she told me; and I recollect perfectly, that I took the liberty of say- ing that I disapproved, or thought it was exceedingly wrong, such a business, and endeavoured to dissuade Mrs. Clarke from it. That was one of the conversations I recollect to have had with Mrs. Clarke upon the subject; it was after Colonel French left the house that morning. Do you recollect when you next saw Colonel French, and had any conversation-with him respecting the levy 2 I cannot recollect when F saw Colonel French; it is a long time back; but that I did see him several times after that, I perfectly recollect. — State the substance of the conversations, as nearly as you can, that passed between you and Colonel French on the subject of the levy. Mrs. Clarke told me she was to have 1000l. and a guinea a man, as far as my recollection serves me, to be paid on the completion of 500 men, when they were passed. I was likewise present when Col. French, or Captain Sº, I am not positive which, paid Mrs. Clarke 500 gui- neas of the thousand that was first of all promised. . Afterwards, I re- collect seeing Colonel French there, and he stated, that there could not possibly be any but the usual bounty given, and that he came (Mrs. Clarke was not visible at the moment he came) to request that an increased number of boys should be included in the number of the levy, which he should be able to procure at a less sum than the bounty given for men; and that then he should be able to go on with the ser- vice, otherwise, he said, that he should be obliged to abandon it. 'I do not recollect any thing particular that occurred after that time; but I understand that obstacle was removed with respect to the boys, that Colonel French's wish was obtained. I cannot speak to that beyond my recollection at this distant time. o you recollect any other application of Colonel French's, to have an obstacle of any other description removed? I do not. * < Do you recollect that he requested at any time, that the recruits might be passed nearer the place where they were recruited than the, rendezvous at that time was? I recollect that Colonel French stated, that as he expected to get the greater part of his recruits in Ireland, it would be very difficult and expensive to pass them in the Isle of Wight; but I cannot recollect the particulars of what passed at that time. You have stated, that you remonstrated with Mrs. Clarke on this transaction; what answer did she make to you when you so remon- strated; what excuse did she offer? This and other º; I fre- quently mentioned, and endeavoured to dissuade Mrs. Clarke from having any thing to do with them; she stated, that the Duke of York was so distressed for money that she could not bear to ask him, and that it was the only way in which her establishment could be supported. I beg leave to state, that in consequence of this, Mrs. Clarke was of fended with my freedom, and I, ceased to see, or hear from her, for I cannot,tell how long, till I think nearly my departure for South Ame- rica in 1806. What was the nature of the remonstrance you made with Mrs. Clarke? I felt that it might implicate her character, or the Duke of MIR... bow LER's ExAMINATION, fift York's, at a future time, that was what I told her; that there was a great risk attending it, and I thought it was very dangerous to her re- putation, and to his. * - In what situation are you? I have lately been in charge of the ac- count department of the commissariat at Lisbon. How long have you been in the commissariat? Since 1805. How did you obtain your situation in that department? I purchased it of Mrs. Clarke. - Did you apply directly to Mrs. Clarke for the appointment? Cer- taialy not; she suggested it to me. Did you pay any money to Mrs. Clarke for the benefit you received from it? I first of all gave her 1000l. and at other times other sums to a very considerable amount. Did you ever make any other direct and regular application to ob- tain that situation ? To no one. You are positive as to that fact? Positive. 4. Never to any one but to Mrs. Clarke To no individual whatever. In what department lies the presentation to such appointment as that which you hold? In the treasury. In what situation of life had you been before you were appointed to the commissariat; had you ever been in any public office? I had never been in any public office. When my father retired from busi- ness, which was within the knowledge of gentlemen who are members of this House, I retired into the country with him; he was a wine-mer- chant, and a merchant in general. How did you become acquainted with Mrs. Clarke? Through a gentleman that is deceased, Captain Sutton, whom I had known for some years previous to my knowledge of Mrs. Clarke. When did Captain Sutton introduce you to Mrs. Clarke, and in what manner, and with what view did he so introduce you? He took me to dine at her house; the view was because there were a few mu- sical persons to be there, a musical party; Captain Sutton asked me whether I would go out to dinner with him: and that was the cause of my being introduced to Mrs. Clarke. - & W. was this? I have said as nearly as possible, about eight or nine years, perhaps, ago, but I am not confident as to the length of time. In what manner, and at what time did you make the proposition to Mrs. Clarke, through her influence to procure the office which you now hold She made the proposition to me. In what manner, did she make you the offer; and what passed be- tween you upon that occasion, and when was it? . She stated that she was extremely pressed for money, and requested that I would assist her, as the Duke of York had not been punctual in his payments, and I applied to my father in consequence; he hesitated, and I told her I could not furnish her with more money than I had then given her; she then promised, not the situation I now hold, but another; I applied to my father, and he did not seem at the moment to give his consent to it. It was afterwards, a considerable time afterwards, for many months elapsed after the first suggestion was made by Mrs. Clarke to me, he at last consented to it, if I could be confident it would be a matter that would not become †. if I felt myself secure in it. In consequence of that I was named to the appointment I now hold. f13 MR. Dowler's ExAMrNation. Did you never make any application for the office to any otlier pers son; and in what manner was your appointment to the office come municated to you? I never applied to any other person; Mrs. Clarke told me that I should be appointed sooner by much than I was, and at last stated as the reason why it was put off, because a Mr. Manby, who had been in the 10th regiment of dragoons, was to be first gazet- ted; my appointment was delayed in consequence of that; I believe it was about two or three months at the utmost before I was gazetted, after Mr. Manby. - In what year was that? 1805. wº your father apprized of the object you had in view? Cer- tainlv. w Might not your father have made application, through other friends, for this situation for you? I am certain not. Do you recollect the date of this communication with Mrs. Clarke, respecting this appointment? I do not. tate it as nearly as you can. I really cannot state it at all cor- rectly, because it was the subject of conversation; it was first of all pointed out to me, the situation of a commissioner of the lottery, which caused the delay. I understood my appointment was on the point of taking place, but it was set aside because the vacancy that happened was given to Mr. Adams, the secretary to Mr. Pitt; and then it was suggested to me, that the commissariat was an eligible and gentle- manly employment, and not an inactive one, as I believe the circum- stances of my service will sufficiently shew. Am I to understand from you, that this arrangement, about getting you the situation in the commissariat, arose about the time that Mr. Adams, the secretary to Mr. Pitt, was appointed a commissioner of the 1ottery? I believe it was afterwards; but they were both the subject of conversation previous to that. * + Was it soon afterwards? I am sorry I cannot state *. Will you state the year? I do not know the dates, because they were both the subject of conversation before they took place. Can you state the date of your commission appointing you in the commissariat? I was first in the store department of the commissariat, previous to my going, and after I went to South America; and I was transferred to the account department on my going out with Sir Are thur Wellesley. - Do you know the precise date of your first commission from the treasury appointing you an assistant commissary of stores and pro- visions? I think it was in June or July, 1805. Do you know the names of the Lords of the Treasury by whom that commission was signed? My commission is at Lisbon with my lug- gage; I cannot answer that; as I came with dispatches, it was neces- sary I should not encumber myself with luggage, and it is there. - Cannot you state, upon your own recollection, the name of any one of the Lords of the Treasury who signed that commission? I cannot. You also held a commission from the Secretary at War? I believe that commission was made out after my departure, and that it has i. been in my possession; but I have no paper to help my recol- ection. After you departure for what place? South America. You have stated that you received your first commission in June of July, 1805? I believe so. MR. Down,ER's ExAMINATIon. 113 Where were you, employed after that time? In the eastern dis- trict, Colchester and Sudbury, in Suffolk. You have stated that Mr. Manby's commission took place before your’s? It did. w And that Mr. Manby's having the precedence over your's, was the cause of the delay in your appointment? Yes. Do you know the date of Mr. Manby's? I do not; I believe it was the commencement of the year 1805, but I cannot be positive te the commission of Mr. Manby, as I never saw it. You stated, that you were appointed in June or July, 1805, assistant cominissary of stores and provisións; by whom was the notification of that appointment communicated to you? I was apprized of it a few days before it took place, by Mrs. Clarke; in consequence of which, I recollect paying her the remainder of the 1000l. - In consequence of this notification being received from Mrs. Clarke, what steps did you take in order to procure the instrument which put you into possession of your appointment? I was apprized that it was at the usual office in the treasury, and Mr. Vernon was the gentleman, I believe, that signified it to me; I was in expectation of it every Gazette. To you know who Mr. Vernon is? I believe Mr. Vernon's is the effice in the treasury where commissions are left. - Did you understand from Mrs. Clarke, that she made her applica- tion direct to any person in the treasury; or through what channel did wou understand from her that that application was made? To the uke of York., Is the committee to understand, that you gave your money to Mrs. Clarke under the belief that you had been recommended to the trea- sury for this situation by his Royal Highness the Duke of York, through the influence of Mrs. Clarke? Certainly. From the time that you first understood that this application had been made to the treasury, up to the time that you received this com- mission, did you take any steps to hasten or to expedite the object of yºur appointment with Mrs. Clarke, through any other channel what- ever? I did not. Had you had communication with any person connected with the First Lord of the Treasury, or any other gentleman then in the trea- sury, on the subject of your expectations of your commission, up to the time that you came to Mr. Vernon’s to take out that commis- sión? Never, but mentioning to Mr. Vernon my expectation. Then you saw Mr. Vernon before you were appointed? Certainly, I know Mr. Vernon. You saw no other person at the Treasury None. Between the time in which you state you paid the premium for ob- taining this commission, and the time that you actually received it, did you receive any intimation from any person connected with the Treasury, that your expectations were favourably entertained? Mr. Vernon mentioned to me one morning when I called there, a gentle- man was speaking to him; I was †. call in five minutes; he said, “I believe you are going to be appointed an assistant commissary,” I do not know the exact term, there was a paper going up, and he said, “I have no doubt the appointment will take place, it has been signified from the Board,” or some such expression. 114 Mr. Dow LER's ExAMINATION. Did you receive from Mrs. Clarke, the person whose recommenda- tion you think procured you this situation, any information respecting the progress making towards the completion of the appointment? I have stated what passed between Mrs. Clarke and myself respecting Mr. Manby's appointment, it was the subject of conversation after- wards; but it was not of that consequence to me as to make it the sub- ject of particular inquiry. What, in point of fact, was the distance of time between the money being paid by you and the appointment to the commissariat? I can- not at all tell that. Not whether it was in the same year? Certainly in the same year. Within six months? Certainly. I think you stated, that you had paid some Smms of money to Mrs. Clarke, in expectation of getting some appointment, before you paid to her the specific sum that was to lead to this appointment? Not in expectation of getting any appointment. For what other reason It was considered merely as a temporary relief to her; she was always stating, “ the Duke will have more mo- ney shortly, and I will pay you;” and it was obtained from my father at my request, but with no view of any appointment. Then is the committee to understand, that the sums of money which you paid to Mrs. Clarke, before you paid this sum for this appoint- ment, were loans made to her without any expectation of any public employment being conferred upon you? Certainly. When Mr. Vernon, from whom you received the notification of your appointment, made that notification, in what terms was it made; was it verbally or in writiſg? Verbally, What were the terms of it? “I believe, Mr. Dowler, you are going to be appointed an assistant commissary,” as far as I can recollect the expression. In what terms did Mr. Vernon intimate to you, that you were ac- tually appointed? The intimation was, that the appointment was in 2 train, not that I was actually appointed. From whose hands, or from whom did you actually receive the war- rant of your appointment? I believe from Mr. Vernon; there are fees paid upon them, and I am not certain whether myself or a friend, received the commission, and paid the fees, or not. You do not recollect whether you received it from Mr. Vernon's hand or not? I do not. Do you recollect whether you received, it in any letter from Mr. Vernon? I believe not, I am not confident. I cannot charge my memory with a circumstance which I did not consider of any conse- quence, at the distance of from 1805 to the present time; I am here very relunctantly; I am just arrived in England, and had but yester- day a summons to attend this House, very unexpectedly. - #. the time you have received the appointment in the commissa- riat, to the present time, have you never ascribed your appointment to any other interest but that of Mrs. Clarke? I stated, that Mrs. Clarke did not give me the appointment l hold, and that was the only answer I ever gave; I bought it. Was not your father a common-councilman of the City of London? He was, for many years. Did he not represent the same ward of the city of London of which Sir Brook Watson was the alderman? He did. MR. Dowle R's ExAMINATIon. 115 Do you recollect a conversation that passed between yourself and me (Mr. Alderman Combe) at the top of the Haymarket, after you had received the appointment? I recollect seeing Mr. Combe, but what occurred I cannot possibly tell. * Do you recollect this having passed, that I congratulated you upon what I had heard, as to ſº having received an appointment in the commissariat, and that I put the question, whether you had received it from the favour of Mrs. Clarke, or the patronage and favour of Sir Brooke Watson? I have no recollection of the conversation that pass- ed from Mr. Combe, but his congratulation to me; he was on horse. back; I think the horse did not stand very still, and I ran into the middle of the street, to ask Mr. Combe how he did. & Are you quite certain, that to that question you did not answer, that it was entirely by the favour of Sir Brook Watson? Upon my honour I cannot recollect what passed, as I have before stated. Will you undertake to say positively, that you did not at that time say it was by the favour of Sir Brook Watson? I cannot say posi- tively, but I state what I stated before, that Mrs. Clarke did not give me the appointment; and many mistakes have occurred upon that, by persons supposing that I received it without having purchased it, which is the fact. - - - , When you made the remonstrance you have stated, to Mrs. Clarke, did she endeavour to allay E. apprehensions with respect to herself, by any suggestion that the Duke of York was privy to her taking mo- ney on such an occasion?, I cannot say what conversation arose, ex- cept that she was offended with my freedom. Did you not consider Mrs. Clarke as placing a very particular con- fidence in you, for a long course of years? On these occasions I thought so; but as my opinion did not accord with her’s, communication very soon ceased on such subjects. 3. Is the committee to understand, that Mrs. Clarke did not give you any reason to think that the Duke of York, knew of her taking_that money? She gave me reason always to think that the Duke of York was perfectly acquainted with it. Do you not recollect that the transaction respecting Colonel French and Major Sandon was in the year 1804? I do not recollect the time of the transaction. Do you recollect whether it was before or after your giving Mrs. Clarke the 1000l. for the purchase, as you term it, of the place for you in the commissariat? § expostulation with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of Colonel French, was previous to my appointment in the commissariat, I believe so, as far as my recollection goes; but I trust . this distance of time I shall be excused, if I am imperfect as: to the ateS. The transaction with Colonel French was in the year 1804? I have a belief that it was so; but, not being positive, I would not venture to say that of which I am not sure. "If, from respect to Mrs. Clarke, you thought it right to remonstrate and expostulate against the transaction with Colonel French in 1804, why did you yourself in 1805 bribe her with 1000l. to get an office for you? Because she was peculiarly distressed for money at the moment and because the appointment would remain a secret in my breast, an nothing but such an inquiry as this could º: have drawn it from me, The Duke of York's character and Mrs. Clarke's would never I 2 116 MR. Dowleh's examination. have suffered from that which unfortunately I am now obliged to com- municate to this House. - — — Then the committee is to understand that your only reason for re- monstrating and expostulating with Mrs. Clarke, was not against the impropriety of the act, but on account of the risk of a discovery For both reasons, and her answer, as far as I recollect, was this: I stated to Mrs. Clarke the anxiety and trouble that it seemed to have occa- Sioned to her in this business of Colonel French's; and that I advised her, by all means, to have a regular payment from the Duke of York, instead of meddling with such matters; and she told me, that he really had not the money. Although then you might think the secret safer with you, did you not feel the impropriety of the act equally applied to your own transac- tion *. I was principally induced to it from the difficulty and embar- rassed situation she was in at the moment I purchased the situation. You have stated, that Mrs. Clarke was so much offended with your expostulation and remonstrances, that you saw very little of her since? .Not Sofrequently as before, by much. * [The following question and answer, given by the witness in the former part of his examination, were read.] “2. You have stated, that you remonstrated with Mrs. Clarke on this transaction; what answer did she make to you when you so remonstrated; what excuse did she offer?” A. This, and other pro- ceedings, I frequently mentioned, and endeavoured to dissuade Mrs. ‘Clarke from having any thing to do with them. She stated, that the Duke of York was so distressed for money that she could not bear to ask him; and that it was the only way in which her establishment could be supported. I beg leave to state, that in consequence of this, Mrs. Clarke was offended with my freedom, and I ceased to see or hear from her, for I cannot tell how long, till I think nearly my departure for South America, in 1806.” (Mr. Dowler.) I beg leave to amend that; that I saw her less fre- quently during the interval; not so frequently as I had seen her be- fore: it produced a great deal of anger in Mrs. Clarke, my taking the liberty of giving my advice, as I have stated. Were you personally acquainted with Sir Brook Watson? Not suf- ficiently so to bow to him even passing in the street. { Do you know whether your father was acquainted with Sir Brook Watson? He was, but not intimately, not on terms of particular inti- macy; he dined with him once a year with the common-councilmen of the ward, that was the utmost intimacy I know of subsisting between them. g * g & 8 ° a * Did you never hear your father say that Sir Brook Watson had in- terceded, or would intercede, to procure you a situation under govern- ment? ~ Never. - *. You have stated, that besides the 1000l. you paid Mrs. Clarke, you paid her large sums at different times; can you state the whole amount of the sums you have paid to Mrs. Clarke at those different times? I cannot recollect the amount of them, but I recollect particularly that I paid 170l, or guineas, for a vis-a-vis to Captain Warner, who was going abroad, and she toºd me she should have the money from the Duke of York in a few days to pay me. * * MR. Dowl.ER's ExAMINATION. 117 "Did they amount altogether to 1000l. I am unable to state, I kept Ilo acCOunt. - . . What is the amount of the pay, with the emoluments of the office which you hold? In England, on the home staff, the pay of an assist- ant commissary is fifteen shillings a day, with various deductions. Is that the whole emolument? There is an allowance for lodgings when you are not in barracks or billeted, but that ceases if you are billeted. - What are the emoluments of the office which you held before your last promotion, when you first obtained the situation under govern- ment? The first office was that of assistant commissary of stores, the emightinnents of which I have stated. What do the emoluments of the present situation which you hold amount to 2 There is an extra five shillings, called treasury pay, given to the officers of the commissariat on foreign service, subject to the de- ductions of income tax, and others that are usual. Did you obtain that promotion, or change of your situation, from any interest on the part of any body, or was it granted without application to anybody? It was granted on my application to Mr. Harrison, in con- sequence, I would take the liberty of adding, of my stating to Mr. Har- rison that I had suffered in my health from being in South America; I did not wish to avoid foreign service, but was unable to go through the fatigue of the store department; but that if their lordships thought proper, I conceived myself able, and was willing to undertake that of the account department. Mr. Harrison replied, I will see about it. He went out of his office, and returned in a few moments, and said he could see no objection, if it was not objectionable to the person going at the head of the department. The pay of the two departments is the Sønne. & - * Do not you conceive it probable, that, from the respectable situation your father held in the corporation of the City of London, you might be likely to have several friends who interceded with government for the office to which you were first appointed 3 I believe not. You have stated your belief, that the Duké of York was acquainted with the circumstance of Mrs. Clarke taking this money; can you state what circumstances induce you to entertain that belief? The as- surance of Mrs Clarke. $ 4 You know of no other circumstances but the declaration of Mrs. Clarke, to induce you to that opinion; no circumstances have occurred to corroborate that opinion With respect to the money of course I cannot, but she said I should be gazetted very shortly, and I was so. So that that opinion which you gave to the House was founded solely on the declaration of Mrs. Clarke, without any other corroborating circumstance? Of course I had no communication with the Duke of York, and it was her declaration alone which led me to believe that he knew it, and my subsequent appointment. 3. Did you ever tell Mr. Vernon at the Treasury, at the time you re- ceived your appointment, that you owed it to the influence of Mrs. Clarke, or at any time before, that you expected it from her interest ? I do not recollect having any conversation with Mr. Vernon upon that subject. - . Were you not, previous to your appointment, ever introduced to one gf the Secretaries of the Treasury, or some other gentleman there? I never was introduced to either of the Secretaries of the Treasury, to my 118 M.R. now LER's ExAMINATIon. recollection; I have not the knowledge of the person of anyone of the gentleman who were then Secretaries of the Treasury. Orone of the chief clerks? Not to my recollection. jº . Before you received your appointment from the Treasury, were y not referred to the Comptrollers of Army accounts, to be examined as to your fitness to be a *:::::::: I was. . o you recollect what interval there was between that reference and your appointment? I do not. From whom did you receive the letter of reference to the Comp- trollers? ... I am not certain, but I recollect the circumstances of my fº to the Comptroller’s Office; I saw the Secretary; Mr. Fauquier, think his name was, gave me the usual questions which were put, which I was to answer on a sheet of paper, what my habits of life had been, my knowledge of business, and so oa; those I answered; and he said the Comptrollers were not then sitting, but if I was required further, he would let me know. i 3. you know whether you received that letter from Mr. Vernon 2 : did not. State to the committee in what situation on the Commissariat's Staff you were employed immediately before you were sent on service in Por- tugal? The accounts of the Commissary General were not made up, or rather my accounts, which are the last, having been kept at Buenos Ayres after the departure of the army, having been sent there to pay for the supply of the army and the navy on their return home; and I was apprized by Mr. Bullock, that I was placed on half-pay, which could be but a few weeks previous to my departure for Portugal; and the day previous to my departure, I was the whole day with Mr. Bullock, finally settling our accounts. - You were Assistant Commissary, under Mr. Bullock, of Stores and Provisions, in the expedition to Buenos Ayres I was. Notbeing wanted at your return, you were placed on half-pay assoon as your services could be dispensed with ? I was surprized to find that I was placed on half-pay, though I believe it was but for a very few weeks, because my accounts with Mr. Bullock were not settled, and I resided in London in consequence of it. - Were you placed on half-pay by any order of the Treasury? I was : apprized of it through Mr. Bullock, I do not know that it was the act. Do you know on what recommendation you were sent on service to Portugal? I do not; Mr.Coffin told me that he had not suggested my JºãIſle, - - Do you know whether Mr. Coffin the Commissary General, was called upon on the occasion of the expeditions to Portugal and Spain, to furnish the Treasury with a List of all Assistant Commissaries who were upon half-pay, or not otherwise wanted on services in England, in order that they might be sent on service to those countries, without making fresh appointments? Mr. Bullock called upon me at the coffee- house where I had resided, and told me he had been informed that morning, that I was put down for the expedition under Sir Arthur Wel- lesley; I was in bad health, and had been constantly occupied, and he knew that well; and he said I would advise your going to the Com- missary General's in Great George-street, to-morrow. When you went to the Commissary General's were you told to hold yourself in readiness for foreign service; I think Mr. Coffin, or Mr M.B. Dowler's exAMINATION. 119 2Morse, said to me, Well, are you ready to be sent again? I said, I hope not just yet. I think Mr. Coffin came out, and said, I did not suggest your name to the Treasury, I assure you; or that Mr. Morse said, he believed that Mr. Coffin had not done so. Had you made no application or interest to go upon this service? Certainly not, except that which I made to Mr. Harrison, finding I was appointed to the Store Department. Up to the period that you applied to Mr. Harrison, requesting that you might be changed from the department of Stores to the department of the Accounts, had you any reason, except that you could perform it with more satisfaction; did you consider it . promotion in the service? Certainly not, for I believe it is certain that there is a greater chance of promotion in the Store Department, from its activity, and that activity being in the eye of the Commander in Chief, than being in the Account Department. Before you were in the Commissary's Department, what was your profession of life? I was a long time, after my father quitted London and quitted business, without any kind of occupation; my father's liberality rendered it unnecessary for me for sometime previous to my appointinent. - Before you were appointed to the Commissariat, did you not follow. the business of a stock-broker Some years previous to that, I believe in the year 1800, or 1801; I am not certain precisely as to dates. Why did you quit that line of life, and when . It was my father's desire; and besides that, in consequence of peace first, and afterwards the renewal of hostilities, I lost a great deal of money by the failure of different i. and my father was constantly urging me to quit it, as a very hazardous and dangerous employment. Then your resignation of that profession was after the breaking out of hostilities 2 I am pretty sure it was. How soon after did you pay iO00l. to Mrs. Clarke for this situation? My father paid it; my father gave me the money for it. Was that the only reason assigned for your leaving your business of a stock-broker, or was it not from embarrassed circumstances in the Alley I was invited to stay in the Stock Exchange by some of the Haembers, but my father sº not consent to it. Did you pay all your differences I paid my last shilling, and in- volved myself considerably. Did you pay all your differences? I have never seen the paper, nor my books of the Stock Exchange, because they were delivered imme- diately into the hands of the Committee; they were requested to be ex- amined, and to this moment I have not received them back. All the differences would be that which you lose by the failure of others; and among others, E. P. Solomons and Mr. Cope were deficit to the amount of five or six thousand pounds to me, which was the cause of my jeaving the Stock Exchange, Have you paid the debts due from you, at the time of your quitting the Stock Exchange? Certainly not; because these are debts due from me in point of honour, as it is a place where many of the transactions are not legal : these are due from me; they came suddenly on me; and I believe they are the only transactions that I had with those persons. * .* Do you recollectat what time your quitting the Stock Exchange took 120 Mr. nowlen's ExAMINATIon. jlace? The date I cannot tell; it was the time of the failure of Mr. #. P. Solomons and Mr. Cope. & It is a pretty important event in your life; do not you recollect when it occurred No; not unless I had my papers; I was endeavouring to recollect this morning; but I have not a particle of paper here; t expect my things from fisbon, and I could tell if I had my banker's OOK. You have stated, that you had, at various times, lent money to Mrs. Clarke; had you lent any money to Mrs. Clarke, previous to your quitting the Stock Exchange? I do not believe I had, Had you given any money to Mrs. Clarke, previous to your quitting the Stock Exchange? I do not believe that I had. Were you acquainted wih Mrs. Clarke, previous to your quitting the Stock Exchange? Certainly. For how long? I must refer to the former answer I have made, that I had known Mrs. Clarke for several years. Do you recollect the first time you either lent or gave any money to Mrs.aſClarke I do not. f How long ago might it be, two, or three, or four years ago? I wish I could answer the question, but it is impossible; I have not any recol- lection upon the subject that can be . accurate, or near it. Was it all in one year, or in different years Of the 1000l., 200l. was first given her, and afterwards the 800l. Were these the only sums that you ever lent her? ... I have stated before, that I have lent her sums at different times, which I had always been assured would be repaid, amounting to a considerable sum, which I cannot recollect exactly, but which never were repaid.. Do you mean to state, that you lent various sums of money to a considerable amount, expecting them to be repaid, and yet have no recollection of what they were Except the one hundred and seventy guineas for the vis-a-vis, I have no recollection of the precise sums. Do you mean to state, that they were loans to Mrs. Clarke . Yes: Nº. you any security for those sums of money that you lent to her? one. ' *. sº Did you take any memorandum of the sums that you lent to her? I am pretty sure not. And those sums were to a considerable amount, at various times, for which you took no memorandum ?. I have taken none. You arrived from Portugal on Thursday last? Yes. Have you seen Mrs. Clärke since your return from Portugal? Yes. When did you see Mrs. Clarke, since your return from Portugal? On Sunday last. Have you seen her since I saw her just now, in the witnesses foOIm. g * Was any body with Mrs. Clarke when you saw her I waited upon her, to request that I might not be called upon as a witness, seeing the circumstance of Colonel French's levy in the newspaper; I saw her address in the newspaper. 3. Was any body with Mrs. Clarke when you called upon her ? No- body, but a young lady or two. g What conversation passed between Mrs. Clarke and you when you called upon her Ilamented the situation in which I found her placed; as to the notoriety of this, and that I had always told her f was fearful * Mr. Dow LER's ExAMINATION. 121 it would become known ; and she said, the Duke of York, to the best of my recollection, had driven her to it by not paying her debts, and not being punctual in the annuity, as she termed it, that she was to receive from him. - She told you that the Duke of York had driven her to this proceed- ing, by not paying her debts, and not being punctual in the annuity that she was to receive from him I do not know that she said he had driven her to it; my conversation was as short as possible, merely to request that I might not be called upon. ** Had you seen Mrs. Clarke before you went to Portugal, in the course of last summer ? Yes. s Frequently I cannot positively state how frequently. Do you recollect what was the last time you lent her or gave her, money? I do not indeed. Have you kent or given her any money since the time of your ap- pointment to the commissariat 2. Upon my word I cannot recollect; if it has been, it must be very trifling. * Can you positively assert, that neither you nor any other person con- nected with you, solicited Sir Brook, Watson to support the interest which you supposed to be making for you at the Treasury, to pro- cure the appointment in the Commissariat Department? Never to my knowledge. Did you know that Sir Brook Watson was frequently consulting at the Treasury in making out Commissariat Departments? I was not acquainted with that circumstance; but I was not at all known, and I did not even bow to Sir Brook Watson if we met: I was not on suffi- ciently good terms with Sir Brook Watson to think he would aid me in the appointment; on the contrary, when I waited on him, having re- ceived my commission, he did not seem to know me, and ordered me to depart the next morning. Can you say whether Sir Brook Watson knew that interest was mak- ing in your favour at the Treasury for that appointment I know no- thing of that circumstance. Cân you positively say that Sir Brook Watson did not, to the best of your knowledge, make any application to assist with his recommenda- tion the interest making for your appointment? I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that he did not aid me in procuring the ap- pointment. Have you always and uniformly represented that Mrs. Clarke was the author of your appointment? I avoided saying any thing upon the sub- ject as much as possible. Did you ever at any time say that you owed your appointment to Sir Brook Watson 2 I have not any recollection of saying so, to the best of my belief; but it is hardly possible to recollect circumstances of such long standing; I always, to shield Mrs. Clarke, and to prevent any suspicion, said, that she did not give me the appointment, and therefore I confined myself to the truth, intentionally; I gave that answer when I was pressed by persons who knew me; they might con- jecture, but I always avoided the question as much as possible, and few persons took the liberty of asking me. If you ever said you owed your appointment to Sir Brook Watson, could you ever have forgotten it? The errors of memory are so great, that I cannot positively speak to such a thing, but I should imagine I 122, MR. Huskisson's ExAMINATIon. never did say so ; trusting to one's recollection at a length of time is a very arduous task. you admit, that you might have said to some person or other that you owed your appointment to Sir Brook Watson, and have forgotten that you said so? I do not think that I ever said so, but, - I do not pledge myself to say that I never did say so; but I do not believe it. •- Do you admit, that you might have said to some person or other that you owed your appointment to Sir Brook Watson, and have forgotten that you said so I have answered that question to the best of my knowledge. WILLIAM HUSKISSON, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: ... I believe you were Secretary of the Treasury in the months of May, June, and July, in the year 1805 I was. * * Will you acquaint the Committee what is the course of application for appointments of this kind to the Treasury; and whether you recol- lect any application either of Mr. Richard Manby, or of the gentleman who has just been examined? . The course of application for appoint- ments of this nature, and all other appointments in the gift of the Trea- sury, as far as I know, is this: that an application is either made di- rectly to the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, or more indirectly to those persons through the channel of one of the secretaries of the Treasury, or the private secretaries of those persons: sometimes, may frequently, applications are made verbally either to the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, who makes a memorandum of the application, and it is then noted in the memorandum book kept by his private Secretary, or com- municated to the Secretary of the Treasury, to be noted in a memo- randum book kept there : If any application is made for an appoint- ment on official grounds, that is made certainly in a different shape; it would then be presented to the Board of Treasury in the shape of a memorial, or some official document, which would go through the regular course of official business; of that nature are recommendations for promotions for commissaries, or any any other servants of the pub- lic, who having distinguished themselves, receive reconimendations from the superior under whom . have served: any document of the latter description, I believe would be forthcoming in the Treasury; but as to any application for an appointment, I know no instance of such a paper being considered an official application, or register, or any public note made of it: in consequence of that, I do not believe that the most diligent search into the records of the Treasury will afford any trace of the quarter or of the manner in which this person was recomi- mended to his appointment, whether the application was made to my- self to be communicated to the then First Lord of the Treasury, or made to my then colleague in office, or to any other person who had access to the First Lord of the Treasury, or whether it was made to the First Lord of the Treasury himself, I am altogether ignorant. I cer- tainly have not the least recollection of this person being recommended; and until he stated to the Committee this evening that he was an AS- sistant Commissary, I did not know that there was such a person upon MR. GRANT's ExAMINATION. 123 the staff; upon his stating that circumstance, and that he purchased the commission from Mrs. Clarke, my attention was of course called to his evidence; I then took the name of the Witness, and I have re- called to my recollection, that a person of that name had been directed to proceed to Portugal, to serve in the Commissariat there; and that he was directed for this reason, that when a very large force was pro- ceeding to Portugal and to Spain, it of course became necessary, on the communication of that circumstance from the Secretary of State, to provide a Commissariat Staff adequate to the amount of the army going to serve in those countries: I communicated this to the Com- missary General and the Comptrollers of Army Accounts, and desired they would furnish me with a complete list of all the Commissaries who were either not absolutely wanted in the service in England, or being on half-pay might be sent: in the list so sent, I must have found the name of this gentleman, and I can state that with the more confidence, because extensive as that army was, and numerous as the Commissariat, there was not any one fresh officer appointed, the whole were taken either from the half-pay of the Commissariat as I have stated, or from persons, who, in consequence of the reduction of the force in this coun- try, it was conceived might be spared for foreign service. I am confi- dent I never saw Mr. Dowler till I saw him at the bar; I certainly do not recollect any one circumstance connected with his appointment: I do not know when it took place, nor can I give any other account, than that which I have now given. I know that Mr. Manby holds an ap- pointment in the Commissariat, because finding him upon half-pay he was directed to take charge of a district in England from which another Commissary was sent to flºº, service; but I cannot recollect whe- ther Mr. Mañby was appointed during the time I held the situation of secretary to the Treasury, or at any other period. , I am equally igno- rant as to the circumstances which led to his appointment, and of the quarter from which he was recommended, as of the person who has been examined. w Do you recollect Mr. Adams being appointed a Commissioner of the Löttery I do recollect his being appointed a Commissioner of the Lottery, when he was private secretary to Mr. Pitt, at the time he was First Lord of the Treasury. WILLIAM STURGES BOURNE, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: You were Secretary of the Treasury in the months of May, June, and July, in the year 1805? I was. º Will you acquaint the Committee whether you recollect any appli- cation, either of Mr. Richard Manby or of the gentleman who has just been examined After the statement which has just been made, it will be only necessary for me to state, that I never saw Mr. Dowler, till I saw him at the bar to night. . I do not recollect any application being made to me on the subject of this appoint- ment, and am totally unacquainted with the circumstances respect- ing it. Mr. JOHN GRANT was called in and examined by the Committee, $ ! as follows: * were you agent for Colonel French's levy , I was, Do you know what agreement existed between Colonel French f 124 MR. GRANT's ex AMINATIow. and Captain Sandon, with regard to the levy 'That it was to be a joint concern. * º Do you mean by a joint concern, that they were to stand in equal proportion of gain or loss I do. - - tº Do you of your own knowledge know through whose influence it was that Colonel French first obtained his letter of service 2 I have no further knowledge as to that fact, than what was told me by Colonel French and Captain Sandon. # * Will you relate what Colonel French and Captain Sandon told you? They told me that they were to have a levy, i. to get it through a friend, which friend, at that time I did not know, but before the letter of service came out, I was acquainted that it was through a Mrs. Clarke. - Did you know from them that they gained that letter of service through the medium of that friend then unknown to you? They told Re SO. - Do you recollect that during the progress of the levy, any altera- tion was applied for in the original terms of the levy, through the same medium, Mrs. Clarke? I do know that an alteration was applied for: they applied, but I cannot say that that was through the same medium. . I State what that alteration was. I cannot immediately state it from recollection, but it will appear upon the letter which was issued from the War-office in consequence. A letter sanctioning the alteration was issued from the War-office in sonsequence of an application, but through what medium you do not know? No. Did you ever hear Colonel French or Captain Huxley Sandon say by what means they had obtained that alteration ? I in fact knew the means, because it was a letter written applying for such an alteration. \ , To whom was that letter addressed ? I understood to the Com- mander in Chief. - From Colonel French and Captain Sandon Yes. Can you recollect that any other alteration in the levy was made * I cannot charge my memory with any more than one. Was there any alteration with repect to boys 2 . I think that was in- the original letter of service ; I cannot be certain as to that; but it was either in the original letter of service, or in the amendment. Were you acquainted with the terms on which Mrs. Clarke's influ- ence was obtained by Colonel French and Captain Huxley Sandon I did understand at first that she was to have 500 pounds or guineas; but afterwards I understood there was some other alteration, which was to. ałlow a guinea for every man raised. - Do you know that any sum or sums of money were paid in conse- sluence of that last agreement to Mrs. Clarke? I have been told so, but know nothing of it myself. B Y. you told so by Colonel French, of Captain Huxley Sandon y both. - - You were told both by Colonel French, and Captain HuxleySandon, that Mrs. Clarke received payments according to the last agreement of a guinea a man in addition to the 500 guineas originally contracted for? I cannot say whether it was upon the first or the last agreement, but that she received several sums. e MR. R. RANT's ExAMINATION. H35. De you know that she received several sums subsequent to the agree- ment you speak of, of a guinea a man? ... I do not know at what period she received any sum ; nor do I speak from my knowledge of her re- ceiving any, but only from what I was informed by Colonel French and Captain Hºly Sandon. . §. you, as agent to the levy, pay any sum of money to her or to any other person To her none; but to several others very large sums. o you recollect paying a draft of 200l. drawn in favour of Mr. Corri, by Captain Huxley Sandon I accepted such a draft, and it was paid by my banker. 2– The amount of that was placed to the levy account? To the levy 2CCOunt. -* Have you ever understood or been told by Colonel French or Cap- tain Sandon, that Mrs. Clarke has received very comsiderable sums for her influence on the levy account? ... I have. Did they ever either one or the other of them tell you, or have you reason to know, the amount of the different sums paid to her on that account? I know nothing of my own self; but they have mentioned to me the sum, I think of 1700l. Did you ever hear Colonel French or Captain Sandon complain of Mrs. Clarke having disappointed them in any of their applications on that subject I do not know that they ever made any others to her. Did you ever hear Colonel French or Captain Sandon complain of Mrs. Clarke having disappointed them in any of their applications on that subject I cannot call any such thing to my memory; it does not occur to me at present. . . Do you recollect Colonel French and Captain Sandon to have ex- ressed themselves satisfied with the exertions Mrs. Clarke had made in their favour? No. Do you recollect that Colonel French ever applied to you, respect- 'ing the loan of 5000l. that was to be raised for the Commander in Chief ? He did mention to me that he wished to afford to the Duke such an accommodation. Did Colonel French desire you to take any steps towards procur- ing that money P No. $. - -- § he state to you his reason for wishing to accommodate the Com- mander in Chief with that sum ? No. * But you recollect that Colonel French spoke to you respecting the raising of such sums of money for the Commander in Chief? I do; that he asked him to lend it to him for the purpose. Will you, as nearly as you can recollect, state what passed upon that subject? I do not recollect any particulars that passed, further than his asking me to lend him such a sum of money for that purpose; as to the particular words I cannot possibly recollect. You took no steps whatever for raising the money? None. Did you state to Colonel French that it could not be done? I told Colonel French that under the heavy advance I already was for the levy, I certainly could not do it with convenience, '5, you recollect that Colonel French suggested, that this loan of 5000l. was to be advanced, provided the arrears due from Govern- ment on the levy account were paid up 2 No such condition or pro- 126 MR. GRANT's ExAMINATION. vision was stated; but it was observed, that if that should be recovered it might form a part of it. . . • - Was it Colonel French who made that observation I really cannot recollect whether it was from Colonel French or from myself. 5 Then the mode of accommodating the Duke of York was agitated between you? If that may be called a mode, it certainly was. Do you mean to say, that if the sum due from government to Colonel French on account of the levy was paid up, the Duke of York might on that event have been accommodated No, cer- tainly not. - -- as any application made to your knowledge by the Duke of York, for the paying up of the sums due on the levy Not that I know of. ' - Did Colonel French ever tell you such application was to be made, or had been made Colonel French did promise that he would me- morial the Duke upon it. Did you say that if the money was paid up, the 5,000l. was to be lent to him 2 No. - { * , Then you mean merely to state, that if the money due on account of the levy was paid, that on that event you would have been able to have met Colonel French's wishes, and to have made the advances to the Duke of York? No; I never mentioned any such idea, nor took it into consideration. - : I thought you said that there being so much due from Colonel French on the account of the levy, you could not meet his wishes upon that subject? That did not relate to what was due from the War Office, but to a large sum still due from Colonel French and Captain Sandon; which they had expended perhaps in other ways, and which sum they are still indebted to me, to a very large amount. [The Witness was directed to withdraw.] [The Witness was again called in.] Do you recollect Colonel French complaining of other parties hav- ing larger bounties than were allowed to his levy, and that that hurt his recruiting very much He did mention, that he met recruiting parties wherever he went; but as to the bounty being larger or not, ; cannot undertake to say that he did. s It is understood that Colonel French, and Captain Sandon had at one time thirteen guineas, and at another time nineteen; at what eriod was the sum advanced from the thirteen to the nineteen cannot speak particularly as to, the period, but I think it was in, May, 1804; if the letter of service is referred to, that will shew it distinctly. t - Did Colonel French tell you whether that advance was procured through the medium of Mrs. Clarke? No. Do you recollect that Colonel French ever told you that through the influence of Mrs. Clarke, he had obtained permission to have . his recruits passed nearer the places where they were recruited than + before ? No, * [The Witness was directed to withdraw. AIRs. CLARKE's EXAMINATION. 127 Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and addressed the Committee as follows: I feel myself so, very unwell, and so very much fatigued, that it is impossible for me to be examined this evening; I have been waiting here eight hours, and I am quite exhausted with the fatigue; my feel- ings have been very much harassed during the time. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. [The Witness was again called in.] [The Chairman informed Mrs. Clarke, that it was the pleasure of the Committee that her examination should proceed, and that a chair should be provided for her accom- modation. - (Mrs. Clarke.) The chair will not take the fatigue off my mind. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr Yorke said, that unless the witness was examined that evening, she would have such opportunities to com- municate with the other witnesses, that he thought, if it were in the power of the house, she ought to be commit- ted to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, with orders to deny her access to any person whatever. It was of the greatest consequence that either the one or the other of these plans should be adopted; and he thought the wit- ness should be called in, and have the option given her. Mr William Wynne doubted whether such an order as ‘that proposed could be given, till the House was resumed, and that therefore till then the Chairman could not make the communication. Mr. Rose agreed with the last gentleman;—but Mr. Yorke thought there might be precedents of the Commit- tee's, making such an order. g The Speaker was not aware of any such precedent; but said that the house had full authority to act as emergen- cies might require. There had not been an examination like the present since the reign of Queen Anne, and there- fore if there were any precedent upon the subject, it Inight be too ancient for the house to act upon. #. Sheridan thought, that if the witness were exa- mined in an ill state of health, she might afterwards say, that her answers were not such as her more fresh and vi- gorous mind night have suggested. He deprecated the idea of locking her up in solitude in a strange place, 123 MRs. CLARKE's EXAMINATIon. and because she was excused from examination. He did not see why all the other witnesses should not be confined in the same way; and thought, that to single her out might look like the effect of party. The Committee would recollect, too, that to-morrow was the Fast-day, and that it was not unlikely she might remain in confinement till next Friday. She had already, too, had ample time to have made any communication with the last witness but one ; and the first question the right honourable gentle- man should have asked her would have been, had she had any conversation with Mr. Dowler since he had been ex- amined. The right honourable gentleman thought that the measure of her commitment would be harsh and un- reasonable. Mr. Wardle produced the note he had received from Mrs. Clarke, before she had entered the doors of the house that evening, which ran as follows:—“Mrs. Clarke very much wishes to see you, as she feels herself extremely indisposed.” - Mr. Croker thought that a communication between the witnesses might have taken place, and that it was abso- lutely necessary to examine Mrs. Clarke that evening. Mr. Adam said, that in a cause of so great importance, and in the conduct of which the eyes of the nation were fixed on the committee, the committee ought to be guided by their soundest discretion, and that that discretion ought to take into consideration, in a proper degree, the public opinion. If the evidence of the witness in ques- tion ought not to be influenced by communications with other witnesses, so it ought not to be given under a state of mind, to the productions of which she might after- wards object. The Committee were therefore in this di- lemma; and as they could not accomplish their desire of preserving her from communication, the honourable and learned member thought that the committee had bet- ter postpone her examination, and allow the fact of her intercourse with other witnesses to go to her general cre- dit; and it would affect the whole of her testimony. Mr. Canning agreed with the honourable and learned i. as to the difficulty under which the committee aboured; but thought that one or two questions, as to the fact of her communication with other witnesses, might still be asked her to-night; and these might be made so short as not to affect the most delicate state of health and MR. Dow LER's ExAMINATION. 129 spirits. If these questions were not put now, the com- mittee would recollect there were other modes than per- sonal communication, through which the witness might learn the proceedings of the house. Mr. Whitbread could not see any reason for asking the questions now in preference to any other.time, nor what end could be answered by it. He cautioned the commit- tee against any hasty determination upon the evidence before them; and thought an attendance on the house of eight hours a sufficient plea for the illness of any "woman. WILLIAM DOWLER, Esq. was again called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows : Since you quitted this bar, have you had any communication with Mrs. Clarke Only to offer her refreshment, as she is very unwell; I procured a glass of wine and water for her, which I put beside her. * Have you communicated to her the substance of what passed here during your examination ? No. e How long were you in the room with Mrs. Clarke 2 I imagine five or ten minutes:—the gentlemen withdrew from the room for some time, and I was absent at the time: I was in the room perhaps five or ten minutes. Did you give Mrs. Clarke any intimation whatever of what had passed in this House? She asked me the names of the gentlemen by whom I had been examined; and I answered that I did not know them. What other persons were present in the room The whole of the witnesses, I believe; she was unwell, and several gentlemen gathered round her, and asked her whether she would take refreshment. How many witnesses are there attending When I say all the wit- nesses, I suppose there were eight or nine in the room, I cannot speak positively. y Were you apprised that you ought not to have any communication with Mrs. Clarke? I felt so. And acted entirely from your own feelings upon the subject? Yes. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. [The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Wol. I. e K 130 proceedings RELATIVE to FourTH DAY. Thurso AY, FEBRUARY 9. List of Witnesses examined. W. STURGES BOURNE, Esq. (a Member.) WILLIAM HUSKISSON, Esq. (a Member.) Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE. Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. (a Member.) JOHN MºMAHON, Esq. (a Member.) COLONEL GORDON. RIGHT HON. CH. f.ONG, Esq. (a Member.) THE DEPUTY SERGEANTAT ARMS. Miss MARY OLIVIA TAYLOR. MR. JANIEL SUTTON. MR. THOMAS PARKER. H. CHRHSTIAN COMBE, Esq. (a Member.) MR. DONAVAN. Mr. Wii ART on in the Chair. Mr. Wardle moved the order of the day for the house to resolve itself into a committee for further inquiry into the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. Mr. Yorke wished, previously to the house resolving into a committee, to explain the grounds of his recom- mendation, on a former night, that a witness should be detained in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, to pre- vent communication with other witnesses already examin- ed, or to be examined, on a subject of so much import- ance. The right honourable the Speaker had, on that occasion, given his opinion upon the subject, in opposi- tion to what he felt it his own duty to propose ; and he now thought the house acted wisely in following that THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 13] opinion. What he himself had proposed he conceived to be founded on parliamentary usage, although he then spoke generally, without being able at the moment to re- fer to particular precedents. He had since, however, made more minute research; and although gentlemen seemed before to think he recommended something which was novel in parliamentary proceedings upon such cases, he was now enabled to refer them to precedents upon the journals of the house, and in times to which the house had been in the habit of looking up with veneration, namely, those shortly subsequent to the Brunswick accession. He then moved, that the clerk might refer to the 18th volume of the journals, and the proceedings which took place from the 12th to the 17th June 1715, from which it appeared, that the house, on the representation of Mr. Walpole, chairman of a secret committee then sitting, had deemed it proper to order that Mathew Prior, Thomas Hardy, and Several other persons, should be taken into close custody of the Sergeant at Arms, and there detained during the pleasure of the house, in order to prevent them from withdrawing themselves, and to secure their evidence be- fore the secret committee, touching the matters then under inquiry. And the said Mathew Prior having refused to be examined before the said secret committee, he was or- dered to be detained in close custody; and a petition hav- ing been presented by Mr. Prior to the house, complain- ing of the hardship of such detention, no order was made upon it until the 20th of September following. The next pre- cedent to which he would refer the house for proof of what their ancestors had done in similar cases, was in the 21st volume of the journals, on 15th February, 1731, when the house had ordered a number of persons to be taken into close custody, who, it was apprehended, were about to withdraw themselves from giving testimony. The ne- cessity of such proceedings, however, must always de- pend upon circumstances: the house must in its own dis- cretion judge whether, under those of the present case, it was eligible to follow the precedents he had stated : at all events he hoped he had shewn that his proposition was not unparliamentary. Lord Folkestone could not accede to such a doctrine, as that the communication between witnesses either before or after examination at the bar of that house was to invali- date their testimony. It º: be quite impossible to pre- 2 * * 192 PROCEE Dr.NGs, &c. went such communication from taking place between per- sons desirous of giving the fairest evidence. And if the right honourable gentleman meant, in the course of this inquiry, to found any proceeding upon the precedents he had quoted, he (Lord Folkestone) trusted no such pro- ceeding would be adopted, without giving the house time to search more minutely for further precedents. Mr. Fuller said it was impossible for any honest man about to give testimony before that house, to entertain a wish for holding any communication with other witnesses. No witness could wish to hold any such communication but for the purposes of deception, and he was surprized the experience of the hon. gentleman had not taught him a different way of thinking. Mr. Sheridan now rose, and observed, that in conse- quence of some interrogatories put on a former night by an honourable member to Mr. Corri, one of the witnesses examined before the committee, in order to know whether Mr. Finnerty was one of the persons to whom he alluded as present with him at Mrs. Clarke's house, an idea had gone forth that Mr. Finnerty was the person. He had himself, however, since Tuesday night received the most consistent assurances that Mr. Finnerty was not the per- son, nor had he any concern whatever in these transac- tions. With regard to Mr. Finnerty himself, he was at present under prosecution by the Attorney-General for a libel against his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and he felt that such an idea going forth to the public as that he was the person alluded to by Mr. Corri in his evidence, would be extremely prejudicial to him on his trial. Iłe was therefore extremely desirous to remove such an idea, and to prove to the house that be was not the person. He now held in his hand a petition from Mr. Finnerty, which he would beg leave to present to the house. The petition was received and read: It purported to be the petition of Peter Finnerty, of Clement's-inn, gentleman, and stated, “ that the peti- tioner had heard with surprize and regret, that in the course of an examination now carrying on before that honourable house, relative to his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief, his name had been frequently intro- duced; and that questions had been put, implying sus- picions which might produce impressions injurious to him, upon a prosecution instituted against him by the Attorney M R. HUSKISSoN's. ExaminATIo N. 133 General, and which was expected shortly to be brought to trial. Petitioner, therefore, thought it necessary to state to the honourable house, that he was perfectly ready and willing to appear at the bar, and answer any question that 'might be put to him, as he had never been engaged in any transaction—which he would shrink from avowing ; and he begged leave to assure that honourable house, that his answers would be frank, full, and explicit.” The petition was ordered to lie on the table. WILLIAM STURGES BOURNE, Esq. attending in his place, made the following statement: I stated on a former night, that I had never seen the witness, Mr. Dowler, and that I did not recollect that he had ever been recommend- ed to Mr. Pitt through me: but that if such recommendation had taken place, I should probably be able to find a memorandum of it: I have since searched for such a memorandum, but I can find no trace of his having been so recommended. { WILLIAM HUSKISSON, Esq. attending in his place, made the following statement: -- . I stated on the former evening, that I had no knowledge of Mr. Dowler, nor no recollection of ever having seen him, or his having been recommended through me to Mr. Pitt. f certainly have now no recol- lection of any circumstance I had not then ; in consequence of what I stated to the committee, that I should make an inquiry, I proceeded in the first instance, to cause a careful search to be made at the Treasury, whether among the muniments of that department there was any paper to be found, or any trace of a recommendation of this gentleman; the result of that search was, that there was no such document in the Treasury. I then sent to the present Commissary-General, Mr. Coffin, and I desired Mr. Coffin to examine all the books of the late Sir Brook Watson, and all the papers which, in the course of office, when he suc- ceeded Sir Brook Watson, had been placed in his care; I also desired the person who had Sir Brook Watson's private papers, his executor, to examine such papers as were in their possession ; they have not been able to find, either in the public records of the Commissariat Depart- ment, or among his private papers, any trace of a recommendation by him, either official or private, of Mr. Dowler, to the situation he now holds; the only mention made of Mr. Dowler in the books of this de- artment is what I shall state presently. Having failed in this quarter, #. to Mr. Adams, Mr. F. private secretary at the time he was appointed, for any information he might possess, or any recollection he might have upon the subject, Mr. Adams had not the least recollec- tion, as he stated, and is ready to state in evidence if he is called, of any recommendation of Mr. Dowler; he states, that with respect to all private papers of Mr. Pitt, and any memorandum:which might have been kept of persons who had been, recommended to him for appoint- jments, whether those appointments had been conferred or not, they 134 MR. Huskisson's ExAMINATION. were in the possession of the Bishop of Lincoln, as his executor. Mr. Adams went yesterday to the town residence of the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop is at Buckden, and therefore he could not obtain any infor- mation there; but Mr. Adams stated to me, that before the papers of the late Mr. Pitt were removed from Downing-street to the Bishop's. all those which did not appear to be of any importance, but merely of indifference, were destroyed. Whether any memorandum of this na- ture were or were not, I must leave the committee to form an opinion. I also inquired of everygentleman in the Treasury, at that time, as to any knowledge they might have respecting the manner in which Mr. Dowler had been recommended; none of those whom I have seen, profess to have any knowledge of the quarter from which he was recommended. Under these circumstances, it may perhaps be necessary to state, if the committee wishes for any further light I can throw upon this sub- ject, that I find upon the 29th of March, 1805, Sir Brook Watson, then commissary-general, applied officially to the treasury by a letter, which I hold in my hand, that three additional assistant commissaries should be appointed. If it is necessary I will read the letter. On the 5th of June, 1805, Sir Brook Watson writes again to the treasury, re- questing that five additional commissaries may be appointed. But I must here observe, that by the context of the letter of the 5th of June, it appears that his request of the 29th of March had not then been attended to ; no appointments had taken place in consequence of the former letter; that would be, therefore, five in the whole ; and he presses their immediate appointment. On the 6th of July, he stated the necessity of one more, in censequence of one being in ill health. In consequence of these requisitions of Sir Brook Watson, it appears, that on the 15th of June I was directed by the lords of the treasury to write a letter to the comptrollers of army accounts. . This is the first trace I can find of Mr. Dowler. This letter it may be necessary, per- haps, I should read to the committee. [Mr. Huskisson read the letter.] - “Treasury Chambers, June 15th, 1805. * Gentlemen, “The Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury intending to recommend to his Majesty William Dowler, gentleman, for the si- tuation of assistant commissary on the home establishm.ent, if he shall be found properly qualified for that service, I am commanded by my Ilords, to desire you will accordingly examine into his fitness and sufficiency, and report to this board the result of such enquiry. * “I am, &c. “ W. Huskrsson. * Comp. Army Accounts.” With respect to appointments of this nature, none are made without referring to the conjptrollers of army accounts, to examine into the fitness of the person; it therefore becomes necessary, in case my colleague or myself were directed to prepare a commission for such a Person, to put him into this course of examination, as preliminary to granting him such an appointment. In consequence of this reference to the comptrollers, a report was received from them, which it may be also necessary to read: this report was on the 3d of July. MR. HUSKISSON's ExAMINATION. 135 [Mr. Huskisson read the letter.] “ (No. 175.) Comptroller’s Office, 3d July, 1805. & ſº My Lords, , “Mr Huskisson having by his letter of the 15th ultimo, signified to us your Lordships commands, that we should examine into the fitness and sufficiency of Mr. William Dowler for the situation of assistant commissary of the home establishment, and report to your lordships the result of such enquiry;-We have been attended by Mr. Dowler; and having proposed such questions as we conceived necessary for him to answerin writing, we report to your lordships, that, in answer to our questions, Mr. Dowler states himself to be thirty-two years of age, born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, London. “That he has not hitherto served in any commissariat, but that he received a commercial education at Mr. Eaton's in Tower-street, and for sixteen years had the management of his father's compting-house, till he retired from business ; that he understands French and Latin; that he is conversant in arithmetic in general, including fractions; that not having served in the Commissariat, he cannot say that he is ac- quainted with the forms of returns and vouchers, or the method of keeping and making up commissariat accounts for cash and stores: but as he has received a commercial education, and is perfectly conversant in mercantile accounts, we are of opinion, that your Lordships may with propriety recommend Mr. William Dowler to his Majesty, for the sity,ation of assistant commissary. - “We have the honour to be, “My Lords, - “Your Lordships “Most obedient, humble Servants, “John MARTIN LeAke, “J. Ekskin E. - “ Rt. Hon. Lords Commissioners of “His Majesty's Treasury.” Indorsed: “ (175.) - “ 3d July, 1805, “Comptrollers' Army. Accounts. “On the fitness and sufficiency of Mr. William Dowler for the situation .. of an assistant Com. on the home establishment. * “ No. 3,730. “Rec. 4th July, 1805. “Read 5th July, 1805. “Give the necessary directions for the appointment. “Cipriani.” In consequence of this report from the comptrollers, a letter was written to the secretary at war, desiring the secretary at war, to lay before his Majesty a commission for the appointment of Mr. Dowler to be an assistant commissary on the home establishment. And here it may be necessary, for me to state the course of proceeding in that respect; it is indeed in consequence of some question I put to the wit- ness. If a person is appointed a commissary on the home establishment no commission issues from the treasury, but merely a letter to the se- , 136 Ara. HUSKISSON's ExAMINATION. retary at war, desiring he would submit a commission to his majesty: ºf it is necessary to send him upon foreign service, then he gets a trea- sury commission, which treasury commission entitles him, (as the wit- ness states he had received) to five shillings additional pay, in conse- quence of going on foreign service. The first commission then issued from the treasury to Mr. Dowler, was when he went on foreign service to South America, and is lated the first of November, 1806; that commission is still at the treasury, Mr. Dowler never having called for it, nor taken it out. On the 27th of July, I find a letter * from my then cólleague, Mr. Bourne, stating to the commissary-general that º. Dówler had been appointed an assistant commissary : this is all I can trace in the treasury, or in the other departments, respecting this appointment. It may not be improper I should state to the committee, 'that I do find that, in consequence of the requisition of the commissary- general for this addition of five commissaries, made in June, there were appointed on the 18th of June a Mr. Stokes, on the same day a Mr. Green, on the 10th of July Mr. William Dowler, on the 25th Mr. Richard Hill, and on the 26th Mr. Charles Pratt. It is not within m recollection at this moment, upon what recommendation, or §§ whose application any one of those persons was appointed; indeed, on looking over the list of the whole of the commissaries appointed during Mr. Pitt's last administration, amounting to seventeen or eighteen, find but two of whom I have any recollection ; whether I shall be able to find by the recollection of others who recommended them, I cannot say. I will only state further, that I am satisfied the channel through which he was recommended, whatever it may be, was one that did not give rise to any suspicion in any body connected with the treasury at that time, that there was any improper influence employed; and I can state that confidently for this reason, that it is the rule of the treasury, if they have any reason to apprehend any such transaction, to direct the comptrollers to whom they refer the parties, (and the comptrollers have a º to examine upon oath as to such a fact. I could produce proof, if that is necessary, of such an enquiry being directed within these six months as to a person in the commissariat. I merely state this, because not finding any reference to such an in- quiry being directed, I am sure that no suspicion of any such circum- stance was in the mind of any person connected with the treasury. I have no recollection, nor do I know even now, of my own knowledge, through what quarter Mr. Manby was recommended. I have learned from a right honourable friend of mine who was then one of the lords * (Copy) “SIR, “Treasury Chambers July 27th, 1805 “I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of his Ma- jesty's Treasury to acquaint you, that they have directed the Secretary at War to submit a warrant to his Majesty for appointing William Dowler, Esq. to be an assistant commissary of stores and provisions to the forces, from the 10th instant, at the rate of 15s, a day. J “I am &c. * W. S. Bou RNE, * Commissary-General Sir Brook Watson.” t- MRs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATION. I37 of the treasury; that he was the person applied to, to mention Mr. Manby to Mr. Pitt. If I had been able to trace in the same manner respecting this gentleman, I would have informed the committee. MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and examined by the Committee as follows: * Did you know Colonel French : I have been very much insulted. I knew I should be protected when I sent for the proper gentleman. I sent for the serjeant at arms to conduct me in: it was before I got into the lobby. Did you know Colonel French? Yes I did. Do you recollect whether he applied to you in the year 1804, to use your influence with the Commander in Chief, to have a levy of men for the army He applied to me, but I cannot recollect the year. Do you recollect that he applied to you to use your influence with . Commander in Chief, to have a levy of men for the army Yes, I C. * Do you recollect if Colonel French offered you any pecuniary ad- vantages for using your influence? Yes, I do; or I should not have mentioned his name. & * Do you recollect what those offers were? No, I do not. Do you recollect any part of the offer that Colonel French made? I have seen all the papers ; but if I was to be guided by them, I should not guess nearer the thing itself than from my own memory; I cannot recollect the time nor the conditions. Do you recollect that Colonel French entered into any conditions with you ? Yes, I do. - Did those conditions imply, that you were to receive a pecuniary re- ward for your influence with the Commander in Chief? Certainly. Did you, in consequence of this apply to the Commander in Chief, and request that Colonel French might be allowed to have a levy Certainly. f Did you state to the Commander in Chief, that you were to have any pecuniary advantages if Colonel French was allowed to have a levy 2 Yes, certainly. «w - £ia the Commander in Chief promise you, after such application, that Colonel French should have a levy 2 Yes he did. Did you, in consequence of Colonel French having such a levy, re- ceive any sums of money from him, or any other person on that ac- count? ¥. * & Can you state any particular sums that were paid to you on that account, and by whom? I recollect having one sum, but I cannot tell whether it was Colonel French or Captain Sandon, of five hundred guineas, bank Tiêtes, making up the sum of guinéas ; and I paid five hundred pounds of it on account to Birkett, for a service of plate, and his Royal. Highness paid the remainder by his own bills; I fancy his Royal #: told me so. Do you recollect any other sum or sums that you received? Yes, but I cannot speak to the amount of them. ... I fancy that Mr. Dowler was by, when I received the money I paid for the plate. Do you recollect that either Colonel French or Captain Sandon ap- plied to you to prevail upon the Commander in Chief to make any H38 Mrs. CLARKE's ExAMINATron. alteratious from the original terms of the levy They teased me every- day, and I always told his Royal Highness, or gave him Colonel French's notes; but I cannot tell what it was about, for I never gave myself the trouble to read them. I was not aware of what they always asked nie or wanted, but his Royal Highness always understood it, { believe. Do you recollect, that during the progress of the levy, any loan was to have been made to the Commander in Chief, by Colonel French No, no loan by Colonel French. - Do you recollect that any loan was to have been made to the Com- mander in Chief, arising out of the levy, or connected with the levy Colonel French told me, that if his Royal Highness would pass the accounts which had been some time standing, and which Colonel French and his agent bad every reason to expect to have been passed before, and which were all very correct, he would accommodate him with 5,000l. upon proper security being given, at the regular interest. ... I º you speak to the Commander in Chief upon this subject? Yes, id. - * • * - State what further you know upon that point. I believe that his Royal Highness applied as far as was proper in him, and he could not command the money from the different offices, or the office where it was to be paid, and the thing dropped; he has no business whatever with money, and perhaps he was rather delicate on that subject of pressing, when he expected to receive the 5,000l. on loan, and where it might be publicly known afterwards. How often have you seen Mr. Dowler since he arrived in England Once, and the other night, till he was called in here; I have not seen him since. • * Then, you have seen Mr. Dowler but twice since his arrival in England? Certainly not. ‘. . Did you inform Colonel Wardle of the details of the transaction re- lating to Colonel French's levy Yes, I did of some part; of the best part, but not of all that Mr. Dowler has mentioned, by what I saw by the papers; 1 have had no communication by note or otherwise with hun, or any one connected with this business, since I left the house the other night; I have only seen two men since; General Clavering has called twice to-day, begging that he might not be brought forward, but I would not see him; and another gentleman, whose name I will inention hereafter, and what he came upon. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Dowler? As I have seen the papers, it is almost useless to ask me that, because I might agree with him. • How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Dowler? Eight, nine, or ten years; I cannot say which. Have you not at various times received sums of money from Mr. Dowler Some few sums. - Can you recollect the particulars of any of the sums, or the amount of the whole, which you may have received from Mr. Dowler? I Cáil speak particularly as to receiving a thousand pounds for his situation. Was that 1000l. which you received for his situation, the last sum of money you received from Mr. Dowler? No. . . - Was it the first you had ever received from Mr Dowler? I cannot speak particularly as to that. Do you owe Mr. Dowler any money : I never recollect my debts to gentlemen. M Rs. CLARKE’s Examin Ation. 139 Do you owe Mr. Dowler any noney : I do not recºllect, nor can recognize any debt to him. Have you not frequently recognized debts to Mr. Dowler, and pro- mised to have them paid f l only recollect one, where I had two or three carriages seized in execution, or something; I had nothing to go out of town in to Weybridge; I sent a note to Mr. Dowler's lodgings, and begged he would buy or procure me a carriage immediately; he did so in a few hours, and I told him his Royal ; ighnesss would pay him hereafter for it; His Royal Highness told me that he would do so for it, or he would recollect him in some way. Did you inform Mr. Dowler of that answer of his Royal Highness? Yes, I did, * Are you positive of that? O, quite so. Try to recollect yourself, and answer positively, whether you were not in the habit of receiving money from Mr. Dowler prior to the º given for his appointment? I am perfectly collected at present, and I cannot recollect any thing of that sort ever happening. I am very equal to answer anything now which is asked me by this honour- able house. Do you recollect seeing Mr. Corri at your house on the 6th of January last? I have seen him twice at my house. . . -In the month of January 2 I cannot recollect the month; it is not long since. w - What other persons were at your house on the first occasion that you saw Mr. Corrif I found Mr. Corri at my house one day, in con- sequence of a note I had sent to him to procure me a box at the opera, tº treat with my lawyer, Mr. Comrie, about one; it was very near dinner-time when I found him there; I could not do less than ask him to dine with me; and afterwards he went up into the drawing-room; there was a gentleman, who was a relation of mine, who dimed with us, and some young ladies. *. Were that gentleman and these young ladies the only persons with whom Mr. Corri was in company at your house on that day ! I be- lieve one or two came in, in the course of the evening. Who were the one or two I do not at this moment recollect; if }. will ask me exactly their names, and make the question pointed, will answer it; they were my friends no doubt; but I believe only One came in. Who was that one? A friend. - What was his name 2 If you will tell me his name, I will tell you whether it was him or not. [The chairman informed the witness that she must answer the question.] It was Colonel Wardle. Was Colonel Wardle the only other person that came that evening? And my relation. - º - Do you recollect having received a second visit from Mr. Corri at your house e short time after this? Yes; he brought two boys tº sing to me. - * - . - State the names of all the men who met Mr. Corri at your house that evening. If I do so, I should not have a decent man call on me in future. ^ 140 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. [The chairman informed the witness she must answer the question.] Am I obliged to answer this question ? If I am, I do not wish to t shelter myself. * [The chairman informed the witness, that it was her duty to answer the questions proposed to her. Must I without appealing to you? [Chairman.—If any improper questions are proposed, the Committee will take notice of them, and prevent their being put. - No one has yet done that to me. , - [The witness was directed to withdraw.] -- A great deal of clamour took place during these retorts of the lady, who was now ordered to withdraw. Mr. Whitbread said, that a general question like that put by the honourable gentleman, might cause the witness to hesitate, without meaning any disrespect to the house. He wished the chairman therefore to be instructed to in- form her on her return, that she would be protected in any appeal to him when any question was put which she conceived it improper to answer. - - Mr. Croker observed that the honourable gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the question had been thrice repeated, and the witness had most imprêperly answered in an evasive manner. He had confined himself to two points, and not gone into general questions, and these points seemed very necessary from the stress laid by the house on a former evening on the persons present, when Mr. Corri visited Mrs. Clarke, and on the petition pre- sented this evening, which had been cheered from the side where it came from. -- Sir T. Turton supported the witness's right to appeal to the chairman. t’ - ...” Mr. Wharton said, he would be obliged to the com- mittee for instruction ; no objection had been made to the question, and he finding no reason in his own mind to con- sider it as improper, had directed the witness to answer it. He now wished to know if she was to be ordered to do so; at the same time that he assured her that any ap- peal she made would be attended to. - * - Mr. Hardle wished Mr. Croker to contrive to get his information without hurting the feelings of the witness. Could not he ask if persons of such and such names were present He did not wish to screen one fact, but the wit- Mrs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 141 ness might be hurt, and not one point gained by the pre- sent general mode. He therefore recommended the other. Mr. Croker replied, that from the name of one person being particularised the last night, that person (Mr. Finnerty) had felt himself aggrieved, and had petitioned the house. He would not repeat the same practice b mentioning names. Mr. Fuller thought the witness right, and would protect her in her caution. If she answered this question, the names of married men, and men who had families might be divulged, and create trouble and confusion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would be necessary to admonish the witness again to give direct an- swers, and not to introduce her with an assurance of pro- tection in her appeals, which she might construe into an approbation of her conduct, which to say the least of it was extremely indecent and insulting to the house. * Mr. Windham said, if the committee saw any necessity for the question, the witness of course must answer it. But if there was none except the honourable gentleman' (Mr. Croker) who could see this necessity, the chairman had only to acquaint the witness that her appeals to him would be attended to. There was much justice in an honourable gentleman's remark (Mr. Fuller) which had not been so much attended to as it deserved. It was not to protect the witness, but to prevent her from implicat- ing others, that the answer would be dispensed with. He urged the honourable gentleman to consider if he could not get the information he wanted by a less general mode of questioning. After some further observations from Mr. Hibbert, the attorney general, and Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Croker said, he would pursue the course of examination he had begun, as he could not conceive it improper to ask the names of persons exhibited at Mrs. Clarke's before a music master and his two boys. [The witness was again called in, and was informed by the Chairman, that if any question should be put, which she thought improper to be answered, she was at liberty to appeal to the Chairman, whether that question should be answered or not ; and that with respect to the last question put to her, the committee expected that she should answer that directly or positively.]. J42 M Rs. & LARKE's ExAMINATIon. State the names of all the men who met Mr. Corri at your house that evening. Captain Thomson, Colonel Wardle, and a newspaper than, whose name I really do not recollect; I never saw him but twice before; but he answered exactly to the description I read in the paper, as iven by Mr. Corri; I shall know it to-morrow; it begins with Mac. Was the name Macallum ? Yes. Did you represent any of those persons to Mr. Corri, under a false name? No, I told him one was a member, which was very true. You did not tell him that it was Mr. Mellish, a member? No, it was his own mistake. Which of the three persons was it, that you introduced to Mr. Corri, and represented as a member 2 Mr. Wardle. Do you recollect in what sums you received the 1000l. that Mr. Dowler gave you for his place? Perfectly well. State them.—200l. first, and 800l. afterwards, in one-sum, which his father eame-up to town to sell out of the funds. Was not that 2004. paid to you before the appointment had been obtained A few days. You have stated, that you do not accurately recollect how long yos have been acquainted with Mr. Dowler, whether eight or nine, or ten years? Exactly so. Cannot you recollect whether it was eight or ten years No, I do not think I can. Were you acquainted with Mr. Dowler before you lived in Glou- cester-place? Yes I was, some years. Were you acquainted with him before you lived in Tavistock-place 2 Yes I was. Did you never receive any money from Mr. Dowler, while you were living in Tavistock-place? No. Do you recollect your ever having received any money, before you received the 200l. part of the 1000l. from Mr. Dowler? No, I do re- collect that I had. Do you recollect having received any money since the 1000l. except the money for the carriage : I think once or twice I have, speaking from my recollection. Did you receive the money for the carriage, or did he pay for the carriage? He paid for it, and he sent the carriage in within the space of two hours. He bought it of a Colonel Shipley. Did he pay for it 2 Yes, certainly. He did not give you the money to pay for it, but paid for it him- self? Yes. Do you recollect any other sums of money you received from him sub-equent to that respecting the carriage? Only the other two sums of 800l. and 200l. Were they before the carriage or afterwards? Before. Then are those the only three instances of your receiving money from Mr. Dowler, the 200l. and 800l. and the money for the carriage? I cannot speak to any exact sum, but I think he has once or twice paid something for me to my housekeeper; when she has told him some- thing that was distressing, he has given her money to pay for things, when his Royal Highness was not in the way ; it has not come to my knowledge sometimes for a week afterwards; but those were marked things, the other things. M Rs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATION. 145 Was Mr. Dowler in the habit of seeing you very frequently? Not very frequently, but when he had lodgings in London; about the time of Colonel French's levy he was. Did you see Mr. Dowler after he came from examination at this bar the last night of examination: Not the last time he was examined, but before. Upon his retiring from the bar Never since. After his first examination here 2 Yes, I did. Did any thing pass between you and Mr. Dowler respecting his examination, when he returned Certainly not about money con- cerns; he only mentioned to some gentlemen who were present the con- duct of one or two of the members, who he thought harassed him very much, and put questions very distressing to his feelings on private occurrences, that had nothing to do with the question pending; it was a Mr. Bootle he was speaking of ; that he would rather give (I think his expression was) every guinea he was worth, than be brought before such a place again. Did he state what he had been examined to ? He said he had been examined closely to his private concerns; he did not speak of any thing else; it was not to me, it was to this gentleman, a stranger, one of the members. Did you ask him what he had been examined to, or make any ob- servations as to what had passed ? I asked him who had examined him. But not what he had been examined to 2 No. g How long have you been acquainted with the Duke of York? I believe it was 1803, when he first took me under his protection. Were you acquainted with the Duke of York before that period? Yes, I was. At that period he took you more immediately under his pro- tection ; had you an establishment from that time 2 No, I think it was from 1804 to 1806, that the establishment commenced only in Gloucester-place; we were in Park-lane before, in a furnished house. Had you any establishment of horses and carriages in Park-lane? Only what belonged to myself. What number of carriages had you when you lived in Gloucester- place I always had two. What number of horses 2 About six; sometimes eight. What number of men servants? I do not know without I went over it. State the servants you had. There was butler, coachman, postilion, groom, mostly a man cook, a gardener, and two footinen; from seven to nine ; I do not know exactly. To whom did the house in which you lived belong? To the Duke. Who paid the expences of the establishment : I did. What allowance did you receive from the Duke of York for that purpose?. His Royal Highness promised me 1,000l. to be paid monthly, but sometimes he could not make the payments good, which was the occasion of many distressing circumstances happening. Was it on the bare promise of 1,000l. a year, that you mounted such an establishment as you have mentioned, and with the expecta- tion of no other means of defraying it? His Royal Highness did not tell me what he would give me till I was in it. When was it that his Royal Highness promised you 1,000l. a year? He began it by paying it to me. * 144 Mrs. cf. A R RE’s ExAMINATION. How long did he continue to pay it regularly? Tiº almost the whole time that we were together in it; for three months before his Royal Highness left nie, he never gave me a guinea, though he was with me every day. - How were the monthly payments made; by his Royal Highness's own hand, or by what other means ? His Royal Highness wished me to receive it from Greenwood; bnt I would not subject myself to that, although it would have been more punctually paid. How did you receive it? From his Royal Highness. | - Did you ever receive more than at the rate of a thousand a year from his Royal Highness? Iſis Royal Highness, if any thing unplea- sant had happened, which was always happening, would sometimes contrive to get a little more, and bring me. - Do you know what is the total amount of the sums you received from his Royal Highness, during the time you fived in Gloucester- place? Certainly not. - - : - - * Were the sums you received from his Royal Highness adequate to the payment of the expences of the establishment you kept up I convinced his Royal Highness that it did not more than pay the ser- vants' wages and their liveries. - r - " Did you state that to his Royal Highness? Many times. . What observation did he make in consequence? I do not know that he made any observation on that; but after we had been intimate sometime, he told me, that if I was clever, I should never ask him for Jº OfleV. + - - fºod remember at what period it was that his Royal Highness made that observation? No, I do not; but it was when he had great confidence in me. Was it before you removed to Gloucester-place? Not till some time after. + - Can you at all state what was the amount of the annual expence of your establishment? No. - - Pretty nearly 2 Not the least; I cannot give a guess. You stated in a former part of your examination, that you were going to Weybridge; had you a house at Weybridge? Yes. Was that your house or the Duke of York's? It was the Duke's. Had you a separate establishment there, or did the establishment move from Gloucester-place to Weybridge, and from Weybridge to Gloucester-place? There was a groom there, and a gardener, and two maids; the remainder of the servants waited on me when I went; I was never there but from Saturdays till Mondays, and I always took four more servants with me, sometimes five. . . - Did the sums of money you received in the monthly payments, and by occasional payments from the Duke of York, nearly cover the ex- pence of your establishment? If it had, I should never have been ha- rassed for money as I was during the whole time I was under his Royal Highness's protection. - . . I d o you know a person of the name of William Withers? Yes, (40. What is he? He is a sheriff's officer. * . - How came you acquainted with him? He had some business with me in his own way. & . . . . Was it in consequence of...your pecuniary distresses, that you be- ** * * W MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 145 came acquainted with William Withers? No one would ever know a man of that description, but through that very thing. + Did you ever enter into an agreement with William Withers, for participation in any sums of money which you might receive? Never, nor ever hinted at such a thing. Do you recollect the first time you ever made application to the Duke of York for any thing connected with army promotions? No, I do not; it was after I was in Gloucester-place. y Were the applications you had to exert your influence with the Duke of York numerous? Wery. * Were those applications universally attended to by you? Not al- ways by me; if I thought they were not correct, nor proper to recom- mend, I mentioned it to his Royal Highness, and he told me who were proper and who were not, and then I could give my answer the next ay, as from myself, whether I could listen to any thing or not; if they were improper, he told me to say I could not interfere, without saying that I had mentioned the matter to him. Did you uniformly inform the Duke of York of every application you had received? Yes, and hundreds had been rejected but through. his means, for I did not know who were proper or who were not. When you have received applications, did you entirely trust to your memory, or did you record them on paper? If it was a single application, I trusted to memory and his Royal Highness, who has a very good one; but if there were many, I gave him a paper, not in my own writing. *. Gave him what paper? Any paper that might have been handed to me. Do you mean a list of the applications? I recollect once a list, a very long one, but only once. d o you recollect how many names were upon that list? No, I o not. * Do you recollect when that list was existing 2 No, I do not; but I know that that must have been a little time before Colonel Tucker, .# is lately dead, was made Major Tucker; there were two brothers of them. - For what reason do you know that it must have been before Colonel Tucker was created a Major? ... His Royal Highness had promised that he should be in the Saturday's Gazette, and one day, coming to dinner, a few days before, he told me, Tucker had behaved very ill, for that Greenwood had him, and to inquire into it, for that he had come to play with me, and, perhaps, to make a talk; that he was not serious in the business. , I inquired into it, and found it was so; and his Royal Highness said, that Sir David Baird had recommended him. That was the answer that Greenwood gave to it. But when I gave his Royal Highness that list, that is, when he took it, with the number of names upon it, he asked me what I meant by it; if I wanted those men pro- moted: and if I knew any of them or not, and who recommended them I told him, I did not know any one, and that what I meant by it, being in his way, was for him to notice them. He said that he would do it; that there were a great number of names, and that if I knew anything at all of military business, I must know it was totally impossible for him to do it all at once, but that he would do it by de- I, 146. MRS, CLARKE's ExAMINATIon, * - er Mr. Donovan? No, I cannot, t grees; that every one should be noticed by degrees: and among those, was Captain Tucker. is that listin existence now? No, his Royal Highness took it away with him that morning; and, from that moment, I knew in what way. I might have his sanction to go on. I saw it some time after in his pri- vate pocket book. ... Is that the only list that was ever made out by you? I did not make it out, some one gave it me; that was the longest list, and the only list that I recollect; I never gave him any other list, I am sure. There might have been two names down. ere you in the habit of making out a list to refresh your own me- mory? No; their friends always took care of that. Do you mean, that you used to receive the names of the applicants in writing I have had letters, hundreds upon hundreds. What do you mean by stating, that their friends took care of that, in your last answer but one? They expected the thing should be done immediately, and used to tease me with letters. . Do you recollect any other names, except that of Captain Tucker, in the list you have referred to? I believe so, but I would not men- tion the name of any man who had behaved well to me, on any ac- count. His Royal Hº: did not promote the whole of that list. Your acquaintance with William Withers, you have stated, was owing to some pecuniary embarrassments of yours; in what way were those embarrassments satisfied? I gave him two bills on my mother for 300l. each, and that satisfied those things; I never gave him any thing, nor spoke to him on any thing relating to military business. . Do you recollect from whom you received the list you have spoken of? I think, from Captain Sandon or Mr. Donovan; but Mr. Dono- van is quite prepared to deny it. Can you state positively whether }. received it from Capt. Sandon, hey were connected in some way or other together. Have any questions been read to you by any individual whatever, as such questions as would be asked you in this house? No, never. You have mentioned having received various sums of money from TMr. Dowler, and in particular two sums of 200l. and 800l.; state upon what consideration those sums were received. It was for Mr. Dow- ler's appointment, but previous to that he was not to have paid me YıloneV. # ºat appointment do you allude : In the commissariat; assis- tant commissary. Whom did you apply to, for that appointment for Mr. Dowler? His Royal Highness. From whom was it notified to you, that that appointment had been made His Royal Highness; he told me that he had spoken to Mr. Charles Long upon it, and it was settled at last; that there had been some little difference in the Prince's regiment, that Mr. Manby was obliged to leave it, and his Royal Ilighness promised to the Prince of Wales to give something to Manby, and to secun very civil to him, he must gazette him before Mr. Dowler; but before Mr. Dowler pro- posed to give him the money for the situation, I fancy he was to baye procured some votes for the defence bill: I think it was something like that name; Mr. Pitt was very ill at the time, and I think it was somer MRs. CLARKE's ex AMINATION." 147 thing of that sort mentioned; however Mr. Dowler could not bring forward the number of voters that I had given the list of to the Duke, seventeen I think, and there were very few of them came; but I re- collect one gentleman, General Clavering, got up from Scotland Lord John Campbell ; and although Lord Lorn would have voted for Mr. Pitt, and of course his brother would have gone the same way (but he was not in London), still it was considered that it was a great fa- vour bringing up Lord John from Scotland; he was the only man that: I recollect, and that was through my means; I had a few more friends besides, but it dropped. Mr. Dowler could not bring the men forwards, some of them were in the opposition. His Royal High- ness told me, he gave the list to Mr. Charles Long, and he was de- lighted with it. ` r You have used an expression relative to Captain Tucker, that Greenwood had him; explain what you meant by that expression ? do not know, I never inquired further into it; I was very angry that the man should be only laughing with me; it was his Royal High- ness's expression, not mine; but I am almost certain that Captain Sandon knows him, and aboutit, though perhaps he will not own to it. Were you in the habit of showing to the § which contained the applications to you for influence 2 Yes, I was; but I did not trouble him with all, not many upon the same subject; if a man wrote one letter first, I might shew him that, but if he wrote me ten more, I might not trouble his Royal Highness with those: they frequently used to call, and wait for answers while his Royal Highness was there, though they did not pretend to know he was there. Then if those letters contained an offer of money to you for the ex- ertion of your influence, his Royal Highness must have been aware of it? He was aware of every thing that I did, but I never was very in- delicate with him upon those points. Did you shew to his Royal Highness letters containing such offers, as well as letters that did not contain them 2 Yes, I did. On the first day of your examination, you stated, that a bill of two hundred pounds, which you received from Mr. Knight, was sent from your house to be changed by a servant of his Royal'Highness; how. do you know it was taken by a servant of his Royal Highness, and not one of your own servants? I believe that I did not state that it was his Royal Highness's servant who took it, but that his Royal Highness had something to do with the changing that note; and on Saturday or Monday morning, I do not recollect which it was, when it was raining very hard, I believe it was Monday, I heard where my butler lived, and I went into York-place, and sent my footman to fetch him out; he game out, without previous knowledge of who called upon him, and I asked whether he recollected anything particular the evening that his º Highness was going to Weymouth, and myself in the morning to Worthing; he .# me to what point, I said about a bank note; he said, perfectly well; he had been trying all over the neigh- bourhood to get change for a note, that it was a very large note, he supposed a fifty-pound note, that he came into the parlour and said he could not get change for it, and then his Royal Highness said, “Do go to my wine-merchants, in Bond-street, Stephens's hotel, and get change, and tell them where you come from:” that on this same night he had called at Byfield's, the confectioner's, and tried there, uke of York the letters § 148 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. and they could not do it; and that he went and saw Stephens's partner, it being very late Stephens was not there, that he got change for it there, and that was the whole. . But I told him he must come and speak about it, that a summons would be sent to him, and it would hurt him with respect to his master and mistress, his being examined; and he told me they would not be angry, he supposed, for it was Lady Winterton's son he lived with, and he supposed lady Winterton would not be against it. I spoke to him the other night in the room, I do not know whether before he was examined or afterwards, and he told me that he had called at Stephens's in Bond-street, and that they would inot give him any information about the note, which, I believe, he did not state in the house, [The witness was directed to withdraw.] Mr. Wardle then stated to the committee, that in com. ing down to the house that afternoon, he had met Mr. Pierce, Mrs. Clarke's butler, in Gloucester-place, who told him, that since his examination he recollected having taken out a note to be changed, the night before the Duke of York went out of town, by the direction of the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke, which direction was given him in the drawing-room. He (Mr. Wardle) asked him why he had not stated this at the bar. Pierce's reply was, that he was subject to dreadful head-aches, and that when he was at the bar, he was labouring under one of them, by which his memory was much impaired at the time. He (Mr. Wardle) put a question to Pierce, who spoke of having changed the note at some wine-merchant's, in Bond-street. He mentioned this subject to the committee, because he felt himself placed in a delicate situation, with respect to it, and he was anxious that Pierce should be called to the bar, in the course of the proceedings, and re-examined. (The witness was again called in.] You have stated, that you recommended Mr. Dowler to his Royal Highness the Duke of York; in what character did you represent him. to the Duke of York? As a gentleman. - Did you represent him as a friend or relation of your own? Never as a relation, as a friend. ~f - In recommending him to the Duke of York, did you mention that you were to have any, and what sum, in case he was appointed to the commissariat? His Royal Highness knew that I was to have a sum, for I told him that old Mr. Dowler had come up to sell it out of the funds. - Did you communicate, at the time, to the Duke of York, that you were to receive any, and what sum? I cannot exactly say to that; but I told his Royal Highness, that he would behave more liberally to me than any other person for the same appointment. - , Are you quite sure of that? Quite. A. MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 149 Did you ever hear Mr. Dowler say that he was acquainted with . Sir Brook Watson, the Commissary-General? No farther than that he knew him personally, or in the city ; and I told his Royal Highness of it, that Mr. Dowler knew a little of Sir Brook Watson, and he said, that is a very good thing; but, I believe, Sir Brook Watson is dead; and I cannot make use of the expression that his Royal Highness then did about him. & • Are you quite sure that Mr. Dowler did not represent to you, that he or his father had some interest with Sir Brook Watson? No, he never told me that he had particularly; he told me that Sir Brook Watson did not like him, for his father's way of voting, if I recollect right; I mean the city voting. Did you ever receive a list of names for promotion from any other person than Captain Huxley Sandon and Mr. Donovan I never re- ceived such a long list from any one, nor such a list? I never re- ceived 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 his Royal Highness took it down, If you received any list containing two or three names, from whom did you receive such list? It will be seen, by the witnesses that have already been examined, that there were a great many sorts of agents or people that used to come and ask me things about them, and I can- not recollect; and, I believe, I got into very bad hands, or it would never have been exposed as it is now. Cannot you recollect the name of any one person who gave you a list? I have mentioned the name of Colonel Sandon and Mr. Do- novan; and there was a lady with Mr. Donovan the other night, in the room, which brought many things to my recollection, perhaps she can speak to something; she is an officer's widow, and, I believe, quite in the habit of military intrigue. Did you ever circulate a list of prices of commissions? No, I never did; that did not belong to me, I never did it; I have seen such a thing, I saw it in Cobbett, but it is not true, Wła. is the name of the lady you have just mentioned, the officer's widow She was with Mr. Donovan the other night; I used to see her very frequently; I have not seen her these three years; I do not recollect her name at present, I shall think of it presently, she is an Irish lady. I have received a letter this instant, which has exceed ingly interested me, begging me that I would not go on, or to that effect; but I would wish the gentlemen here to ask Colonel M'Mahon, that my character may not appear so very black as it does at pre- sent; I would wish the House to inquire of Colonel M'Mahon, if he thought I made any improper propositions, or any thing unjust to the Duke of York. , I wish them to ask only of Colonel MºMahon, what were my propositions to the Duke of York, and to inquire into all the particulars respecting the message of which he was the bearer; I am exceedingly sorry to expose him so. tº Have you any objection to deliver in the letter you have received? I have received one before; I will, perhaps, in a few days, but not to night; I have hardly read it over, - [The chairman informed the witness, that it was the pleasure of the committee that she should produce the letter she had t just received.] |50 MRs. CLARKE's exAMINATION. When you did receive that letter, where did you receive it, and from whom? I received it at this door. On the outside of the door? This instant, when I went out. . From whom I believe one of the messengers. [The witness delivered in the letter, and it was read.] - “Westminster Hall, Thursday night, eight o'clock. “ Madam, “I am most anxiously desirous to see you to-night. - “The lateness of the hour will be no diſficulty with me. “It is, I trust, quite unnecessary to observe, that business alone is my reason for expressing by this solicitude in so earnest a way; or that if you think a more unreserved communication might take place at Westbourne-place, I would be there at your own hour to-night. : “To what this particularly refers you may have some guess, but it would be highly improper to glance at it upon paper. “I will deliver this to one of the messengers, who will convey to me your answer; or if your feelings at all accord with mine, you will not, perhaps, think it too much trouble to write two notes, one to the care of the messenger who delivers this, the other addressed for me at the Exchequer coffee-house, Westminster-Hall. Believe me, 4 “Madam, - “Most sincerely your Friend, “W M. WILLIAMs.” “P. S. I have tried two or three members to deliver this, but they aré afraid some injurious suspicion might attach. “I hope you will not attribute my hasty manner to negligence or disrespect.” - Is this the letter that so much interested you? Yes, it is. Is this the letter that desired you not to go on 2 In my opinion it is, from what occurred yesterday. What do you allude to as having accurred yesterday ? A letter came to me yesterday from the same gentleman, and I could not exactly make out what it was or what he meant by it; he said he had seen me at the play one night, in company with Lord Lennox and Sir Robert Peate, about two months since, and that he took the liberty of ad- dressing a letter to me to grant him an interview ; I sent down my ser- vant to say I was at home to him ; this was the gentleman whom I alluded to as being the only one I had seen since I quitted this place. When he came into the drawing-room yesterday, he asked me whe- ther there was any one in the back room; I said upon my word and honour not ; but I told him as my character now seemed so much hacked about with every one, I would open the door and convince him, which I did; he then began to question me how I felt towards the Duke of York, if I had any revenge, or if I had any wishes that his Royal Highness had not satisfied, and if any thing would induce me now to abandon the country with my children, and take all the blame on my own shoulder; that no sum whatever would be backward if I would say that I would, as my character now had been so very much with the public, it could not be worse if I would take it upon myself and abandon my country with my children, and I should be provided for . M.R. WILLIAMS's ExAMINATION. I5] for life in the handsomest manner possible; that he had no authority from the Duke of York, but it was the Duke's friends. [The witness was directed to withdraw.] Mr. Brand submitted to the house the necessity of taking immediate measures for securing Mr. Williams. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was for the most prompt step possible. The doors of the house were instantly ordered to be see cured, and on the motion of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, the chairman having been previously instructed to report progress, and to ask leave to sit again that after- noon, the house was resumed. The Chancellor of the Earchequer moved, “That the Serjeant at Arms have orders to take into custody William Williams wherever he could be found.”—Carried mem. CO72, d The serjeant was then ordered by the Speaker to do his uty. Mr. Wharton reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again in the course of the afternoon. * Mr. W. Smith wished that Mrs. Clarke might be call- ed in to say from whose hands she received the letter. Mr. Yorke and several other members addressed the house, but the prodigious tumult prevented us from col- lecting the tenor of their observations. Mr. Whitbread moved that the house should remain in its present state until the return of the Serjeant at Arms.— Ordered. - - ," The Speaker stated, that it would have been competent for the committee, in support of their own proceedings, to order the serjeant at arms to take into custody any per- son without delay. The first duty of the chairman would then have been to report progress, and, when the person was actually in custody, to move that he be committed. The Serjeant at Arms then, appeared at the bar, and in- formed the Speaker that Mr. Williams was in custody. Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS was brought in, in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. Is that your hand-writing? This is my hand-writing, and I delivered that letter myself to the door-keeper. & $ Will you inform the committee who and what you are 2 I am a clergyman. te Where do you live Am I bound to answer this question? 152 MR. will IAMS's ExAMINATION. I have some personal reasons for not doing so; reasons applicable to me personally, to my private affairs. - [The chairman informed the witness he was bound to an- swer the question.] My place of residence is now at No. 17, Somers-place, East, in the New Road, near Somers Town. You have seen this letter which you delivered to the door-keeper; of course you are acquainted with the contents of it? I suppose the letter in your hand to be the same which was put into my hand just now ; I am acquainted with it, having written it within this hour. What was the business on which you wished to see Mrs. Clarke * I had business with her; I am sure R. not know how decorously to answer this question, but it has no reference to the examination now sº on before this house, bef ere you at Mrs. Clarke's house yesterday? Not yesterday, the day Ore., What passed upon that occasion? The whole is not exactly in my recollection; I believe I was near an hour there. State as much as you can of what passed upon that occasion. I am taken somewhat by surprise, but I will as nearly as I can recollect; it had some general reference to the transaction that is now investigat- ing before this House. State the substance of it. She asked me if I had seen the newspaper; I replied in the negative; she then related to me part of what I have Since seen in the newspapers, that she was fatigued after many hours waiting here; I believe that was the substance of what she related. Are you certain that it was the day before yesterday you had this communication ? It was the morning after she was examined here; if I answer the question confusedly, I hope you will not be surprised at it, for I am a little surprised at finding myself here; this is the substance as far as related to any thing else that had reference to our acquaint- ance; I mentioned some persons that we were acquainted with, and as to their health and matters, not, I think, worth relating to the House; if you wish I will refreth my memory, and state the minutiae. Did you state any thing to Mrs. Clarke as to the course of the ex- amination hereafter to be pursued upon this business? I do not recol- lect that I did. Did you give Mrs. Clarke any advice as to what she had best do upon this subject? I spoke, I believe, something to this effect, that it would be well and proper for her to be cautious. Was that all? I believe I added, what every body is aware of the high connections of the ** whose conduct is now under your investigation, and that of course I reiterated what I had said before, that caution, I thought, would very much become her. - Did you advise Mrs. Clarke to get out of the way? I never did. Yº are quite certain that you did not give her any advice of that sort? I did not. Did you represent, that you came from any of the friends of the Duke of York? I did not, I spoke ambiguously, but I did not give her any such intimation whatever. hat do you mean by saying you spoke ambiguously? I spoke the M.R. will IAMs's ExAMINATIow. 153 sentiments of my own mind and my own cogitations upon that subject, not having any intimation from any individual in the world. - For what purpose did you go to Mrs. Clarke upon that day? I sup- pose I may be allowed to pause a moment or two before I answer that question, because it involves a variety of circumstances that now press upon my mind. ... [The Witness paused for some time.] Among other things, I thought that the confidential intercourse that must have passed between her and the person, whose name perhaps I am not at liberty to mention, might have given her opportunities of observing upon his conduct in moments of unreserved communication, and that to introduce matters of that sort before this House would ex- cite certainly his personal resentment as well as the indignation of his family, and that whatever promises might be held out to her would probably not in the event be found sufficient to protect her from the resentment that they probably might conceive it was right at some time to exercise upon her. I suppose I have said enough to convey to the House my sentiments; and to expect of me minutely to detail all that passed in that conversation, would be, I think, an unreasonable expectation. Did you advise Mrs. Clarke to go out of the kingdom with her chil- dren I did not. * And that they should be provided for; did you make any promise to her? I made no promise to her whatever. - Did any body advise you to go to Mrs. Clarke? It was a suggestion of my own mind. Had you been acquainted with Mrs. Clarke before ? Very little. How long had you been acquainted with her? precisely I cannot Say; perhaps two months. - Where had you seen her before? at the Opera-house. Had you seen her any where else but at the Opera-house? No. Had you any conversation with her at the Opera-house? No. Were you introduced to her there? I might be said to be intro- duced; it was rather casual; it was in the presence of persons known to us both, 4. How long ago was this? about two months ago. Who were the persons present? . Lord Lennox and Sir Robert Peate. I beg leave to add, that I had not been directed or instructed, or requested to address Mrs. Clarke, on this or any other subject, by any person whatever; and after mentioning the names of those two gentlemen, I think it very hard they should be implicated in this which has taken me by surprise. What led you to come here this afternoon? I was extremely anxious to see Mrs. Clarke. r - $ For what purpose? If I am positively bound to answer that question at the peril of imprisonment, of course it must be answered; to whom am I to address myself for an answer to that question? [The Chairman informed the witness, that it was the pleasure of the Committee that the question should be answered.] My reason was, to attempt, if I could, to persuade her from that iro- H54 M.R. will.IAMs's ExAMINATION. nical, sarcastic, witty animadversions that sometimes had fallen from her, with reference to the person that I before alluded to. , - Was that the object with which you wrote this letter? That was one of the objects. - What other object had you; I will answer particularly afterwards; generally, I will say it was with a view that was by no means adverse to the person whose conduct is now under investigation; but just on the contrary ; and therefore I am the more surprised at the harsh man- ner in which I have been treated. State what your other object was in writing this letter, to Mrs. Clarke? I thought that if I had an opportunity of seeing her before the appointment that I had to-morrow morning with an agent of his Royal Highness, that probably I maight suggest to her something to prevent those things that did not serve to elucidate the investigation now going on, but to excite the inveteracy of those personages to whom I before 'alluded. - - Who is that agent Mr. Lowten. Who made the appointment with you ? By agreement, I addressed Mr. Lowten first, and afterwards the appointment was made. For what purpose did you address Mr. Lowten ? For the purpose I have given to the House before. * • Did you apply to Mr. Lowten by writing, or address him ver- bally * I had spoken to two or three Members of this House upon this subject. * Name them. Mr. Adam and Colonel Gordon ; the other waived it entirely, I am unwilling to mention him; it is Colonel M'Mahon, if I am desired to mention him. - Did you apply to Mr. Lowten personally or by letter I was de- sired by two of the gentlemen whom I have named; Colonel M*Ma- hon conceived of this very differently from what many Members of this House do: they thanked me for the communication; he does not con- ceive of any hostility to his Royal Highness in the communication, but just the contrary. If there is any thing culpable in my conduct, I am amenable to the censure of the House, and am willing to abide by it; but I do not know that gentleman acts decorously to me, in making me the subject of personal merriment and ridicule. Was it by personal address or by writing you made the appointment with Mr. Lowten? I hesitated whether I should speak to Mr. Lowten or not, and when I spoke to Mr. Adam I declined it; but coming here with this letter, I met Mr. Lowten, within these two hours, and then I addressed him. What did you say to Mr. Lowten ? ... I knew Mr. Lowten officially, and no otherwise : I understand that he holds an office, indeed I have seen him in the exercise of his office in the Court of King's Bench. What did you say to him I told him that I had spoken to the gentlemen (I believe that was pretty near the commencement of my conversation with him) whom I have recently named, Mr. Adam and Colonel Gordon; and I told him also that they declined, and seemed apprehensive ; they seemed to think there was a delicacy and º in it, which inclined them to have nothing to do with it; they advise me to communicate to him, and when I met him I took the liberty to address myself to him. Did you tell Mr. Lowten the nature of the subject which you had MR. WILLIAMS's ExAMINATIon. 153 to communicate to him 2 I said, (I did think I expressly guarded what I had to say with this ebservation) that I had no message from Mrs. Clarke, or any communication, directly or indirectly, to make from her. What did you say you had to communicate to Mr. Lowten: Isaid I thought, as matter of opinion arising out of my own mind, that it was possible, I do not know how I expressed it, but I meant to convey to prevent her going into that irrelevant matter, and I believe, the obser- vation I made was this, that it was impossible for any man in an unre- served communication of four years, not in some period of that length of time to have said and done those things which the House of Com- mons had very little to do with. Was it upon that communication to Mr. Lowten, that he made aa appointment with you to come to him to-morrow morning? I recol- lect no other. What did you tell Mr. Lowten you had to say to him on the subject on which you were to speak to him to-morrow morning? I have told you this moment that was the subject I had to speak upon. To prevent Mrs. Clarke going into irrelevant matter? Certainly, that was the main object. How were you to prevent it by going to Mr. Lowten ? Certainly this is a question I am not prepared exactly to answer; I am not sure that I could prevent it at all, and the means must arise out of the cir- Cunnstances. What did you mean to propose to Mr. Lowten as the means b which Mrs. Clarke's examination might be in any degree altered 2 am sure I do not know exactly what I should have said to Mr. Lowten to-morrow morning, but what I should have said to him would have arisen out of the circumstances, and probably out of the communication I should have had with Mrs. Clarke to-night; and it was for that pur- pose that I expressed so anxious a wish to see her, as I conveyed in that letter that is laid upon the table. What did you expect would arise between Mrs. Clarke and your- self to-night, which you expected would enable you to make a commu- nication with effect to Mr. Lowten to-morrow ; I do not know whe- ther I may not be allowed to go a little into explanation, and not to answer sententiously and immediately, but in an intercourse and friend- ship of four years much might have passed that it would be proper to suppress. What did you expect would arise between Mrs. Clarke and yourself to-night, which you expected would enable you to make a communica- tion with effect to Mr. Lowten to-morrow 2 If it is intended by these questions that I should—lt is impossible; I do not know how to answer the question, I have not the capacity, I do not understand it. W. did you expect would arise between Mrs. Clarke and yourself to-night, which you expected would enable you to make a commu- nication with effect to Mr. Lowten to-morrow I confess, standing here as I do, that if an enquiry of this sort was going on upon my own subject, there are many things already, which have transpired which I should be sorry should transpire, and which have nothing to do with a political question: that is the only way I can answer it. How was it to affect the communication with Mr. Lowten to-mor- 156 MR. MACMAHON's ExAMINATION. row in consequence of your seeing Mrs. Clarke to-night? I did not certainly intend to interfere, or to prevent the inquiry, or to smother the inquiry, or to advise her to suppress any information that has reference to the investigation now going on before the House; but I did think, that if I could persuade her to avoid those sort of witticisms to which I alluded before, and those sort of observations—If the gºleman wish me to answer this question in such a way as to prove I have been guilty of a breach of the privilege of this House, I cannot do that; I know the deference due to this House, and am willing to treat it with proper deference. May I take the liberty to make one imore observation on the law of evidence. [The Chairman informed the Witness that he was not called to the bar to make observations, but to give evidence.] Then may I take the liberty of asking, whether I am bound to give that sort of evidence that would criminate myself, and is not this leading to it? * - Had you written the letter at the time you saw Mr. Lowten ? No, I wrote the letter subsequently; it arose out of conversation I had with him. As a matter of humanity I address myself to the Chair, with re- ference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, as a lawyer, taken by surprize as I am, it is right to propose questions to me, that if they were answered would criminate me. Do you refuse to answer these questions which are put to you, under the fear that they will criminate yourself? No, I do not, upon my honour. - [The Witness was taken from the Bar.] WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. attending in his place, made the following statement: Many persons have desired to see me, since the commencement of this business, who have not sent any name; and I have given orders, to jet no body in, who did not send in their names. This gentleman called yesterday, about five o'clock I think, or a little after five: he sent in no name, but a gentleman wished to see me. I desired to have the name, 2nd I thought the name given in, was Williamson; I had seen a gentle- man of the name of Williamson, in the morning, a clergyman of Shef- ford, in Bedfordshire, and I believed it to be the same person; I went into the hall to him, to the outer door; I found it to be a different per- son; and this gentleman who has just been at the bar, addressed me, and said he had something to communicate respecting this business that was proceeding in parliament; I said I could hear nothing from him; he seemed extremely anxious to state something; I stopped him, and told him if he had any facts or circumstances to state, Mr. Lowten was em: ployed as his Royal Highness’s solicitor, and he might go to him, and desire an appointment; he left the house; and that was all that passed. JOHN MºMAHON, a member of the house, attending in his place, made the following statement: To my extreme astonishment, I found my name alluded to by the lady who has just been examined at the bar; I cannot tell for what pos- MR. MACMAHON's ExAMINATION. 157 sible purpose she has alluded to me; I have nothing to offer to this committee that has the least relevance, or can throw the smallest light upon any subject whatever, that the honourable gentleman has brought before the consideration of this house. In consequence of an anonymous note that was written to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, promising very important communications, I did, at the command of the Prince, lightly as he treated the note, nevertheless call at No. 14, Bedford-Row, Russel-square, where the note was dated from, . Upon going there, the woman who opened the door, and from whom I thought I saw much that told me she had put that note into the penny-post or the two-penny-post herself, I asked her the name of the lady of the house, that I wanted to see ; she desired me to tell my name; I told her I could give her no name, but produced the nete, which she immediately remembered to have put into the two-penny-post, and said it was written by her mistress. I was then conducted into the house, into a parlour, where certainly there were a great many of those morocco Concerns, which she has mentioned before, for there were ten chairs I think set round the table, from the supper or the dinner the day before; after remaining some time, I was conducted up stairs, where I saw the lady, whose name I was told to be Farquhar. The lady in perfect good humour came out and received me; and I held the note I was possessed with, as my credentials for her communicating whatever she might think fit to tell a third person, not pressing her to any communi- cation which she ought not to give to me. She told me, that she would communicate nothing to a third person; I then told her that it was impossible that I could hold up any expectation of an interview with such a person as the one to whom that letter was addressed, unless she gave me some clue, er some plausible pretence for it, and that I had no idle curiosity to gratify. She then entered into a conversation of so general and so extraordinary a nature, that I am confident this house would not for one moment entertain it, because the tendency and inten- tion of it was to make bad blood between two illustrious brothers, whose affections could never be shaken by any such representation; at least, I am confident that the illustrious person I have the pride and glory to serve and love, would be incapable. She then told me she would shew me letters to prove and to establish, that there was a hatred on one part to the other; I declined seeing any letters ; she then said, I would commit those letters to you, for the perusal of the illustrious personage; to which I, as my bounden duty and firm conviction, said, if they were bying at his feet, he would scorn to look at one of them. In this inter- view, at first, I stated that I thought she was a friend of Mrs. Clarke: she said, certainly she knew Mrs. Clarke extremely intimately, that there was nobody she loved and regarded as she did Mrs. Clarke; that she perfectly knew her. She then asked me if I knew Mrs. Clarke: Isaid I do not. “Do you know her, Sir, by person;' I said, I believed not. “Do you know her by character?” Yes said I, her fame is very celebrated; and I have heard of Mrs. Clarke, but know nothing of her myself. She asked me then what I knew ; I said, it certainly was not to her advantage; but I had heard the Duke of York had been very enerous to her, and that she had not been very grateful on her part; É. that was only from information I had received. She then pro- ceeded to state, what I throw myself on the consideration of the House, I t * 158. Mit. MAGMAHon’s ExAMINATION. - as it might be the effect of passion, and appeared to be a disposition to gratify her revenge by representations that I do not think the House would, for a moment, permit me to expose, when it went to a tendency of making bad blood between two brothers. We then proceeded. I soon after said, “I am speaking to Mrs. Clarke herself:” I thought so, from several things she told me, that I wish not to repeat: I said, “I am confident I am addressing myself to Mrs. Clarke herself.” She laughed, and said, “I am Mrs. Clarke.” I then begged her a thousand pardons for the portrait I had drawn, but disclaimed being the painter. “I am sure you are not, for it was Adam and Greenwood that gave you my character.” We then proceeded, till she made a statement, that I have no hesitation in declaring to this Committee did, in its statement, appear such as I could with honour and character entertain and listen to; that, under every compassionate feeling and sentiment, I felt no in- disposition to listen to and entertain. She stated to me, that Mr. Adam had called upon her, and in a very firm, but steady manner, told her, that the Duke of York was determined to separate from her; but that if she retired into the country, and conducted herself with propriety and decorum, he would allow her 400l. a year; that she had accordingly so retired into Devonshire for several months, but failing to receive the remittances she expected, she had been driven to town for the purpose of gaining her arrear,and placing her annuity upon a more regular mode of payment; that if that condition was complied with, by the payment of her arrear, and of securing the punctuality of it to her in future, his Royal Highness should never hear any more about her. Upon the fairness of this statement, supposing it to be true, (I do not pretend to say what my opinion of it was) I said, if your statement, Mrs. Clarke, is correct and orthodox, I will certainly wait upon Mr. Adam, and state it to him, to know where the objection lies to the payment of your annuity. That was in the month of July last. Mr. Adam had gone, two days after I saw Mrs. Clarke, into Scotland, and had not returned when I came back to London in October, therefore I never saw him, but at the persuasion of Mrs. Clarke, by a letter she wrote to me, she saying that his Royal Highness was prepared to hear what I had to say, as she hād told it to him. I had the honour of waiting upon the Duke of York, and telling his Royal Highness exactly what sile had stated, not pretending to vouch for its veracity in any shape whatever. His Royal Highness's immediate and prompt answer to me' was, her con- duct is so abominable, that I will hear nothing at all about her. Any thing I could possibly offer after what I have now said, would be super- fluous ; there is the conclusion, that is the epilogue of anything I have to state; and as to any question thought proper by the honourable gen- tleman, or any circumstances he has cited or remarked upon, I am as ignorant as a man unborn.—With regard to the gentleman who has this moment been at your bar, I did receive a letter from him last night, which I have in my pocket, and will deliver, if it is the pleasure of the House, to which I certainly wrote him a civil answer. I said I was obliged to him for his attention, but that I had no interference in the question before the House, and that I never would directly nor indi- rectly have any interference with it. 66 ºne. M“Mahon delivered in the letter, and it was read.] R, - “I have this moment left Mrs. Clarke, and I think there are parts \ colon EL Gottnon's ExAMINATIon. 159° of the conversation I have had with her, any confidential friend of the Duke of York’s would be solicitous to know. * - “If you are of that number, you perhaps would choose to see me; or, if not, refer me to some one immediately you think would. “I hope you will not attribute the hasty manner of this confused address to intentional want of decorum, for on the contrary, with the sincerestseatiments of gratitude, and very great respect, “I am, & 4 Sir, 2-’ “Your most obliged, “humble and obedient Servant, § WILLIAM WILLIAMs. Richold’s Hotel, near 4 o'clock, - Wednesday. - “I understood you was going to ride; I have therefore directed the porter, if possible, to find you. * “Colonel M*Mahon.” COLONEL GORDON was called in and examined by the Com- mittee as follows: Have you seen a man of the name of Williams? I have. Did he say any thing to you upon the subject of this enquiry I will state to the house exactly what he did say: About four o'clock this evening. I was at the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s on business, and on withdrawing, a servant of Mr. Perceval's told me that a gentle- man was in such a room, and desired to see me. I was shewn into the room, and I there saw a person whom to my recollection I never saw before. He addressed me as follows: “Neyer having had the honour, Sir, of being introduced to Colenel Gordon, I am not certain that I am now speaking to him; are you Colonel Gordon " I said, Sir, that is my name. He had said, Sir, I have been desirous of making a con- fidential communication to the Duke of York upon the business now before the house, and to that purpose I addressed a letter to Colonel M“Mahon yesterday. Colonel M'Mahon wrote me an answer (I think he said a civil answer) declining any interference whatever. I have addressed myself this morning to Mr. Adam, and he declined it also. Now, Sir, if you are of the same way of thinking as those gentlemen, it is needless for me to enter upon the business. I said I am entirely of that way of thinking, Sir. He said my object is to make a commu- nication to the Duke of York, of a conversation I had with Mrs. Clarke (I think he said the day before yesterday or yesterday, I will not be quite certain about that), and I think it very desirable that the examination which she is to undergo this evening should be suppress- ed., I told him that I declined making any communication whatever, and that I was not in the habit of making any confidential communi- cation to the Duke of York, but what arose out of my official situa- tion, and my words were these: I recommend you, Sir, to go to Mr. Lowten, he will advise you, and advise you well. I then withdrew. for the purpose of going out of the room, and it occurred to me I might as well ask him his name, and I addressed him in these words: Pray, §. do me the favour to give me your name. He hesitated at that, and told me he had told it to Mr. Adam. I repeated my question, I beg, Sir, to ask your name ; he said, Sir, my name then is Williams.' 160 MR. Long's ExAMINATIon. I think I am correct in what I say. He walked out of the room, and I thought it necessary to call Mr. Perceval, and told him word for word what I have now had the honour of repeating to the house. - º [The witness was directed to withdraw. The Right Honourable CHARLES LONG, a member of the house, attending in his place, made the following statement: I have been very anxious to say a word to the committee, in conse- uence of the manner in which my name has been mentioned by Mrs. larke, and have only been prevented doing so, in consequence of the interruption that has taken place in the examination. She stated that his Royal Highness the Duke of York had mentioned to her, that he had mentioned Mr. Dowler's name to me for an appointment in the commissariat, and that in consequence of that I . said it should be settled inmediately. Upon that I have to state, that to the best of my recollection his Royāl Highness never mentioned the name of Mr. Dowler to me upon any occasion whatever, nor do I recollect having heard his name, until I saw that gentleman at the bar of this house, The other point "Fº which my name was alluded to, it is hardly ne- cessary, perhaps, I should explain; but I have only to say upon that, that Mrs. Clarke has stated, that his Royal Highness had also said that he had shewed a list of seventeen meltibers of this house who would vote with Mr. Pitt in case this appointment took place, and that I was very much delighted with the list: if I had seen any such list, I dare say I shºuld have been very much delighted with it, as it was repre- sented that a number of gentlemen of that side of the house were Hikely to have voted upon that question with those with whom I gene- rally act; but I have only to say, that neither upon that occasion, as connected with the appointment of Mr. Dowler, nor any other, did his Royal Highness ever shew me any such list. In the year 1805, were any appointments made to the commissariat through you by his Royal Highness's recommendation I remember particularly the recommendation of the Duke of York being made through me to Mr. Pitt, for the appointment of Mr. Manby to the commissariat early, in the year 1805; his Royal Highness the Duke of York mentioned to me, that great disputes prevailed amongst seve- ral of the officers of the 10th regiment of light dragoons, and that the paymaster, Mr. Manby, was very much involved in those disputes, he thought; that all the officers, I think he said, were a good deal to blame, as well as I recollect, and that he was quite sure that the animosity that subsisted would never be done away while Mr. Man- by remained paymaster of that regiment; he said, that he did not think that any thing that had come to his knowledge impeached the in- tegrity of Mr. Manby, butthat he wished him to be removed to some other situation to which his talgnts were adapted. About the same period, an honourable member of this house, one of the members for the county of Surrey, who represented himself, I think, as a relation of Mr. Man- by’s, stated also his anxious wish to me, that some appointment might be found for Mr. Manby, and that he should quit the regiment. I mentioned, as I was desired, to Mr. Pitt, both what had been stated by his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and what had been stated also by the honourable member to whom I have alluded, Mr. Sumner; and in consequence of that, he was appointed an assistant commissary. M Rs. CLARKE's ExA MINATIon. I61 Did you, about that time, receive any other recommendation of the Duke of York’s for the commissariat department? None whatever that I recollect. Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in again, and examined by the Committee, as follows: What first gave you the idea that it was possible to procure money by disposal of commissions in the army By persons applying to me; and I found that his Royal Highness was very ready to oblige me when I asked him. - Do you recollect having desired Mr. Corri to burn any letters or papers that were in his possession ? Yes, I do. Was that desire expressed by letter or by word of mouth By word of mouth. When was that desire expressed I cannot speak as to the time, but I believe some piece of work had happened publicly ; I forget upon what occasion, whether it was about Lord Melville's trial, or what, something or another that way. t * Do you recollect having made use of these expressions, that there would be a terrible noise about it, and the Duke would be very angry 2 It is very likely I did ; I dare say I did. What did you mean by those expressions, in case you did use them : That he would be very angry with nue for being incautious. You have stated, that you only received a thousand a year from the Duke of York; had you credit with the Duke's tradesmen No. You have stated, that you received money for procuring a commis- sion for Mr. Dowler and a letter of service for Colonel French ; was money paid to you before you made applications to the Duke upon either of those accounts? No. Had you a promise of money? Yes. When you made the application to the Duke, did you state to him that you had a promise of pecuniary reward? I stated the whole case of Mr. Dowler. $ Do you recollect to have had any negotiation respecting other pro- motions, entirely disconnected with the military department? If you will point out what those things were, I will answer to it. Had you any negotiation or money transactions respecting promo- tions in the church? I never received any ; but a Doctor O'Meara jº. to me; he wanted to be a bishop; he is very well known in Ireland. - Are you confident you never had any application or negotiation for any other preferment in the church, but this of Doctor O'Meara Yes, lately. * - * * State what those applications were. I hardly gave myself time to read them, as I have no interest now. 2 For what rank of promotion were those applications made Some- thing about a deanery or a bishoprick. . . ." Through what channel were the persons applying led to believe you were to promote their wishes? I do not know ; I believe still the Duke of York, they thought. • - Those applications were since the connection between yourself and the Duke of York had ceased ? Yes. Did you state the name of any other great or illustrious person to *t 162 Mrs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. those persons so applying, or any agent applying on their behalf? No, certainly not. ;-- Do you recollect the name of any person who applied for those church preferments Is it wished the gentleman who wrote to me, or the gentleman who wanted the step in the church 2 Both. Those are some of the letters that Colonel Wardle ran off with, that relate to them. State the names of any persons who applied for those church preferr ments. The gentleman is determined to deny it; I have just been speaking to him now upon that subject. What is his name * Donovan. On whose behalf did Mr. Donovan apply to you? I do not know ; he talks a great deal about Doctor Glasse, and a great many other doctors; but it was not for Doctor Glasse that the appointment was wished. For whom was it that the appointment was wished I cannot recol- lect º name; but it is in those letters that Colonel Wardle has, I think. * * How do you know that Mr. Donovan means to deny this fact ; of having made this application to you for church preferment? I do not know" that he means to deny about the church preferment; but he means to deny it altogether ; and I never did prefer any one to the church. : - Did you ever receive a letter from Mr. Donovan, telling you to be very quick in your applicatioſi to the Duke of York, or perhaps some other illustrious person would interfere with him, and get the prefer- ment; and who was that illustrious person 3 l believe the person who takes almost all the patronage of the church of England, he alluded to, or who is entitled to it, as being the first female personage in England; but Colonel Wardle told me he would never bring that name forward or that letter. - * Did you ever receive a letter from Mr. Donovan, telling you to be very quick in your applicãtion to the Duke of York, or perhaps some other illustrious person would interfere with him, and get the prefer- ment? Yes, I received such a letter. tº a 4. Did you ever communicate Dr. O’Meara's offer for a bishoprick to the Commander in Chic: ; Yes, I did, and all his documents. What was the Commander in Chief’s answer That he had preached before his Majesty, and his Majesty did not like the Qin his name... I never mentioned that till this moment, except to the Doctor himself. JDid Dr. O’Meara specify any particular sum ; and what was that sum ? I think that gentleman must be a friend of his, and he must know better than I do, and he may recollect perhaps. Did Dr. O’Meara specify any particular sum : 1 forget; and I have burnt almost all my papers: I might recollect, but not at this moment. Do you recollect at what time Dr. O’Meara made this application ? In 1865, the very night that the Duke was going to Weymouth ; he called upon me the moment the Duke had 'left the house, between twelve and one o'clock; I think he watched his Royal Highness out, as he had seen that fis horses were waiting in Portman-square, and then he came in just as I was upon the stairs, and said it was a very good opportunity, for he was going to Weymouth immediately, and asked me to come down stairs again, and write him a letter of intreduc- tion to his Royal Highness, and I did so. . . . . . . . . 4 * MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 163 You have said you had no credit with the Duke's tradesmen; do you mean to say that the Duke did not pay any of your tradesmen's bills I do not recollect that ever he did, except one to a milliner. You have stated that the Duke of York had paid several sums of money in addition to the thousand a year, upon various occasions; do you still adhere to that statement : . He paid 1300l. to the silversmith, to balance from what I had paid; I do not recollect anything at present but that. * Did not the Duke of York pay several other considerable sums, besides the 1000l. a year, during your residence in Gloucester-place # He paid for one landau, and that is all I can recollect at all. Are you positive that you can recollect no other sums being paid for you by his Royal Highness? I cannot recollect one except those. What was the amount of your debts at the separation from his Royal Highness? Something under 2000l. I sent in to him the next day by Mr. Comrie; but I found them to be more upon examination. 3. Did you understand, when you were asked whether the Duke of York had paid any other sums besides the 1000l. a year, that the ques- tion applied to sums paid to tradesmen ; if so, state now whether you received yourself any sums from the Duke of York besides the 1000l. a year 2 . I do not recollect any. * For what period did you reside in Gloucester-place 2 I should think about two years and a half, or three years. º During the two years and a half or three years you lived at Glou- cester-place and Weybridge, was the Duke of York well acquainted with the extent of your establishment? Certainly; never a day passed without his being there, except the time that he went to the King. On whom was the Court Martial, on which you stated on a former evening that you had been a witness? On Captain Thompson. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Whitbread said, he rose in consequence of the as- sertion of Mrs. Clarke in the beginning of the evening (that she had been insulted and abused in coming into the house of commons), to move that the serjeant at arms be ordered to attend the witnesses to and from the house of commons, to protect them from any insult or injury that might be offered to them in obeying the orders of that house. He said, whatever might be the character, the morals, or the line of life pursued by the witness who had been before the house, that there was a certain deference and respect due to the sex which should not be violated on any occasion, least of all on her entrance into that house. Mr. Sheridan said, he felt it his duty to object to the motion of his honourable friend, for two reasons, first that he did not wish it should appear that it was necessary to make any such order; secondly, that on the most accurate inquiry into the business, he understood that no insult whatever had been offered the witness in the course of the evening. . . M 2 16# Mºss TAYLOR's ExaminATIow. Mr. Whitbread said; that if his righthonourable friend would say that no insult had been offered the witness, he would not persist in his motion. Mr. Sheridin said he could not be positive, not having been present on the occasion; that his knowledge was grounded on the strict inquiries which had been made. JOHN CLEMENTSON, Esq. the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, was - examined by the Committee, as follows: - - State to the committee what you know relative to the coming of Mrs. Clarke to the House, and her passage from her carriage up to the door. I directed the messengers, when Mrs. Clarke was ordered to be called in, to go to her; it was sometime before they could find her; I directed them to go to the different coffee-houses, and at last learnt that she was waiting in her carriage close to the House of Commons. She sentme a message by a messenger, stating that she had been insulted, and she would not get out of her carriage till I came for her. Immediately I went down. When I got there, I saw seven or eight people or a dozen people, I do not think more; her carriage door was opened, and she was handed Qut, and not a word passed. I took a constable with me, and brought her up to the House. There was not a word said to her all the way I came with her here. - Was not there a considerable crowd in the passages leading to the House Yes, there were several people, a great many servants, they were standing on one side; there was quite room enough for us to pass. Did any of those persons insult her? Not a word passed, to my $nowledge. Who was the messenger whom you sent for her ? His name is Skelton. - e - He was sent by you for Mrs. Clarke? Yes. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. MISS MARY ANN TAYLOR was called in, and examined by the . * Committee as follows: ... . Were you in the habit of visiting in Gloucester-place, when Mrs. . was under the protection of the Duke of §. Very fre- guently. - § ou ever hear the Duke of Yorkspeak to Ms. Clarke respecting Colonel French and his levy Once only. ... . ~ . Rélate what passed at j time." The Duke's words were, as nearly as'I can recollect, I am continually worried by Colonel French—he worries me continually about the levy business, and is always wanting $omething more in his own favour. Turning to Mrs. Clarke, I think be said, “How does he behave to you, Darling?” or sounesuch kind wºrds as he used to use; that was all that was said. = 4 Do you recollect anything further passing than what you have stated? 'Mrs. Clarke replied, “middling, not very well.” That was all that ‘she said. * w Was that the whole of the conversation ? No. tº sº * Relate the rest. The Duke said, “ Master French must mind what he is about, or I shall cut up him and his levy too.” That was the ex- pression he used. : - w - Miss TAYLoR's ÉxAMINATIon. 165, How long have you known Mrs. Clarke Ten years: Have you known her no longer than ten years? I do not exactly recollect, it may be something more. - Where did you first become acquainted with her At a house at Bayswater, near the Gravel Pits. r Where do you live yourself? At Chelsea. . With whom did you live at Bayswater? With my parents. What are your parents My father was a gentleman. Do you live with your father now? No. Is your father living Yes. Is your mother living? Yes. Do you live with your mother? No. Are you married ? No. * , With whom do you live? My sister. * & What is your sister's name? Sarah. Is she a married woman or a single woman Single. Where do you live? Chelsea. * In lodgings, or as housekeepers? Housekeepers. * - > Are you of any profession If a boarding-school be a profession. In what part of Bayswater did Mrs. Clarke live when you knew her there? It is called Craven-place, within two doors of our house. Who lived with her Her husband, when I first knew her. tº Have you known any one living with her since His Royal High- ness the Duke of York. - e Have you known no man live with her but his Royal Highness, since her husband lived with her Not to my knowledge. & Have you seen much of her; have you been intimately acquainted with her Yes. - * * * You are not related to her, are you? My brother is married teher sister. - 4. Did you know her when she lived at Tayistock-place? Yes. Did her husband live with her there? I never saw him there, I un- derstood she lived with her mother there. + * , , e. What time passed between her leaving her husband and her living with the Duke of York? I cannot recollect. . . * About how many years . I do not know that. , How long ago § you know her at Bayswater? Somewhat about ten years; #. say exactly. * - k Had not her husband left her before she left Bayswater I do not KI10W. - - Do you'rhean to say, you do not know whether Mrs. Clarke's hus- band had left her before she left Bayswater 2 Yes. . - f What was her husband? I always understood he was a man of some ortune. r Do you not know that he had only an annuity of 50l. a year; which was paid him weekly I never heard such a thing. . . . . " Did you ever see him with Mrs. Clarke, during the latter part of her stay at Bayswater No. . . . . . . . ... . bº. the latter part of the time Mrs. Clarke staid at Bayswater, }. never saw her husband, Mr. Clarke, there? I do not recollect that did. w Where did Mrs. Clarkego from Bayswater: I do not recollect. * 166 Miss TAYLOR's ExAMINATION. Do you remember her in Park-lane? She called upon me one day, and said she was in Park-lane. * - Were you in her house, at Tavistock-place, often? Yes. Did you live with her there? I never lived with her at all. You never slept in the house? Yes, frequently. t Do you know that any one lived with her but her husband at that time 2 No. - . . . - - - You took her to be a modest, decent, woman, whilst she lived in Ta- vistock-place? She lived with her mother, as I thought, and I knew nothing to the contrary. What is your father's name? The same name as mine. Taylor Yes. - What is his Christian name? Thomas. - Where does he live now * I had rather be excused answering. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Lord Folkstone was of opinion that she ought not to be compelled, as there might possibly be circumstances at- tending the disclosure of this question, which might prove injurious to the witness's father, nor could he conceive that any material benefit would result to the present inquiry from the disclosure of this circumstance. The Attorney General in reply observed, that he knew nothing of the witness ; but sure he was, that much of the credit of the testimony of this evidence depended upon that degree of respectability which both the witness and her connections in society held. Would the noble lord or any member in the House deny, that the evidence of a prostitute, who might be picked up in a street, was to be equally relied upon with that of a person who supported a decent and respectable character Nor was it immaterial to the present enquiry to know where the father and mother of the witness resided, as it was highly probable that the knowledge of this circumstance might tend to extract truth from the mine of error, with which it appeared to him to be involved. After some remarks from Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Hous- ton, on the propriety of putting this question, the witness was recalled, and the examination continued by the At- torney General. [The witness was again called in, and the question proposed.] I do not know. - º o you mean that your credit should rest upon the veracity of that answer, that you do not know where your father lives I do not ex- actly understand the question. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Miss TAYLoR's ExAMín ATION. 167 Mr. Brand said, that upon reflection, he trusted the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Perceval) would not press the question, as it evidently welit to wound the feelings of the witness. - Mr. Perceval observed, that he could not help sus- pecting, that something would be disclosed by a direct answer to that question, that would greatly, if not wholly, discredit the testimony of the witness. It must appear a very extraordinary case, that neither of the sisters knew, or rather, would not tell, where the father was; and, there- fore, he still adhered to his former opinion, that the ques- tion ought to be answered in a direct manner. * Mr. Wilberforce saw no good that could result from compelling the witness to answer the question in a direct form, as it was probable the fact could be ascertained by putting the question in another shape. t Mr. Yorke thought it utterly impossible to carry on the inquiry, unless such questions were pointedly answered; the truth could never be found out, and the obloquy under which the Duke of York had fallen, by a combination of some of the most abandoned characters, could not be as easily removed, if the witness was permitted to evade answering a question, which in his judgment was fair and reasonable. Mr. Simeon did not see any reasonable objection to the answering of the question, and therefore trusted the Com- mittee would not relax. * [The witness was again called in.) Do you mean seriously upon reflection to abide by your answer, that you do not know where your father lives? Yes. How long is it since you have seen him About a fortnight. Do you know where he was living when you saw him last At Chelsea. ! In what street at Chelsea? I beg leave to decline answering that question. - -> What reason have you for declining answering that question ? I do 11ot like to tell to so large an assembly where I live. Were you living with your father ? Some time ago. A fortnight ago were you living with your father? He did not live with me, he i. just come from the country. Was he living at Chelsea? He staid two or three days with me. Where had he been living in the country before he came to you ? He had been going about different parts : I do not know where. Is he of any business 2 No. : What objection have you, who keep a boarding-school, to tell this house were you live, particularly I have answered that just now. 168 MIss TAYLOR’s ExAMINATION. Will you repeat it? I did not wish to inform so large an assembly of my residence. What reason have you for wishing to conceal where you live from so large an assembly * They will find I am poor, and doubt my veracity. ,” You may be assured your veracity will not be doubted on account of your poverty; state to the house where you live, and what street in Chelsea you live in. China Row. What number 2 No. 8. Do you keep a boarding-school in that place? I and my sister do. Was any body present besides yourself at the conversation which you allege to have passed between the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke, re- specting Colonel French No. * Y Did you often see the Duke of York in company with Mrs. Clarke 6S. - How often may you have seen him? I do not recollect; seldom three weeks passed that I did not. How long have you kept a boarding school? Two years. At the same place No. Where before ? At Kentish Town. What part of Kentish Town; what street It had no name. Can you tell what number 2 No, it was neither a number, nor had the place a name; there were but two houses. Did you keep that boarding-school under the name of Taylor? Yes. ... Where did your father live at that time I beg to be excused answer- ing any questions concerning my father. Where did your father live at that time : He lived with me during part of the time there. º long have you lived at Chelsea? Last Michaelmas twelve- Hmonth. How long had you lived at Kentish Town 2 Not above three quar- ters of a year. While you were at Kentish Town, where did your father live, when he was not with you? I had rather not answer that question. While you were at Kentish Town, where did your father live, when he was not with you? I must appeal to the indulgence of the Chairman. [The Chairman informed the witness that there appeared no reasonable objection to her answering the question, and that therefore it was the pleasure of the Committee that she should answer it.] I cannot recollect just now. x Why did you wish to be excused answering that question, when you only did not recollect where it was that your father lived For that TeaSOI). How long ago is it that you heard the conversation you have been speaking of, between his Royal Highness and Mrs. Clarke? I cannot say exactly. - As nearly as you can During Mrs. Clarke's residence in Glou- cester-place. Where did you live then We moved about that time; but I : recollect whether that circumstance happened afterwards or €IOre. º From what place to what place did you move From Bayswater to Islington. Miss TAYLoft’s Ex:A.M.INATÉow. 169 Did your father live with you at Bayswater, at the time you re- moved to Islington? Yes. " . . . . . . . . Did he live with you at Islington Yes,' Where did you live at Islington Dolby-terrace. ... • Do you recollect what number No. 5. - What business did your father carry on then Nome. Has your father never carried on any business? No. - . What business was Mr. Clarke? I never heard that he was of any business. How long did you live at Islington . A little more than a year. }. that before you went to Kentish Town Immediately pre- ceding it. • * º: lived at Kentish Town about three quarters of a year? Ex- actly. - * - º 3. you know Mr. Wardle? Yes. How long have you known him? Not more, than two or three months. . * i Have you known him two or three months? Yes. At whose request do you attend here to-night? At the request of Mrs. Clarke. - Did you ever see Mr. Dowler at Mrs. Clarke's house at Glouces- ter-place Yes. Did you ever see Mr. Dowler in the same room with his Royal Highness the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke? Never. Were you ever told by Mrs. Clarke, that she had represented Mr. Dowler to the Duke of York as Mrs. Clarke's brother? Never. Do you believe that your father's affairs are in a state of embarrass- Inent 2 Yes. - Do you know Mr. Williams, a clergyman of Kentish Town ; Ine- ver heard his name. Have you always kept a boarding-school at your different resi- dences? At Kentish Town and at Chelsea. How many scholars have you now 2 . About twelve. How long did you reside at Kentish Town Three-quarters of a V6-2T. %. you remove immediately from Islington to Kentish Town 2 Yes. How long did you reside at Islington More than a twelvemonth. How much more than a twelvemonth? Seven or eight months. The conversation that you have stated you heard to take place be- tween the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke, you stated to have passed about the time you removed from Bayswater to Islington; is that cor- rect? Yes, it must have been about that time. Was it about that time? I cannot say exactly. Upon recollection, can you recal to your mind any circumstänces which will induce you to believe it was about that time 2 No. 's Then, do you, state that without any precise recollection upon the subject? Only by guess. \ Do you recollect ever seeing Colonel French in Gloucester-place? I have heard him announced; but I cannot say that I was intro- duced to him. What is the age of your youngest scholar? Seven. [The witness was directed to withdraw. 170 M.R. suTToN's ExAMINATION. Mr. DANIELSUTTON was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: Do you recollect Mrs. Clarke being at Captain Thompson's Court Martial, at Colchester 2 I do. , - - - State to the Committee what passed relative to her being put down a widow. In consequence of my having been directed to summon Mrs. Clarke to appear to give evidence . the Court Martial that was sitting, on charges preferred against Captain Thompson, I applied to Captain Thompson's solicitor, a Mr. Smithies, and desired he would send to me the christian as well as the surname and description of Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Smithies delivered to me the description upon paper; and, as near as I can recollect, her name was Mary Ann Clarke, of Loughton Lodge, in the County of Essex, widow. In consequence of the description so given to me, by Mr. Smithies, I entered it upon the minutes .#. court, and administered the oath which I usually admi- nistered to witnesses, and then having read the charges to Mrs. Clarke, she then answered the questions which were put by Lieutenat Colonel Fane, who was the §. ; was afterwards examined upon questions submitted by Mr. Smithies, who was concerned for Captain Thompson, and then upon guestions that were asked her by different Members of the Court. I have recollection, I think, of Mr. Smithies having communi- cated to me, she was not examined the first day she was summoned, in consequence of a witness, of the name of Maltby, who had been under examination for a considerable time. I think Mr. Smithies communi- cated to me some delicacy Mrs. Clarke had as to the appearance before the Court, and as to questions that might be put to her; and I told him, that she need not be under any apprehensions, for no improper questions should be put to her; if she answered the interrogatories of the Prosecutor, and the Court, she need be under no apprehension as to any disagreeable questions, which she seemed to apprehend might be put to her; and she subsequently answered every question that was put; and, upon that particular charge, Captain Thompson was, after- wards, honourably acquitted. tº- Did she herself state herself to be a widow, or was she asked, or did any conversation pass between yourself and her, upon that subject? I really am not quite sure; I saw Mrs. Clarke once or twice previous to her examination that day, in order to communicate to her that she must stop, and Mr. Smithies requested me to step to The Cups, where he was, to let him have the proceedings, to prepare Captain Thompson's de- fence; I rather think it was Mr. Smithies, for I perfectly remember, which is usual where the Assistant-Adjutant-General of the district does not deliver me the list of the witnesses, but where they come from the Solicitor of the party, that he will deliver to me the name and description, and I rather think it was in consequence of what he said to me. You do not recollect asking her the question whether she was a widow or nor Upon my word I do not recollect whether I did. You do not recollect any conversation that passed, relative to her situation ; her wishing to avoid publicity I do not recollect the par- ticulars, but I do recollect, either before or after the time Mr. Smi- thies asked me to step down to the inn, with the papers, that she said she was in a very delicate situation, and alluded to her situation; I do. MR. Sutton’s ExAMINATION. I71 not recollect that she mentioned the particular person under whose pro- tection she was, but she alluded to it, and I understood, from general report, what she meant. Was she particularly described as a widow, or did she answer to the interrogatory whether she was or was not a widow 2. She answered to no interrogatory upon that subject, it is not the practice for witnesses at Courts Martial to answer to such interrogatories, unless they are specifically put; the name and description is put down, and then the charges read; then the oath is administered, and then the ques- tion put. -- Do you recollect any evidence that came forward at that Court Martial, relative to a bill of exchange 2 Yes I do, Mrs. Clarke was examined, and gave evidence upon two hills of exchange. Relate the circumstances of her testimony so far as you recollect. I . the original minutes which I took at that Court Martial, in my Ocket. } * . p Refer to that part of the evidence which refers to the bill of ex- change, signed Elizabeth Mackenzie Farquhar.—“MaryAnn Clarke, of Loughton Lodge, in the County of Essex, widow, a witness, pro- duced by the prosecutor, being duly sworn, was examined.” Was that read to her 2 No, I believe it was not read to her. [The Witness read the following extract from the Mi- nutes.—“ Q. Look at this bill; is the body of it, and sig- nature your hand-writing?—The witness was then shewn the bill of the 1st May 1807, and then deposed. A. Yes, it is ; but it purports to be the hand of my mother; she was present when it was written. I am frequently in the habit of guiding her hand when she writes, or takes any thing in her hand, in consequence of her being very infirm, and very ner- vous.-Q. Look at this bill ; is the body of it, and signa- ture your hand-writing?—The witness was then shewn a bill of the 15th July, 1807. A. It is.—Q. Look at both the bills, and state to the Court, whether the acceptance of both is the hand-writing of Mr. Russel Manners. A. Yes, in the presence of myself, and my mother. Q. Did you or your mother , give these draughts to Captain Thompson A. My mother the first, and my- self, I believe, the last.—Was Captain Thompson aware that you signed the name of Elizabeth Mackenzie Far- quhar to these drafts, when they were given to him? A. Never. Q. Did he not know your hand-writing from your mother's I do not think he does, when I direct her hand. Q. Was Mr. Russel Manners indebted to you in a sufficient sum to authorize you to draw upon him for the sum of one hundred pounds A. He was, Q. State to the Court the reason why you did not indorse the bill dated the 20th of May, 1807. Å. I had no reason ; I was not aware of the circumstance that I had not indorsed it; it never was returned to me to be indorsed. Q. Do you recollect the date of the bill, dated the 15th July, 1807, being altered? . A. No, I do not.—Q. When those bills were given to Captain Thompson, had you any doubt but that Mr. Russel 172 MR. PARKER's ExAMINATIen. Mañners would pay them when they respectively should be- come due A. Not the least.—Q. Had you ever, before these bills were drawn, drawn bills upon Mr. Russel Man- ners; and if you had, were such bills paid when due A. I never did, I have more bills of Mr. Manners's, but I have ne- yer made use of them, finding that those bills were not duly honoured.—Q. Had you any good reason to believe, that Messrs. Maltby would pay the bills when they became due ; and if you had, state to the Court what were the reasons on which your belief was founded ? A, I certainly thought that Mr. Rowland Maltby would pay them, because I knew that he had at different times paid some thousands for Mr. Manners; besides which, Mr. Maltby knew I had assisted Mr. Manners with money, and therefore I thought he would take care of those bills before others.—Q. Had you any personal communication with Mr. Rowland Maltby respect- ing the bills in question, previous to the last week? A. Ne- ver.—Q. Have you had any personal communication with him respecting them, within the last week, and if you have, state § the Court the substance of it. A. Qn Thurs- day last I went, accompanied by my mother, to Mr. Row- land Maltby's, and he told me that he was coming.”] Does it appear upon the minutes of that Court Martial, from the tes- timony of Mrs. Clarke, that she put the pen into her mother's hand, and with that wrote her name upon a bill of exchange? That is in the answer to the first question that was put to Mrs. Clarke. During the proceedings of that Court Martial, were any private questions put, in your presence, to Mrs. Clarke out of Court, respect- ing her being a widow, which were afterwards entered upon the mi- nutes? I do not recollect any; I had conversation, as I mentioned before, with Mr. Smithies, and I believe, with Mrs Clarke, I am not exactly sure, but I cannot recollect the whole of that conversation; it was relative to her delicacy with respect to her being examined, and her fear that unpleasant questions might be put to her generally ; I have no recollection of any as to her being a widow; I desired Mr. Smithies, understanding that Captain Thompson was brother to Mrs. Clarke, that he would give me her description, and he gave it upon paper. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. MR. THOMAS PARKER was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Refer to your book as to the date of any payment that was made by Mrs. Clarke in the year 1804; 500l. on account of a service of plate. I know nothing of the subject at all; I was only left executor to Mr. Birkett ; I have a book here, in which there is some account, which I looked at to-day, which I did not know of before. Produce the book. [The Witness fetched the book, in which appeared the following account :] M.R. PARKER's ExAMINATIon. F73 |MRS. CLARKE, DR. PER CONTRA CR. 1804. A. s. d. | 1804. A. $, d. 16 May. 18 May. º . . . . The whole of the - - above-mentionedar- By cash on account. 500 0 0 ticles for - - - 1,363 14 10 - - An elegant rich chas- 12 July. ed Silver Epergne, + 153. 16, with 4 By a bill at 2 months. 200 0 9 branches, and rich • j . . " • • cut glasses to ditto, Nov. 14. 100 - - - - - 139 13 0 ſ Very large oval silver , , | By a bill at 4 months 200 0 9 tea-tray, 183.8. - 84 0 0. An elegant rich chas- By a bill at 6 months. 200 0 0 ed ...silver tea-pot, - - * * square ivory handle, By a bill at 8 months. 200 0 0 22pz. - - - - 16 16 0 Twelve. gadrooned By a bill at 10 months. 200 0 0 silver Soup-plates, to ~! correspond with the By a bill at 12 months. 200 0 Q others, 242, 1, 93. 14. - - - - - 105 0 0 | By cash, a draft on 15 June. * * Two large silver gad- Coutts and Co. 23." rooned waiters, 129. ; 9 a'9.49, 11 - - 58 3 0 || July - - - - - 121 0 0 Putting on silver - plates for arms, and Abated - - - - - ) 11 4 polishing the above: 16 5 6 - • * * Engraving arms, and crests on the above. 21 6 0 Silver tankard - - 15 15 02 Pair sugar-tongs - 0 18 0 4. 1,821 l l 4 A. 1,821 11 4 Do you know any thing more of that book; or do you know as to any of the payments, by whom they were made ; or what those bills were, or upon whom drawn? I do not know any thing more - of it; there is another little account in this book; here is nothing here which states at all what bills they were. I did not know any thing of it till to-day ; I was not sure whether the summons was intended for mever not, for my name was not inserted, nor where Mr. Birkett lived; it was inserted Princes-street, Hanover-square; I never knew him live there. I came down, it being left at my house. . . . . Do you kāow who the late Mr. Birkett's bankers were * Yes, Marsh and Company, in Berner-street. i. . . . . . . . Have you any other memorandum in that book 2 Here is some other account of goods, watches and some other silver goods, and wa- rious other articles, which amount to 286l. 9s. besides the other acCollnt. . . .'; * • t r t - [The Witness was directed to withdraw. I'74 M.R. combe's ExAMINATION. HARVEY CHRISTIAN COMBE, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: Will you mention the circumstance of your seeing Mr. Dowler shortly after he had received his commission in the Commissariat? I was riding through the street, and I met Mr. Dowler by accident, I had heard before with great pleasure that he had got an appointment in the Commissariat; I was not unacquainted with the reverse of for- tune he had sustained at the Stock Exchange, and I was rejoiced to hear that he had an employment that would yield him a com- fortable maintenance; I stopt him to give him my congratula- tions, and having heard that he had got this by the request of Mrs. Clarke, I asked him whether he had obtained it by the in- terest of Mrs. Clarke or Mr. Brooke Watson; his reply to me was “O by Mr. Watson’s.” . . * * * . . . . . From your knowledge of Mr. Dowler, do you believe him to be a man of integrity ? Perfectly so, I would have recommended him to any situation he was a candidate for. . * . . . . " From whom had you heard that he obtained the appointment from Mrs. Clarke? I know a great many persons who are equally acquainted with the Dowlers, from various persons I heard it, but I cannot recol- lect one individual. . . 3 . . . * Did you know of your own knowledge that there has been any con- nection between Mr. Bowler and Mrs. Člarke; i did not.” " Cannot you recollect one person among many individuals from whom you heard it? It is a great many years ago, if I were compelled to say who, I should select my own son. Do you not from your own knowledge know that Mr. Dowler's father adopted a line of politics in the city directly opposite to that of Sir Brook Watson I know that Mr. Dowler's father in the city of London adopted the Whig principles, but whether he was a member of the Whig club I do not know, nor do I now know exactly what Mr. Brook Watson's political principles were. * Mr.JEREMIAH DONovaN was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Do you know Mrs. Clarke I do..." Do you recollect at any time furnishing her with a list of names of persons for whom she was to obtain from the Duke of York, military or other promotion ? Never, . . . Have you not been in the habit of trafficking in places under go- vernment I never have trafficked for any places under government in my life. . . . . 4 * - In no situations for India? : From government. . . . Appointments from government? . Never. . . . . Or from the East-India Company, appointments that must come under the cognizance of the Board of Controul? I will be obliged to the gentleman if he will inform me what appointments those are. Have you ever offered a situation in India for a sum of money to a Mr. O'Hara; I have. . q ... What was the nature of that situation? A Writership. What was Mr. O'Hara to have given you for that situation? Three thousand some odd pounds, but I cannot say exactly. MR. Donov AN's ExAMINATION. 175 When was this? I believe the last year, but I do not exactly recol- lect. - How did that negotiation break off?. It broke offip consequence of Mr. O'Hara's brother not depositing the money at the banker's which was nominated by the gentleman who had the disposal of the appoint- ment, or who informed me that he had the disposal of the appoint- ment. - 1 Did not Mr. O'Hara offer to deposit the money in his own banker's hands, and did you not object to that, and wish it to be deposited in your banker’s hands, in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden? The mo- ney, Mr. O'Hara informed me, was deposited in a banker's hands in the city, I believe it was Curtis and Robarts; the person who had the disposal of the appointment would not consent to its remaining there, but wished it should be deposited at Messrs. Austen and Maunde’s, in Covent Garden, and in consequence of that the negotiation ceased. I did it at the request of a lady from Dublin, who sent a letter to me, saying that she wished I could obtain for a Mr. O'Hara, whose father was her particular friend, a Writership to India; I applied to a gentle- man, and he told me he could obtain that appointment, and the nego- tiation broke off in consequence of their not depositing the money at the house of Austen and Maunde. - What person authorized you to negotiate this appointment in the East India Company’s service? r Am I obliged to expose the name of the lady ? If I am I certainly shall. - w Was the lady the purchaser, or was it through the lady you were to obtain the appointment of some director? The lady wrote to me, re- questing I would make inquiry, in order to procure the writership for this gentleman; in consequence of this I did make the inquiry, but do not know any director's name concerned in the business. r Of whom did you expect to receive this patronage I was recom- mended by Messrs. Austen and Maunde, to a gentleman who promised to procure the patronage. * # Name the gentleman. Mr. Tahourdin, an Attorney, of Argyle- Street. Do you know from Mr. Tahourdin's connections, from whom he was to obtain it at the India House? I do not. Cannot you guess or surmise I cannot. Upon what grounds did you desire the three thousand and odd pounds to be lodged It was to have been lodged to be paid to Mr. Tahourdin, on the young gentleman passing as a writer to India. Did Mr. Tahourdin ever give you reason to believe that he had the promise of that nomination ? If he had not, I certainly should, not have requested the young gentleman to have lodged the money at the banker's. - . . . . Did you introduce a clergyman of the name of O'Meara to Mrs. Clarke? I have not the pleasure to know a clergyman of that name. Did you ever apply to . Clarke for the promotion of any person. in the church 2 lapthe month of November or December last, Mrs. Clarke informed me that she had very great influence; I heard of a. vacancy in the church, and I did apply for it for a friend of mine. * What was that vacancy A deanery. ' ' ' ' ' . . ; What deanery? I believe Salisbury. 176 MR. Do Nov AN’s ExAMINATIow. • Did you apply only for that deanery, or any other deanery For either the deanery of Salisbury or Hereford. This was eitheasin November or December last It was. Being so intimate with Mrs. Clarke, of course you were apprized that at that time all connection had ceased between Mrs. Clarke and his royal Highness the Duke of York . I understood that his Royal Highness and Mrs. Clarke had had no connection for three years pre- vious to that; it was not through the Duke of York's interest it was understood it could be obtained. . . . . s - Through whose interest was it understood that this was to be ob- tained, through the influence of Mrs. Clarke? Mrs. Clarke informed me she had very good interest with the Duke of Portland, and that she could obtain any appointment. . - Can you inform the committee what was to be the recompence, supposing the deanery had been obtained I cannot; I believe that is was 3000l. that was offered for one of them by a subscription; I did it to oblige a friend; there was a subscription to have been entered into, by some ladies, they did subscribe upwards of 3000l. as I was in- structed, it was for the Reverend Mr. Bazely, I think that was the name of the gentleman; he was to have been agreeably surprized with a promotion, providing it had been carried into effect, but he was on no. account to know it. . Mrs. Clarke answered, that the Duke of Port- land had no interest in the church, the Queen having taken the patron- age to herself. - - • . Have you had any correspondence with Mrs. Clarke since the com- mencement of the present examination? I have received one letter from . Mrs. Clarke since the commencement of this examination, or on the day, it was on Wednesday week I think; I have received two letters from Mrs. Clarke since the motion of Mr. Wardle, the one on the Saturday subsequent to the Friday night on which the motion was, made, the other on the Wednesday, on which day I believe the honour- able house went into the examination. Did you at any time give any credit to the idea of Mrs. Clarke hav- ; any degree of influence with the Duke of Portland? I certainly did give credit to it in the first instance. r º Did you believe that Mrs. Clarke had such influence with the Duke of Portland as she had exercised with the Duke of York on other appli- cations She never did make any application to the Duke of York for me in her life. * . . . . . . . . . Were not you privy to the whole transactibn of Colonel French 2. Nor never heard anything of it, till the levy was about to be raised, till Colonel French called upon me to inform me that he was raising recruits for that levy, and asked me whether I could recommend him any old serjeants, that he could employ upon that duty. id Mrs. Clarke give any reason to you for the assertion she had made respecting her belief, as to any person's power of disposing of the atronage of the church Mrs. Clarke informed me that the Duke of ortland had not the patronage of the church, but there were other appointments that she had mentioned to me, that caused me to sup- pose that the Duke of Portland had the appointments in the church to dispose of . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . ave you received two or three letters from Mrs. Clarke within this last month I have received letters from. Mrs. Clarke, many dur- ing the months of November, December, and January. ^a ** MR. Donov AN’s ExAMINATIon. 177 Have you, the letters which you state yourself to have received from Mrs. Clarke, since Mr. Wardle's notice on the present investiga- tion?... I have two-letters, and the reason I brought them was in hopes that Mr. Wardle would do me the honour to read the letters of mine which it was mentioned he had in his possession from Mrs. Clarke. I am perfectly willing to meet every charge that can criminate myself, but I should be sorry to involve any person that is innocent. I believe Mr. Wardle made his motion on the 27th of January. ." [The witness delivered in two letters, which were read, dated the 28th of January, and the 1st of February, 1809.] “ DEAR SIR, . “I am much mortified in seeing, in this day's paper, the free use of your name and mine in the debate last night. I however took an op- portunity of seeing Mr. Wardle on the subject, and I find he is by no means so ill disposed as his speech seemed to evince; but he tells me that as I have committed myself and my papers, he is determined to make every possible use of them, that to him seems proper. I must be candid, and tell you, that in order to facilitate some negotiations, I had given him a few of your letters. In one you speak of the Queen, in another the two deaneries. As to myself, I must of course speak the truth, as I shall be put on oath; let me persuade you, if called on, . to keep to the truth, as I am convinced you will; but I mean the whole truth, as to what has passed formerly between yourself and me. I have a thousand thanks for your being so quiet upon the 130; you shall have it the moment my mother comes from Bath. I fear, if you are backward, Wardle will expose the whole of the letters he has to the House. * “Your's truly, “Saturday Evening. “M. A. Ct.ARKE. “In order to relieve your mind, I send my servant, though late.” Indorsed: Received 28th January, 1809, late at night. “Wednesday Morning, Feb. 1st, 1809. DeAR SIR, “I yesterday saw Mr. Wardle; he had a letter yesterday from your friend Glasse, begging him not to take any business in hand, where his name is mentioned; and he asks for you also. He was tutor to War- dle. Now Mr. Wardle assures me, by every thing honourable, that if you speak candidly, and fairly to the fact of Tonyn, he will ask nothing more; and if he has been at all intemperate with your name, he will do it every justice. Take my advice and do it; it cannot injure ou. I understand your friend Tuck, some months ago put a friend of is in possession of Tonyn's business; and yesterday a man of the name of Finnerty gave him a case, which, he says, he had from you, of a Captain Trotter and another. Of course you will not mention my telling you this. I wish from my soul Mr. Wardle had taken it up less dispassionately, he might have done more good. Why do you not send me a line I dare say Clavering is hugging himself, as he did not send the recommendation. “Your's, & “. : ** M. A. C.” N 178 M. R. bonov AN's ExAMINAT to N. What rafik have you in the army Lieutenant. a . How long have you been in the army? I went into the army in the fear 1778. – -- \ In what regiment have you been In the Queen's Rangers. Are you now in the Queen’s Rangers? I entered into the army in the year 1778 in the Queen's Rangers : in consequence of my services in the Queen's Rangers I was recommended into the regiment, called the North Carolina Volunteers, then under Colonel amiltºn; the honourable Major Cochrane, then Major to the British Legion com- manded by Lieutenant-colonel Tarleton now General Tarleton, induced me to resign my company in the North Carolina Regiment and to ac- cept a Lieutenancy in the British Legion under the command of Lieu- tenant-Colonel Tarleton, which I imprudently did under the promise of the first troop or company that should become vacant in that regi- ment. I served in that regiment during the remainder of the war, from the }. 1780 till the reduction of the regimentin October 1783; I brought offie a detachment of that regiment, and was placed upon half-pay; in consequence of my wound being very bad it was impossible for me to accept a commission upon full pay, many of which had been offered to me by Colonels of different regiments in consequence of those wounds I have suffered; I am sorry to say that my surgeon, who did attend, is gone, or he could explain my present suffering, but I have suffered more than is conceivable for any person who looks well in health as I do; being lusty I have not been able to take off my clothes or lie down for the last five years; about six years from this period I was confined sixteen weeks under the care of Mr. Everard Hume, Mr. M“Gregor of the Military Asylum, and Mr. Rivers of Spring Gardens. Mr. Astley Cooper also attended me, and I am now obliged to em- ploy a surgeon, that is Mr. Carpue, either he or his assistant dresses my wound daily: in consequence of the recommendations of the honourable the late Marquis Cornwallis and Lord Moira I was placed in a veteran battalion as a compensation in some degree for my ex- ences as well as my sufferings from this wound, and through the same interest I obtained leave of absence till further orders; there are many other officers under similar circumstances in the army, it being the only means by which his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief can re- munerate their services, at least that was the answer given by the Adju- tant-General to Lieutenant-colonel Christie of the 11th veteran bat- talion (on the strength of which I at present draw my pay) when he applied last year to have me removed upon the retired list: with respect to my provincial services, I presume they go for nothing; I served fifteen months in a fencible regiment at home as lieutenant and surgeon; I served three years in the militia as lieutenant and surgeon, and I served three years as a surgeon in an armed vessel ap- ointed by the Treasury, and I trust it will not be thought too much that I draw the pay of a lieutenant. ' You have stated that you never sent in any names to Mrs. Clarke, either for promotion or for commissions in the army 2 Not till No- vember or December last did I ever apply to Mrs. •Clarke for any commissions in the army, either directly or indirectly. 4. Do you recollect what commissions you applied for then to Mrs. Clarke?... I do not; there were some companies, but for whom I do not retollect, i MR. Donov AN's ExAMINATIon. 179 To you recollect what you asked Mrs. Clarke to do respecting those companies? I perfectly recollect that Mrs. Clarke informed me that she had interest with a great many gentlemen, honourable members of this House; that she had also great connections amongst general off- cers, and that she could procure letters of recommendation which might accelerate any applications that were lying before the Duke of York for purchases of commissions. Did you send any letters of recommendation from the commanding officers of regiments in favour of officers for promotions to Mrs. Clarke? I sent three letters, I think, from three different field officers, recom. mending gentlemen for purchase from lieutenancies to companies. Those gentlemen had been recommended, if I mistake not, about twelve months, but their recommendations had not been attended to, to accelerate which it was thought advisable to procure the recom- mendations I have already stated, and Mrs. Clarke informing me she could do it, I placed these recommendations in her hands for that purpose. * \ Inform the committee how you got possession of those letters your- self. I will; I got possession of those letters from Mr. Froome, under the following circumstances: Mr. Froome called upon me, and in- formed me that he was about to resume his station or to be appointed a clerk in the house of Mr. Greenwood, upon condition that he should make oath or give security, one or the other, that he would never do any thing in the commission line as a broker in future; that if I could do anything with those three appointments which had hung so long, ..I should serve very deserving young men, and should be remunerated for my trouble: that is the fact, however it may criminate me. State what the remuneration was to have been upon each of those commissions? It was above 300l.; but how much I cannot say. Do you mean to state that above 300!, were to have been paid above the regulation price for carrying the point? Certainly, on each com- IIllSSIOI). - Do you know of your own knowledge, through what means that 300l. upon each was procured? ... I do not, Only you mean to state that the officer purchasing was to have paid 300l. above the regulation? I mean to state that both of those offi- sºurcians. on being gazetted, was to make the compliment of 300l. And it was Mr. Froome who put the three commissions into your hands? Yes, he did, under the circumstances I have already related. ' Had you ever any conversation with any body but Mr. Froome re- specting these commissions? I had conversations of course with Mrs. Clarke; I had conversations with Mr. Glasse, Who is Mr. Glasse? The Reverend George Henry Glasse. Had you never a conversation with any other person respecting those ºt. I do not recollect that I had any conversation with any person, Šve and except Mr. Glasse, Mrs. Clarke, and Mr. Froome; "I do not recollect any other person. Do you recollect any other transactions of that nature coming under your knowledge 2 There was a majority I think, or two, under si- milar circumstances, i ** Do you recollect what sum above the regulation was to have been paid on the majority? I do not. N 2 180° Mr. Donov AN's ExAMINATION. Do you recollect any other commissions that fell under the same cir- cumstances? I do not recollect any other commission but the two majorities, and those thrée companies. g Did those majorities come from Mr. Froome also : They did. Did not Mr. Froome at that time tell you what remuneration was to be given It is very possible that he might, but I do not recollect the remuneration. Do you know what your share of the profit was to be? I do not. What part of the transaction were you to act? He was to procure the letters from Mrs. Clarke; to attach them to those recommenda- tions and memorials, and to put them into the box at the Horse- Guards, and to let them take their chance; and if they suceeded, then we were to be remunerated. * * Therefore, the part Mrs. Clarke was to have acted, was either to have got the recommendation backed by a member of parliament, or some other person likely to give strength to such recommendation? That was the pārt. What was she to have had for that part? She was to have had, I believe, upon each of the majorities 500l. as nearly as I can recollect. What was she to have had for the companies? I forget exactly; but it was either a hundred, or more than a hundred. Do you know Captain Tuck? I do. Do you recollect in the year 1804 or 1805, offering Captain Tuck a majority at a very low price? I remember that in the year 1804 of 1805, Messrs. Austen and Maunde told me, that they expected to be appointed agents to a regiment that was to be raised by a Colonel Dillon; that commissions were to be obtained in that regiment, or some other, and that there were many other levies to be raised; and that the prices in that regiment were to be, for an ensigncy so much; for a lieutenancy so much; a company so much; and I believe that was the whole of the steps. The colonel had the appointments; where they were either to raise so many men for their commissions, or pay a certain sum of money to the . I met Captain Tuck either in parliament-street or Whitehall; he had been employed by the honour- able Colonel Hanger to raise a levy, and by that had obtained the rank of Captain, and was then upon half-pay. I told him, if he wished to get the step of majority, I thought if he would raise the men, or pay a sum of money, he might get a majority. I never thought any more of it till I met Captain Tuck in the room this evening. ; , Do you not recollect naming any other person as a party in this transaction, respecting the commissions that were sent in to Mrs. Clarke? I do not recollect, but there may be some other persons; F do not conceive any other persons could have been mentioned. Will you name ăny other person that you can recollect? I do not recollect any other persons, or I would name them. Did you mention the name of Mr. Greenwood? I never mentioned the name of Mr. Greenwood in the transaction at all, further than Mr. Froome was obliged either to make an affidavit, or give security to Mr. Greenwood, that he would not act as a broker in future, or he would loose his situation. & Who is Dr. Glasse, or Mr. Glasse, whom you' have mentioned in the course of your examination, and who is mentioned in one of the let- ters? The Reverend George Henry Glasse, of Hanwell. MR. Do Nov.AN's ExAMINATION. 181 How long have you known Mr. Glasse? I have known him for some years, but cannot exactly say how long. Has Mr. Glasse ever made any application to you relative to church, or other preferment. Never in my life. Or you to him I have not; I, of my own accord, very impru- dently promised to Mrs. Clarke, that if she could procure the deanery of Hereford for Mr. Glasse, I should be extremely happy that she should do so; but I never told Mr. Glasse of it till I think last Satur- day was se’nnight, or Monday was se’nnight, and then Mr. Glasse was exceedingly enraged that I should have taken the liberty with his Ilaine. * What induced you to make that application? The very great friend- ship I had for Mr. Glasse, and not conceiving that I was doing that which was improper at the time, or I would not have done it. Did you offer a thousand pounds? I did. And did it without Mr. Glasse's knowledge? Yes, without his . upon my sacred honour, and he never knew of it until the other day. - You §ve stated, that you would not have made this offer if you had been aware that the transaction had been improper; did you conceive the other transactions which you have stated to the Committee you had a hand in, to be proper transactions? I knew that these transactions É. daily, and therefore, I thought that there was nothing so very einous in the crime; but I certainly did not conceive it altogether TODel”. p ow did you know such transactions pass daily I had heard that such transactions passed. - Do you know, of your own knowledge, that such transactions pass daily I never was concerned in any transaction of the kind, save and except the business of Captain Tonyn, which I should be happy to explain; I believe I had also the introduction of Major Shaw. Do you recall to your mind the recollection of any other transac- tions of this kind 2 I do not. You stated, at the commencement of your examination, that you were not a trafficker in places under government; do you abide by that statement now? If you will permit me to explain the business of Captain Tonyn, I shall be obliged; but further than those I have men- tioned, I have never trafficked in any places under government; if I had I would not deny it. - Have any of those other negotiations you have mentioned to the Committee, been carried into effect? ... Not one through me. Do you know whether those negotiations about the companies and the majorities were carried into effect or not? Not one of them. Were you to receive any remuneration, supposing the negotiation had been effected Certainly. : • Do you not call that tºxing in places under government? I will leave it for you, gentlemen, to decide; I did not consider it so. Are those the only transactions of the kind, in which you ever in your life have been concerned? I believe they are. Be sure whether they are not? I cannot be sure, because I do not recollect any other; if I did, or you will do me the favour to point out any others, I will not deny them. - - ow long have you known Mrs. Clarke I knew Mrs. Clarke, ‘I believe, in the year 1805. - 4. - 182 MR. Do Nov AN's ExAMINATIox. Have you kept up your acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke from that time to the present day? I had not seen Mrs. Clarke till November last, for nearly three years; more than two years however. You had not seen Mrs. Clarke till November last, since her sepa- ration from the Duke of York : Yes. Were you in the habit of seeing her when she was connected with the Puke of York? I saw her, I believe, two or three times, and that only when she was connected with the Duke of York, or at least when she lived in Gloucester-place. * Did you only see her two or three times in the course of your life- time before the month of November last? I presume, in the course of my lifetime, I may have seen her half a dozen times before November last, for she lived in Burlington-street, at a Mr. Russel Manner's, and I saw her there twice. - At what period was that That I suppose must have been in the year 1806, or the latter end of 1805; it was after she was separated from the Duke of York, or left Gloucester-place. - How did your acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke begin? My acquaint- ance with Mrs. Clarke commenced in consequence of a report which had been circulated that I was the author of some scurrilous paragraphs reflecting on his Royal Highness the Duke of York; I traced it to Captain Sutton, an acquaintance of Mrs. Clarke's; I endeavoured to trace them out, but in vain. I requested that I might be introduced to Mrs. Clarke to vindicate myself; I never had written a paragraph against any one of the Royal Family in my life, and that was what introduced me to Mrs. Clarke’s acquaintance. You have stated that while Mrs. Clarke resided in Gloucester-place, you saw her three or four times; did you call upon her in Gloucester- place? I called upon her three or four times, it was at the house I saw her. Did you go of your own accord? I went of my own accord, having obtained permission to see her ; I was three or four months before I could obtain permission to see her; so strong was the impression against me as being the author of those paragraphs, that Mrs. Clarke would not see me, nor hear my name. How often did you see Mrs. Clarke when you called at Gloucester- place? I believe three different times. When you saw Mrs. Clarke, did you go of your own accord, or did she desire you to come? She never desired me to come that I know of, further than one particular period, which was in order to inquire the description of Captain Tonyn. When you went of your own accord, with what view did you go? In order to do away the report that I had been the author of these pa- ragraphs against his Royal Highness the Duke of York. All the times that you went, you went with that view: Twice only, I believe: I never was at Mrs. Clarke's above three times in my life in Gloucester-place. You have stated that you called there frequently before you could see Mrs. Clarke, and that you then called three different times, and saw Mrs. Clarke? I did not mention that I had called often at Mrs. Clarke's, and have not seen her. Did you do away the impressions entertained against you at your first interview with Mrs. Clarke? Not altogether, * * MR. Donov AN's ExAMINATION. 183 How many interviews were necessary to do away entirely those im- pressions? Two. \ Did you entirely do away those impressions in two interviews? I believe I did. * With what view did you call upon Mrs. Clarke the third time you saw her ? In order to procure the insertion of some letters in the Morning Post. What was the subject of those letters? The subject of those was an- swers to the letters of Belisarius. Why was it necessary for you to go to Mrs. Clarke, to procure the insertion of those letters : Because Mrs. Clarke had asked it as a favour of me. To do what? To get those letters inserted in the Morning Post. To you mean to say that you carried those letters to Mrs. Clarke, because Mrs. Clarke had desired you to insert them in the Morning Post? I did not carry them to Mrs. Clarke; I received them from Mrs. Clarke. Then the third time you went to Gloucester-place, you went to get those letters? I did. Did you go then of your own accord, or by the desire of Mrs. Clarke? At the desire of Mrs. Clarke; I believe so; it is really so long since, that I cannot say whether I volunteered my services to go that day for those letters, or whether she had appointed that day for me to call for those letters; I did call for those letters, and got them inserted in the Morning Post. ; You have stated, that though you did not traffic in commissions, you have had a hand in procuring commissions at different times; had you any dealings of that sort with Mrs. Clarke or others, at the time Mrs. Clarke lived under the protection of the Duke of York I never had any transaction with Mrs. Clarke as to any commission, either direct or indirect, till this in November, of three companies and two majo- rities. In November last, did you know that Mrs. Clarke was no longer connected with the Commander in Chief? Mrs. Clarke informed me that she had been long at variance with the Commander in Chief, and never should be connected with him again. How came you, having that knowledge, to apply to Mrs. Clarke for her interest for promotions? Not with any view to her interest with his Royal Highness, but Mrs. Clarke had told me that she had great interest with Members of Parliament and General Officers, that she could procure recommendations of the different Colonels of the regi- ments to which those gentlemen belonged. Were the transactions of which you have spoken, the only transac- tions of the kind in which you have ever been concerned I have an- swered that question repeatedly. f Have you ever carried on any negotiations respecting writerships to India, besides that which has been mentioned? I have. How many ? One. i. * In behalf of whom?! I cannot charge my memory who, the young gentleman was. - z * At what time Last year. . The year 1808? I believe it was; and it was the writership that Mr. Q'Hara refused; that same writership. . . . . . & 184 MR. Donov AN’s ExAMINAT ton. º Did you succeed in that negotiation I did. - What money was paid in consequence of that? I do not recollect; but I believe it was 3,500l. -- What did you receive in consequence of your exertions in that ne- gotiation? 250l. - - From whom did you receive that money? From Mr. Tahourdin. To whom was the other sum of three thousand and odd pounds paid 2 To Mr. Tahourdin, I presume; but I was not present at the receipt of the money. & Do you now recollect on behalf of whom that negotiation was car- ried into effect No. I do not; but I could trace it, no doubt. With whom did you treat for it? I do not know the name of the gen- tleman with whom I treated for it; I did not expect to be called upon, and did not charge my memory. The gentleman was a stranger at the time. - Have you, or not, been concerned in any other transactions of this kind? I do not recollect any other. * Are you certain that you have not been concerned in any transac- tions of this kind? I am not certain; but I do not recollect any other. I do not believe I have. Are you certain that you have not been concerned in any transac- actions of this kind 2 I could almost say I am ; but I will not. Have you ever had any part in negotiating a Cadetship I do not recollect any Cadetship that I ever have. If you are not in the habit of concerning yourself in matters of this sort, it is very extraordinary that you should not recollect: try to re- collect whether you had any concern in negotiating for Cadetships ? I do not recollect; I may have applied, but I do not recollect passing any Cadet. - o you make a habit of dealing in things of this nature? I have made no further habit of it than that which I have already stated. Have you ever had any concern in a negotiation for procuring a situation in the Custom-House? Mrs. Clarke informed me that she had interest through which she could appoint a Collector of the Cus- toms, and several others. I mentioned it to a gentleman, not with a view to bring it to my own interest at all. - When was this? In November or December. Mr. Wardle can in- form you. * You have stated that you concluded a negotiation through Mr. Ta- hourdin for a Writership to India; endeavour to recollect the name of the young gentleman that was appointed; I cannot, for I do not know that I ever knew him. - & t Cannot you, when you return to your office, find out the name and bring it to this Committee I have no office. ! : Cannot you, when you return home to your own house, look into your books and find the name of the young man? I cannot, for I keep no books; I am not confident that lever knew the name of the young gentleman. - – - Have you no memorandum or slip of paper? I have none by which I can trace it..., st - § Cannot you ascertain by what Director the young man was ap- pointed; I cannot, for I never knew. - . . . Do you know that any Director who takes money for an appoint- S . . " Jº Mr. Do Nov AN’s ExAMINATIon. 185 ment of this nature, breaks his solemn oath which he takes when he enters into the service of the East India Company I presume a Di- rector may dispose of his card for a Writership, or a Cadetcy, and it may be sold, and the Directors know nothing, and receive no emolu- ment, confiding to a gentleman that he would not suspect of doing so. In what year was this? It was I believe last year. To what Presidency was it? I do not know. You have said that you once made an application to Mrs. Clarke in favour of Mr. Glasse; without the knowledge or privity of Mr. Glasse: if the application in favour of Mr. Glasse had succeeded, by whom was the money to have been given for it? By me. Did you mean to pay it yourself out of friendship for Mr. Glasse, without any hope of remuneration from him : I did, by the commis- sions which were to have been diposed of. I intended Mrs. Clarke should retain as much out of those commissions as would have paid for that situation, provided it could have been obtained. You meant to make a present to Mr. Glasse, to the full amount of the remuneration you were to give to Mrs. Clarke for procuring him some deanery, or whatever the church preferment was I did. Which of the applications was the first, in point of time, for the preferment in the church, or for the preferment in the army 2 The pre- ferment in the army, I believe, took place in November; some other situations and arrangements Mrs. Clarke had made were previous to that. Which preceded, in point of time, the application for the captaincies and the majorities, or for Mr. Glasse? I believe that the situations, Mrs. Clarke pointed out in the West Indies, and the situation that she pointed out at home, one was in the commissariat, I believe, which she said she could obtain; and the other was that of landing waiter. Those were the situations she first promised, which she said the Duke of Portland was to have given to her. Out of those commissions it was that she was to have been paid. - Is the committee to understand that those commissions, of which you have now been talking, are fresh commissions, the advantage de- rived from which was to repay the 1000l. to be paid for the deanery of Mr. Glasse; or is the Committee to understand that the advantage proceeding from the captaincy and the majority before-mentioned were to pay it? . From the commissariat appointment and the landing waiter; not from the captaincy and majority. 4 Then this landing waiter and commissariat are new appointments 2 They are new transactions. Not before stated to the Committee I forgot to state them to the Committee. At the outset of your examination, you stated, that you never had trafficked, directly or indirectly, for any places under Government of any description? I never carried any into effect. The words “ carried into effect” were not put in ; you have now enumerated not less than nine situations for which you have carried on negotiations: you also stated, that you thought the crime was not so heinous, because you knew the practice to be daily taking place; what ractices do you allude to which you knew were daily taking place The disposal of commissions, I believe, has been generally reported to have taken place: but I know not any which took place º I had Who connection or concere with whatever. /* iS6 MR. DoNow AN’s exAMINATION, Do you know of any transactions so taking place, with which you had or had not concern ? I have heard of things, but do not know of 3. In W. º f &on do not know, in any way, of such transactions having taken place I haveheard of such transactions. Do you know of such transactions? The transaction of Captain Tonyn I beg leave to mention here; I must allude to that and Major Shaw : I did not understand how either of those were carried into ef- fect till last November: I never knew that Mrs. Clarke was concern- ed in Major Shaw’s business till last November. Captain Tonyn was gazetted in 1804; and Mrs. Clarke, in 1805, I understood, was the person who had obtained that promotion for Major Tonyn. Independently of that case of Major Tonyn, there is a case of Major Shaw's, of which you have heard ; I heard last November only. Do you know of any other besides Major Shaw and Captain To- myn ! I do not recollect any other. • Are you sure you do not know of any other ? I do not recollect any other. - - Do you, or do you not, know of any other ? I do not know of any other that l recollect; nor do I believe that I recollect any other. , Do you not know of some others? I know of no others, to the best of my knowledge; if I did I would mention it, but I do not; I believe I know of no other whatever. You have said positively you know of no other? I believe not. You have said once positively you knew of no other ; do you say positively whether you knew of no other? Do you mean to say I have been concerned with others. & h Have you been concerned in any other ? Not at all. Do you not know of any other I do not, to the best of my know- ledge; it is impossible for me to charge my memory; I have told you every thing to the best of my knowledge and belief. When you were asked concerning certain Custom-house appoint- ments, you said, that Colonel Wardle, an honourable member of this House, could tell about them; what can you say of Colonel Wardle's knowledge of those appointments? I must refer to Mrs. Clarke for that. . What has Mrs. Clarke told you relative to that? That she could procure recommendations from great people, and she mentioned the name of Mr. Wardle also, not as the person that would reconºmend, but as the person who knew others that she should make acquainted with the circumstance. * What other persons, besides Colonel Wardle, did she mention as knowing of these matters: Not as knowing, for she told me, she should tell, Colonel Wardle. , - * - - You said Colonel Wardle amongst others, who were the others? She mentioned, that she should acquaint Colonel Wardle, or men: tioned his name upon the business. . - Who was the person with whom you negotiated in the last transac- tion to which you have alluded, with respect to the writership 2 Mr. Tahourdin. You stated that it was through him the money was paid, was he the only person with whom you negotiated? He was the person who pro- cured the appointment, but from whom I cannot say. MR. DoNov AN's ExAMINATIox. 187 Was he the only person with whom you negotiated, or had any con- cern or dealing in this transaction?, The gentleman who obtained the introduction for his young friend, of course, I negotiated with also, as I introduced them together; Mr. Tahourdin and that gentleman, I really cannot tell the gentleman's name, for I do not recollect it; but I dare say Mr. Tahourdin would furnish me with his name. State to the Committee whether you first applied to Mr. Tahourdin, or Mr. Tahourdin to you? I did not apply to Mr. Tahourdin; he was recommended to ine, in consequence of a letter I had from a lady in Dublin, to procure a writership for Mr. O'Hara, Who recommended Mr. Tahourdin to you? Messrs. Austen and Maunde recommended him to me. Do you know whether that writership was the subject of any adver- tisement in the newspapers? Not at all that I know of. Not being a trafficker in places, but yet having a certain tendency to negotiate them, and to take a pecuniary advantage by them, how came you not to apply to Mrs. Clarke while she had an acquaintance with his Royal Highness, but to apply after that had ceased; and when her connection with the Duke of Portland and members of this House was a little more distant? I have already explained that business; it was merely the effect of chance; Mrs. Clarke sent for me, and proposed the business to me; it was not the effect of my application. At what number in Argyle-street does Mr. Tahourdin live? I do not know, but his name is upon the door. Did Mr. Tahourdin receive the nomination of the writership imme- diately from the director, or through the medium of a third person? I never asked Mr. Tahourdin from whom he procured it, or how he pro- cured it. ; Is the lady, who applied to you on behalf of Mr. O’Hara, an ac- quaintance of your's She is. | You have stated, that you saw nothing of Mrs. Clarke from the middle of the year 1806, till last November; was that interruption in our intercourse occasioned by any difference that you had together? ot the least. What was it owing to ? Because I had no acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke further than I have already stated; I never saw her more than §§times previous to her separation from his Royal Highness the Duke of York. [The witness was directed to withdraw; the Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.] The House was then resumed, and the chairman of the Committee reported progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer urged the necessity of pursuing the present important º from day to day, till it was gone tº: and trusted that gentlemen would postpone other business till this was disposed of. Mr. . Smith moved that Mr. Tahourdin be sum- moned to attend the Committee, to explain what had come out this night; but The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the investiga- tion of the disposal of the writership had nothing to do 188 ProceedINGs RELATIve To . with the Duke of York, and though he should gladly con- sent to refer it to a Committee above stairs, yet 'he thought it was not a proper subject to interrupt the business now pending. The right honourable Chancellor thought the gross sales which had been alluded to, should be resisted wherever they could be met; and he should have no objec- tion to bring in a bill to make it a misdemeanour to adver- tise such sales, and to forfeit all money which might be deposited for them. - Mr. Smith upon this waved his motion. - The conduct of William Williams, the person in cus- tody of the Sergeant at Arms, was then discussed by Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Adam, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. W. *W. &c. when, upon the examination at the bar of Mr. Low- ten, who had known the man as deranged for some time, he was ordered to be discharged without payment of fees. The com MANDER IN chief. 189 FIFTH DAY. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10. —ºm- List of Witnesses examined. G. L. WARDLE, Esq. (a Member.) MR. DONOVAN. DAVID PIERSON. GENERAL CLAVERING. THE MARQ. OF TITCHFIELD, (a Member.) MR. THOMAS PARKER. MR. WILLIAM TYSON. COLONEL LORAINE. CAPTAIN HUXLEY SANDON. G. H. SUMNER, Esq. (a Member.) MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE. COLONEL GORDON. Mr. WHART.on in the Chair. Mr. Wardle thought it necessary, before the Committee proceeded to examine evidence, to offer a few observa- tions, in consequence of something in the evidence of Mr. Donovan on the former night, stating that a letter written by Mrs. Clarke to him about a Captain Tucker was framed by Mr. Finnerty. Upon a former day he had stated every thing he knew about Mr. Finnerty; that he never saw him until about the time Major Hogan's pamphlet was published, and only once more in the lobby of the House, when he had said something to him about Dr. Thynne. Mr. Finnerty might possibly have men- tioned to him Mr. Tucker's name; but he solemnly de- clared he never received from Mr. Finnerty, any informa- tion whatever, about Mr. Tucker. Having, therefore, 190 PROCEEDINGs RELATrve ro, put the Committee in possession of all he knew about Mr. Finnerty, and all the information, or rather non-informa. tion, he had given him (for, in fact, he had told him no- thing), he should feel much gratification if the House would comply with the petition presented by a right honourable gentleman last night from Mr. Finnerty, and permit him to be examined at the bar, which would put an end to every insinuation respecting his acquaintance with Mr. Finnerty. His right honourable friend, for so he would call him, (Mr. Sheridan), had thought fit on a former night to make an extraordinary attack upon him, respecting his alledged acquaintance with a set of men who were called foul conspirators, and that he had de- rived his information from persons with whom it was dis- graceful to hold any communication. He knew of no set of men of the description mentioned by the right honourable gentleman. If he knew of such men, he would be the first to give them up. He declared to God he neither knew nor could guess what his right honourable friend alluded to ; and wished his right honourable friend had chosen rather to give some explanation of whom the persons were to whom he alluded, than by an imputation so mysterious to cxpose his conduct to the comments and misrepresentations of the ministerial prints of the day. If his right honourable friend would be so good as to name any character of such a description as he had stated, and from whom he might have derived unfounded informa- tion upon this subject, he would declare all he knew, and do all he could, to bring such persons to justice. The next point to which he felt it necessary to call the atten- tion of the Committee was, the evidence given last night by Miss Taylor. It was a duty he owed to that lady to state what he was now about to submit. He understood that that lady had two brothers in the army, and one in the navy; and when he had told her of his intention to have her examined at the bar of the House, she expressed greet unwillingness to come forward; but when he urged the necessity for her examination, her answer was, that if she was forced to come forward to speak the truth, she must do it at the risk of ruin to her nearest and dearest relations. 4. * - Mr. Sheridan coincided with his honourable friend, in the wish that Mr. Finnerty might be examined, and said, that so far from having intended to make any attack upon THE COMMANDER IN CH* tº F. 19] him (Colonel Wardle), as he was pleased to term it, on a fortner night, he merely cautioned him as to the sources of his information, and had sent to him a message upon the subject by a mutual friend. Mr. Wardle said, he never had received that message, and observad that his right honourable friend, on the former night, had pretty strongly insinuated that his in- formation was derived from persons of the description of conspirators, with whom it was disgraceful to hold any communication, but without naming the persons to whom he alluded. Mr. Sheridan said, he had used no such phrase as con- spirators or conspiracy; and it was hardly to be expected he should be so indiscreet as to name persons who were yet to give their testimony before the House, and thus to excite prejudice against them. He had no objection, however, to allude now to one of those persons named Donovan, who had yesterday given his evidence at the bar, and whose gross prevarication evinced the kind of reliance that could be placed on any information derived from him. There were also two others whom he had no objection now to name; for instance, M'Callum and Cockayne, who, he did not scruple to say, were persons to whose information no credit was to be attached ; and he had cautioned his honourable friend against placing much reliance upon such men ; but he called the House to witness, whether, instead of making any attack upon his honourable friend, he did not vindicate his conduct and intentions, and deprecate the attempt of any set of men diposed to make a run against an individual member, who had the firmness and independence to rise in his place, and do that which he conceived to be his public duty. For his own part, he was determined his conduct should be guided by neither favour nor affection, nor any regard to rank or station. - Sir Arthur Wellesley bore high testimony to the mili- tary conduct of Colonel Tucker, now no more. He had served under both Sir David Baird and Sir Samuel Auch- muty in South America, with the highest recommendation from both, as an officer highly deserving his Majesty’s favour; and he felt it his dity to state, that having wit- nessed his conduct in the expedition to Portugal, and his gallant services upon two particular occasions, he felt it £92 MR. DoNovaN’s Exami NATION. due to his character, and toº he consolation of his family, on this occasion to bear testimony to his merits. . Mr. Wardle declared he never meant the most distant imputation upon the conduct of that gallant \officer, nor had he any personal knowledge of him whatever; he had only mentioned his name as connected with one of the transactions which were the subject of inquiry. Mr. Wardle next alluded to some letters in his possession which were alluded to on the evidence of Mr. Donovan last night, to the reading of which he had no objection, ºich He was ready to produce if the Committee de- sired it. - This produced a conversation of some length between the honourable member, Lord Folkestone, the Attorney- General, Mr. Perceval, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Yorke, and Mr. Bragge Bathurst, after which it was agreed that the letters should be read. GWYLLYM LLOYD WARDLE, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined as follows: Are those the letters Mrs. Clarke alludes to in her letter to Mr. Do- novan, in which she says, “I must be candid and tell you, that in order to facilitate some negotiation, I have given him a few of your letters?” Those are part of the letters, I had from Mrs. Clarke. Are those the letters to which this letter of Mrs. Clarke alludes? It is impossible I can answer that. - Are those all the letters of Mr. Donovan's you received from Mrs. Clarke? To the best of my recollection, all, except some letters of Mr. Donovan's, that apply to the commissions that I examined about last night, to be backed by a Member of Parliament. . Did you obtain the letters of Mr. Donovan all at once from Mrs. Clarke, or at different times? At different times; the letters I have now given in, I obtained in the way I before stated to the House. These are part of those which you took away without her consent? That I took away, as I before stated. Was it with her consent or against her consent, that you took away those letters ? I have before stated how I took them, I took them from her table; she said I must not take them, or must not use them, or something to that effect. - Mr. JEREMIAH DONOVAN was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: State whether those letters, in the hands of the clerk, are your hand- writing : They are. [The witness was directed to withdraw.] ..MR. DononAN's ExAMINATION. 193 [fletters read, dated the 8th October, 1808, the 20th October; 1808, 16th November, 1808, 14th December, 1808, and the 23d December, 1808.] - - Charles-street, St. James's-square, * October 8th, 1808. “ DEAR MADAM, * f “The Deanery of Hereford is vacant, and in the sole gift of the Duke of Portland ; can you procure it for the Rev. G. H. Glasse? I would myself, unknown to him, give 1000l. for it. It must be filled up by next ś. at least so a gentleman, who has just given me the information, said. Mr. G. is my most particular friend, and I would make great sacrifices to serve him; he is not in town at present. I can, with confidence, assure you he is a very good scholar, a man of good fortune, and an extraordinary kind friend, of excellent connections, well known to the Dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge. He is rector of Hanwell, Middlesex. His town house, No. 10, Sackville-street. “The money will be deposited on Wednesday next, for the landing waiter's place. “An inspector of the customs, whose duty is rowing a boat about the river, visiting and placing officers on board different ships, is about to be superannuated; the salary is 400l. per annum; I am applied to for the appointment, on the resignation taking place; 1,000l. offered for it. “Your's very truly, h “J. Donov AN. * Mrs. Clarke.” “Charles-street, St. James’s-square, “ October 20th, 1808. “ DEAR MADAM, “Some friends of the Rev. T. Baseley, M.A. are extremely desir- ous of procuring for him promotion in the church; and it appears to: them a very favourable opportunity, the vacancy of the Deanery of Sa- lisbury, to make application to the Duke of Portland; and in order to secure an interest without his knowledge, a party of ladies, at the head of whom is Lady Cardigan, have subscribed a sum of money, 3,000 guineas, which is ready to be deposited, to carry into execution their intended plan. “Mr. Baseley is well known to his Grace, and was particularly re- commended to her Majesty by Lady Cardigan, en the publication of his pamphlet, ‘The Claims of the Roman Catholics constitutionally considered, &c. &c.’ This chaplain to the Duke of Gloucester, and the Bishop of Lincoln, went with his Grace upon some occasion to serve the Marquis of Titchfield; would be very strongly recommended by many persons of fashion, the Bishops of Norwich and Salisbury. I have a letter from each to Mr. Baseley in my possession, which would shew the estimation in which he is held by them. The ladies are very anxious, and, at the same time, desirous that he should not know through what channel the money is raised, much less the application, nor do they wish to know anything further than that he shall succeed, and then so agreeably surprize him; or rather that his Grace, without any preface, should have the whole merit of having selected so worthy a man to fill the vacancy." Your answer will oblige, * - * . “Your's, very truly, - . . . . . “J. Donovan. “Lord M. and Mrs. J. are in town.” … " # Mk. Donov An’s ExAmrin Arrós. “Charles-street, St. James’s-square, - “November 16, 1808, “DeAR MADAM, - “The place of inspector of the eustoms is now vacant by the death of Mr. Booty, and I learn that the Queen and the Duke of Dorset are about to apply for it. I hope you will procure it for Mr. Henry Tobin, the gentleman you were so good to say you would serve when an op- portunity offered. I will do myself the pleasure of waiting on you whenever }. will appoint on the subject. Can you procure the paymastership to a second battalion for 500l. 3 - “Your's very truly, * Mrs. Clarke.” “J. Donov A.N. - “ Dec. 14, 1808. ** DEAR MADAM, - - - “I regret much that I had not the pleasure to see you on Saturday evening. It was the only time I had §. out since Tuesday, and I have suffered considerably in consequence, from my wound. “I am daily applied to for the particulars of the appointment at Sa- vannah la Mar. Is it a surveyor of customs and landing waiter? Is the salary 1,300l. per annum, or how much is the salary, and from what do the perquisites arise 2 Is the 1,300l. sterling, or Jamaica currency? What is the duty “Can you procure the landing waiter's place in January next? “The paymaster second battalion ? “Relative to the letters, I am in part ready, and wish to consult with you relative to them. ... I shall be at home this evening, and, if able to bear the motion of a carriage, dine in your neighbourhood to-morrow. R. * I remain, , , “Dear Madam, • - “Your's very truly, “ Mrs. Clarke.” ** J. Donov AN. - “Charles-street, St. James's-square, - Bec. 23d, 1806. “ DEAR MADAM, f “I am daily plagued about the Savannah la Mar appointment; also respecting the landing waiter’s, the 2d battalion paymastership, and the commissaryship. , Pray let me hear from, or see you, on the subject of the Savannah business particularly. - - 4. “Mrs. Howes requested me to thank you, in her name, for your kindness, and have got into disgrace for not having done so sooner, and for not letting her know when you called last. º * “Your's very truly, - \ “J. Donov AN. “Mrs. H. sends her compts. * Mrs. Clarke.” © o Mr. C. Bradshaw wished the minutes of the examina- tion of Donovan last night to be read. ... The Chairman informed him that they were at the house of the short hand writer, for the purpose of being tran- scribed; but that they would be brought to the House in the course of an hour. - . \. proceedINGs, &c. 195 Mr. Bradshaw observed, that if his recollection did not completely fail him, Mr. Donovan had been guilty of the most gross prevarication... It was not his intention to offer a single observation, directly or indirectly, until the close of the examination. But if it should prove as he strongly suspected, he should unº move for the committal of Mr. Donovan. He was proceeding to comment on the doctrine laid down by an honourable gentleman under the gallery, when he was called to order by Mr. Croker. $ The Attorney General stated, that he had just received a letter from General Clavering, which he read to the House, and which stated, that having understood that Mrs. Clarke had introduced his name in her last examina- tion, he was desirous of being examined at the bar of the House that night, and more especially touching his having called at Mrs. Clarke's house, as his replies would go di- rectly to impeach that lady's veracity. Mr. W. Smith observed, that if it were intended to commit Mr. Donovan, for having uttered gross falsehoods, the same proceeding must certainly take place with any other witnesses, who, by their conduct, placed themselves in the same predicament. If it could be proved, that Mrs. Clarke had been guilty of such gross breaches of ve- racity, as Mr. Donovan seemed to have been, he was at a loss to know where any person could be found who would oppose her commitment. If the assertion of General Cla- vering were to be weighed against the assertion of Mrs. Clarke, no one could doubt which must kick the beam in the estimation of the Committee; but still the Committee would perceive, that there was a difference between con- victing a person of probable falsehood by producing the testimony of another, and convicting a person of absolute falsehood by the production of his own testimony. The Chancellor of the Exchequer again stated the in- convenience which must result from the indulgence of honourable gentlemen in general observation. The re- marks of the honourable gentleman were by no means cal- led for by what had been stated by his learned friend. Mr. Adam recommended a dispassionate conduct on the part of the Committee. It was natural, that in a popular assembly a great diversity of opinions should exist, and that those opinions should be maintained with a heat not always decorous or digniº. It was most desirable that 2 196 MR. PIERson's ExAMINATIon. this ardour should be repressed on the present important question, and that the patient examination of the subject, which he was anxious that the Committee should pursue, might terminate as it ought, in an impartial discussion, and in that fair and dispassionate manner which became a judicial proceeding of such extreme importance. DAVID PEIRSON was called in and examined by the Committee, as follows: 7 The evidence given by the witness on the 7th instant, being read, J s there any part of that evidence, on which you wish to make any observation or alteration, or any addition? No alteration. On the night that the Duke of York went to Weymouth, about eleven o'clock at night, I was sent out to get a bill changed; I went out, and got it changed, and brought it in, and returned it to Mrs. Clarke; she looked it over, and said it was all right. The Duke of York was present when I gave the bill to Mrs. Clarke, and received it from Mrs. Clarke. With whom have you had any conversation, respecting the evidence you gave when you were here last? Not any body. Have you spoken with nobody about it? With nobody; I have not spoken to any one about it. Have you seen Mrs. Clarke since you gave your evidence here last? No, I have not. Did you see Mrs. Clarke, when you retired from the bar on the former day? ... I saw her, but I did not speak to her. Did she speak to you? She just bowed her head, and said, “Pierson;” I said, “I have been examined, Ma'am.” Did she say any thing else to you? Not any thing. Are you positive that no other person has spoken to you on the sub- ject of the evidence you gave here, or you to them I met Ludowick in the Park, and he asked me; he said that I might be mistaken; yet he could not recollect any thing about it. Was that all that passed between you and Ludowick? It was all that passed between him and me, except he said, that I must make a mistake; that there was a bill brought down one morning, in his presence, of 10l. by Mrs. Favourite, and given to a girl to go out and get change; and he thought I must have made a mistake about that bill. Did not you make a communication to Mr. Wardle, or speak to him, to say you wished to alter your evidence? I called upon Mr. War- dle, and told Mr. Wardle about the bill that I received from Mrs. Clarke, and went and got change for, and returned that night, in the presence of the Duke of York; I told Mr. Wardle that I had done • * . . that. What was the amount of the bill you got change for? I think 100l. but I am not certain. Do you adhere to your former statement, that you had spoken to no person on this subject since you were examined in this House I have not spoken to any person since I was examined. Where did you get that bill changed? I got it changed at Mr. By- field's and Mr. Bridgeman's ; Mr. Bridgeman and his wife changed it for me, confectioners in Vere-street. - Are Byfield and Bridgeman partners? I believe they are. > a-, * M. R. PIERson’s ExAMINATION. 197 Did you try to get that bill changed at any other place? Yes; I went to Mr. Stevens's, in Bond-street, and tried there, but they could not do it for me; they sent out, but could not do it for me. How long have you left Mrs. Clarke's service? It is three years ago now. * # * * Have you seen her frequently since you quitted her service? I never saw her before I saw her at this House. * Did not you see Mrs. Clarke in her chariot a day or two before you gave your evidence at this bar, or on the very day in which you gave your former evidence? The day before she sent for me into Baker-street, where she was in her carriage, to ask me whether ever I had changed any bill, or knew any bill changed; I said, I recollected Mrs. Favourite giving a bill to Ludowick, and his going and getting the bill changed, and bringing it back again; and how I had taken a bill from her the night the Duke of York went to Weymouth, and got her change, and brought it back again; she asked me the amount of it, and I could not tell her; and she said she recollected that very well. Have you made any communication to Mrs. Clarke since that period or do you know how it was communicated to her, that you meant to alter your evidence? I have not seen or made any inquiry of any thing to Mrs. Clarke, How do you account for the circumstance, that at your last examina- tion you did not recollect the particulars which you have now related to the Committee? I had a very bad head-ach, and when I have the head-ach it affects my memory, that I am very forgetful, and I did not think of it; and at the same time, when I was asked about the Duke's servant, I thought I must not answer as I was Mrs. Clarke's servant; or I had thoughts of it then, but as I was not asked; I wished rather to withdraw. * * + " . . . . Are you labouring under that suffering at the present moment. Not In OW, * * * .. -- & Then it was not merely from the defect of memory occasioned by your head-ach that you did not state the circumstance on your former examination; , Yes; it was from that that I did not recollect it; being a stranger, and never at the bar before, I did not know what to say. Did you recollect at the time that you were here before, what you have stated 2 I had some recollection, but I could not tell the sum of the bill, or any thing; but I have since recollected, that I believe the bill I changed that night at eleven o'clock, was 100l. or thereabouts. Did you know before you came to the bar this evening that you were to be re-examined upon this point? No, I did not. e Do you recollect what time of the night it was that the Duke of York set off to Weymouth, on the night this was changed Near one o'clock in the morning. º . . . . . . Did yeu not know when you were the last time at this bar, that you were to tell the truth? I have told the truth, to the best of my knowledge. - . . * * ‘. . . ... How could you state that you had spoken with nobody on the subject of the evidence you have given before, when you immediately after- wards declared you had spoken both with Mr. wº and Ludowick? I did not think what I said then. . . . ow do you reconcile your memory, being so perfect in every other Part of the transaction, and not so perfect as to the amount of the note 193 GENERAL CLAvening's Examin Ation. you got changed? I am not certain of the amount of the note, no urther than I think, to the best of my recollection, it was 100l. . . . Do you know a Miss Taylor? I have seen her at Mrs. Clarke's. ºle frequently at Mrs Clarke's: She was frequently at Mrs. larke’s. . s 4: ... " ' Was she ever there when the Duke of York was there, and in his company # I believe not, I do not recollect to have seen her in his company; she might have been in the house. • Was she usually part of the society when the Duke of York was there? I never saw her in company with the Duke of York. . . . i Was she very intimate with Mrs. Clarke? I believe very intimate. Are your headaches of such a nature as to require medical aid? No: What did you understand to be the real profession of Miss Taylor & I am quite a stranger to it. - . : Do you ever recollect Miss Taylor dining in company with Mrs. £arke at Gloucester-place? Yes I'dé. * * . . . . . . . * Did the Duke everdine there at the same time? No. . . . . . . . . [The witness was directed to withdraw. - [Brigadier-general Clavering having stated to a member of the ' ' House, that he was desirous of being examined, 1 Brigadier-general CLAVERING was called in, and examined by the ; : « ...” ‘’’’ ‘’’. ‘Committee, as follows: Have you senta letter to me (the Attorney-general) this evening? I slid so. . . . . ; '. - r - *r Desiring that you might be examined: I did so. & When did you first know Mrs. Clarke? I believe it was about six • * w t * * - 4. t years ago; I am not exactly precise as to the date. For what purpose did you call at Mrs. Clarke's house recently? It was in consequence of a report that I heard, that every person in town yith whom Mrs. Clarke had eyer had any conversation, was to be called before this honourable House for the purpose of pledging to her Vera- tity, and I heard, among º; that my name was introduced; I ac- cordingly addressed a letter to an honourable member of this House, Colonel YWardle, acopy of which letter I have in my pocket, if it is ne- cessary to produce it, -- $ [General Clavering read the letter.] * * Sux, * - e : * * * * - * + tº 8th Feb. . . . . tº it has been intimated to me, that a letter has been address- ed to you by Mrs. C. which is to be brought forward before the House of Commons, wherein my name is introduced as being capable, among others, of speaking to her veracity. Should this be the case, I am most urgently to request, that my name may be expunged from the said letter. iMy testimony, moreover, would mar the very point which she is desi- rous of supporting, since, she told me wery lately, that she was living with Mr. Mellish; since, being a family man, the world would be inclin- ed to attribute improper motives for my acquaintance with a lady in her situation. * .. * - ‘. . . . . . . . “ Being particularly anxious in this business, I wish to have the ho- nour of seeing you upon it; and presuming that twelve-to-morrow will hotbe an inconvenient hour, will wait on you at that time.” - iſ accordingly, at twelve yesterday, did call upon Mr. Wardle, and I GENERAL CLAVERING’s ex AMINATION. 109 stated to him the purport of the letter which I have had the honour of reading to you; and I further stated, that if it was Mrs. Clarke's inten- tion to summon me before the House, my testimony must certainly go to impeach her veracity, because it is not above a month since, that she absolutely stated to me, that she was living with a Mr. Mel- lish. On my return, after leaving Colonel Wardle's house, it lay in my way to pass by Mrs. Clarke's door, and it occurred to me, that pro- bably it might be a service also to state the same circumstance to her; I called there, and she denied herself, and said that she was extremely ill in bed, but that if I would call in two hours, she would see me; I replied, that it would not be in my power to call at that time; she then sent me word, she was to be seen at home at five o’clock, if I called at that time; I accordingly did call about a quarter after five, and did not see her: the purport of it was to inform her, that if she did call me, I should be under the necessity of stating what I have now had the honour of stating. Is there any thing else which you wish to state to the House? If I may judge from the accuracy of what I have heard, I understand my name was further brought forward last night, as having attempted to influence the vote of an honourable member of this House. I declare, upon my honour, to the best of my recollection, I never spoke to that honourable person upon the question, and it was perfectly unnecessary for me so to have done, because the honourable gentleman always did vote upon the side on which he then gave his vote. g Did you ever represent, that you had influenced that person to give his vote upon that occasion ? Never. Did you exert yourself to bring up Lord John Campbell from Scot- land, to vote upon the defence bill, towards the latter end of 1805, or the beginning of 1806? To the best of my belief and recollection, I never wrote to him nor spoke to him upon the subject. Did you at any time during your acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke, promise to send her recommendations of any officers? Never; but it will be necessary to explain the answer that I gave there more fully. About six weeks ago I received a letter from Mrs. Clarke, stating her in- clination to see me; I called upon her, when she informed me she was extremely anxious to promote a young man who was a lieutenant in the 20th regiment, and that his Royal Highness the Duke of York was also anxious he should be promoted, and that Mr. Greenwood was also anxious he should be promoted. I was just then returned from abroad. She informed me a regulation had been lately entered into, that any member of parliament, or a general officer writing a letter to Colonel Gordon, that recommendation would be taken into consideration im- mediately ; I informed her I was not aware of any such regulation, and that previous to my taking any step of that kind, as it was totally un- known to me, I must know that that person was a deserving character. She accordingly, about two days afterwards, inclosed ine a letter sign- ed by Lieutenant-colonel Ross, of the 20th regiment, stating that Lieu- tenant Sumner, the officer in question, was a very deserving charac- ter. In order to be satisfied that this letter was written by Lieutenant- colonel Ross, I went to the house of Messrs. Greenwood and Cox, and shewed the letter to the head clerk, who informed me that it was the signature of Colonel Ross; I afterwards informed her that it would be absolutely necessary that a proper letter should be written to me upon ..f.a. 200 GENERAL CLAVERING's ExAMINATION. the subject, and as she had told me this Lieutenant Sumner was a nephew to Mr. Sumner, an honourable member of this House, I de- sired that this letter should be written by him to me. Accordingly, a few days afterwards, I received a letter, which was absurd in the ex- £reme, dated from the Temple, and dated something sooner; the letter was so extremely absurd, that I returned it to Mrs. Clarke, stating in my letter, that if she meant it as a joke, it was an extremely bad joke, and that if I sent it to the War-office, it would be very badly received; and I concluded that I was her humble servant. A few days after- wards, she sent me another letter, signed by this same Mr. Sumner, which letter I have in my pocket, but which second letter I took no notice of, in consequence of the extreme absurdity of the former. . . . S [The letter was delivered in and read.] & 4 ir - “My brother, Lieutenant Sumner, of the 20th foot, being desirous of purchasing a company in the 79th regitment, and having served in the above-mentioned corps, with the entire approbation of his com- manding officer, (if not in that, in any other old regiment of the line,) I take the liberty of requesting, that you will adopt the necessary steps for promoting his wishes by such recommendation of him, to the Duke of York, as his conduct appears to merit; and you will confer a very great favour on, . . . *. - . . . . . . . . “Your most obedient, - “humble servant, “ CHAs. C. SUMNER. ºf Temple, Jan. 17th, 1809. . . . . . - * “Brig. Gen. Clavering.” Did Mrs. Clarke represent to you who this Mr. Sumner was, from whom the letter came? She informed me upon my first interview with her, that he was a nephew of Mr. Sumner the member for Surrey. . . . . . . . . . - - Were you informed who the Mr. Sumner was, who was supposed to have written that hetter? ~ I never was informed who the Mr. Sumner was, who wrote that letter, but I have been informed this evening, that there is no such person in existence. ; : , " ' - f At either of the times you called upon Mrs. Clarke yesterday, did you leave any, and what message, and with whom 2 If I mistake not, I stated that to the honourable House before; I left no other message than that I should call at about a quarter after five, as she had appoint- ed that time for being at home. . . . . . . . . . Did the gentleman who was with you, leave any message in your hearing? There was no person with me. . . , - At either of the times? On the second time, I certainly said it was extremely extraordinary that she had gone out, when she had appoint- ed that time for seeing me. . . . . . . . . . Did you leave any message purporting what was the nature of your visit to her? I left no message whatever, but that which I have had the honour of stating. : . . - I understood you to say, that you impeach the credibility of the tes- timony of Mrs. Clarke, upon the ground that she represented herself to be living with a Mr. Mellish; did she represent herself to you, as living with Mr. Mellish the member for Middlesex She did not Śāy that he was the member for Middlesex, - - . . . GENERAL CLAVERING's ExAMINATION. 201 Have you any, and what reason to suppose that she did not live under the protection of a Mr. Mellish? That which passed in this ho- nourable House a few evenings past; it was proved that she did not live with Mr. Mellish. Then I understand you to say, that you have no other reason for impeaching the credibility of the testimony of Mrs. Clarke, but the statement that she lived under the protection of a Mr. Mellish? Not any, that I am at present aware of. . Have you any reason, independent of any circumstances that you have read or heard of, to impeach her testimony, or to consider her not worthy of belief? I certainly do not conceive her worthy of belief, from having imposed upon me, in the manner she had, and from the variety of contrary evidence it does appear she has delivered before this honourable House. How has she imposed upon you? ... By having informed me that she was under the protection of Mr. Mellish, which I understand not to be the case. * How do you understand that not to be the case? From its appear- # to have been proved to the contrary before this honourable Oil Se. Have you any other reasons whatever, than those you have stated, to believe that she has imposed upon you? None, that I am at pre- sent aware of. *. Have you not stated in evidence to this Committee, that she has im- posed upon you by stating that there was a false letter written to you, in the name of Suinner If i am correct in my recollection, I did not state this evening that she had imposed upon me on that account. Have you not stated, that in the case of the defence bill your name had been used, which you denied to be true? I stated that I had heard so, but not from herself. Are you acquainted with Miss Taylor? If it is the Miss Taylor who has been examined before this House, I certainly have seen her at Mrs. Clarke's. Have you frequently seen her at Mrs. Clarke's in Gloucester-place? I may have seen her probably twice or three times there. Was she there as the friend and companion of Mrs. Clarke, when wou saw her there? I certainly believe not, because Mrs. Clarke in- ormed me, that she kept å boarding-school at Chelsea. When she was in Gloucester-place, was she not upon a visit to Mrs. Clarke, and associating with her, living with her for the day? That is more than I can reply to, not recollecting having ever been in Glou- cester place more than twice. º * . . Did yod not state that Mrs. Clarke had informed you that a regu- lation existed, by which a letter of recommendation of an officer, re- questing promotion, forwarded by a member of parliament or a ge- neral officer, would obtain consideration; and have you ascertained whether such a regulation does exist? I certainly have informed my- self, that any application from an honourable member of parliament, or from any general officer, will always meet with attention at the office of his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief. . - “Is the sense in which you understand attention will be bestowed upon a letter so sent, the sense in which you understood the communi- cation you received from Mrs. Clarke? I really do not understand the question. , , , * * * . & ! •e a 202 GENERAL GLAVERINg's ExAMINATION. Do you understand the regulation, as you suppose it to exist, to be the same as she described it to you? Certainly not, because she gave me reason to understand, that, during the time I was absent abroad on foreign service, a regulation had been issued, and no regulation had been issued upon the subject; I cannot say that she absolutely in those direct words said so, but she gave me to understand it, and I did so unders' and it. - In what respect does the representation she gave of this regulation, and what you understand to be the practice of the Commander in Chief, differ? . They differ most widely, in consequence of no such regulation as she informed me of having ever been issued; but it was always understood, that a recommendation from a member of this House would be attended to, provided the object so recommended, on further inquiry, was found worthy of promotion. You have stated, that you called at Mrs. Clarke's twice recently, to request that you might not be called upon to speak to her veracity; had you any other communication with Mrs. Clarke, relative to the subject now undergoing the consideration of this Committee 2 I cer- tainly had another object in view besides, that I did not wish my name to be brought torward in a case of this kind, because the world might naturally imagine that, having had any communication with a lady of that description, it might have been a communication of a criminal na- ture, . upon my honour, never did exist. º Had you no other reason for requesting that you might not be called upon 2 None but what I haye had the honour of stating to this Com- mittee. You have stated, that you impeach the credibility of the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, because she told you that she lived under the pro- tection of a Mr. Mellish, which you think contradicted by the evidence that came before this Committee; what reason did she give you, or what reasons induced you to suppose that the Mr. Mellish she alluded to must be the member for Middlessex 2 If I am correct, I did not say that it was Mr. Mellish, the member for Middlesex. Having stated, that you called twice upon Mrs. Clarke, to request that your name should not be mentioned, or that you should not be called upon to give any testimony against her; what motive has in- duced you to come now to give this evidence? Because my name having appeared in the public papers, I was desirous of wiping away the imputation which I have already referred to. Are you acquainted with Mr. Dowler I never heard of him, ex- cepting through the medium of the public prints. Do you recollect having had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon political transactions, at the period of 1804 and 1805 I have no recollection of any conversation of the kind; I am certain that none of that nature then took place. No conversation on the subject of the debates that were taking place in this House, and who was likely to vote on one side, and who on the other? I have no recollection of any circumstance of the kind, and I am almost positive that no conversation of that nature ever did take place, as it was a business in which I did in no way whatever con- cern myself.’. Had you any communication whatever on the subject of army pro- motions with Mrs. Clarke 2 I never proposed any conversation of MARøUIs of Titch Fºo's ExAMINATION. 208 that kind, nor do I regollegt any hºwing ever existed, excepting at the period f before alluded to, when she requested I would recommend to the consideration of the Duke of York, Lieptenant Summer, of the 29th regiment: . . * I understand you then to say, you had never at any time any come munication or conversation whatevºr with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of army promotions, except in the case of Lieutenapt Sumner * Cere tainly not, as being the subject of conversation. Had you any incidental conversatign with Mrs. Clarke upon that subject? A period of so many years, having elapsed since that time, it is impossible to speak positively and accurately to 3 question so close as that, but to the best of my belief I do not think I had. -t Do you of your own knowledge know that Mrs. Clarke used her in- fluence in favour of any person whatever in the army with the Com- mander in Chief? I do not. Do you of your own knowledge know of any person that asked her to use her influence with the Commander in Chief upon that subject I am not acquainted with any person that ever did ; I have heard re- ports º nature, but I canãot bring to my recollection any person ositively. * g p Then you state positively that yºu do not know ºf any transaction of that nature? None to my certain knowledge. - Give me a direct and positive answer to that question. I do not know of any transaction of that nature. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. º The MARQUIS of TITCHFIELD, a Member of the House attend- ing in his place, was examined as follows: Will your Lordship state every thing you are acquainted with as to an application from the Rey. Mr. Baseley to the Duke of Portland Mr. Baseley called upon the Puke of Portland on the 3d of January, not being able to see him, left this letter, which the servant gave to my noble relation; it is dated No. 9, Norfolk-street, Grosvenor- Square. * Sq [The Marquis read the letter.] “Norfºlk-street, Grospenor-square. “My LoRp Dukg, * * * * * “I wished particularly to see your Grace upon the most private business. I cannot be fully open by letter. #: object is, to solicit your Grace's recommendation to the ºleanery of Salisbury, or some other deanery, for which the most ample pecuniary remuneration I will instantly give a draft to your Grace. * “For Salisbury, Three Thousand Pounds.--—I hope your Grace will pardon this, and instantly commit these lines to the flames.—ºr I am now writing for the benefit of administration, a most interesting pamphlet.” Excuse this openness; and I remain your Grace's g •, - “MQst obedient and obliged servant, + * - “ T. BASELEY. “P.S.; will attend your Graçº whenever you may appoint, but sincerely beg your Grage's'secrecy.” t- fndorsed: - - “ Delivered by the writer himself to my servant, on Tuesday 3d January, 1809, at B. House, P.” . . . . . 204 MARQUIs of TitchFIELD's ExAMINATION." This letter was delivered by the writer himself, and is indorsed by the Duke of Portland, the 3d of January in the present year. Upon receiving this letter, my noble relation, finding that the writer of it was gone, gave particular orders that Mr. Baseley never.should be admitted into his house, and the same day wrote a letter to the bishop of London, of which I have a copy in my hand, inclosing the note which I have just delivered in at the table.- : " ' " " r [The Marquis read the letter.] “Burlington House, Tuesday, 3d January, 1808. “My Lorp, - - - “The person by whom the note inclosed was left at my house this morning being possessed, as I understand, of one if not of two chapels in your Lordship's diocese, I consider” it to be incumbent upon me, from the sense I have of the duty I owe to the public, as well as from my respect for your Lordship, not to suffer you to remain uninformed of it; and I accordingly take the liberty of laying it before you. “I have reason to believe that the note is written by the person whose name is subscribed to it, as I have heretofore received notes or letters from him, the writing of which, to the best of my recollection, very much, if not exactly, resembles that of the note enclosed; and one if not moré of which was written at my house in consequence of my declining to see him. The note enclosed, however, he brought with him ; and on my desiring to be excused seeing him, he gave it to my servant, and immediately left my house. - - - -- “As I have no copy of the note, I must desire your Lordship to return it to me.” - . . ; " Indorsed: . * • , * The Lord Bishop of London, 3d January, 1809.” - I do not know whether it is necessary I should read the letter which my noble relation received from the bishop of London in conse- quence. - ** * < = 4* * : [The Marquis read the letter.] - “Fulham House, Jan. 5th, 1809. “My LoRD, – f * * * - “It is impossible for me to express the astonishment and indignation which were excited in my mind, by the perusal of the letter which your Grace has done me the honour of enclosing: a mark of your attention for which I must beg you to accept my best thanks. - “It is too true that this wretched creature, Baseley, has one if not two chapels in thy diocese. I have long known him to be a very weak man, but till this insufferable insult upon your Grace, I did not know fie was so completely wicked, and so totally void of all principle: and as your Grace is in possession of the most incontestable proof of his guilt, 'you will, I trust, inflict upon him the disgrace and punishment he so richly deserves. . . . . - º, “ I have the honour to be, “With the highest respect, - * “My Lord, e - - * - “Your Grace's most humble, and obedient servant, * Fulham House, 5th Jan. 1809.” B. London. Indorsed: “The Bishop of London.” That is the whole of the transaction. ‘MR. Tyson's ExAMINATIon. 205 Mr. THOMAS PARKER was called in, and examined as follows: Are you furnished with your books of accounts I have no more than I had yesterday, nor I do not understand that there is any more; I was not acquainted that I was to attend at the House this evening till I had the summons, but I sent to desire them to let me have all the books and papers that had Mrs. Clarke’s name upon them. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. WILLIAM TYSON was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: Have you got any account of checks of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, that were sent into your house by the late Messrs. Birkett of . Princes-street? Not any. Have you any notes of hand, or bills Not any. * Have you any memorandum in your books of any such bills having passed through your house 2 Not to my knowledge. Have you the late Messrs. Birketts' accounts at your house 2 Yes, we have. Have you examined those accounts before you came here this even- ing 2 Yes, I have. Was not the order that you received, to bring those accounts with ou ? It was. Why did you not comply with that order I have brought a state- ment of Birkett's checks. Had any body spoken to you upon this subject before you were served with a summons this day ? No one. Do you take upon you to say that nobody to your knowledge has been at your house upon this subject, within these last ten days? Not to my knowledge. - - Are you a partner in the house I am not. Why was it you did not comply with the Order of the House? [The Order was delivered in and read.] You have stated that you have a list of checks with you, what is that list? In the year 1803, October 7, Parker and Birketts draft pay- able to Clarke or bearer for 120l; in the year 1804, April 26, payable to Clarke or bearer 50l; August 11, payable to Clarke or bearer 70l.; September 15, payable to Clarke or bearer 50l. ; in the year 1805, March 13, payable to Clarke or bearer 364!. That was the whole I saw payable in the name of Clarke. Whose checks are those; by whom are they drawn 2 The first four I believe were drawn by Parker and Birketts; the remaining ene by Birketts and Docker You have stated §at you have examined Messrs. Birketts account, and find in that account no checks whatever by his Royal Highness the 10uke of York, as having passed through your hands? My instructions were to see what checks were drawn by Birketts and Dockery in favour p of Mrs. Clarke, which I have done. Do you happen to know that any bills were ever left at the banking- house of Marsh and Company by Messrs. Birkett, in which Mrs. Clarke's name appears to have been the drawer or the acceptor 2 I have no knowledge of any, [The witness was directed to withdraw. 206 colonel, LoftAINE’s ExAMINATIon. COLONEL LORAINE was called in, and examined by the Com- ..mittee, as follows: Did you hold any situation in the Commander in Chief's office, at the time when Colonel French's levy was first instituted I did. What situation did you hold at that time? Assistant Military Secretary. State what you know respecting Colonel French's application to be permitted to raise a levy of men at that time. . It came in the usual course of office, and passed regularly through the office, and was ex- amined as all things of that kind are, and every pains taken to ascertain whether it was a levy that would answer the purpose or not. Did the application of Colonel French come to the office in writing, in the first instance It did. Can you produce that writing? These are the terms which were produced in the first instance. * [The terms were read.] What was done upon this proposal It appeared to have lain by for some time, and Colonel French wrote another letter. [Note was read, dated March 5th, 1804.] What situation did Colonel Clinton hold at that time 2 Military Secretary to the Commander in Chief. - Was any answer sent to that note by Colonel Clinton? To the best of my recollection when this note came to the office it was sent to me, and I was desired to examine the terms that were offered by Colonel French. At that time I was in the habit of consulting and communi- cating with General Hewitt, who was then Inspector-General of the Recruiting service, and I shewed the terms to him, and he desired that Colonel French might be referred to him ; in consequence of that, a reference was made, which I believe will appear by the correspondence. [A letter read, dated Horse Guards, 7th March, 1804.] - Do you recollect what was the next step taken upon this proposal.” As far as I recollect, Colonel French applied to General Hewitt, as directed ; and General Hewitt of course examined the terms that he roposed, and modelled them as he thought fit for the Commander in Chief's consideration, and after it had gone through the whole of the regular course in the office, the letter of service was issued by the Secretary at War, which is usual in those cases. a Is there any letter of March 20th 2 Yes, there is; Golonel French made various representations with regard to his levy, before it was finally settled. Can you by referring to those papers, give any account of those different applications? There is one representation of the 20th March, which I hold in my hand. Is there one of the 18th or 20th of April 2 There is a copy of a letter from Colonel Clinton of the 18th of April, returning the proposals with , the Commander in Chief’s remarks thereupon. ". [The letter was read.] The proposals in short, after having been referred to General Hewitt, were accepted with certain alterations, which appeared in red ink in the margin of that paper ? They were. colonel, Lor Aine's ExaminArion. 207 Are you aware of any other alterations that took place in the eourse of the levy, and how were they introduced, if any To the best of may recollection, the bounty was raised at two different times during that hevy, because the bounties to the regiments ºf the line had beeñ increased. - • * • # Are there ańy letters among those papers which give à account of that circumstance? Unless I had time to look over the whele papers, I do not know that I could speak to it. ~ * y Is the course of office, alter the levy is approved, to send it të the Secretary at War: It must necessarily go to the Secretary at Wat, because it is by him that the letter of service is issued. Were you in office in April, 1805 ! I was. , - Will you see whether there is any letter of the 16th April, 1805, frera the Commander in Chief to the Secretary at War There is. [The letter was read.] Subsequent to that letter, do you recollect any application from Messrs. "... and Sandon, proposing some alterations in this levy 2 Yes, I have a proposal of the 20th April. What is the effect of that proposal : . They proposed that a certain mumber of officers should be employed in the levy, of a different de- scription from what they had before; that appears to be the drift of it, and also a change with regard to the non-commissioned officers. Was there any answer to that letter? There was, of the 25th April, 1805, a letter from Colonel Gordon. - [The letter was read.] What situation do you now fill? I am one of the Commissioners for the affairs of Barracks. * What situation did you hold before you were a Barrack Commis- sioner? I was Lieutenant-Colonel of the 91st regiment, and Assistant Military Secretary to the Commander in Chief. How long were you Assistant Military Secretary to the Commandet in Chief? About seven years. - * What was your rank in the army when you first became Assistant Military Secretary 2 Major of the 9th regiment of foot. Did you purchase the Lieutenant Colonelcy? I did not. TXid you ever join your regiment as Lieutenant-Colonel? Never: when my regiment was ordered on service I twice offered to join my. regiment, and the Cominander in Chief did not accept either of my offers, saying I must remain in my present situation, meaning at the Horse Guards; after this, I did not think that it would be becoming in me to offer again, because it might appear that I was .# my services, when I knew my services would not be accepted ; and I beg leave to add, that before I came to the Horse Guards, I had been 23 ears in the service, and constantly with my regiment; and therefore did not think that I was so peculiarly called upon, as perhaps a young man who had never seen any service. Are you now in the army In consequence Óf having served 39 }. when I accepted of a civil situation in the Barrack Départment, S Majesty was graciously pleased to allowine to retain the rank I now hold, but that rank is not to be progressive. . Did you sell your Lieutenant Colonelcy? I did. 208 MR. Donov AN's ExAMINATIon. At what price? I know of no other price but the regulated price allowed by his Majesty. Where have you served? I served four campaigns during the American war, in America; I have served between five and six years in the West Indies; during that period I served with the late Lord Grey at the capture of the French West ºndia Islands; and I have served on the Continent of Europe. . - Did Colonel French's levy go through all the ordinary stages in the office; was there any thing irregular or out of the way in the manner in which it was, proposed or adopped It went through the regular course of office, and if I may be allowed to say it, I think it was more hardly dealt with than any other levy at the time going on, and for this reason, that General Hewitt, who was Inspector-General of the recruit- ing service, had a great prejudice against any officer that he considered a recruiter. Were the different applications referred to General Hewitt before they were accepted? p invariably laid every thing of the kind before General Hewitt that came into my hands; as I had constant commu- nications with him, it was impossible to find any opinion so good as his upon that subject. - } Were the suggestions of General Hewitt in the alterations that he proposed, adopted by the Commander in Chief? To the best of my recollection, almost always in those cases. Do you remember in the course of those proceedings, any alterations proposed by General Hewitt that were not adopted ; I cannot exactly recollect that, but the whole of the proposals were modelled as far as possible according to his wishes and opinions. Is General Hewitt now in the kingdom He is not; he is Comman- der in Chief in the East Indies. - Do the papers in your hands contain every written communication which has passed upon the subject of Colonel French's levy in the Commander in Chief's office 2 It is impossible for me to answer that Guestion, not being now in the office, .#having had no interference or hand at all in looking over these papers. Then you are not able to state that these are the whole of the corn- munications upon this subject? No. Mr. JEREMIAH DONOVAN was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Did you know Major Tonyn, of the 31st regiment? I did. Relate what you know respecting Major Tonyn's promotion from the 48th regiment to the majority of the 31st. I believe it was about the month of March, 1804, that Captain Sandon called upon me, and told me that he had an opportunity of promoting a gentleman to a ma- jority; if I knew of any gentleman who had claims that would entitle him to it, he could forward the promotion. I mentioned this circum- stance to Captăin Tonyn, who was a very old officer, I believe he had served about 23 years. The terms upon which he was to obtain that romotion, as far as I can recollect, was 500l. Captain Tonyn waited or some time, and he became impatient. I believe about the month of May or June, he said, as there were a number of field officers to be promoted, he considered, as he had not obtained that promotion MR. DONow AN’s ExAMINATION. 209 through Captain Sandon, in the mean time, he should withdraw his name from Captain Sandon, and take his chance in the regular line of promiotion: in .."; of which I immediately waited on Captain Sandon, and apprized him of it. Captain Sahdon requested he might be introduced to Captain Tonyń : he was. Captain Sandon ar- gued with him, and told him that it was in consequence of his recº- mendation that he would be gazetted. Captain Tonyn, on the con- trary, said, that his father, General Tonyn, had recommended him for a majority; and that, as he understood a vast number of Captains were to be promoted to inajorities on the augmentation, he certainly should be promoted without the interest of Captain Sandon; however they agrãed upon some terms; what they were I do not know, I had no- thing to do further with the pecuniary transaction, nor did I know, till the May twelvemonth following, the year 1805, how it was that Major Tonyn obtained that promotion. - What didT. kfiew in the year 1805, to which that refers I knew that Major Tonyn was promoted. & Is that all you know? But Major Tonyn's promotion game out in the general prohiotions of augmented field officers. Is that all you know * That was all I knew till the year 1805. Majer Tonyn, I believe, was gazetted in August, 1804, and then, to my as- tonishment, ſ was informed by Mrs. Clarke that she was the person who had obtained that promotion. . Do you know whether the 500l. was lodged upon the first agreement in the hands of any particular person The money I believe, was not * in the hands of any person in the first agreerfient, - 6 you know whether any money was lodged prior to the gazetthºg of Major Tonym: I did net know that any money was lodged prior to the gazetting of Major Tonym. . . Do you know whether any money upoff that communication was lodged at all or not? I do not know that any ſhoney was lodged pre- vious to that period. *- I do not ask previous to afly particular petiod, but do you know that any sum of money was lodged with any body on that account? Theſe was no sum of inoney lodged on that account; but I believe, a gentle- than had undertaken to pay. Captain Sandon the sum of money which I understand was paid to Captain Sanden; but I do tot know it. Po you know who that gentleman was I do. State who he was. Mr. Gilpin. i - ..Who was Mr. Gilpin An army clothier, and agent to the 48th re- giment. ! - - Do you know at what period this sum was lodged with Mr. º I do not know that any sum was lodged with Mr. Gilpin; Mr. Gilpin, I believe, utidertook to pay the money. w Do you know that Mr. Gilpin did pay the money? I do hot further than having been told so. * , t Do you know, of your own knowledge, who did pay that honey? I do not, nor when it was paid, nor how it was paid. … Who told you ? Mrs. Clarke. e - What did Mrs. Clarke tell you ? She told me that she had received a sum of money for the promotion of Captain Tonym to a majority in the 31st tegiment. - P . 210 MR. Donov AN’s ExAMINATION. Did Mrs. Clarke tell you what sum of money it was I do not exact. Lly recollect what sum it was. * , Are you positive that you cannot recollect what sum it was 2 I am. Did Mrs. Clarke tell you from whom she had received that sum 2 - #.. me she had received that sum, whatever it was, from Captain - Nº.3 Il ClOn. ' > ... You have stated, that Captain Huxley Sandon told you that he had the power of getting promotion? He . " ... State what passed upon that subject, as nearly as you can recollect, , between Captain Huxley Sandon and yourself. Captain Huxley San- don told me that he had the power of obtaining promotion through - some gentleman a friend of his; but Captain Huxley Sandon never ... told me who the person was, through whom he did obtain the promo- ...tion, until I met him, and conversed with him upon this subject, in the room where the witnesses had been waiting near this house. State who that person was, whom Captain Huxley Sandon named , this night... Mrs. Clarke. - - State whether Captain Huxley Sandon has ever stated to you his power of promoting officers, independent of this one circumstance of Captain Tonyn. At the same time he mentioned to me, that he could promote lieutenants to companies; I think captains to majorities; , majorities to lieutenant-colonels; and in the first instance, he told me, it was in consequence of the new levies that were to be raised, or some augmentation to, the army. - -Did Captain Huxley Sandon ever speak to you about other promo- tions, unconnected with those new levies He never spoke to me as to any other º. than those I have mentioned now ; I was imposed . by the supposition, that it was new levies, or an augmentation to 6 army. - - : You ão not, of your own knowledge, know of any other transaction of the nature in which Captain Huxley Sandon was concerned I be- lieve that a Major Shaw applied, and that I left his papers in the hands g Captain Sandon; but he could not obtain the promotion for Major , Silaw. . . - = What was the promotion Major Shaw wanted Permission to pur- a chase a lieutenant-colonelcy, or to get a lieutenant-colonelcy without purchase, by paying a sum of money for it. . . . . " - it: Major Shaw did not establish that wish? Not through that channel. w - - - * - Through what other channel did he establish it? Major Shaw's pa- pers were delivered back to me, and returned to Major Shaw. I be- lieve they were brought to me by a Mr. Macdougall, as I recollect, and I believe they were returned to Mr. Macdougall. Some time afterwards, Mr. Macdougall asked me, if I could procure that promo- ...tion for Colonel Shaw. A lady, had called upon me, and said, that she had an opportunity of promoting Major Shaw's wishes. Who was that lady? Mrs. Hovenden. * Where does' Mrs. Hovenden reside at present? In Williers-street, York-buildings. - At what thumber At No. 29. t. Was that lady at the house with you the other night : She was. Is Major Shaw now at the Cape of Good Hope 2 I really do not . MR. Donov AN's ExAMiNATfGN. 2 #1 know, but I understood he got the promotion, and went to the Cape of Good Hope. • ' " " - " - - - - - " ' " * * State whether, through the medium of this lady you haye named; any other promotions have been effected, in the army? Not to my knowledge; it may be necessary to explain the business of Major Shaw, because it was not through that introduction at that period that Major Shaw obtained that. * * :- * * a * Was this the only circumstance of the sort that was carried through . ºrium of that lady? I know not of any that was carried, not even Of that. ' ' - - - - - Do you know of any that through her medium was attempted I º: heard her say that some were attempted, but I cannot say what ey were. -- # 4 %. do not know that any money was lodged, upon Captain Tonyn's attempt at promotion? I do not : 1 have already explained that Mr. § I understood, undertook to pay it, but that no money was OGºeſsle i ou have stated that Captain Sandon informed you that he had the means of promoting Lieutenants to companies, Captains to Majorities; . and Majors to Lieutenant-colonelcies; in consequence of that informa- tion, did you negotiate such promotion I did not negotiate any pro- motion through Captain Sandon, except that of Major Tonyn, by in- troduction. * Were you to receive any remuneration for that introduction f I was. What were you to receive? 25l. Did you receive it? I did. * tº v * |Have you, since you were last examined, recollected any negotiation which you carried on for promotions in the army, besides those which you mentioned in your last examination ? I have never thought of any. Are you now certain that those were the only ones in which you ever engaged I am not certain. * You have stated, that you learnt from Mrs. Clarke, in the year 1805; that she had received 500l. 2 No, I do not know the sum exactly. That she received a sum of money in consequence of Major onyn's romotion; at what time of the year did you receive that information ? t was in the month of May, 1805; Major Tonyn had been gazetted in August, 1804. - w Where was it you received that information from Mrs. Clarke At . Mrs. Clarke's house in Gloucester-place. > # * * On what occasion were you at Mrs. Clarke's house in Gloucesters lace I was there in consequence of a report which had been circulatº ed, that I was the author of some scurrilous paragraphs against his Royal Highness the Duke of York. . I had traced my information to Mrs. Clarke, and from her I traced it to Captain Sutton, but not the first time I saw her, and that was, the reason I waited on Mrs. Clarke; I had no other introduction but that. - - Did you receive that information at your first visit, or your second visit, or your third visit At my second visit, as near as I can recollect. Do you recollect any other conversation that passed between you and Mrs. Clarke at that second visit? I do not recollect the conver- sation; it was not of any consequence. Did any conversation pass ºpºs promotions in the army? I 2 £12 MR. Donov An's ExAMINATION: .º. do not recollect that any conversation passed relative to promotícts in the army at that time; it might be so. Do you recollect that any such conversation passed at any other time 2 I believe on the third visit. What was that conversation ? That Mrs. Clarke had been the means of promoting Major Tonyn. You have stated, that you received that information at your second visit? I am not certain whether it was at the second or third; I do not say it was absolutely the second, but I believe it was ; I had no expec- tation of being called upon, and therefore I made no minutes or memo- randum Óf it. - Are you certain any conversation took place respecting Major Tonyn at the third visit? I am not certain whether it did or not; I now it did not on both meetings. You have stated, that in your second visit to Mrs. Clarke, no con- versation took place about military promotions, except that of Major Tonyn ; did any such conversation take place at any other time? I believe it did, relative to Major Shaw. __Never, as to any case but that of Major Tonyn and Major Shaw Not in which I was concerned. Are you sure you were never concerned in any other? I am not §ll re. Did Mrs. Clarke at any time inform you, whether his Royal High- ness the Duke of York knew any thing of the transaction of Major Tonyn's promotion ? Mrs. Clarke never informed me of his Royal Highness's having known any thing of it, till November last. What did she state to you in November last? She mentioned, amongst a number of other things, that she had been extremely ill used by his Royal Highness the Duke of York; that in consequence of that, unless his Royal Highness did that which was right towards her, she would publish the whole of the transactions which had passed relative to promotions, during the time she lived with his Royal High- I} tº SS, T But not relative to Major Tonyn's Not particularly to Major Tonyn’s. Did Mrs. Clarke ever inform you that she had mentioned to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, that she had received a sum of imoney on account of Major Tonyn's promotion? Never till then, the month of November last; on the contrary, when I visited her in Glou- cester-place, in the first instance, she, so far from mentioning his Royal Highness being privy to it, was so alarmed at my name being aunounc- ed as a friend of Major Shaw, or any other person, that Major Shaw got his papers back immediately, gave Mrs. Hovenden 10l. for them, and Said he would have done with §. Clarke, for that my name had prevented his promotion taking place; and in consequence of that, I had no more to do with Major Tonyn in his promotion, which I under- stood took place about twelve months afterwards, nor did I ever see him ince, but once on Ludgate-Hill. º • ‘What did Mrs. Clarke say, in November last, on the subject of Major Tonyn I have mentioned what she said of Major Tonyn, that , she had received a sum of money, which she should publish among a number of other circumstances, unless his Royal Highness did that by her which she thought he ought to do. * MR. Donov AN's ExAMINATION. 213 “What sum : The sum which she had received for Major Tonyn's aromotion. -- - 3. And that she had informed the Duke of York of it? No, never. - You have said, that General º recommended his son for pro- motion? I have said, that Major Tonyn informed me that General Tonyn had recommended him. . w Do you know how long Captain Tonyn had had the rank of Captain in the army? I believe aine or ten years. . . . . Can you tell in the course of your business, whether you do not $now that that is a very long period for an officer to remain in the rank? of Captain before he gets to the rank of Major? I understand, that a Captain of ten years standing is entitled, and generally receives, the brevet of a Major. . . . . Are you certain that it was not by brevet he got his rank? I be- lieve it was by augmentation, and not by brevet, for he was appoint- ed to the 31st regiment; had it been by brevet, he would have con-" tinued in the 48th. - . . . Have you not stated, that in your interview with Mrs. Clarke in November last, she informed you his Royal Highness was acquainted with the circumstance of money given for Captain "Ponyn's promo- *ion 2 She said that she should publish it, but she did not tell me that his Royal Highness was acquainted with it. - Was that in Gloucester-place that you saw Mrs. Clarke in Novem- her last? No, it was in Bedford-place. * * [The following question and answer were read over to the witness:] * Q. Did Mrs. Clarke eyer inform you, that she had mentioned to bis Royal Highness the Duke of York, that she had received a sum of money on account of Major Tonyn's promotion? A. Never till then, the month of November last.” - Mr. Donovan. That is not what I mean to say. Chairman. State how you wish that answer to be taken down. No : in November last Mrs. Clarke told me, that if his Royal Highness did not do that which was right by her, she would publish the case of Ma- jor Tonyn, with many others. - * Did she, in November last, communicate to you, that she had in- formed his Royal Highness the Duke of York of her having taken a sum from Major Tonyn 2 She did not; she only threatened to publish that, with many other cases. I understand you to have said, she was extremely anxious that it should not come to the ears of the Duke of York, when you saw Mrs. Clarke in Gloucester-place; is that so It is. What reason did she give for that anxiety? She said, that if his Royal Highness the Duke of York should know of her having received any money for military promotions, that she should be disgraced, and the officer would lose his commission. * * You are sure, upon your recollection, that that was the reason which was assigned? I am. When Captain Sandon stated to you, that he had the means of ob- taining promotions through almost all the gradations of the army, did he state to you any particular terms upon which those promotions were tº be had Î recollect that he said, for a majority five hundred gui- neas; but I do not recollect that he stated the particulars of every coin- Ali ISSiOſl. * * , * - * q - | * 3.14. MR, ponov AN's ExAMINATIon. Had you any reason, either at the time or afterwards, to consider Captain Sandon, in that business, as the agent of Mrs. Clarke? Never, till Mrs. Clarke herself told me so. - * - * Did you visit Mrs. Clarke, in November last, by her own solicita- tion? It was by her own solicitation. . . 4. You have stated, that she used certain threats, unless conditions were eed to; what terms did she state to be the terms of her forbearance? e payment of her debts, and the settlement of an annuity. Did she apply to you, to participate in carrying those threats into execution? She .. t * To what extent? I am afraid I should be obliged to implicate many persons, with whom she took very great liberties, in mentioning their names, as persons who were, in fact, instigating her to these acts. State what Mrs. Clarke said to you, to induce you to participate in that business. Mrs. Clarke said that the Duke of York, unless he came to these terms, must be ousted from his command; that he would then retire to Oatlands, where he would soon cut his throat; that was her ex- TeSSIOI). p Was that all that passed? I endeavoured to prevail upon her to in- form me who were her associates in the plot; her answer was, that if I would go with the tide, she would provide for me and my friends very handsomely, for in that case she would have a carte blanche, that would enable her to do more business than she ever had done: that was her expression. : * * t Did she state to you who were her associates in this plot, as you term it? She said that she was bound to secrecy, though she longed to in- form me ; that was her expression. + - Then how could you implicate others, if she did not inform you who they were 2 There was one or two persons, whose name she mention- ed, as having offered her money for some papers. º Who were they? One was Sir Francis Burdett; she said that Sir Francis Burdett, about eighteen months before, had offered her 4,000l. for the papers, but that she would not then take less than 10,000l. I did not . her. t * * * * ‘. Who were the others? I do not wish to mention. [The Chairman directed the witness to answer the question.] There was but one niore; I do not choose to mention the other person. e . . . . . • ? & [The Chairman informed the Witness, it was the sense of the Committee he must answer the question.] • T * It was Captain Dodd that she mentioned as the other person who wished to get the papers from her. • a * s How was this tº be carried into execution? She did not inform me. You have stated, that if you gave names, . must implicate a num- ber of people; how much further do you mean to go with the names to make out a number of people? I do not mean to go any further. [The following words of the witness, in a preceding part of the examination, were read:] ; ty. " " . . . . . . . . ; “I am afraid I should be obliged to implicate many persons with whom she took very great liberties, in nientićhing their names, aſ persons who were, in fact, instigating her to these acts.” ... " Do you mean that two constitute the many you spoke of cAPTAIN SANDoN’s ExAMíNATfon. 215 [The witness referred to a paper.] ... • what is that paper to which you are referring? Memorandums. Do you mean that two constitute the many you spoke of Two can- not constitute many. . * *- Then name the others. I am in an error in that, in mentioning *Thall W. * * r * Wät terms, or what consideration, did she inform you Captain Dodd had offered for the papers? She did not mention what he had offered for the papers, but that he had wished to possess the papers. Do you know what situation Captain Dodd is in 2 I do not. 4. cl Does he hold any official situation, that you know of I believe he Oes. What is it? I do not know what it is that he holds, but, I believe . holds some official situation under his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. - Do you, of your own knowledge, know of any other persons concern- ed in this transaction ? I do not ; I do not know that they are, further than the report of Mrs. Clarke; nor do I believe it. * You referred to some memorandums; why did you refer to them, and what do they contain They contained some notes taken at dif- ferent periods; I believe the best way will be to read the whole. - [The Witness was directed to withdraw. £aptain HUXLEY SANDON was called in, and having been in- formed by the Chairman that he was to answer to such facts as were within his own knowledge, and not to those facts which he was ac- . with only from hearsay, was examined by the Committee, :as followS : i Did you know Major Tonyn ! Yes, I did. - State what you know respecting his promotion from the 48th to the Majority of the 31st regiment. In an interview with Mrs. Clarke, she asked me if I had any military friends that wished for interest; if they had money, she thought she could get them promoted. At that period I did not know any body; but meeting with Mr. Donovan the next day, I asked him if he had any friends; he said yes, there was a gentleman in town that he thought would i. a sum of money for a step; I asked him what sum he would give; he said he thought he would give five hundred guineas. I spoke to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject, 2nd she said, by all means close with him. When I saw Mr. Donovan, I told him that I thought I could procure his friend the step that he wished for; upon which he produced a memorandum, signed by a Mr. Gilpin, of the Strand, for the sum I have mentioned, whenever he should appear in the London Gazette, gazetted as a Major. I believe it was near upon two months or ten weeks, I suppose it might be two months, when Captain Tonyn, for I never had the honour of seeing Captain Tonyn before that period, got tired that his promotion did not appear; he desired Mr. Donovan to call upon me, to say, that if I could not get the business finished, I had better return him his memorandum. I waited upon Mrs. Clarke, and told her what Mr. Donovan had said. She said, that he was a shabby fºllow, that he was very much in haste, but that if he would wait quietly, she dare say it would be done, and desired me to say, that he 215 eAPFAIN SANDon's ExAMINATIow. had better wait a little. Hºwever, the next day I met Mr. Donovan, and I told him the interest that we had to procure the majority; had informed me that they had better wait a little. Mr. Donovan said, I *m instructed by Captain Tonyn to say, you must give up your secu. rity immediately, for we are pretty clear, or, at least, I am pretty glear, you cannot get him gazetted; and another thing, General Tonyn Jhas spoken to the Commander in Chief, and he has promised him the first majority that is vacant. I then begged to see Captain Tonyn; Mr. Donovan introduced me to him; he then told me the same; Śir, this business has been a long while upon the carpet, I do not think you can effect what you say you can do, and I desire you will give me up the security I gave you, for General Tonyn, my father, has procured a F. from the Commander in Chief, to give me a majority. I ob- erved to him, that he had better wait a few days, for that I thought, in all probability, he would be gazetted. However, after arguing the Boint for a little time, he said, for two or three gazettes it does not signify, let the business go on, and if I find I am gazetted in a week or ten days, the business shall be as it originally was. However, to make short of the story, I believe it was the Wednesday when we were eaking, and on the Saturday or Tuesday following he was in the ette as Major;-the censequence was, I received the five hundred guineas, 500?. I gave to Mrs. Clarke, and 25l. to Mr. Donovan. Do you of your own knowledge, know the promotion of Major Tonyn was owing to the interference of Mrs. Clarke? No, I cannot say any thing upon the subject. * Have you any, and what, reason to believe it was owing to the inter- ference of Mrs. Clarke I have no reason at all to believe it was owing to the interference of Mrs. Clarke. * Did Mrs. Clarke ever inform you, that she had procured the ap- pointment of Major Tonyn from his Royal Highness the Duke of York She certainly informed me, she had got him gazetted. Do you mean by that, that she informed you, that she had got him gazetted by means of her application to the Duke of York She al- ways told me, she would get him gazetted, and, of course, it was through that interest, I imagine. Did she state, that it was through the Duke of York that she ob- tained it? She told me yes, that it was through her interest; but whether it was or not I cannot say. Do you believe that this was obtained through Mrs. Clarke's appli- cation to the Duke of York?, I doubt it exceedingly. Had you yourself no emolument from this transaction? I received five hundred guineas, 500l. I gave to Mrs. Clarke, and 25l. I gave to Mr. Donovan, which, I believe, makes the five hundred guineas. I had no emolument, Did Mrs. Clarke send you a Gazette, announcing the promotion? I really do not know; I gave her the money the moment I saw it in the Gazette; she had no occasion, for I watched the Gazette, and the moment I saw him gazetted, I took her the money. You have stated, that you do not believe this appointment was ef. fected by the interference of Mrs. Clarke; for what did you pay Mrs. Clarke the 500!? Because we had promised, upon his appearing in the Gazette as a major, for that was the way in which the note ran, that we were to receive the five hundred guineas, whether it was by her interest Mrs. or Anke’s ExAMINATION. . 217 *r General Tonyn's did not signify, the note ran “on my appearing in the London Gazette, gazetted as a Major.” • Did you apply to Mrs. Clarke for this appointment to be in the Gazette, and on seeing the appointment in the Gazette, she was to Fºr eeive 500l 2 Yes. & º General Tonyn was promised the first majority that became yacant for his son? So Captain Tonyn told me. Did you receive, as a remuneration to yourself, any part of the 500l.? Q. You have stated, that you delivered the 500l. to Mrs. Clarke, and, the 25l. to Mr. Donovan; what advantage had you? Nothing at all. {The witness was directed to withdraw, GEORGE HOLME SUMNER, Esq. a Member of the House. attending in his place, made the following statement: I have only to confirm the statement made by General Clavering, that I have no nephew of the name of Sumner, and that I believe there is no such person living in the Temple. **s Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and having been in- formed by the Chairman, that she was to answer only those ques- tions which she could answer from her own knowledge, was exa. mined by the Committee, as follows: - Dó you recollect º: Captain Tonyn of the 48th regi- * for a majority, to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief? O. * Do you recollect who introduced Captain Tonyn to you for your recommendation? Either Mr. Donovan or Captain Sandon. * * Do you recollect whether you were to receive any sum of money, provided Captain Tonyn was gazetted? I do not recollect the stipu: iated sum, but I received 500!, when it was gazetted. tº Did you make it known, when you recommended Captain Tonyn to the Commander in Chief, that you were to receive any pecuniary con- sideration for his promotion? §. How did you come by the Gazette you sent to Dr. Thynne? I suppose by the newspaper man. * * e § you ever apply to General Clayering for a recommendation in favour of Lieutenant šin. ? Yes. Are you acquainted with Lieutenant Summer? No. Who recommended Lieutenant Sumner to you? Mr. Donovan. Do you recollect, whether you represented Lieutenant Sumner to General Clavering as being allied or connected with any particular person? Yes, with his relations. * What relations His uncle. Who was his uncle 2 Doctor Sumner. Was that the only relation you mentioned to General Clavering? No Mr. Sumner the member also. By whom was Lieutenant Sumner represented to you as the nephew of Mr. Sumner the member 2 He was nephew of the doctor. What relationship was he represented as bearing to Mr. Sumner the member? I cannot exactly recollect, but it was cousin, or something in that way; that he was a relation. $218 Mits. CLARKE's ExAMINAT.1on. • Have you ever represented yourselfas being under the protection of a Mr. Mellish Neither him, nor any man. - -, Have you not represented yourself as being, at one time, under the protection of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? I really think ...,gentleman is more mad than the person that was committed last night. - - . . t 8 - [The Chairman informed the witness she must answer the - questions, and not make irrelevant observations. The whole of the gentlemen know that already, by the representation which has been given before. - *: Have you not represented yourself as being, at one time, under the protection of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? I do not know that I ever did represent myself so; people knew it, without my tel- ling it. . . . + • ‘ What do you mean by saying, it was very well known already by what had happened? I do not recollect the name of any person that I ever represented myself to, as living under the protection of the Duke of York. - Will you positively say you do not recollect ever to have stated, that you lived under the protection of the Duke of York? Yes, I will positively say, that I do not recollect that I did, to any particular TSO). Will you say, that you never represented yourself as being under the protection of any gentleman of the name of Mellish N0.7 never did, nor any other. - t t You are positive of that? Quite so. *- - Did you ever make any representation to that effect? Never. Did you never make any such representation to General Clavering? No, never; I will repeat what was said in my parlour; General Cla- vering was mentioning to me, one morning when he called, that Turf Mellish was just setting off with General Ferguson; I said, yes, I have been told so, that he had taken leave of the Prince the night before : he said that I was in a very good house, and something that contractors and beef went on very well : that was all that passed : I made no answer to that: I have many times heard the report, both of him and many others. e e . . . . • ... Do you recollect having conversation with Mr. Donovan, in No- vember last, relative to the proceedings that are now taking place? No. Do you recollect stating, in a conversation to Mr. Donovan, that if his Royal Highness the Duke of York would not come into your terms, you would publish all the transactions which had passed between you during the time you had lived together No. - º: any thing to that effect pass between you and Mr. Donovan O. *: : Did you ever try to induce Mr. Donovan to assist you in any pur- K. of exposing the Duke of York, or publishing those transactions? No ; but I will repeat what he said to me in the Secretary's room the other night; he said, if he had been aware of what Colonel Wardle intended to have done, and he had called upon him and stated his intentions and behaved in a handsome manner, he would have put him into the way of proceeding, but as it was he should go en- tirely against the whole of it; that he might have given him many and many cases. : * - - * MRs. cI.ARKE's ExAMINATION. 319 Is that conversation which took place the other evening in the Wit- . nesses room, the only one you have ever had with Mr. $. CCº- cerning this business 2 The only one except what I wrote. Was any body present when this conversation took place between you and Mr. Donovan in the Witnesses room? It was * of persons, but he spoke to me privately apart. Did you ever mention Sir Francis Burdett's name to Mr. Donovan in any way connected with this subject? No. Do you know Sir Francis Burdett? In what way; as an acquaint- ance or personally only 2 - - * Are you acquainted with him? I have seen him a few times." Have you ever spoken to him or he to you? I told him I had been a little acquainted with him, very slightly. Has Sir Francis Burdett ever written to you, or sent you a message? No he has not, not that I can recollect. Did Sir Francis Burdett ever apply to you to procure from you any papers relative to the subject now under inquiry Never once; nor have I had any sort of communication, nor heard or known any thing of Sir Francis Burdett since May last,” and that was merely accidental. Have you ever told Mr. Donovan, or any body else, that Sir Fran- ris Burdett offered you money for some papers in your possession, or º to that effect? No. ſº ' 'Do you know Captain Dodd 2 Yes I do slightly. - How long have you known Captain Dodd? Since my living in his neighbourhood. g s o you often see Captain Dodd? What is meant by often ? . More times than once, or how often? Yes, more times than once if that is often. " " * When did you see Captain Dodd last? I do not recollet; but I have no view in screening it at all ; I am not ashamed , of Captain Dodd, nor I dare say Captain Dodd of me, only perhaps just at this time. * * - Did Captain Dodd by any means demand or ask of you any papers in your possession relative to this transaction? Never; we have never talked about it. - 'Did you never represent to Mr. Donovan, or any other person, that Captain Dodd had tried to procure from you some papers relative to this transaction 2 Never to any one.' . Did you ever express any wish to Mr. Donovan, that he would join with you or assist you in prosecuting this inquiry Never. Or any subject connected with the transactions now under inquiry 2 a * yer. g . - T}o you know Colonel M'Mahon? Yes. Did you ever write an anonymous letter to his Royal Highness the Prinče of Wales?" To shew Colonel M'Mahon in his proper colours, I will produce his notes here to-morrow evening. "Did you ever writé an'anonymous letter to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales? I wrote a few lines to the Prince of Wales, stating that a person wished tº see him, and Colonel M’Mahon called. $ Did you sign your own name, or any name, to those few lines which Ypu sent to the Prince of Wales? ... It was only a few lines without any fame, and Colonel M'Mahon called in consequence, and when the t £20. #Its. &#,ARKE's ExAMINATIon. servant ºpened the door, he asked who kept the house; Mrs. Fat- quhar, that was my mother... When he came up stairs into the draw- ing-room, he said, Mrs. Farquhar flow do you do; what is the business; I told him, that I wished to see the Prince of Wales, and after a few minuteseonversation, Colonel M*Mahon found that I was Mrs. Clarke; he then Promised to communicate the message to the Prince, and the next day he brought me a very civil message from his Royal Highness, stating, that he was extremely sorry he was obliged to go out of town to Brighton, which he did do that morning, that it was impossible for him to interfere, that he had a very great respect for me, was sorry for the manner in which I had been treated, and that Colonel M*Mahon might use his influence with the duke of York to be bearer of any message that might be the means of making peace; but that it was a very delieate matter for his Royal Highness to interfere with his brother. Several notes passed between Colonel MºMahon and me, and several interviews. He mentioned to me that he had seen his Royal Highness the Duke of York at one time, H think in July, that the Duke of York asked him, if I was not very much exasperated against him, and if I did not use very strong language, and abuse him. olonel M'Mahon said, quite the contrary, Sir, I assure you; Mrs. Clarke is very mild towards you, and she lays the whole of the blame on Mr. Adam ; he said, she is very fight, I will see into her affairs. That was the end of the first message. I think the last message that Colonel M'Mahon brought me was, that he could not bring his Royal Highness to any terms at all, to any sort of meaning concerning the debts, and although I had behaved so very handsome towards his Royal Highness, and had exacted nothing but his own pro- mises to be put in execution, or even to take the sum that was due to me upon the annuity, and pay the tradesmen, and then I would let his Royal Highneess off of the debts, as that perhaps would satisfy them; that he considered it as very fair, and very honourable, and very liberał, or he weuld not have been the bearer of those messages; and he said, he esteemed me very much, from the character I bore among my female acquaintances that he was intimate with, I mean women of character, and for the services I had done to many poor young men within his knowledge; I will bring some of his notes, or give them to Colonel Wardle, to be read here to-morrow, to corroborate what I have stated. - _- - - - . Did you in November or December last, represent yourself to any persons as still having the power of procuring military promotions, or any other offices No; but I recommended some that wanted pro- motion to a person. ... " . . . . - ". . . Who was the person to whom you recommended them? I will men- tion his name; and I intended to have him here; but it cannot happen immediately, from some circumstances. I must beg to be excused, naming him now. - . . . . . - [The Chairman.informed the Witness that she must r answer the question.] ... If I answer the question, it will be impossible for me to produce him here; he will get out of the way; he will not come here. [The Chairman informed the Witness that she must answer the question.] & = t = - - A -- ~~ Mrs. clanke's examination. ££4 Mr. Maltby, of Fishmongers' Hall. - Is Mr. Maltby the only person to whom you have thade any recom- mendations since November or December last? Yes, except the let- ters I sent to General Clavering. Have 3. represented yourself, at any time, since the close of the year 1806, as having it in yºur power to procure any promotions, or other offices? No; except through Mr. Maltby, which he can Speak te, if they lay hold of him. * . Have you had any communication with any other person than Mr. Maltby, relative to the procuring army promotions or offices? No; except what I have just spoken to. . at situation did you endeavour to procure through Mr. Maltby and for whom As I thought Mr. Maltby ought to be exposéâ in the whole of his conduct, I have not thought much about it; but I have letters at home I can bring forward, when I am called \l OOI!. , w *What situation did you endeavour to procure through Mr. Maltby, ahd for whom I forget. . Do you not recollect any one of them? Not one. Of §: siuations you endeavoured to procure so lately as Novem- ber or December last? I am so little interested in it now, I cannot recollect. - * Do you even recollect how many situations you endeavoured to procure? No. l * --- Can you ree&llect whether they were army promotions, or civil sitti- ations 2 The letters I have at home can distinguish betweenthem, but I cannot at present ; besides, I wanted them for friends. Who were the friends for whom you wanted these appointments? When they give me the liberty of using their names, I will communi- cate them. - - - * . [The Chairman informed the Witness she must give a direct answer to the questions, unless she Öbjected to therfi, and appealed to the Chair.3 1 certainly flust object to them. * * ſhe Chairman inforthed the Witness, that it was the opinion of the Committee that she should name the + persons.] J - i I have already flaſhed Mr. Maltby ; if heisbrought forward perhaps he will name the persons. . . . . . . . $ . . . [The Chairman againinformed the Witnés; that it was . . . the opinion of the Øommittee that she should name the persons.] . . . . . . . . . . . , One is Mr. Lawson; I cannot . the other. . . . . . . Recollect yourself, and state to the Çommittee those persons whoma ou so represen ed, as your friends, whose names you would commu- ficate when you had their fºrmission? That is one of them. . . Who were the others? I do Hôt regollect. . . . . . . . ..Why did you speakoffriends, instead of speaking of a singlefiandr If you try to serve a person you call them your friends, if yºu interest yoursglf for them. - * • * * • * * 222 MIts. CLARKE's ExAMINATIon. Do you stake the veracity of your testimony upon that last answer, that you recollect but one of those persons? I think that I ought to appeal to the Chair now. [The Chairman directed the Witness to state the objection she had, and the Committee would decide upon it..] * He is a very respectable man, and he has been already very ill used, and I am afraid of committing him and his family. * [The Chairman directed the Witness to name the person whom she alluded to, as a respectable person.] That is giving his name at once; really I cannot pronounce his name rightly, though I know how to spell it, and I must be excused. * Do you not know how to pronounce the name of your particular friend, whom you represented as a hardly-used man? ~. * [The Chairman admonished the Witness that her present conduct was very disrespectful to the Committee.] I mean to behave very respectfully, and I am very sorry if I do not; but I dº not know but the gentleman may lose the money he hās already lodged, if I mention his name. x- [The Witness was directed to withdraw. The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, however it might be the wish of the Committee to make every al- lowance to the witness on the score of being a female, yet it was necessary she should not trifle with, or waste the time of the Committee, by shuffling, evasive, equivocating answers. If she did not answer, she ought to be com- ..mitted, * ...] Mr. Windham said, he did not wish to countenance any evasive answers, but what the witness had said seemed to him to be addressed to the Committee. She had stated that a person had been very ill used, and might suffer in consequence of her answering a question she did not fully comprehend. - The Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that any other witness who had been, for any other cause and exãmi- nation, at the bar of that House, would have been Com- mitted half an hour ago if they had given such quibbling shuffling answers; and he hoped she would not be suffered to go on in the same way any longer. MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION, .223 [The Witness was again called in, and informed by the Chairman, that the Committee had considered her reason for declining to answer the question put to her, and was of opinion that she must answer the question.] What is the name of the person you alluded to ? Mr. Ludowick or Lodowick. a - Has that gentlemen any other name but Ludowick I do not know his other name. Who is Mr. Ludowick He is a gentleman, I believe he lives in Essex; that is all I know of him. Whereabouts in Essex does he live 2 I do not know. w Who introduced Mr. Ludowick to you? I never was introduced at all. How did you become acquainted with Mr. Ludowick? Through different friends. w - Name the friends that recommended Mr. Ludowick to you. I can- not exactly name which it was in particular, but Mr. Maltby can tell if he is had before the House. Name the friends that recommended Mr. Ludowick to you. I can- . . not name any one in particular ; Mr. Maltby knows more of him himself than 1 do. Is Mr. Ludowick the person whom you stated as having suffered enough already, whose name you were unwilling to tell? Yes. In what has he suffered already? In lodging his money, and being al #. while out of the appointment, meeting with frequent disap- pointments from day to day. At a future time, or after Mr. Maltby has been examined, I will mention the general-officer's name that he has made free with, I do not know whether correctly or incorrectly. - That who has made free with, Ludowick or Maltby 2 Maltby. What disappointments has Mr. Ludowick suffered, to which you allude 2 I have already stated them. What appointment has Mr. Ludowick been disappointed of? I be- lieve two or three; first one was mentioned, then another; I cannot speak to one particularly. , Try to recollect any one of them, or all of them. I really cannot; when Mr. Maltby comes forward, he will be able. ... Do you mean to state, that you cannot recollect any one of the appointments Mr. Ludowick has been disappointed of? One I can: but there have been three or four since offered to him, neither of which he has been able to procure. - - º Name that one. Assistant Commissary, I think. Where has Mr. Ludowick lodged the money which you speak of, or with whom f : As to that I cannot tell, but I can when I look over m papers at home. - - - e. .* o you say positively that, without looking over yourºper at home, you cannot say where this money is lodged? Yes, I do. How much money has Mr. Ludowick lodged 2 From 800 to 1000 pounds. - p Who was the general-officer whose name Mr. Maltby represented bimself as having made use of: Is that a fair question? : s [The Chairman informed the Witness that she must answer the question.] - - 224 *Rs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. Sir Arthur Wellesley; and one of the excuses for one of the appoint- ments not taking place, was, Sir Arthur being so deeply engaged in the investigation at Chelsea. If this is not true, I’m doing Sir Arthur a great service by bringing it forward. * What appointment was it that was so delayed, by Sir Arthur being so much engaged 2 I believe it was this first, that of Assistant Com- missary, but I am not sure. For whose use is the money lodged? I do not know, but I can tell by looking at my papers. You have certain papers at home, which will enable you to state to the Committee for whose benefit the sum of money in question is now lodged, and where it is lodged Yes, How came you to be in possession of those papers? They will : for themselves when I produce them, better than I can ex- plain it. 4. How came you in possession of those papers? From Mr. Maltby. , Was it Mr. Maltby that introduced Mr. Ludowick to you, or you Mr. Ludowick to Mr. Maltby: I do not think they have ever seen each other, not that I know of. - Did you first mention Mr. Ludowick's name to Mr. Maltby, or did Mr. Maltby maention it first to you? I to Mr. Maltby ; I believe he has been in the habit of acting as agent for these ten or dozen years in this sort of way. Has Mr. Maltby made use of the name of any other person besides Sir Arthur Wellesley He has written very pointedly to that to me, and spoken besides. Has Mr. Maltby made use of the name of any other person besides Sir Arthur Wellesley? I cannot recollect at present; but shall, at a 'future time, if I am here, and will state it. Where did you form your friendship for Mr. Ludowick? I have al- ready said, that any mail that I interested myself for, I considered as a friend ; I am not intimate with him. | How came you to interest yourself for Mr. Ludowick? From a friend of my own. Who was that friend ? Mr. Barber. & Where does Mr. Barber live In Broad-street, in the city. ... How long have you known Mr. Ludowick I do not know him, but by means of his family. - JXo you mean to say that you have never seen Mr. Lindowick? No, I did not mean to say that. . . Where have you seen him, and when I have already said, I do hºt know him; I might have seen him, and not have known hin. Have you ever seen Mr. Ludowick or not? I cannot tell, as not thnowing his person. - About what time was it that this Commissariat appointment began to be in negotiation? I cannot remember, but the papers will date it exactly. What year? Last year. . . Can you recollect what part of last year? No, I cannot, What kind of papers are those you allude to ; are they letters# T. denot know what they are. . t Do you mean to say, that you do not know at all what kind of pa- !pers they are 2 They are papers written on. if Rs. CLARitie’s Ex AMINATIOxf. 225 Are they letters or securities? They shew what they are; I cannot exactly speak to them ; I will give them to Mr. Wardleto-morrow. You have said that those papers will inform the committee of all the . of this transaction : How can you say that, if you do not know what those papers are: Because 1 do not know how to describe them exactly. r * : * Do you recollect their contents No, I do not; but I know there are a great many letters from Mr. Maltby, and something about the bankers; enough to shew the whole of the transaction. - & Do you recollect to have stated to Captain Donovan; that if his Royal Highness the Duke of York was informed of your ever having received any money, it would be your ruin Never to any person whatever. Through what channel, or by whose influence, did you propose to Mr. Ludowick, or the agent employed by Mr. Ludowick, to procure the situation that he required Mr. Barber will recollect that ; and he is a very honourable man, and will speak to the truth, and I believe he knows the parties. t " . . . Who was the person whom you held out yourself as having such influence over, as by that influence you could procure the situation desired by Mr. Ludowick? I do not think that asy one was held out, I fancy they guessed the Duke of York, but no one was held out; and I think it is very likely that Mr'Donovan supposed the Duke of Portland; but I mean here to say, that he is not at all connected. And, the office that Mr. Wardle mentioned in the city I know nothing at all about; I was very sorry to see Mr. Wardle hid mentioned such a thing, because every one who knows the Lord Chancellor, inust know that, besides being one of the highest, he is one of the most honourable men in Englafid ; and if there are any insinuations about the Duke of Portland, Mr. Maltby is the Duke of Portland—He is my Duke of Portland: I mean entirely to clear myself from holding out any insi- nuations against the Duke's character. Mr. Wardle accused me once of going into the Duke of Portland's, and that he had watched me in ; I told him I was not in the habit of going in there, and I laughed at him ; and afterwards somebody told him it was Mrs. Gibbs; more likely Mrs. Gibbs than me. I wish to do away the two stories of Mr. Melfish and the Buke of Portland before the honourable gentlemen. Am I to understand you, you never did give out to any person, that: you had access to or influence with the Duke of Portland 2 No, I did not; I fancy that once I laughed very much about some sort of birds, with Mr. Donovan; but I mean to say, I never did use his name. . How long have you known Mr. Lawson 2 about four months, or five j months. Who introduced Mr. Lawson to you? he is a piano-forte maker. What office has he been soliciting? I do not recollect, I cannot tell what; it is something that Mr. Donovan has been concerned in as well ; something at Savannah la Mar. f * , What appointment did you solicit for Mr. Lawson one of those places; there are a number of them; but Mr. Maltby can speak to it-; Í fancy he has been lodging money lately, within this very short time, within this fortnight, perhaps. - ; g Where 2 I do not know, but Mr. Maltby knows; it is some con- cern of his. Q § 226 MR, wa Role's ExAMrNAtros. - s What makes you think that he has deposited a sum of money within this last fortnight?...because he told me he was going to do it. When did he tell you so about a fortnight since, Where did you see him when he told you so At my ownhouse. With whom did he say, he was going to deposit it; he did not say with whom ; but Mr. Maltby had some more of these men, who had to be concerned in it, and he was to lodge it with his bankers. With whose bankers ? Mr. Maltby's, I suppose. g How long have you known Mr. Sandon? Ever since Coloneſ French's levy. * * Was that the first knowledge you had of him? f he did not come about Colonel French's levy, he came about some other appointments; I should rather think he brought me a list of officers for appointments, insteal of the levy first. Did he come to you voluntarily, or did you send for him 2 I could not send for him, for he gave Mr. Corri 200l. for an introduction, him and Colonel French. Was that before Captain Tonyn's recommendation Yes. How much had Mr. Sandon out of the money paid by Captain Tonyn I never inquired. & e had no part of the five hundred guineas, had he No ; I should not wonder but what he had eight or nine from Captain Tonyn, it was something more than the five, or else Mr. Donovan häd. He got more than you did by that transaction then : Ne, not that; I state it at eight or nine, and he gave me five; but I do not know that he had that. What makes you think that he had it? I think he must have had something, or he would not have troubled himself in the business. What do you suppose he had about Colonel French's levy 2 Colonel French told me, that he stole hal. You stated in your examination yesterday, that you were at the Opera with a Lord Lenox and some other gentleman; how long have you known Lord Lenox I never knew him at all. I understood you to have stated in your examination yesterday, that you were at the Play or Opera with Lord Lenox and Sir %. Peate? I said I was along with Sir Robert Peate, and an old gentleman came in with this Mr. Williams, and they said that was Lord Lenox and Mr. Williams. Sir Robert Peate said that. - You mean to say you did not know this Lord Lenox before you saw him at the play that night? No I had seen him driving about town, and knew it was the man they called Lord Lenox, but never spoke to him. before. - Are you positive you never spoke to him before? Quite. [The witness was directed to withdraw. GWYELYM LLOYD WARDLE, Esq. attending in his place, was examined as follows: Did you ever reproach the last witness with going to the Duke of Portland? I had heard that she had been there; and I wondered what she could be doing there; so far I did reproach her. Who told you that she had been at the Duke of Portland's? I heard it at the office I mentioned in the city; a person described her person, and they said there was a tidewaiter's place to be sold, they believed; tºº, colon EL GoRibo N’s ExAMINATION. 227 but the I were not certain; it depended on an application then making by a lady to the Duke of Portlaj; I went again in a few days ; they described a person excessively like Mrs. Clarke, and when I saw her I ºned her about it, and said if it was so; she was doing very rong. * Do you know Mr. Maltby I have seen him once, I think, at Mrs. Clarke's. º Did you ever endeavour to trace the transactions carrying on by Mr. Maltby 2 I did in some measure; but I could not at all succeed ; he would not commit himself at all to me; I endeavoured to catch him upon one point; but he would not open to me at all. Were you aware that the witness was employing Mr. Maltby in these transactions I merely understood from her that he was employ- ed in one business, which I endeavoured to find out, but I endeavour- ed in vain; I could not get him to open at all. Did she state to you that it was the business in which she was con- cerned No she did not; she merely mentioned that he was about business, I forgot the name now, I was excessively anxious to find it out. Did she ever mention to you the business respecting Mr. Ludo- wick I do not know that ever she did; I do not know the name at all, but I really think she said that he was in the habit of doing it for a number of persons ; one case she mentioned, and I endeavoured to sift it to the bottom. Did she ever shew you these papers she has referred toº No, she did not; I think I saw öne or two notes to her about the thing I endea- voured to find out, but it has escaped me what it was ; it is several weeks ago, and I have had so much upon my mind, that after an at- tempt or two, it is impossible to recall it. Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined by the Cômmittee, as follows: Have you brought with you the official documents fespecting the appointment of Major Tonyn Yes, I have. State to the Conimittee what you know upon that subject. ... I hold in my hand the first recommendation upon the subject of Captain Tonyn—Major Tonyn with the permission of the Committee, I will read it. - [Colonel Gordon read a letter, signed Patrick Tonyn, dated the 27th t of June, 1803.] “May it please your Royal Highness. “SIR, “ In the present period of extension of his Mjesty's forces, I beg leave to recomment the 48th regiment to you? Royal Highness's consideration. * * * , I hope it will not be thought I presume too far to say, Captain Tonym for some time past has commanded the 48th at Malta; and with great submission, I likewise venture to mention, Lieutenant To- myn ! And I most humbly petition your Royal Highnesss, graciously to condescend to grant my sons your royal protection. C 2 228 colonel, Gordon's ExAMINATIon. “With most profound and dutiful respect, I have the honour to remain, with all submission, . . . }: - “ Sir, “Your Royal Highness's “Most devoted Servant, - << PAT. Tony N. “ Park-street, 27th June. 1803. “Indorsed: London, 27th June, 1803. . . ** General Tony N.” ,” “Promoted to a Majority in the 31st Regiment, wpon the formation of a second Battalion, in Aug. 04—without purchase.” tº: (Inclosure.) “ His Royal Highness will be glad to consider the General's two sons on favourable opportunities for promoting them.” - General Tonyn was an old officer: One of the oldest officers, I believe, at that time in the army. The answer to that letter is dated the 29th of June, 1803. [Colonel Gordon read it..] “ Horse Guards, 29th June, 1803. “SIR, - * “I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, recommending to me your sons, Captain Tonyn and Lieutenant Tonym of the 48th regiment; and I request you will be as- sured that I shall have much pleasure at a favourable opportunity, to pay every attention in my power to your wishes in their favour. I am, &c. (Signed) “FREDERIck, “Commander in Chief. “General Tonym, &c. &c. &c.” Fixlorsed: “Copy of a letter from H. R. H. the Commander in Chief to General Tonyn, 29th June, 1803.” The next document upon this subject appears to be a memorial from Captain Tonyn himself. | [Colonel Gordon read it.] “To his Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany, Commander in Chief of his Majesty’s Forces. r “The Memorial of George-Augustus Tonyn, Captain in his Majesty’s 48th Regiment of Foot. --- “ Humbly sheweth, “That your memorialist has been near twenty-four years an officer; fourteen of these in actual service with the 48th regiment, on all its várious stations, in the West Indies and the Mediterranean. “That your memorialist, being the senior captain present with the regiment, most humbly implores your Royal Highness's protection; and that your Royal Highness will be pleased to recommend him to his Majesty's royal favour; that his Majesty may be graciously pleased ſ colon EL Go RDo N’s ExAMINATION. 999 to grant him promotion to the rank of major, in such manner as your Royal Highness may think fit. -- “And your memorialist, as in duty bound, will ever pray.” Indorsed: “ Memorial. “George-Augustus Tonyn, Captain 48th Regiment, March—1804.” (Inclosure.) “ C. L.” { “ Captain Tonyn to be noted for promotion, and acquainted that , his Royal Highness will be glad to consider him on a favourable op- ortunity. P y “ J. G.” This Memorial is without date, but it was received in March, 1804. The answer to that memorial I hold in my hand. [Colonel Gordon read it.] “ Horse Guards, 15th March, 1804. “Sir, “I have the honour, by the Commander in Chief's commands to acknowledge the receipt of your memorial without a date, and to ac- quaint you, in reply, that your name has been noted for promotion: and his Royal Highness will be glad to consider you on a favourable opportunity. “I have, &c. (Signed) “ W. H. CLINToN. “ Capt. Tonyn, 48th Foot, 118, Park-street.” Indorsed: “Copy of Lieut. Col. Clinton’s letter to Capt. “Tonyn, of the 15th March, 1804.” The document I hold in my hand relates to the promotion of Lieut. Tonyn, alluded to in the first letter of General Tonym: it remains with the Committee to decide whether that is to be read. Was not General Tonyn colonel of the regiment at the time he made the application in favour of his sons? Yes, he was. These are all the documents that I have, with respect to Major Tonyn. It ap- pears, that in the month of August, 1804, a very large augmentation was made to the army, consisting of no less than fifty battalions; in the formation of those battalions I received the orders of the Com- mander in Chief to prepare a list of the senior officers of the army, ge- nerally, of each rank, and to take their names from the book of recom- mendations, where they had been noted. In consequence of this com- mand, I did prepare a list, and submitted it to the Commander in Chief; and, in that list, in the same list with Major Tonyn's name, there were fifty-three officers appointed to majorities; namely, eleven majors removed from other corps, or from the half-pay; thirteen bre- vet majors; twenty-nine captains. Of those captains seven were captains of the year 1794, nine were Captains of the year 1794, (amongst them was Captain Tonyn) five were captains of the year 1796, seven of the year 1797, and one of the year 1799. I have men- tioned that Captain Tonyn was a captain of 1795, there were only six captains in that year senior to him in the service. That is all I Know wn the subject of Captain Tonyn's promotion. 230 Colon E!, Go RDON's ExAMINATIGN. ..ſº It appears that in the letter of General Tonyn he recommends two of his sons; can you state any thing with reference to the other son: On the 30th of May, 1804, General Tonyn writes again: S [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] “ Sir, “I have the honour to transmit a letter from Captain Long of the 48th, requesting his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief's per- mission to sell his company, haying purchased. I humbly beg leave to recommend Lieutenant Charles-William Tonyn to his Royal High- ness the Duke of York's favourable representation to his Majesty ; humbly praying, that he may be graciously pleased to grant him leave to purchase Captain Long's company, the money being lodged with the agent for the same; as all the officers standing before him in the corps have declined the purchase, “Give me leave, Sir, to beg the favour of your good offices in he- half of my son, whose declaration I have the honour herewith to in- close, and that you will have the goodness to implore for him his Royal Highness's gracious protection. i have the honour to remain, with all respect, “Sir, “Your most obedient, and “Most humble servant, “ PAT. To NYN. “ 118, Park-street, 30th May, 1804.” Indorsed: “48th Foot, Flieut. Tonyn, Mem. 2d June, 1804.” (Inclosed 1.) “ Mallow, 15th May, 1804. “ SIR, “Circumstances of a peculiar nature have lately occurred that oblige me to retire from the service, I have sent in a memorial to the Commander in Chief to be allowed to sell my commission at the re- gulated price. I take the liberty of informing you, as early as possible of my intentions, as I have been given to understand your son would succeed to the promotion by purchase. Should that be the case, if you you will have the goodness to lodge the money in the hands of Mr. Gilpin the agent, and give me the earliest information, in order that the business may be forwarded with as little delay as possible, you will ever oblige, * * ..? * & “ Sir, “Your very obedient, humble servant, “E. S. LoN G, Capt. 48th. Regiment. “General Tonyn, i 18, Park-street, near Hyde-Park, London. Indorsed ; ' ' ' ' “Capt. Long. “48th Regiment. “ 15th May, 1804. “R. - - - - 23d May.” “All officers concerned, have declined purchasing.” colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 233 # (Inclosure 2.) •ºſ ºf SIR, * * I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me, his Majesty's per- ºn to purchase Captain Long's company in the 48th regiment of Oot. “In case his Majesty shall be graciously pleased to permit me to purchase the same, I do declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I wilſ not, now, or at any future time, give by any means or in any shape whatever, directly or indi- rectly, any more than the sum of 1,500l. being the full value of the said commission, as the same is limited and fixed by his Majesty’s re- gulation. “I have the honour to be, ^, “Sir, * Your most obedient and “most humble servant, “ E. W. To NYN, “Lt. 48th Regt. “To the Colonel or Commanding Officer of 48th Regiment.” - * “I beg, leave to recommend the above; and I verily believe the established regulation, in regard to price is intended to be strictly com- plied with ; and that no clandestine bargain subsists between the par- ties concerned. ** PAT. To NYN, “General and Colonel. “26th May, 1804.” The inclosure is the letter from the young man himself. Did all the officers who were promoted at the time Major Tonyn was promoted, receive their promotion into the new corps without pur- chase? Into the new corps most certainly. All the new Captains, those that were promoted in the augmentation of the army 2 Yes. Did many of them appear in the same Gazette with Major Tonyn ‘I have stated, that there were 53 field officers in the same Gazette, and I should imagine, without counting them, there could not be less than 200 officers altogether; the paper is now in my hand. " At the time this great augmentation took place, and lists of officers were preparing in the office of the Commander in Chief, were those lists a secret, or was it in any one's power, on referring to the clerks, to see those lists? I endeavour to keep those things as secret as I pos- sibly can, but in so large a proportion, it is impossible for me to say the secret was exactly kept. Previous to the gazetting of those commissions which have been allu- ded to, when the Pist was completed, or nearly completed, was it pos- sible to keep the secret so far, as to prevent the contents of those lists being more or less known I do not think it was. Give the Committee some account of the purchase and sales of commissions in the army, the manner in which that business is trans- acted, and in whose hands the purchase money is lodged. I have already stated to the House, and it is in evidence before the Com- mittee, that the same rules apply to the promotion of officers by pur- 232 co LoNEL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. case, as without ; but in order to insure the greatest possible re. gularity, every regiment in the service is ordered to transmit a return quarterly, of the number of officers in each regiment disposed to pur- chase, and to mention in such return where the purchase money is to be had ; those returns are entered in a book in the Commander in Chief's office, and in the event of a vacancy those returns are invari- ably referred to, and the officer senior upon the list, if in all respects eligible, is invariably recommended, provided it does not interfere with other officers of greater pretensions. ar In whose hands is the purchase money deposited or lodged Before a recommendation is submitted to his Majesty for purchase, it is neces- sary that a paper should be sent to the Commander in Chief's office from the agent, stating that he is satisfied that the money will be forth- coming when the commission is gazetted. It is not necessary, and it is so gone forth to the army, as is stated in a paper upon the table of this Committee, that the officers are not called upon to lodge the mo- ney in the agents' hands, but they are only called upon to notify to them, that it will be forthcoming on the promotion being gazetted. Does any part of the money relating to the sale of commissions pass through the hands of the Commander in Chief, or has the Commander in Chief any controul over that money? None whatever. Can you state from your knowledge of the business of the office, what is the ayerage amount of the purchase and sale of commissions in the course of a year? The average amount for the last three years, annually, exceeds considerably four hundred thousand pounds. * Give the Committee some account of the origin of purchases and sales of commissions in the army, and the effect that they have upon the army ſ believe that the origin of the purchase and sale of coin- missions arises pretty much as follows: In every other service in Europe it is understood that the head of the army has the power of grantin pensions to the officers of the army, in proportion to their rank an services: no such power exists in the head of the army in this country; therefore, when an officer is arrived at the command of a regiment, and is, from long service, infirmity, or wounds, totally incapable of proceeding with that regiment upon service, it becomes necessary to place a more efficient officer in his stead. It is not possible for his Majesty to increase the establishment of the army at his pleasure, by appointing two Lieutenant-Colonels where one only is fixed upon the establishment ; nor is it consistent with justice to place an old officer upon the hālf-pay, or deprive him altogether of his commission ; there is therefore, no alternative, but to allow him to retire, receiving a certain compensation for his former services ; what that compensation should be, has been awarded upon due consideration, by a Board of General Officers, that sat, I think, forty or fifty years ago, somewhere about 1762 or 1763; they taking into consideration the rank, and the pay of each rank, awarded a certain sup) that each officer, who was allowed to retire, should receive upon retiring ; that sum is called, “the regu- lation price of commissions.” The bearing that this has upon the army, is a very extensive question, but there can be no doubt that it is extremely advantageous for those officers who cannot purchase. I can: not better illustrate it to the Committee, than by stating an example: we will suppose, of the first regiment the third Captain cannot purchase; colon EL Go R DON's ExAMINATION. 2S3 the first and second can : if those two officers could not purchase, it is very evident that the third Captain would remain much longer third Captain, than if they were removed out of his way, by purchase in the great body of the army ; and if no officer can be allowed to purchase, Kinless he is duly qualified for promotion without purchase, there can- not possibly be any objection to such regulation, nor can it be said that any unexperienced officer is appointed by purchase over the heads of others better qualified than himself, no officer being allowed to purchase, but such as is duly qualified by his Majesty's regulations. Upon the whole, you consider the present mode in which purchases and sales of Commissions is limited as advantageous to the service : As a matter of opinion I certainly do. You have stated, upon the former examinations, the manner in which the business is transacted at the Duke of York's office ; in the course of your transacting business with the Duke of York, in regard to forming lists of commissions for the approbation of his Majesty, do you ever remember the Duke of York taking a paper-memorandum, or a list of officers out of his pocket, and putting it into your hand, with an intimation that that list was to be considered out of the usual course 2 I never recollect any such instance: I take this opportunity of stating, that since I have had the honour of serving his Royal Highness the Duke of York, I have stated it often before, I never recollect any one solitary instance, in which the Commander in Chief has ever taken any paper out of his pocket and put into my hands, saying, ‘this man must be an Ensign, this a Lieutenant, and this a Captain ; but all recommendations have come regularly through their proper channel, and I do not think there is any one instance to the contrary. in the first document you gave in, the former night, with respect to Captain Maling, there is marked in the printed paper, in italics, the initials C. L. with the words “agreed to ;” what is the meaning of those letters C. L. : My first assistant is Colonel Loraine, C. L. are the initials of his name, and “ agreed to" is put, and it then passes into his hands, and is acted upon. Is the entry marked with the initials C. L. the definitive entry with respect to any recommendation that comes before you ? No, it is not. If any alteration takes place afterwards, in what way is that noted : It is commonly noted in the same manner upon the same paper. With the same initials? When the initials are once put there is no occasion to put them again, the paper invariably passes through the same channel. Is it usual when a recommendation is delayed in the office for want of sufficient information, but not definitively stopped, to 1mark that in the same way with these initials, C. J. & I commonly put a memoran- dum upon every paper that passes under my hands. How would you mark a recommendation in that predicament? If the paper was to be considered, I should say so ; “to be considered.” If further inquiries were to be made, what would you say? I should probably say, “to be considered,” or very probably, “cannot be ac- ceded to.” It is almost impossible for me to state the precise terms: I should adopt them according to circumstances. Would you state “not to be acceded to,” when it was not determined that the recommendation should not be acceded to, but only delayed, while further inquiries were making 2 If the paper was not to be ac- 234 colon EL Gondon’s ExAMINATION. ceded to, I should say, “not to be acceded to ;” but it does not fellow that though it was not acceded to then, it might not be in a month afterwards, or three weeks afterwards. † If the only reason for not acceding to the recommendation at that time was the want of information, and that inquiries were making to obtain that information, would you mark “not acceded to 3’ It really #night or might not; it seems to me, as I conceive it, a matter of perfect indifference. How are the first Commissions in the army commonly disposed of: the first Commission that an officer receives? Invariably without pur- chase unless for some special purpose. Are those first commissions in the patronage of the Commander in Chief? Yes, they are, exclusively. You have stated, that officers purchased according to their seniority, unless there were superior pretensions; do you mean in junior officers; will you explain what you mean by that Suppose there was a vacant company in a regiment, and a lieutenant in that regiment was willing to purchase, it does not quite follow that the Commander in Chief would permit that lieutenant to purchase, although he might be very eligible, tºº. there might be other officers still n:ore deserving than him in the army. Do those circuinstances in point of fact frequently happen? Con- tinually. Within these late years, have not a vast number of commissions been given to the officers of the militia, bºth in Great Britain and Ireland? Yes, to a very considerable extent. What is the practice of the Commander in Chief's office, when an application is made, by any gentleman either in Great Britain or Ireland, by memorial or otherwise, for a commission for his son or relation ? It is the practice in the Commander in Chief's office to answer every paper that comes in, without exception. When any officer, or any gentleman, makes an application for an ensigncy, that application is invariably answered, and the common answer is, ‘ that the name of the applicant is noted, and will be considered as favourable oppor- tunities offer;’ the name is then put down in a book, and the letter is put by. Is it the practice in the Commander in Chief's office particularly when applications come from Ireland, to refer those applications to the &. Officer commanding in the District from which they may have come 2 The applications from Ireland are not considered regular, unless they come through the officer commanding the forces there, or through the civil channel of the Secretary of State. Amongst the documents that you have given in, with respect to Major Tonyn, is there a document siniilar to that just alluded to, indorsed C.I. * agreed to,” or any thing of that kind? [Colonel Gordon referred to the document.] C. L. “State Captain Long's services. £ns. . . . Liverpool Regt. . 2d Oct. 1795. Origl. Jieut. . . . . 65th. . . . . 6th Jan. 1796 by P. Lieut. . . . . 18th. Drag. .. 31st Jan. 1799 by Etc. Cupt. . . . . . . . . . . . 9th Mar. 1803 by P. . . . . 48th. . . . 10th Sept. 1803 by Erç.” colonel, GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 235 It amounts to the same thing; it is a slip of paper. This was the mode of transacting business by my predecessor: I generally do it upon the corner of the letter; I think it better, because this is liable to be lost, that would not. r Do you mean that commissions in new-raised regiments are always given away, or the ensigncles are always given away The answer that I gave to the former question, I mean to stand exactly as it does: and I beg to explain, that there is he such thing as original commissions purchased ; there are many ensigns commissions for sale, but they are private property arising oit of the explanation that I gave to a former question: for example, a Captain sells his commission, that is, he sells his company; a Lieutenant buys that company ; an ensign buys that lieutenancy; both of which are the captain's property; the ensigncy then becomes vacant, of course, by purchase. In point of fact, was the application of General Tonyn, in regard to his second son, successful ? I think it will be found on reference to the document, that the services of the second son of General Tonyn were not so long as those of the eldest son ; and the general recommended the second son for purchase; and that he actually was promoted, I believe it will be found on reference to the dates, before the eldest SOſ. You have stated, that when this large promotion took place, in con- sequence of the augmentation of the army, you were directed by his Royal Highness to lay before him a list of officers to be promoted into this augmentation, to be taken from the oldest officers of their respective ranks in the army; are you quite sure that the name of Captain Tonyn was included by you in the list you laid before the Commander in Chief, or was his name suggested as addition and alteration in that list by the Commander in Chief? I recollect perfectly well the circumstances of that levy; it was at a period of the additional force act; and the names, upon the list which I submitted to the Commander in Chief, I really believe, were written, almost without exception, with my own hand. I had one assistant to assist me in making out the list; but I really believe, that the rough paper was actually written with my own hand. Do you answer that you are certain you included Captain Tonyn's name in the list you submitted to the Commander in Chief, as being one of the oldest officers in the army in that class for promotion ? As certain as I can be of a thing that I could not possibly take my oath of - To the best of your recollection ? O, certainly. If the name of Captain Tonyn had been introduced by the Com- mander in Chief, having been omitted by yourself, would not you have recollected that circumstance? Yes, I §§ I should; it is in evidence before the Committee, on my first examination, I believe. Do you not put a mark upon all papers, upon which any thing is done or to be done? It is my constant practice to make a mark upon every paper, without exception, that comes into that office: I mean to say that generally ; many papers may escape me, but that is my general ractice. - P According to what is done, or to be done? What is to be done. State whether the Commander in Chief has not been in the habit gf attending to recommendations by colonels of regiments for ensigncies 236 coron E1. GoRnon’s ExAMINATIon. in their particular regiments, provided the gentlemen recommended were certified to be eligible and fit for service, and ready to join their regiments? Yes, certainly ; but in giving my evidence before this House, I think it my duty to state, that the Commander in Chief does not consider that the patronage of the regiments in any manner what- ever devolves upon the colonel. [The witness was directed to withdraw. The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.] ( 237 ) SIXTH DAY. Monday, FEBRUARY 13. * ºme List of Witnesses examined. MR. ROWLAND MALTBY. MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE. MR. TIMOTHY IDOCKERY. MRs. ALICE HOVENDEN. , JOHN CLAUDIUS BERESFORD, (a Member. WILLIAM ADAM, Eq. (a Member.) Mr. WHART.on in the Chair. . . t MR. RowLAND MALTBY was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Where do you live At Fishmongers'-hall. What is your profession ? A Solicitor. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Clarke? I am. How long have you been acquainted with her ? I think about July or August, 1806. . If you will give me leave, I will state the way in which I became acquainted with her: it was through the medium of Mr. Rus- sel Manners, who was a member of the last parliament; he married a sister of my wife's ; he told me that he had been introduced to Mrs. Clarke, who had professed an interest in him, and that she would endea- vour to get a place for him through the means of the Duke of York, and he wished to introduce me to her. Under those circumstances I did not know how to refuse him, and I accordingly met her at his house. I believe. I saw Mrs. Clarke perhaps five or six times in the course of that year; afterwards I did not see her again till a court martial for the trial of Captain Thompson. In the year 1806, when you saw Mrs. Clarke, what business did you transact with her; what passed between you and her on the occasion, of your being introduced * No business, only a common acquaintance. Did you hear any more on the subject of the place she was to procure for Mr. Manners ?" I understood that she shewed Mr. Manners a letter, stating that the Duke was inclined, or would comply with her request. I speak merely from memory, as it did not interest me. 238 Mr. MALtby's ExAMINATIon. Did you see that letter? I am not quite certain about it, whether f did or not, but I remember the contents. * Do you remember from whom that letter purported to be received? It purported, as Mr. Manners told me, for I am not certain whether I saw that letter, to come from the Duke of York. At what time of the year 1806 did you hear of or see that letter? I think it was very soon after I saw her; July or August, to the best of my recollection. . i Did you hear from Mrs. Clarke at what time her connection with the Duke of York broke off? No, I do not think she ever inentioned any thing on the subject to me. I was led to believe it continued, from what she said to me in conversation. in July and August she still represented to you that her influence over the Duke of York continued? I understood from her, that the connec- tion was not entirely broken off, that she occasionally saw the Duke. Did you in the course of the year 1806, hear from her any thing: respecting the obtaining of any places for any body ? Not to my recollection. I understand you to have said, that from the year 1806 to the year 1808, you did not see any thing more of her To the best of my recol- lection, not till the court martial in April. Have you, since that time, had any communication with Mrs. Clarke, upon the subject of obtaining places for any one * Yes. When I will explain : As a reason for my keeping up a connection with Mrs. Clarke, Mr. Manners had a regimental account to settle as the son of General Manners, which was likely to be procured through the medium of the Duke of York; it was necessary to have a Board of General Officers in order to settle that account; Mr. Manners was in- debted to me for sums of money I had occasionally advanced him to accommodate him, and I had an assignment of this debt, which amount- ed to about 1,000l. or 1,200l. of Mr. Manners, for the purpose of re- paying me; therefore I felt a little interested in getting the accounts settled, if I could. With respect to the question asked me, I had a communication with Mrs. Clarke respecting a Mr. Ludowick. When? I think it was in September last; the latter end of August or September, to the best of my recollection. What was the nature of the communication respecting Mr. Ludo- wick, and the circumstances of it The circumstances were, that Mr. Eudowick wished to have some place or appointment, and Mrs. Clarke asked me, I believe, whether I knew of any such place; I said, that I would make some inquiry; and I learnt that it was possible that the place of Assistant Commissary might be obtained;—the consequence was, that money was deposited for that place, and I was led to believe that it inight be effected ; however it failed, and never took effect. What is become of the money that was deposited, and in whose hands was it deposited The money was deposited in the hands of Birch and Co. in Bond-street; the money is there now. li) whose name was it deposited Part of it was deposited in the name, I think, of a Mr. Lloyd and a Mr. Barber; another part of it was deposited in my name, and in the name of Mr. Barber. tº To wholn was the money te be paid, in the event of the application. for the place succeeding? There was 600l. deposited in the name of Messrs. Lloyd and Barber, I believe that would go into the hands of MR. MALTBY’s ExAMINATIon. 933 Mr. Lloyd; Mr. Barber was a friend of Mr. Ludowick's, and the mo- ney was only to be taken out on the event of the appointment taking place; the other 157l. I think that was the sum, would have passed through my hands, and I should have paid it over to the person with whom I communicated. With whem was it that you communicated? With an agent, who was accustomed to make inquiries of that kind; may I be excused nam- ing him —His name ..º. here does Mr. Tyndale live? He lives in Symonds'-buildings, Chelsea, or Symonds's-street. Who is Mr. Lloyd? Mr. Lloyd I do not know; I believe he is an Attorney. ºf How came Mr. Lloyd to be entitled to so large a share of this sum * A understood that the agent would have a handsome emolument from it, which was 157l. But the 1571, was deposited in your name at Mr. Barber's? It was. Then that 1571, was to go to the agent Mr. Tyndale Yes. I now inquire as to the 600l., who was to have the benefit of that Mr. Lloyd would have received that, I presume; I do not know of my own knowledge. You do not know what Mr. Lloyd was to do with it, whether he was to keep it? No; I had no communication with Mr. Lloyd, or any one upon that subject. - Who introduced Mr. Ludowick to you ? Mrs. Clarke mentioned Mr. Ludowick to me; I never saw him; I mean introduced by name, not personally. Are you quite certain you never saw Mr. Ludowick? Never, to my knowledge. Did Mrs. Clarke tell you how she became acquainted with Mr. Lud- owick 2 Upon recollection, I am not certain whether she said he was an acquaintance of her’s, or an acquaintance of Mr. Barber’s ; but I un- derstood from her conversation, that she knew Mr. Ludowick, that she had seen him; she said he was a very genteel man, and very fit for the place, very much of a gentleman, and a man of property. Did she state where be lived 2 I think she said he lived in Essex. Do you recollect what part? I am not certain whether she said Grays, in Essex, that is only her relation; I think that she said Grays, Is Mrs. Clarke acquainted with Mr. Tyndale No. Was she acquainted with Mr. Barber 3 Yes. Was she acquainted with Mr. Lloyd? I do not think she is. Who introduced Mr. Lloyd into this business? Mr. Tyndale. Who introduced Mr. Tyndale into it? I introduced Mr. Tyndale into it by making the inquiry. What share was Mrs. Clarke to have in the benefit to be derived from procuring this place? Nothing. * Nothing at all No, nothing. - What share were you to have for the procuring this place? Nothing; I did not mean to take any thing. You and Mrs. Clarke only did it for your pleasure ? Mr. Ludowick was a friend of Mrs. Clarke's, and I wished to oblige Mrs. Clarke by introducing this thing, if I could. How came Mrs. Clarke to apply to you to assist her in procuring this place 2 I believe from my calling upon her. 240 MR. MALTBY’s ExAMrNATren. How came you to call upon her I called upon her sometimes; she wrote to me, and I wished to keep up an acquaintance with her for the purpose of effecting the object of the account. . . . º How came you to think that at this time Mrs. Clarke could help ou in effectuating the object of the account? I did think so. r Through whom From her; I thought that she still had an influ- ence of some communication with the Duke. . ' Did she so represent herself to you? Yes. . . . . - At what time ; She so represented herself to me when we were down at the court martial, and since that time. . . . - - At the time of the court martial, and since that time, she represented to you that she still had influence over the Duke of York to pro- cure things to be done? Yes; I understood that the connection was not entirely at an end, that she had still a connection or an interest with him. . . . . . ; Was this the first instance of your assisting her in procuring a place for her friend? Yes, I think it was ; I do not recollect any thing else. . . . . . . = -- - . . - Is there any other instance in which you have been so employed? Nothing effected at least. 3. =. - . . . . . . This was not effected; was there anything else in which an attempt was made 2 Yes; she asked me whether, a paymastership could be procured for a friend of her’s. & Who was that friend? It was a Mr. Williams. Where does he live? I understood he lived in Devonshire. Did you endeavour to procure that paymastership for. Mr. Wil- liams ? I made inquiry, and understood that it might be effected ; but nothing was done in it. - Of whom did you inquire Of the same person. Of Mr. Tyndale Yes. q 3. Through whom was Mr. Tyndale to procure this paymastership; did he tell you ? No. - - Was there any money deposited upon that occasion ? Nothing. Was there any other instance in which you were applied to by Mrs. Clarke Yes, in the same way, but nothing done. On whose behalf was that? That was Mr. Thompson, who was con- nected with her. J - ? - - When was that? I think it was in August. Was that before Mr. Williams's 2 Yes. And before Mr. Ludowick’s 2 Yes. I thought you stated, that there had been no instance of your apply- ing for anybody before Mr. Ludowick; I misunderstood you, I suppose? Yes; I did not mean to say there was no instance of an application be- fore I mentioned that, as being the thing the most likely to be effected. About what time was Mr. Williams's 2 I think that Mr. Williams's was during the same period that she mentioned it to me; I think about the time of Mr. Ludowick’s. . . . . -- Was any money deposited upon that occasion ? No. . . What office was he to obtain? He was to have a paymastership, as she represented to me. -- - . What did Thompson want? To go into the militia. —s Bid you make any inquiries upon that? Yes, I did. , Of whom did youinquire upon that ? The same person, Mr. Tyndale. f MR. MALTBY’s BxAMINATION. 241 Do you recollect the name of any other person from whom you were to make inquiries? I think there was a M. Lawson. What office was he to obtain He wished so obtain a place in the Custom-house, land-waiter. Did you make any inquiries respecting him? Yes, I did ; I made *:::: of the same person, but nothing was effected. Was there any money deposited upon that occasion? None. Did Mrs. Clarke recommend all these persons to you? Yes. , Is there any other person whom you can recollect? No, I do not immediately recollect any person besides. I think you stated that there was no money deposited, except in the case of Ludowick; was there any agreement for the deposit or pay- ment of money in the other cases, in the event of the application suc- ceeding In the event of the application succeeding in the case of Mr. Thompson, some remuneration was intended to be made. What? I think it was about 250l. For the commission in the militia? Yes. Who was to have that 250l. 2 I do not know, I am sure. Did you negotiate with Mr. Tyndale f Iasked Mr. Tyndale about it, and he said he thought he could procure it. For 250l. Yes. - Was notitat all mentioned in that conversation, who was to liave the benefit of the 250l? No, I did not ask any questions of Mr. Tyndale, I thought it indelicate to ask questions. º You were to have nothing for any of these transactions No. Nor Mrs. Clarke? ..º. Clarke; Mr. Thompson was her bro- ther I think. In the other cases of Mr. Lawson and Mr. Williams, was she to have nothing in those cases * I do not know that she was, I am pretty sure that she was not. r Are you serious in saying that she was to have nothing for those? €S. w Do you know any person that she calls the Duke of Portland in these transactions? No. You never heard her say, that she dignified you by the name of her Duke of Portland? Never, till I heard it by accident. What accident led you to hear that I was coming into the city one day, I met Sir George Hill, with whom I have the honour of being acquainted, and he told me the circumstance. f her having mentioned it here? Yes, I did not hear of it before, and had no idea of the circumstance. s Was Ludowick recommended for any other place besides that qf assistant commissary . When that failed he wished to have a paymas- tership in lieu of it, rather than give up the money; I understood that from R. Clarke, but it did hot turn out to be the case. ſe How long is it since you have given up all hopes of succeeding for Mr. Ludowick I believe a month or two. . º How happens it that the money still remains in Mr. Birch's bank Because they have not asked to have it back again, I know of no other reason; they might have it back whenever they pleased; I told Mrs. Clarke some time ago, they had better take the money back, that there was not a likelihood of it being * 242 ‘M R. MALTBY’s exAMINATron. - Did you ever acquaint Mr. Ludowick with that circumstance : I never spoke to him. = Had you any communication with Mr. Lloyd yourself? No. Are ;" at all acquainted with Messrs. Coleman and Keyler? No, not at all. - Do you recollect the christian name of the Mr. Williams whom you spoke of 2 No, I do not. Did you ever see him 2 Not to my knowledge. Do you happen to know whether it is the same Mr. Williams who appeared in this house a few nights ago? I never saw that gentleman, but I have no reason to think so; because I understood he lived in De- vonshire, and was a respectable man. - Do you know whether Mr. Tyndale was originally an ensign in the 17th foot, and afterwards a cornet in the 17th light dragoons? I under- stood that he had been in the army; but I do not know in what regi- Illent. Did you ever understand from any person that Sir Arthur Welles- ley's being engaged at Chelsea was the reason that this business of Ludowick’s did not succeed? No; I understood from Mr. Tyndale, that the trial at Chelsea occupied the public attention so much, that it stood in the way of the appointment. Then you never did hear from any of the parties Sir Arthur Welles- ley’s name mentioned? No. Up to what period did Mrs. Clarke represent herself to you as being possessed of influence with the Duke of York sufficient to obtain places? I had reason, from conversations with her, to think, that even to the eve of this inquiry, the Duke had not deserted her. Is that mere supposition, or has she stated to you any thing posi- tively , upon that subject since May 1806? She has said those kind of things to me, that induced me to believe it, such as that the Duke was about providing for her upon a smaller establishment than formerly; and those kind of things which have induced me to think he had not deserted her. Did you yourself suppose you had any influence with the Duke of York 2 Not the least. ... Then how do you account for Mrs. Clarke’s employing you to so- licit favours, which, you say, you understood she was able to obtain herself? I cannot account for that. - Bid you ever represent to Mrs. Clarke, that you had any influence with the Duke of Portland 2 No. - With whom did you represent yourself to have any influence so as to induce her to make those applications repeatedly to you? I did not tepresent myself as having influence with any person whatever. With whom did you understand Tyndale to have any influence? I did not know ; I did not ask him any questions. Then the committee are to understand, that you were a party to the deposit of money in the hands of third persons, for the purpose of pro- curing a place, without knowing through whose medium that place was to be tºured: I did not know through whose medium it was to be procured. - . Did you ever make application to Mrs. Clarke upon any other sub- pect, except the liquidation of the debt supposed to be due to Mr. islanners ? I do not recollect that I did, • MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATIoni 243 When did you see Sir George Hill I saw Sir George Hill on Saturday, and I saw him yesterday morning. ** What rank in the militia was Mr. Thompson to obtain for 250l. A captain's commission. In what regiment of militia? I do not know the regiment. Mr. Tyndale negotiated the business It was not negotiated; I un- derstood from Mr. Tyndale, that he could get it effected, but it was never negotiated. *} Were you to receive any advantage from any of those transactions, if they had been carried into execution? No, I should not have receiv- ed any thing. What was your motive for undertaking such a negotiation? It was to oblige Mrs. Clarke, it was her relation. as the negotiation respecting Mr. Ludowick to oblige Mrs. Clarke? Yes, he was a friend of her’s. Are you acquainted with Mr. Lloyd No. ... Did you ever write a letter to Mr. Lloyd? No, I do not recollect that I ever wrote to Mr. Lloyd; I did not know him ; I do not think I could possibly write a letter to him; I am pretty certain I did not, because I had no communication with him whatever. Are you quite certain you never wrote to Mr. Lloyd? I am certain in my own mind; I should be very much surprised to see a letter of mine to Mr. Lloyd. - Recollect whether you ever did or not write to Mr. Lloyd. I do not recollect that I ever did; I am confident, as far as my memory serves me, that I did not. : Are you certain that you never did? I am as certain of that as I can be of most things. * Did you ever see Mr. Ludowick 2 No. Who first spoke to you of Mr. Ludowick? Mrs. Clarke. What did Mrs. Clarke know of Mr. Ludowick 2 I do not know ; she spoke to me as if he was a friend of her’s, but I do not know what the acquaintance was between them. ou were to procure this situation for Mr. Ludowick : I was not to procure it; but I mentioned it to Mr. Tyndale, who thought he could effect it. * ! . . You were employed by Mrs. Clarke to mention Mr. Williams to Mr. Tyndale Yes. - And Mr. Thompson Not to mention him to him, but I mentioned them to him of my own accord. . . r She applied to you to procure those situations 2 Yes. Did you represent yourself as able, by your own influence, to pro- cure those situations : Not the least ; I never had such an idea. Did you ever, tell her you were to apply to a third person to pro- cure those situations; I do not know that I told her that distinctly; but I said I would enquire, to the best of my recollection, whether such a thing could be obtained, . . . . . . . - You are certain of that? I am certain I never represented myself as having any interest to procure any place, not personally. Are you certain you never told her that you were to apply to ano- ther person to procure those appointments; To the best of my recol- lection, I º I would make .." # * Did you ºver name Tyndale to Mrs. Clarke Never, I believe. R 2 244 Mr. Malway's examination. A- who introduced Tyndale to you? I met Mr. Tyndale frequently at a place where I used to go. . ‘Where was that? It was a Mr. Robins, in Bartlett's Buildings. . Whe was Mr. Robins 2 He was a solicitor; I used to see him there when I called occasionally. Did you ever see Mr. Barber? I saw Mr. Barber once. Where? I called upon him. Where? In Union Court. ... * About this business of Mr. Ludowick’s 2 Yes, about this business, to offer to return him the money. - " What was his answer? I think he said he would see Mr. Ludowick? he did not ask for the return of the money. Do you know what connection subsists between Mr. Barber and *: Lloyd? No, I do not know that any connection subsists between them. - You never saw Mr. Lloyd . Not to my knowledge. - - Do you recollect now having ever written to Mr. Lloyd? No, I do not. - - - Are those transactions with respect to Mr. Ludowick, Mr. Thomps son, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Lawson, the only transactions of the sort º you recollect to have been engaged? I do not recollect any Others. - - * - d Recollect yourself. There have been things mentioned, but nothing Oile, Some others have been mentioned 2 Yes I think there have. What are those 2 I think a place of a clerk in the war-office. When was that? I believe it was about August, but lam, not quite certain. * August last ! Yes. - Had Mrs. Clarke any thing to do with that? Yes, I believe she asked me about it. - Did you undertake that, at the request of Mrs. Clarke? I made an inquiry. - di Fº you make an inquiry at the request of Mrs. Clarke? I think I ICl. Was it or was it not at the request of Mrs. Clarke, that you made that inquiry 2 I think it was. - Are you sure ? I am pretty confident. - - e quite sure ?' I think so, that it was at her request. Was it effected 2 No, it was not. What were you to receive for that, supposing it had been effected 2 I should not have received any, thing for that. * W. Was any body to have received any thing for that Yes. - Who? I do not know who ; it was never negotiated. ... In behalf of whom was the place to be procured I do not recollect the name. - - What sum was to be given in case it was obtained 2 I think about three or four hundred pounds. - To whom did you apply about that? Mr. Tyndale: I did not know. any body else that was likely to effect this object. . . - - - *Was it at Mrs. Clarke's request that you undertook that I think it WAS. - - - . You do not recollect the name of the person? No, MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATIon. 245 Do you recollect any other transaction ? No, I do not recollect any other. - There is this clerkship in the war-office, this affair of Mr. Ludowick, this affair of Mr. Williams, this affair of Mr. Thompson, this affair of Mr. Lawson; do you recollect any other ? No, I do not. Are you quite sure there was no other transaction of the same sort 2 I do not recollect any other. You do not know that there was not? No, I do not recollect any other. You are not sure that there was no other? My memory may escape me, but I do not recollect any other. What was the place which you negotiated for Mr. Russell Manners, in the year 1806? I did not negotiate º place for him. Did not you endeavour to obtain a place for Mr. Russell Manners, through the medium of Mrs. Clarke, in 1806? No. What was your transaction with Mrs. Clarke in 1806 I had no transaction with Mrs. Clarke in 1806. *. What was your acquaintance with her in 1806 It was through the medium of Mr. Manners, who married my wife's sister; I had no ac- quaintance with her previous to that period. From 1806 to April 1808, your acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke dropped, did it not? Yes, I do not think I saw Mrs. Clarke from August or September 1806, till the court martial in April, 1808; I do not recollect that I did. + That court martial was held at Colchester? It was held at Weeley, near Colchester. * - How soon after that court martial did you again see Mrs. Clarke * I do not recollect; I did not know where Mrs. Clarke lived. Where did she live when you next saw her ? If I recollect right, she lived in Holles-street; lodged there for a short period. You do not know in what month that was 2 No, I cannot speak po- sitively, but I think it was before she went to Bedford-place. Did you go to her of your own accord, or did she send to you? She wrote me a note to call upon her ? I did not know where she lived. ” yi." stated I suppose in her letter, where you were to call upon her? €S. What was the object of her desiring to see you? I do not recollect what she said; I think it was something relative to what passed at the court martial, but I do not recollect. Wº: not to obtain some place for Mrs. Clarke, that she sent for you ? No. *~ You are positive of that? Yes, I am pretty positive of it; I have not the least recollection of it. When was it that the first of these transactions you have mentioned took place 2 I think in August. g That was a clerkship in the war-office, was it not? No I think it was about Mr. Thompson. . . • Was Mr. Thompson's the first transaction of the sort that took place after the court-martial? I think it was; there was no great dis- tance of time between all these things. . ' Was there no other transaction of this sort took place between the court martial and the affair of Mr. Thompson, besides those which you have enumerated 2 I do not recollect any. 246 Mn. MALT BY's ExAMINAT19 N. Have you ever prosecuted any business of this sort with success * Never. - _ - Never in your life? No. - And you engaged in these businesses out of pure good-nature? I thought it would oblige Mrs. Clarke, and I wished to accomplish the object I had in view, to have Mr. Manners's accounts liquidated. How could you suppose, that by obliging Mrs. Clarke, you could get Mr. Manners's accounts liquidated, when she had so little interest, that she was obliged to apply to you to accomplish these different bu- sinesses 2 Because she told me that she still had an interest with the Duke of York, and that she was, in some degree, under his protec- tion. Are you quite positive she told you that I am quite satisfied that she told me that, or gave me to understand it; I had no reason to dispute it, from the tenor of her conversation to me more than once, as I mentioned before, that the Duke of York kept her upon a smaller establishment, and I really believed she was under the protection of the Duke of York, or that he was about to re-establish her. Did it never occur to you to remark to her, that if she had that in- fluence with the Duke of York, she was much more likely to prevail in such transactions thali yourself? No, I never made that remark. Where was it that she gave you to understand this, at Colchester? I think it was at Colchester, or going down to Colchester; it was about that time. r - You do not now recollect any other, transactions besides those you have mentioned 2 No I do not call any to my memory. You do not recollect ever having written to Mr. Lloyd? No, I de not. How many interviews do you suppose you had at different times with Mr. Tyndale Upon my word I cannot tell, I have no idea; I have been used to see him frequently. - - - A gréat many Yes, I have frequently seen him. Then do you mean to state, in point of fact, upon no one of those interviews you have ever, from your own curiosity or any other motive, asked Mr. yº. through whose interest those appointments were to be procured 7 Upon one occasion, in the case of Ludowick I think it was, I asked Mr. Tyndale, pressing very much to have it effecte what channel do you º this comes through he supposed that it might come through the Wellesley interest, I think he said; he did not mention any particular person. That answer was given by Mr. Tyndale in respect to Mr. Ludowick’s appointment? Yes. { - - id: you never hear Mr. Tyndale mention any other name in res- pect to the channel through which any other was to come? No, I did not ask him any question as to the channel, except upon that occasion, when I pressed so much to have it effected. ' ' ' J. Mr. Dudowick’s was the third application you made to Mr. Tyndale, do you mean to state that in the applications for Thompson and Wil- liams, which were previous, you never heard through whose influence those were to be obtained 2 No, I did not ask him any questions. . Not till the third application ? I do not say it was the third applica- º but not till that application. * What led you to Mr. Tyndale: Being acquainted with him, and MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATION. 247 knowing that he was a kind of agent, and had information of that na- ture. - Had you any reason to know that Mr. Tyndale had the power of obtaining any offices 2 No, not personally. --- - Then do you mean to state that you applied to Mr. Tyndale in a great many instances, without knowing that there was any probability of his obtaining the offices he was employed to obtain? Yes, except from his own statement, or representation, that he thought he could et them. . - 3 By what means did he state that he thought he could effect them : He did not state the means; I did not inquire into the channel ; I do not * what communications he had, nor with whom he was con- nected. * Do you mean to state, that after you had applied to him repeatedly, and he had failed in obtaining those situations for which he was applied to, that you continued still to apply to him without hearing from him the means by which he was to obtain future situations? Yes; I did not know that he had any interest in himself to effect those objects. Had you been in the habit of negotiating, or have ever negotiated for any situations of this kind, previous to your knowledge of Mrs. Clarke? O. State whether Mrs. Clarke gave you any hopes that Mr. Russell Man- , ners's object would be effected 2 I was about to state the purport of a letter, but it is not correctly evidence, which I do not know whether I have seen or not; but I remember the contents of it perfectly well, particularly one expression of the letter, purported to be written by the Duke, and it said that he would give Mr. Manners a placesuitable to his name and family. I remember that expression, I think those were the very words; or, that would not disgrace his name and family; something to that purport. This communication was not made to me, it was made to Mr. Manners by Mrs. Clarke, this letter that I speak of, and Mr. Manners communicated it to me. Did Mr. Manners state to you that he had seen such a letter, or did he bring such a letter to you? I am sure that he stated such a letter to me, but I do not think I saw the letter. Do you recollect at what time this passed? I think about the month of August 1806, as nearly as I can recollect, perhaps it might be July. # Mr. Manners state to you from whom he had the letter? To the best of my recollection it was a letter written by the Duke to Mrs. Clarke, j. she shewed to him. I do not know whether she enclosed the letter to Mr. Manners, whether he had the actual possession of it, or only saw it in her possession. Did you see Mrs. 8. afterwards, and have any conversation with her upon this letter? I do not recollect that I had ; I saw her after- wards, but I do not recollect that I said anything to her upon the sub- ject. When you saw her afterwards, had you any conversation with her upon Mr. Manners's business? I do not recollect that I had ; for I generally saw her in the company of Mr. Manners, * * When you saw her in company with Mr. Manners afterwards did any conversation pass on Mr. Manners's business? No, I do not recollect that there was. • * : * * , Not up to this hour? No; Mr. Manners has been abroad for a year * { - and a half. ' ' ' 248 MR. MALTBY's ExAMIN Arron. Have you conducted his affairs since he has been abroad? No; he has no affairs to conduct, in fact. - Did Mrs. Clarke, in your hearing or to you, say that she had men- tioned Mr. Russell Manners's business to the Duke of York? I do not recollect that she ever said that in my presence. Did you ever hear her say any thing upon that subject? ... I do not recollect that I ever did; for I saw Mr. Manners so frequently that he communicated every thing to me. I do not think I ever spoke to her upon that subject. - Did any conversation pass between her and Mr. Manners upon the subject in your presence? I do not recollect any conversation. Did you transact all this business for her gratuitously, or did you hope that this object would be effected, and §. R. should be 'remu- nerated in that way? I had no gratuity for it, but I hoped that I should get the account settléd, - Have you expected that in the course of the last year? I have ex- pected it; I remember speaking to Mrs. Clarke about it frequently, and not long ago. I think about a month. You spoke to her upon the subject about a month ago? Yes. Did she at that time give you hopes that it would be effected? She said, you may speak to me upon that about two months hence. Did she say at all that she had mentioned the subject to his Royal Highness? No, she never did. Not at any other time? No; she seemed as if she wished to post- one that application; that I must speak to her about two months i. That was about a month or six weeks ago. º Was it up to that late period of a month or six weeks ago you still supposed her to have influence with the Duke of York? Yes, I still thought so to the eve of this inquiry, from her representations to me and er conversation. Did you think so from her representations and conduct? Yes, from her representations. You have stated, that in one of those transactions the money was left at the house of Messrs. Birch and Co. have you any credit with that house? No, I have no account with that house. They do not discount bills for you? No. & Do you happen to know whether Mrs. Clarke has any account with the house of Messrs. Birch, where this money was left? I do not know that she has. - - • * Who proposed that the money should be deposited there? I think it was Tyndale; I am pretty confident it was. t Has it ever happened to you, in transactions of this nature, to have money deposited at a house where you have a credit? I never had any of this moſley deposited upon my own account; I do not know whether it is customary. - I do not ask as to money deposited on your own account, but money on account of persons concerned in such a negotiation ? I have no ex- perience upon that subject, though I believe it is customary to deposit the money with the bankers to one of the parties, but I do not think Birch and Company were bankers to any of the parties. * Has it ever happened to you in a negotiation of this kind, that the money should be deposited at a banker’s where you had a credit? No. Was it Mrs. Clarke who made the proposition to you in the first at- MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATION. 249 fair you were concerned in, or you to Mrs. Clarke? I think Mrs. Clarke asked ºne the question; I think she made the p º t What question did Mrs. Clarke ask you ? Fº : it was about Thompson. - #. What was the question Mrs. Clarke put to you? Thát she wished to get a commission for him, and inquired whether it could be effected. Bid the bankers allow any interest upon the sum deposited? I ap- prehend not; I take that for granted. - You are sure they did not allow four per cent. ” I am pretty certain they did not. w re you perfectly sure ? I have had no communication with the bankers; I never heard that they did, and I rather think they did not, for the parties do not expect interest for their money, and I do not think that the bankers, upon those occasions, allow any interest gene- º ; I never heard that they did. - Are you perfectly certain that you never did, in any former trans- actions, derive an advantage from the lodgment of imóñey at Messrs. Birch and Company's Yes; jam perfectly confident of it. You have said, that you were not certain whether some conversa- tion passed with Mrs. Clarke at the Court Martial, or going down to Colchester; did you go down to Colchester with Mrs. Clarke I did. She called upon me, she said she was going to Colchester, and I was summoned very suddenly to the Court Martial; I had but an hour's notice; she said she was going down in a post-chaise; I said, then we Imay i. well go together, and we accordingly did go down in a chaise together. - º - id you not give evidence upon that Court Martial that you had not seen Mrs. Clarke either for some weeks or months preceding that trial? I think, to the best of my recollection, that I said I had nºt seen her from August, 1806, till she called upon me. Up to the period of your evidence? Up to the time when she called upon me. : - Will you be perfectly clear in your recollection, whether you did not say that upon oath I do not recollect that I did; I should wish to hear that part read, if it is in court; I have no idea that I differed upon that occasion from what I state now. I am sare, upon both occa- sions, I state to the best of my recollection; I may be mistaken in these trivial circumstances which did not interest me; that I did not see her from August 1806, till she called upon me to go down to the Court Martial ; I think I stated that. Will you state positively that you did not upon that trial, on oath, state that you had not seen Mrs. Clarke for either weeks or months up to the period at which you gave your evidence? I do not recollect that; if I did it must be a mistake; J fancy I corrected it, if I stated that: but I must be misunderstood upon that occasion. In any of the conversations you had with Mrs. Clarke or Mr. Tyn- dale on the subject of these transactions, was the Duke of York's name ever mentioned? Never, - You are sure it was not upon any occasion? I am certain it was not; nor the name of any other person except in the way I have men- tioned. You have stated, that about two months ago you informed Mrs. Clarke that there was no hope of getting a situation for Mr. Ludowick; 250 MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATION. what circumstance induced you to form that opinion, and to commu- nicate to Mrs. Clarke that there was no hope of success for Mr. Ludo- wick? From Mr. Tyndale; he told me that he thought that he could not effect it.' ' " ' . . . -: 2 : - . . Mr. Tyndale told you that he thought he could not effect it? Yes. Did he give you any reason for his failure ? I think he said, to the best of my recollection, that a new arrangement had taken place in that department, or something to that purport. - - When did Mr. Tyndale tell you that the appointment was only de- layed on account of the Inquiry at Chelsea, respecting the Conven- tion at Cintra It was during that Inquiry or that Trial. . . Then you were led to hope, pending the Board of Inquiry at Chel- sea, the appointment would take place as soon as that was over ? thought so from what he said to me. . - * * And two months ago you were informed by Mr. Tyndale that there was no chance of success, owing to a new arrangement? I think it was only about a month. . . . . - [The following Questions and Answers were read:] “Q. In any conversations you had, with Mrs. Clarke or Mr. Tyndale on the subject of these transactions, was the Duke of Portland's name ever mentioned? Never.”—“..Q. You are sure, it was not upon any occasion? I am certain it was not, nor the name of any other person, except in the way I have mentioned.” t - f What do you mean by “except in the way you have mentioned ’’ That he said, that the place of Assistant Commissary he thought would be procured through the Wellesley interest, not mentioning any particular name. - ' ' , , , ! Were you yourself acquainted with the hand writing of the letter which you stated to have been a letter from the Duke of York? I do not recollect that I ever saw the letter. # Were you ever engaged in any transaction about Writerships or Cadetships for India? No, I think; excepting once a person asked me about a cadetship. * - I Who was the person who asked you about a cadetship? Mr. Doriovan. ... . . . . . . . . . You are acquainted with Mr. Donovan, are you? I have an ac- quaintance with him... . . . . . . . - What did he ask you about a cadetship He asked me whether it could be procured. . . . . . . . When was this? I think it was about six weeks ago. What did you answer 2 I said, that I would inquire about it. Did youinquire? Yes. . . * t What was the result? That it might be procured was the result. Of whom did you inquire? I inquired of this same gentleman. . And he told you it might be procured? Yes. Was it procured? No. How came it nót to be procured, do you know I do not know how it came not to be procured. - $ Tyndale told you he could not procure it? No, he said he could. From whom did you learn that it could not be procured 2 I do not know that it cannot be procured. Nothing is done in it that I know of. MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATION. 251 What suspended the negotiation? I do not know exactly, but I fancy the party was not in town, or something of that kind. - What party An acquaintance of Mr. Donovan's. The party who wanted to procure it Yes. - Is the business in suspense now Is it in a train of proceeding now? I do not know. |- How long is it since you have lost sight of this transaction? I believe perhaps a week. r - Then a week ago you knew something of this transaction, did you? €S. What did you know of it then? Was it in a train of proceeding then? €S. º Had the party come to town then No, I believe not. It was in the regular process, was it? Yes, I understood it might be effected. - From whom did you understand that? . From Mr. Tyndale. * you expect, now, it will be effected? Upon my word, I do not KIHOW. 4. What was to be paid, if this transaction was brought to a successful conclusion ? I do not know that any particular sum was mentioned upon that, unless it was 150l. One hundred and fifty pounds, to be paid to whom? That I do not Rnow. Mr. Tyndale, I suppose, would receive it, effecting the thing. Mr. Tyndale would have 150l. Yes. What should you have 2 I should not have any thing. Mr. Dono. van, I suppose, would have paid the money to me, and I should have paid it over to Mr. Tyndale. , Are you a lawyer? Yes. Were you aware that this was an illegal transaction ? No. Are you aware of that now No. * * Was this the only occasion on which Mr. Donovan employed you to negotiate a writership, or a cadetship to India Yes. Are you positive of that? Yes, I do not recollect any other. Are you positive there was no other ? Yes. * Quite positive Yes. - How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Donovan I do not exactly recollect, perhaps a year. Try to recollect as nearly as you can I think it is about a year, not quite. - Do you manage Mr. Donovan's affairs? No. N." you an agent of Mr. Donovan's in other matters besides this? O How long have you been an agent of his in these transactions: I am not an agent of his. - How long has Mr. Donovan consulted you, or courted your assist- ance in transactions of this sort I do not know exactly ; I have called upon Mr. Donovan occasionally upon other matters. How ofteå has Mr. Donovan talked to you upon matters of this kind? I cannot tell." " . . . . . . . t In how many instances has Mr. Donovan employed you in transac- tions of this sort?” Qaly'oſi that one.” * - Are you quite positive he has employed you upon no other I do not recollect any other. v. g : - 3. 252. MR. MALTBY's ExAMINATIon. Upon what other transactions did you go to see Mr. Donovan Mr. Donovan is intimate with Lord Moira, and I have called upon him to know whether Lord Moira’s sister was arrived in England, because I expected a relation of mine would come over about the same time, or that I should have intelligence about her. Come from where? From Vienna. 3 * Do you know a person of the name of Gibson 2 No; what Gibson 2 Do you know of a Mr. Gibsoa of Coventry-street? No. - o you know a Mr. Gibson who was lately negotiating for the place of Tide-waiter No. - - You never heard of him 2 No. Mr. Donovan never named him to you? No. Pid Mr. Donovan introduce you to Mrs. Clarke at any time? No. id you never see Mrs. Clarke from the year 1806 till the time she called upon you to go with her to Colchester in April, 1808? I do not recollect that I ić. * ad you ever any intercourse with her by letter, during that period? Yes, I think I had letters from her before the Court Martial, about her brother, Mr. Thompson. . . - Was this upon the affair of the Court Martial? I believe that re- Iated to it. - - ry to be certain what it was she wrote to you about? I réally ean- not recollect the contents of the letter, but I think it respected some Bills of Exchange which came before the Court Martial, and there was some difficulty about them; she was afraid he would be arrested, I think; but I do not recollect the purport of the letter. i. Had you no correspondence with her about matters of this sort 2 No, I do not recollect any communication of the sort. Was it in consequence of that communication that she called upon tº you in the chaise as she went down I recollect that she wrote to me a few days before, that she thought she should have occasion to desiré me to attend at Colchester upon that business. How many letters had you from Mrs. Clarke during the period be- tween 1806 and 1808 2 I am sure I do not know. All about this business of the court martial ; No. What were the other letters about? I do not recollect; nothing of any consequence, I believe. I do not think I heard from her for seve- ral months; those letters that I allude to, I think, came from Hamp- stead; but the contents are so immaterial to me, that I do not call thern to recollection. These were not letters of business 2 No, I think not; I do not re- collect the contents of them. When did you last see Mr. Donovan I think I saw him last Friday or Saturday; I rather think Friday. Had you any conversation with him at that time about the cadet- ship No; I do not think I had. - Are you positive you had not? I do not recollect that I had. Had you, or had you not, any conversation at that time with Mr. Donovan upon that subject? I do not recollect that I had. ou are not positive? I think I am positive. - You have stated, that it is customary in transactions of such a nature as those you have been speaking of, to deposit the money with the banker of one of the parties; what do you mean by customary 2 I did MRS. QLARKE's ExAMINATION. 253 not speak of my own knowledge, but I believe it is usual; I believe it is natural to deposit it with the banker of one of the parties. . . Then you do not know that it is the custom 2 No; but I rather take it for granted that it is customary to deposit the money with the banker of one of the parties. - * * Refresh your memory, and inform the Committee whether you can now recollect any negotiation of this sort besides the one of Mr. Ludo- wick's, the one of Mr. Williams's, the one of Mr. Thompson's, the one of Mr. Lawson's, the one respecting, the clerkship in the War-office, and the one respecting the cadetship? No; I do not recollect any. What reason did Mrs. Clarke give you for wishing you to speak to her in two months respecting Mr. Russell Manners's affairs? She did not give any reason for it. You have said that you are a solicitor by profession; you are paid for your trouble in transactions of business, are you not? Yes, in pro- fessional business. - * r W. How could you afford to transact so many intricate businesses quite gratuitously? I have done a great deal of business gratuitously in my profession. r You have said, that in negotiating this business with Mr. Tyndale you had but little hopes of success given to you; did you represent the matter to the gentlemen who applied to you in the same light, or did you magnify their chance of success?. I had no communication with those gentlemen, but only with Mrs. Clarke; I communicated to her. Can you recollect any single circumstance, or any single expression of Mrs. Clarke's, that could serve as a foundation for your suspicion that she had any influence with the Duke of York as to granting places since 1806? I only collected from her conversation that she still had an interest with the Duke of York, but she said nothing about a power to grant places, or any thing of that sort. Do you know of her offering to procure, or of her pretending to en- º, deavour to procure any place by her own influence with the Duke, during that period, from the latter end of 1806? I do not, from the latter end of 1806, recollect her saying any thing to that purport. Would you have been anxious to oblige Mrs. Clarke, if she had not given you reason to suppose that she still possessed influence with the Commander in Chief? No. 1. At what period did Mrs. Clarke represent to you that the Duke of York was about to reinstate her upon a reduced establishment? I think that was about the time of going down to the court martial. Ms. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in again, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Haye yon any papers of Mr. Maltby's in your hand? Yes, I have. . . . . . . . [The Witness delivered in some paper.] . . State from whom you received those different papers? I received those from Mr. Maltby, and those two from Mr. Barber; there is Mr. Barber’s name to, one of them. . ~. Do those you received from Mr. Maltby purport to be Mr. Maltby's hand-writing? Yes; his name is to two or three of them. . Do they all purport to be his hand-writing? Yes, they are all of his hand-writing. . * * - - 254 . MRs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATIon. Did you ever see Mr. Maltby write? Yes, many times. Do you know that they are his hand-writing? Yes. You are positive of that fact? Yes. - Have you ever seen Mr. Barber write? Yes; this is only a sort of copy of how the money was to be lodged. # s that in Mr. Barber's hand-writing? Yes, they are by the same hand, and his name is to one. - - Have you any other letters which you wish to deliver in? Yes, I have. -- From whom are they Three of them are from Colonel M*Mahon to me; I have lost the others, I fancy. - , Have you any other letters which you wish to produce? To shew I did not tell a story about Doctor O'Meara, I have a letter of recom- º from the Archbishop of Tuam, not to me, but to the doctor imself. * * - - - - - Any thing more? General Clavering, I fancy, informed the honour- able gentlemen here, that he never had any thing to say to me upon military affairs; General Clavering being a distressed man, he was then a colonel, I spoke to the Duke respecting him ; and had a great deal of difficulty, more so than as to any other man that I ever applied for, in getting any sort of employment for him. - * Have you any papers relating to that matter? . At last I prevailed upon the Duke to give him a district, and with it he made him a bri- gadier-general, entirely through my means. He afterwards asked me to get him a regiment; and, fearing they might be all given away be- fore his Royal Highness came to town, I wrote to him when he was reviewing along the coast; here is the letter which his Royal Highness wrote to me, in which he mentions General Clavering’s name. There. is another from the Duke, in which he acknowledges about Doctor O’Meara, that he would serve him as soon as he could ; it does not speak of the Archbishopric, it merely acknowledges that he knows such a man. And the other is from Colonel Shaw, when in the Downs, just before he sailed for the Cape of Good Hope, complaining of being put upon half-pay. Do you know that to be the writing of his Royal Highness the Duke of York : Yes, I do ; but if not Mr. Adam can speak to it. Is that [another letter] the hand-writing of his Royal Highness Yes. . . . - Have you seen the Duke of York write? Yes, I have. This, ad- dressed to George Farquhar, Esq. is his usual hand-writing; whenever. he addresses Mrs. Clarke, the outside is always in a fictitious hand. This is addressed, Mrs. Clarke, to be left at the Post-office at Worth- ing; the inside of both letters is his usual hand..” “ How did you come by the letter of the Archbishop of Tuam . . It was left amongst Dr. O’Meara papers, among his documents, by ac- cident, and I did not destroy it, because I thought it might be of some future service to him; when I gave him his papers, this was left by accident. * . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ~ *-* : Do you recollect through what medium you received Colonel Shaw's letter, whether by post, or a private hand I fancy it went to Coutts's the bankers; I think he directed me to write to him always there under cover, and the clerks would take care of them ; but I am not quite certain, I think it was brought to me by a private hand. Mks. &LARKE's ExAMINATIon. 255 Do you know Colonel Shaw's hand so well, as to be able to speak to that being his hand-writing? Yes, I do. t , You say that is Colonel Shaw's writing; Yes, it is. Did you ever see Dr. O'Meara? Yes, very often indeed. Who is Dr. O'Meara? He is an Irish gentleman, a clergyman, I do not know better how to describe him; he is very well known in Ireland. . . . . Where was this letter purporting to be a letter from the Archbishop of Tuam to him, found? Among my own papers; Dr. O’Meara has written me several letters for it, but I could not find it till about half a ear ago. Did Dr. O'Meara send you that letter? Yes, he did, he gave it to me with other documents. T-- How long since It must have been very soon after it was written, I believe. 4. What time was that? I really do not like to date the letter. How many years ago? It was while I lived in Gloucester-place. How long ago is it since you lived in Gloucester-place: Since the year 1806. Did Dr. O’Meara, upon sending that letter to you, direct any use to be made of it? Yes, to shew it to the Duke of York with the other papers. - * Was it about the time that the Duke of York went to Lord Ches- terfield's christening that Dr. O’Meara gave it to you? No, I believe it was some time previous to that. How long previous I cannot say. l - It was previous to that?. He gave me documents, but I am not sure that was among them; but I am certain that I received it from his own hands. [The witness was directed to withdraw. The following papers were read: letter from Mr. Maltby, dated July 28th.--Saturday evening.—Friday afternoon.—May 20th.-Wednesday afternoon December 7th–Thursday, 5 in the afternoon.—A paper beginning “The receipts to be taken,” &c.—receipts in pencil, be- ginning “received of Mr. Blake,” &c.—Letter from Mr. Barber.—Anotherform of receipt.—Agreement, beginning, “I William Barber,” &c.—A note from Colonel MºMahon to Mrs. Clarke, dated Monday morning.—A letter from the same, dated Wednesday morning; and from the same, dated Tuesday morning.—Letter from his Royal Highness the Duke of York to Mrs. Clarke, dated August the 4th, 1805, -Letter from his Royal Highness the §. of York to Mrs. Clarke, dated August 24th, 1804.] “Dear Madam, f * Friday morning. “The regiment for Mr. Williams is going to India; this is lucky; therefore let him immediately provide the needful, and I will arrange in what way it is to be deposited. Have you written to him, as no time is to be lost. - * + - “As to the 2d battalion, is the gentleman here and prepared? ' ' , . “Your's truly, * * * R. M. “Pray give me a line in answer.” 256 • MRs. * GLARKE's ExAMINATION. “Dear Madam, * +. “If you can by any means forward the adjustment of Mr. Manners" account as to his claims respecting the 26th regioent whilst in Egypt, of which the late General Manners was the colonel, “You will much oblige, “IOear Madam, “Your's truly, “July 28th. * R. MALTBY.” “I don't know your true address. I called in Holles-street a few days ago, and found you were gone.” “My dear Madam, “Saturday Evening. “I thank you very much for your kind attention—you wºuld be quite a treasure in every way to any secretary of state. “I am as anxious as you can be, that there may be no disappoint- ment in the comssp. and I am goading the parties every day. º say nothing of the B–ship 2d battalion; is the party ready ? - 46 When do you leave B– place? “I am, dear Madam, “Your's truly, “ R. M.” * Dear Madam, “If I have not the letter of recommendation immediately, and the money ready, I fear it will be lost. I understand the regiment is very respectable, but I do not know the county yet. “Remember the paymastership. “Your's truly, “Friday afternoon. 6& #. M.” “ Dear Madam, May 20th. “Mr. M. is not, I believe, in this country, but far distant; so it will answer to send your letter. Shall I inquire for the object you men- tion ? What rank, and what shall I propose for it? “Do you know any one who wishes, on certain terms, a paymas. tership in the E. Indies? * “I will inquire about the other matters. . - ** Your's º ©g “Dear. Madan, “I shall ascertain to-morrow everything respecting the P. ship. “Will any F. you know like a place in the Bank, about 100l. É. annum. I believe another P. ship of a first, and one of a second attalion, may be had, and militia adjutantcies. Eyear Madam, “Your's truly, t & R. M.” “Dear Madam, “Thursday, 5 Afternoon. “ I have been in search of Mr Barber, both in Bream's-buildings and the city without success: I shall see him to-morrow at eleven, and I am. 44tisfied I shall arrange with him, ( hope as he wishes.) “Wednesday Afternoon, Dec. 7th.” MRS. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 957 “In the mean time, as it is cerTAIN Mr. Williams may have what he wishes, I beg you will be so good as to send to Mr. Browne in- stantly to call on me, as it cannot be kept longer than a day open; and I think I can satisfy Mr. B. that there will be no disappointment. Pray send to him directly. “Your's very truly, 6 & “The receipts to be taken in the short form, as it is likely Coutts & º ºil not like to sign such a special, receipt as that written by “ 630l. to be deposited at Messrs. Coutts and Co. in names of L. & B. * “ & 157l. 10s. at Messrs. Birch & Co. in the names of - . Blake and Wm. Barber— - . “& to take a similar receipt. “It is absolutely necessary to make the deposit to-morrow, Friday (if not already dome) as the appointment otherwise will probably fail.” Addressed: “ Mrs. Clarke, Tavistock-place, 14, Russel-square.” “Forms of Receipt.” “ Received September 1808, of M. Blake, and the sun of three hundred and sixty seven pounds ten shillings, to be- repaid by us to the bearer of this receipt, upon producing the same in- dorsed by the said M. Blake, and - - (Signed) ** BIRCH & Co.” “I do hereby agree to indorse a certain receipt, dated Septr. 1808, for 3671. 10s. received of M. Blake and myself by Messrs. Birch, Chambers, and Co. immediately on the appointment of as a clerk on the establishment in the war-office. “Witness my hand, this day of Sept. 1808.” “ N. B. A similar engagment, to be signed as to 521. 10s. “ Received Sept. 1808, of & R. Maltby, the sum of fifty two pounds ten shillings, to be repaid by us to the bearer of this receipt, upon producing the same indorsed by the said aud. R. Maltby. - (Signed) “BIRCH & Co.” “ DEAR MADAM, “ It is impossible for me to pay the cash in this day, or even to: morrow, as it is in the bank. tºi. from you that it would not be wanted for a fortnight, I hope the busines will not be stopped for the want of this, for you may rest assured, honour is the order of the day in this transaction, and L. will come up directly and supply the cash. . I have made a little alteration in the blank receipt and agreement you sent me, but which, I dare say, will not be objected to by Lloyd and Co. f r * - “Your's very obntly. “Tuesday.” “WM. BARBER,” 258 to Lon EL MAGMAHoN’s NoTEs. “ Recd. Sept 1808, of Lloyd, Esq. and William Barber, the sum of to be repaid by us to the bearer of this receipt, upon producing the same indorsed by the said Lloyd and Wm. Barber, or by the said Wm. Barber only, in case such receipt, with the said joint indorsement thereon, shall not be produced to us within two months from the Date hereof. (Signed) - CouTT3 & Co.” “Agreement. “I Wm. Barber do hereby agree to indorse a certain receipt, dated Sept. 1808, for received of John Lloyd, Esq. and myself by Messrs. Coutts & Co. immediately on the appointment of J. K. Ludowick, Esq. to the place of assistant-commissary, appearing in the London Gazette, provided such appointment takes place within two months from the date hereof. And I the said John Lloyd, do hereby agree, that in case the above mentioned appointment shall not appear in the London Gazette within the time above-mentioned, then that I, the said J. Lloyd will indorse over such receipt to the said Wm. Barber, to enable him to receive such above-mentioned sum from Messrs. Coutts and Co. so deposited in their hands. “ LLOYD,” “ B.” CoLoREL M*MAHon's NoTEs. “ Monday Morning. “ Col. MºMahon presents his best compliments to Mrs. Clarke, and had only yesterday the pleasure to receive her note of Thursday last, for although he has returned to town for the season as his head-quarters, he makes two or three days excursions from it as often as he can, and it was during one of those that Mrs. Clarke's note arrived, otherwise it should not have so long remained unanswered. Col. M. will take the first forenoon he possibly can to wait on Mrs. Clarke in the course of this week. Addressed: “Mrs. Clarke, “14, Bedford-place, & “Bloomsbury.” - “ (Private.) “Wednesday Morng. “I should be most happy to bring about your wishes, and render you any service with the D. of Y. but I have not been able to see him since I had the pleasure of seeing you, and I understand he goes to Windsor to-day, and stays till Friday, when I will try all in my power to seek an audience on your business, but am obliged to go out of town myself until that day. . A thousand thanks for the loan of your seal, from which I have had an impression taken, in remembrance of your sprightly device. “Mrs. Farquhar, ‘: 14, Bedford-place, “Russell-square.” “Nothing, Mrs. Clarke may be assured, but indisposition, and wanting in the pleasure of having any thing successful, to report, could have so long prevented my calling on or sending to her. ** Ever *** 33 << J. * DUKE OF York’s LETTERs. 259 “ In whatever communication may have been made to Mrs. Clarke's lawyer, I am indignant that such terms as, “ either deceiving or laughing at you,” should form a part of it, having reference to me; for which I lament my total inability to serve Mrs. Clarke, I am ready to confess that in the few interviews I had the honour to hold with her, her conduct and conversation demanded nothing but my respect, and the good wishes I bear her. - t & 6 J. M.” “Tuesday Morning.” DUKE of York’s FIRST LETTER. August 4, 1805. “How can I sufficiently express to My Sweetest, My Darling Love the delight which her dear, her pretty letter gave me, or how much f feel all the kind things she says to me in it? Millions and millions of thanks for it, My Angel! and be assured that my heart is fully . of your affection, and that upon it alone its whole happiness epends. “I am, however, quite hurt that My Love did not go to the Lewes Races; how kind of her to think of me upon the occasion; but I trust that she knows me too well not to be convinced that I cannot bear the idea of adding to those sacrifices which I am but too sensible that she has made to me. \ “. News My Angel cannot expect from me from hence; though the life led here, at least in the family I am in, is very hurrying; there is a sameness in it which affords little subject for a letter; except Lord Chesterfield's family, there is not a single person except ourselves that I know. Last night we were at the play, which went off better than the first night. “ Dr. O’Meara called upon me yesterday morning, and delivered me your letter; he wishes much to preach before Royalty, and if I can put him in the way of it I will. “What a time it appears to me already, My Darling, since we arted ; how impatiently i look forward to next Wednesday se’nnight! “God bless you, my own Dear, Dear Love; I shall miss the post if I add more; Oh, believe me ever, to my last hour, Your's, and Your's alone.” Addressed: f “ Mrs. Clarke, “ to be left at the Post-office, “Worthing.” Indorsed: * Dr. O’Meara.” DUKE of York’s secon D. LeTTER. - Sandgate, August 24, 1804. “How can I sufficiently express to My Darling Love mythanks for her dear, dear letter, or the delight which the assurances of her love give me? Oh, My Angel do me justice and be convinced that there A- 260 MR. Dockeny's ExAMINATION. never was a woman adored as you are. Every day, every hour con- vinces me more and more, that my whole happiness depends upon you alone. , What a time it appears to be since we parted, and with what impatience do I look forward to the day after to-morrow ; there are still, however, two whole nights before I shall clasp My Darling in my arms! t “How happy am I to learn that you are better; I still, however, will not give up my hopes of the cause of your feeling uncomfortable. Clavering is mistaken, My Angel, in thinking that any new regiments are to be raised; it is not intended, only second battalions to the ex- isting corps; you had better, therefore, tell him so, and that you were sure there would be no use in applying for him. “Ten thousand thanks, my love, for the handkerchiefs, which are delightful; and I need not, I trust, assure you of the pleasure I feel in wearing them, and thinking of the dear hands who made them for II].62. “ Nothing could be more satisfactory than the tour I made, and the state in which I have found every thing. The whole of the day before yesterday was employed in visiting the works of Dover; re- viewing the troops there, and examining the coast as far as this place. From Folkstone I had a very good view of those of the French camp. “Yesterday I first reviewed the camp here, and afterwards the 14th Light Dragoons, who are certainly in very fine order; and from thence proceeded to Brabourne Lees, to see four regiments of militia; which altogether, took me up near thirteen hours... I am now setting off im- mediately to ride along the coast to Hastings, reviewing the diffe- rent corps as I pass, which will take me, at least, as long. Adieu, therefore, My Sweetest Dearest Love, till the day after to-morrow, and be assured, that to my last hour I shall ever remain Your's and Your's alone.” Addressed: “George Farquhar, Esq. “No. 18, Gloucester-place, “Portman-square.” FOLKSTONE. : 79. . . ... Indorsed: . . “Gl. Clavering, &c.” Mr. TIMOTHY DOCKERY was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: - Do you know any thing of the transaction relative to the purchase of a service of plate sent to Gloucester-place? Yes. Relate what you know of that purchase. In the first place, what com- menced it, and how it proceeded till the bargain was made conclu- sively. Not being a partner in the house at the time the purchase was made, I know nothing at all of the circumstance. State in what character you were in the house at the time the pur- châse was made. As aservant. 3.What was your employment in the house? Ajourneyman. ...What was the particular business you transacted in that house The Superintendance partly of it. - - M. R. Dock ERY's ExAMINATION. 961 Do you recollect any particulars respecting the bargain about the plate to your own knowledge 2 Nothing further than what was men- tioned by Mr. Birkett. Do you mean to state, that neither the Duke of York nor Mrs. Clarke did, in your presence, examine and treat about that plate : Certainly not. State what you heard the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke say, when they were bargaining for that plate. The bargain concerning that plate was not inade in my presence. - Then you do mean to state, that you never did hear any bargain about it 2 Certainly. [The witness was directed to withdraw. The Attorney General stated his objections to the ques- tion. He conceived that it might be attended with very dangerous consequences, if, on an inquiry of such import- ance as the present, the committee was to receive as evi- dence the assertion of one person respecting the statement of another who was dead, and by whom therefore that statement could never be either confirmed or contra- dicted. Lord Temple, while he admitted that it would be pre- ferable, could the evidence of Mr. Birkett himself be ad- duced, yet as that was impossible, thought that the com- mittee should accept of the best evidence the case would allow. Mr. Leycester begged the committee to consider what would be the effect of putting the question. The answer to it would go out to the public as fact, while it would be impossible for the committee to attach to it any serious value. If the question were put, it would be in opposi- tion to all rules of evidence. Mr. Wardle, as he found the learned gentlemen oppo- site were so hostile to his question, would endeavour to get at the facts which he wished to establish through another medium. Mr. Whitbread denied that such a strict rule of evi- dence existed in the house of commons, as that stated by the learned gentleman, Of this he was sure, that the learned gentleman, at whose suggestion the witness was ordered to withdraw, had in the course of his former exa- mination on this subject, deviated at least as much from the strict line of evidence, and produced testimony quite as loose as that against the production of which he had now argued. º Mr. Leycester insisted on the necessity of drawing a 262 MR. Dock ERY's ExAMINATION. Iine, although he admitted that the committee was not bound so strictly with respect to the nature of the evi- dence which they might admit, as the courts of justice. Mr. Fuller declared, that any principle of examina- tion that deviated from the principles established in the courts of justice, was a party principle. The principles on which the courts of justice proceeded were most wise, and a deviation from them must be attended with error. [The witness was again called in.] You have stated, that yon were the acting man in the house of Bir- kett Not during the time that the purchase of plate was made by Mrs. Clarke. What situation did you hold in the house 2 That of journeyman. Is it within your own knowledge that the plate was purchased from Messrs. Birkett Certainly. Do you know the price that was agreed to be given for that plate 2 The books which have already been produced will shew that. Do you of your own knowledge know the price that was to be paid for that plate? By referring to the books. Do you of your own knowledge know the price that was to be paid for that plate, without referring to the books Certainly not. Then you do not of your own knowledge know the sum that was to have been paid for that plate : By referring to the books I shall be able to judge. Then you do not of your own knowledge know the sum that was to have been paid for that plate I do not immediately recollect the spe- cific sum that was paid for it, but if I may be allowed to look at the books I will state it. - Do you know to whom that specific service of plate belonged, before it was sent to Gloucester-place? Yes. To whom did it belong The Duke de Berri. Do you of your own knowledge know that any part of that plate was sent up to Gloucester-place, for the inspection of the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke Not to my recollection. Do you recollect either the Duke of York or Mrs. Clarke being at Messrs. Birkett's and examining the plate in their shop º No. Do you recollect any thing with regard to the payment for that plate? Yes. State what you do recollect with regard to the payment for it. 500l. was paid at the time the plate was delivered, and the remainder was settled by bills at different dates. State by whom the 500l. was paid in the first instance. The 500l. was not paid to myself, but it was paid, I believe, to Mr. Birkett, as well as I can recollect. Do you know by whom it was paid 2 I do not. * Do you know how it was paid, whether in cash, in bank-notes, or how In two notes, one of three, and the other of two hundred pounds. - Do you recollect by whom those bills were drawn, by which the re- mainder was paid To the best of my recollection, they were dº a by Mrs. Clarke, MRs. How ENDEN's ExAMINATIo N. 263 Upon whom were they drawn?, The Duke of York. - Do you of your own knowledge know that those bills were afterwards paid by the Duke of York? Certainly I do. . Did you, yourself offer those bills to the Duke of York for pay- ment? I did. - Did you see the Duke of York at the time you offered them 2 Yes, Do you recollect what conversation passed between the Duke of York and yourself at the time you offered those bills for payment? No, I do not. + Do you recollect the Duke of York ever speaking to you at all res- pecting the service of plate ; , No, I do not. How did the Duke of York settle those bills 2 By his own drafts upon Coutts. Do you mean to state, that the whole amount due for the service of plate, over and above the 500l. which you state to have been before paid at the time, was then paid by the Duke of York upon those bills? Certainly. Is there any body residing at Mr. Birkett's that was in the situation you now hold, at the time the bargain was made for the plate? No. Do you know where the person is who held the situation which you now hold, and who was he? The person who held the situation is dead. What was his name? Thomas Walker. - [Mr. Parker produced Mr. Birkett's book; and the account given in on the 9th instant was shewn to the witness.] (To Mr. Dockery.) Refer to that account, and state whether it is the account to which you have alluded. Certainly. Are those the notes, to the best of your knowledge, for which you received payment from his Royal Hº the Duke of York The notes that are entered here were the notes received of his Royal High- mess the Duke of York. i On account of that plate? Yes. State the amount of the whole. 1,8211. 11s. 4d. that includes the 500l. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mrs. ALICE HOVENDEN was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Do you know Mrs. Clarke Yes. Do you know Colonel Shaw I never saw him but once, State what passed at that interview, I had been some time negotiat- ing with Mrs. Clarke for an exchange for Major Shaw, and he begged to know the principal; I said it was Mrs. Clarke, and I par- ticularly requested that he would not mention to Mrs. Clarke that Mr. Donovan knew any thing of the matter. Relate what passed at that only interview you had with Colonel Shaw. That was all that passed, except giving him a card or a note, I forget which, to Mrs. Clarke, merely saying that was Major Shaw. What was your reason for wishing Mr. Donovan's name to be kept a secret? Mrs. Clarke said she was afraid that Mr. Donovan would mention to the Duke of York anything of the business, which would be her ruin, - 264 Mrs. How ENDEN's ExAMINATIon. When was it that Mrs. Clarke expressed that fear to you respecting jºins Major Shaw of Mr. Donovan.” The first day I ever SãW ſlēſ. - This was before you mentioned Colonel Shaw to Mrs. Clarke? Yes. r . Did you ever mention Colonel Shaw to Mrs. Clarke till after the interview you had with Colonel Shaw I saw Colonel Shaw but once, and never saw Mrs. Clarke but twice since. . ~, Did you ever mention Colonel Shaw to Mrs. Clarke till after the interview you had with Colonel Shaw? ... I had mentioned Colonel Shaw to Mrs. Clarke a long time before I saw Colonel Shaw, nearly three months. i In what way had you mentioned Colonel Shaw to Mrs. Clarke As a gentleman who wanted a lieutenant-colonelcy from his majority ; The was a major, and he wanted to get a lieutenant-colonelcy. How did you know that Colonel Shaw wanted to get a lieutenant- colonelcy 2. After I had seen Mrs. Clarke, mentioned to Mr. Dono- van, a gentleman I had known for many years, that I had got some very #. interest, and that if he knew any person that wanted anything in the army line, I thought I could get it; I refused to tell him where it was, or from whom. Was it Mr. Donovan who mentioned Colonel Shaw to you? Yes. What did Mr. Donovan state to you of Colonel Shaw, when he ‘mentioned him to you ? He said that he had very great recommenda- tions, and had, I think it was, General Burrard's interest. What further did Mr. Donovan say of Colonel Shaw to you? He said he would give 700l. I think it was 700l. for a lieutenant- colonelcy, Did Mr. Donovan tell you any thing further respecting Colonel Shaw 2 Not at that time, - Where did this conversation pass you have now alluded to ? I think it was in Charles-street. - - In consequence of this, did you apply to Mrs. Clarke to get Major Shaw a lieutenant-colonelcy 2 Yes. Were you to have any part of that sum of money which you have mentioned, provided the lieutenant-colonelcy was obtained 2 No. What was done in consequence of your application to Mrs. Clarke Nothing at all. Did the business break off, or did it die away ? On the night of the day on which I sent the note to Mrs. Clarke, I received a note from her, inclosing me Major Shaw's security for the sum, saying she was sorry she could do nothing for Major Shaw 3–previous to this, Mrs. Clarke sent for me to describe the person of Major Shaw, his connecr tions, and his interest, without which, she said, she could not mention the affair to his Royal Highness;–I could not then describe his person; I said his interest was General Burrard's, and he had lately met with some very great family misfortune; I believe his brother drowned, or something of that kind. Mrs. Clarke answered, that will do, I shall tell his Itoyal Highness that I do it in compliance with the re- quest of a very old friend, and in compassion for his present cala- mity; let him get two months leave of absence, through some general officer, during which period I shall try and work upon the feelings of his Royal Highness, to accomplish my purpose, without his suspect, ing the cause: - i . . . - MRs. Hove NDEN's ExAMINATION. 265 It was after this you sought an interview with Colonel Shaw Yes. For what purpose did you seek that interview It was Colonel Shaw sought it. y * Did you then relate to Colonel Shaw what had passed between you and Mrs. Clarke 2 . I do not think I did. - Was the matter broken off by any particular circumstance, or did it die away 2 I know no circumstance, except a note which Mrs. Clarke sent me. Do you recollect your ever speaking of Colonel Shaw as having broken his word with you? He certainly broke his word with regard to telling Mrs. Clarke Mr. Donovan knew the circumstance. Did you ever complain of his having broken his word, in not having made you a present Never, because he did. What present did Colonel Shaw make you ? When I returned Colonel Shaw his papers and the security, he sent his compliments, and was sorry for the trouble he had given nie, and inclosed me 101. Do you know any thing of a second application of Colonel Shaw's to Mrs. Clarke? I certainly do not. Do you recollect the date of the transaction which you have been ºf ? The first time I ever saw Mrs. Clarke was in Decem- ber, 1804. - t Had you ever more than one conversation with Mr. Donovan upon this subject? I cannot recollect, l have been in the habit of visiting Mr. Donovan, and seeing him frequently, and what conversation has assed I am sure I cannot say. - State the date of the transaction you are speaking of. It was, I think, from December 1804, to April, 1805, as near as I can guess, Do you of your own knowledge know any thing further of Colonel Shaw and Mr. Donovan, in that transaction ? I do not. Were you in the habit of corresponding with Colonel Shaw I think I must have written letters to him frequently; it was a long pe- riod, and he was very uneasy, he was kept in great suspense. State whether you have any of Colonel Shaw's letters. I returned the whole of Colonel Shaw’s letters. To whom To the best of my knowledge, through Mr. Donovan. At what period did you return those letters ? I believe it was two or three days after he had seen Mrs. Clarke. How came you to return those letters to Mr. Donovan He said that Major Shaw wished to have done entirely with the business, as he was convinced Mrs. Clarke could do nothing. - Then you do not know any thing further respecting the transaction Fº took place afterwards between Mrs. Clarke and Colonel Shaw O not. - Do you know personally or by repute, a Miss Taylor, who appeared as an evidence at the bar of this House I have seen Miss Taylor, she came to my house one day with her brother, Captain Taylor. What do you know of the character or repute of Miss Taylor It is very hard to speak from hearsay; of my own knowledge I know nothing, f'. what passed in the transaction between yourself and Mrs. Clarke, do you believe that there could have been any subsequent ne- otiation between Mrs. Clarke and Colonel Shaw I do not think Mrs. Clarke ever heard of Major Shaw afterwards, s 266 MRs. Hov ENDEN's ExAMINATION. Did you ever tell any person, and if so, when, that Miss Taylor was a person of bad repute? I certainly did say that I did not return Miss Taylor's visit, as I had heard something unpleasant. , - hat was the unpleasant circumstance that you had heard of Miss Taylor, that prevented your returning that visit? It was hearsay; and I should suppose I am not obliged to tell what I have heard, I know nothing myself. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Barham deprecated such an examination. It was absurd to ask a person who visited Mrs. Clarke why she did not visit Miss Taylor. By questions such as those the investigation of the subject entrusted to the Committee was very little advanced. - Mr. Fuller, in a vehement tone, desired the witness might be called back and insisted upon asking her one question. It should be, whether she would choose to put a female child of her’s under the care of Miss Taylor “Let the Committee put that question to the witness,” said the honourable member “if they dare.” (a laugh). Mr. Bragge Bathurst was sure the House would not allow such a question to be put. [The witness was again called in. #. your knowledge of Miss Taylor, would you believe her evidence 2 [The witness was directed to withdraw, The Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion that the question was justifiable, and that the character of Miss Taylor might with perfect propriety be spoken of by the witness as to general reputation. In courts of justice it was allowable to ask a witness on oath, whether he would believe the testimony of any other particular individual. Mr. Whitbread opposed the question. On a review of the evidence, he confessed that he would rather put a question to Miss Taylor respecting Mrs. Hovenden's cha- racter, than put a question to Mrs. Hovenden respecting Miss Taylor's character. For his part he was not aware that any thing had appeared to impeach the character of Miss Taylor. She had given her description of a person which, if untrue, might be disproved, but it had not yet been disproved. The only thing that seemed reprehensi- ble in her conduct was her visiting Mrs. Clarke, &c. The Attorney General spoke to order. The subject under discussion was not Miss Taylor's character, but MRs. How ENDEN's ExAMINATIeN. 267 whether or not the question proposed by an honourable º should be put. aſ: Fuller.—“Get another witness, get another wit- iſleSS. Sir S. Romilly declared, that when such a question as that proposed by the honourable General was put in a court of justice, it was preceded by an inquiry how long the witness had known the party, and what were the means which the witness possessed of appreciating the character of the party. -- The Attorney General observed, that the question put to Mrs. Hovenden had nothing to do with the length of time that lady had known Miss Taylor, but related merely to what she knew of that lady's general character. Sir S. Romilly replied, that the Committee ought to in- quire into the opportunities which the witness had pos- sessed of duly estimating Miss Taylor's character. He could assure the House that he never knew such a question put in a court of justice, without a previous inquiry into the means of knowledge which the witness possessed. He was convinced the Committee would see the importance of this point. tº The Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion, that the question proposed by the honourable General was le- alized by the assertion of the witness, that she knew Miss aylor to a certain degree. To inquire particularly into the means by which she obtained her knowledge was not antecedently required in point of law. Mr. C. Wynne did not think the question was likely to produce the least information. [The witness was again called in, and the question proposed.] I declare I do not see how I can answer such a question as that, it is merely matter of opinion, I cannot answer it. Where do you live In Williers-street, No. 29. How long have you lived there I believe not quite three months. Where have you generally lived Where I lived before that was in South-molton-street. How long have you lived in South-molton-street 2 Upon my word I cannot recollect. Cannot you recollect how long you have lived in a street? I went to it at two different periods. How long have you generally lived in any one street I had a house in Panton-square. - " How long? Two years and a half. - When did you leave it? In 1805, I believe in June. 26S MRs. Hov ENDEN’s ExAMINATIon. Did you live there when you visited Mrs. Clarke?... I never visited Mrs. Clarke. * Did she visit you when you lived there? No. - Where, then, did you see:Mrs. Clarke I went to Mrs. Clarke on business. - - - *- Have you before stated all the business that you went to her upon 2 No. - Then state what other business. Pardon me ; what other business. I had with Mrs. Clarke was for commissions for other gentlemen, whose names have not been mentioned, for whom she never did any thing. - - Did you ever send the names of those other gentlemen to Mrs. Clarke, or communicate them I never sent them to her, I took them to her. º a You delivered them into her:own hands Yes. Then state the names of all those genlemen; how many were there? I do not really recollect that. State their names. I said before, I could not do that. Endeavour to recollect, and state their names. It is not for want of memory, or want of respect to the House, but I cannot name them. Mr. Brand objected to the question. It seemed to him unnecessary to state the names of persons against whom no charge existed, as was evident from the witness having herself said that they had not yet been mentioned. He thought it extremely unfair to put such a question to a person of whose veracity the Committee could not but have increasing doubt. Her loose statements might be of serious detriment to many respectable persons, and if the honourable Baronet persisted in his question he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon it. Sir J. Graham declared that he had no other view in the question, but that which related to the general course of the proceeding. Lord Folkstone expressed his astonishment at the ob- jection that had been made. The Committee was insti- tuted for the express purpose of inquiring into abuses, and many great abuses, had already bcen discovered. Here however was a question which promised to lead to the de- velopement of further and more flagrant abuses, and now the honourable gentleman got up to object to its being put. Whoever referred to the instructions that the Com- mittee had received from the House, must be con- yinced that the question was a good one, and Qught to be proposed. Mr. Brand observed, that the witness had distinctly stated that no proceeding had taken place; as therefore \ M Rs. HoveNDEN's ExAMINATION. 260 no injury to the public had resulted, to inquire into the subject would be attended only with inconvenience. Mr. Fuller could not see why those persons who were involved in this transaction should not be dragged forth to public view as well as the Duke of York. For his part he would go on and trace the business from the fish- monger and fell monger. It would not be fair for the Committee to make one individual smart, while others, perhaps much more culpable, were allowed to go free. Mr. Whitbread said, that it was impossible for the Committee not to proceed. As to the assertion against his honourable friend, that as the applications against the persons alluded to had not terminated successfully, any inquiry into the subject was unnecessary, it appeared to him to be a most unfounded assertion. The practice of the Committee was in opposition to it. Mr. Maltby had that evening been two hours examined, and that altoge- ther on transactions the event of which had not been so successful. Mr. Donovan also, who had been repeatedly at the bar, had expressly declared, that not one of the transactions in which he had been engaged had terminated successfully. Mr. Secretary Canning, although he felt with the honourable gentleman opposite, that the result of the question might be some disclosures very painful to indi- viduals, without being of much service to the public, yet confessed that he could not see how the Committee, with any propriety, could decline proceeding. Mr. Brand abandoned his intention of dividing the Committee. [The Chairman informed the witness that it was the sense of the Committee, after discussion, that she should enumerate the names of the persons to whom she had referred.] I cannot mention their names. - You have stated that it is not for want of memory, therefore endea- vour to recollect as many of the names as you can. It is because I think it would be a very dishonourable act in me to discover the names of gentlemen who have never been broughtforward, and never profited by any one act I did. - General Stewart deprecated a further perseverance in the question. Many respectable officers in the army, and particularly in the militia, had formerly dealt with F.F. who were, or professed to be, commission agents. By the answer to the question proposed by the honourable ba- 270 MRs. Hoven DEN's ExAMINATIon ronet individuals might sustain a serious and unmerited evil, for which they could have no adequate redress. Mr. Whitbread thought, that if the names of the per- sons alluded to by the witness had been actually conveyed to Mrs. Clarke, the question ought undoubtedly to be answered, but not else. As to the opinion expressed by the gallant general that any individual who should sus- tain unmerited injury, would be precluded from the oppor- tunity of obtaining redress, he could not admit the justice of it. The Committee had already seen a general officer at the bar exculpating himself from an imputation that had been cast upon him. t Sir A. Wellesley strongly recommended that the question should not be persevered in. Several regulations had within a few years been introduced in the army, for the purpose of preventing officers from dealing with com- mission brokers. If the last question were answered, it might implicate the characters of many very respectable individuals, who, after all, as it appeared, had not suc- ceeded in obtaining their object. The Committee was to inquire into the conduct, not of Mrs. Clarke, but of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and therefore unless it could be shewn that the applications reached the Duke of York, the Committee had nothing to do with them. Lord H. Petty denied that the character of any re- spectable individuals could be injured by the answer to the question proposed, unless, indeed, that answer laid the foundation of more satisfactory proof of culpability. In that case, he should be far from lamenting the event; for as the regulation to which the honourable baronet alluded, was well known in the army, it certainly ought not to be infringed with impunity. . . . & w Mr. Canning proposed, that when the witness was called in, the first question put to her should be, whether or not the names were mentioned to Mrs. Clarke? and that if they had, she should be required to state them to the Committee. - - - t The witness was recalled. - - [The Chairman stated to the witness, that the house was armed with power to compel her to answer, and to inflict 3 very severe censure upon her if she did not answer, the questions, which it was the opinion of the House should be answered.] Hadyou authority from those persons to whom you referred, to give their names to Mrs. Clarke 2 I cannot recollect that, I declare. MRs. How ENDEN’s ExAMINATIon. 27 F Did you ever carry the names of any persons to Mrs. Clarke, without their authority I do not know whether I did or not, I am sure. State positively whether you did or did not? Indeed my memory does not help me out. º State the names. I cannot. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Canning observed, that the persons in question might have applied generally to the witness to procure promotion for them, without authorizing her to refer to Mrs. Clarke. Now as the inquiry solely related to the Duke of York, he submitted to the House the expediency of framing the question in such a manner, that it should not be productive of any irrelevant matter. Probably many of those persons had applied to the witness as a commission broker, without being at all aware of her con- nection with Mrs. Clarke. Sir G. Warrender called to the recollection of the House a former examination of Mrs. Clarke, in which it appeared that a long list of persons desirous of promotion by her means, had been carried to her by Mr. Donovan. The names of the persons alluded to by the witness who had just withdrawn, might perhaps have composed this iden- tical list; and he conceived that it was of the utmost im- portance to get at the fact. § Mr. Whitbread denied that an inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York was inseparable from an inquiry into the conduct of Mrs. Clarke; or that when that lady was not immediately concerned, investigation should be checked. In his opinion every improper channel that offered itself to the observation of the House, should be strictly inquired into. Sir J. Graham supported the necessity of the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed that, if it were proved that the names went to the Duke of York, and that he acted upon them, there could not be a moment's hesitation on the subject; but the fact fell short of that. It was on, this ground alone that the question could be considered at all objectionable, and not from the consi- deration that the persons might not have authorized the witness to give their names to Mrs. Clarke. º Mr. Yorke was distinctly of opinion that the names ought not to be proclaimed until it could be ascertained that the witness had express authority for, communi- gating them to Mrs. Clarke. - 3 ºr ; 972 Mrs. HoveNDEN's ExAMINATIon. Mr. Huskisson, adverting to the offices that had at that period been open for the purchase and sale of commissions, intimated that the witness might have been connected with one of those offices ; in which case the question ought certainly not to be put, as the names of many of the most respectable officers in the army might be wantonly trifled with by such a proceeding. - General Fitzpatrick said a few words, but in so low a tone, that we could not collect their tenor. Sir James Graham thought it would be unbecoming the dignity of the House not to persist in the question. General Stewart then again deprecated the consequences of putting the question. Mr. Barham observed, that if the question were put, one of two things must happen ; the witness must tell either truth or untruth—if truth, no one could lament that a criminal transaction should be brought to light; —if untruth, the person accused might exculpate himself at the bar. . Mr. Baring proposed in the first place to ask the witness what answer Mrs. Clarke had given her when she delivered in the names : Mr. M. Matthew declared, that if the question were put every officer in the army would be wantonly exposed to censure. The most respectable men would be stigmatized for no good purpose whatever. - General Phipps also thought it a most impressive ques- tion, and thought it ought to be rejected. Mr. M. Matthew moved, that the question be with- drawn. . & Mr. H. Addington could not give a silent vote upon the subject. . It was impossible for him to accede to the pro- priety of the question. Specific charges had been brought against the Duke of York, and to those charges the Com- mittee ought to confine themselves. In the course of the examination of the last witness, it had come out collate- rally that she had been employed by other persons to apply. to Mrs. Clarke. Was that a reason for investigating the circumstance? If such a latitude of inquiry as this were allowed, the examination might employ a whole session, and every other important business must be neglected. Mr. #. sympathized with the feelings of those who might be exposed by this occurrence; but he could not consent to coſsult their tranquillity at the expence of Mits. Hove NDEN’s ExAMINATION. 973 the general character of the army. Ought it to go forth to the public that when a woman, such as the witness, was examined at the bar of the House of Commons, the House, apprehensive that her charges might be fatally extensive, did not dare to proceed in the investigation of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer urged another consi- deration which influenced him to allow this question to be put. If the witness should produce the long list spoken of by Mrs. Clarke, and if it should turn out that not one person on that list had been successful in his application, what must be the natural inference? When out of fifty- two applications only two were successful, it was pretty evident that their success was that of accident, and not of preconceived design. On this account, he thought that it would be but doing justice to the Duke of York to put this question. Mr. Dundas also spoke in favour of the question. Mr. Bathurst wished the question might be put, if it would lead to any elucidation of the subject, which he believed it would do. After a few words from Mr. Huskisson, Mr. M. Mat- thew withdrew his motion. [The witness was again called in, and informed by the Chair- man, that it was the opinion of the Committee that she must answer the question put to her, and that the House, had power to inflict very heavy punishments, and never more severely exerted that power, than in the case of witnesses who conducted themselves in the contumelious manner she had done.] State the names of the persons you carried to Mrs. Clarke. I did not mean the smallest contempt to the House, quite the reverse : and to convince you that I feel a respect to this House, and not from fear, I will state the names: one is Johnson, and another is Williamson. Are there any other names I do not recollect. Endeavour to recollect. I cannot. g You said there were several names, or a long list of names I do not think I said that, I said there were some. Did you never deliver the names of any other gentlemen but John- son and Williamson f I do not recollect any other; I think I had others, but I do not recollect their names. * You did deliver others? I recollect those, because they are my own acquaintances. What are their christian names 2 They are, George Johnson and William Williamson. - Where do they live 2 I cannot tell you that, it is now three years ago. tº Where did they live then Upon Iny word I do not know where their lodgings were. T 274 M. R.S. Hoven DEN's ExAM fry AT for , You have said that they were acquaintances of yours? I am sure? cannot tell where they lived, I did not ask the gentlemen their residence, You stated they were acquaintances? Yes. Do you now state that you did not know where your acquaintances lived 2 They had hot long arrived from Ireland. 3. Were they in the army & They never were, nor to my knowledge have not been in it yet; they were three months trying toget in through Mrs. Clarke, and could not. Did you deliver any other list to Mrs. Clarke but those two names? I never delivered a list to Mrs. Clarke. Did you ever deliver any other name to Mrs. Clarke I cannot recollect any other name I delivered, Are you a married woman : 1 am a widow. How long have you been a widow Nearly six yeays. How long did you live in South-molton-street? At two different periods, I suppose about a year and a half, but not altogether. Were you in a house of in lodgings 2 I was in lodgings. Did you ever apply to Mrs. Clarke to procure leave of absence for any officers I never did to my recollection. - Not for Major Shaw She told me she could not get leave of absence for him; I was to tell him to get it through General Burrard. Then you did apply for Major Shaw I sent word to Major Shaw, that he must get two months leave of absence. Did you apply to Mrs. Clarke to procure that leave of absence? I did not; she applied to me to beg Major Shaw would get two months leave of absence, that, during that time, she might have time to work on the good nature of the Duke of York, for fear he might suspect there was any thing improper in the transaction. What answer did Mrs. Clarke give you, when you carried those two names you have stated to the Committee you carried to Mrs. Clarke : She said she would try, but must be very careful to have time, for fear there might be the smallest suspicion that it was a money transaction, as that would ruin her. Did she express any desire that it should be particularly concealed from the Duke of York? She certainly did. You live in Williers-street, do you not * Yes. Are you in a house there, or in lodgings? . In lodgings. What is the name of the person to whom the house belongs? Adair. Are there any other lodgers in the house besides yourself?s. I believe there are... . . . Is the Adair who keeps the house a man or woman 2 A woman. How long have you known Mr. Donovan Eighteen years, I believe. - r When did you kast see Mr. Donovan This moment. When did you last see him, before you came to this House 2 Yes- terday. * Are you in the habit of seeing him pretty constantly 2, Constantly. Have you any knowledge of any transaction in which Mr. Donovan. >. is engaged? None, but that in which I was concerned myself, mainely, * , Major Shaw’s. Is that the only one of the transactions of that nature of which you. have any knowledge - I do not recollect any other whatever, MRs. Hov ENDEN's exAMINATION. 275 Had Mr. Donovan any concern in that list of names which you state yourself to have given to Mrs. Clarke? No. - Did Mr. Donovan at that time carry on any traffic of the same sort? I know nothing about any thing Mr. Donovan does, only what concerned myself. * w When you went to Mrs. Clarke, was it of your own accord, or were you sent by Mr. Donovan : , I went of my own accord, without any introduction whatever, and Mr. Donovan never knew that I knew Mrs. Clarke till three months afterwards, and till the business of Major Shaw was finished. When was that? In April 1805 I think; I cannot be very certain as to the moith, but I think it was April. Was Mr. Donovan acquainted with Mrs. Clarke? Not to my know- ledge, and I believe not. Were you often at Mrs. Clarke's in Gloucester-place : I cannot say how often. & Were you in the habit of going there frequently No, not very frequently. How often do you suppose you have been there 2 Latterly, Major Shaw got very impatient, and I went five or six times, I think, in the last month. Did you ever go there on any business but that of Major Shaw’s 2 I stated before, that I went on other business, and l have stated the business. Any other business besides that of Major Shaw, and that of Johnson and Williamson: I do not recollect the other names. Did you ever go.upon any other business but those two occasions? No, I do not recollect any other. I understood you to state these names of Johnson and Williamson were given up to Mrs. Clarke at the time, with a great number of others : I have not said a great number. With other names, were this affair of Major Shaw’s, and that in which Johnson and Williamson were concerned, the only occasions on which you went to Mrs. Clarke's I never went to Mrs. Clarke's on any other business but that, till Major Shaw's business was finished, and the papers returned. Were you well acquainted with the house Mrs. Clarke inhabited in Gloucester-place 3. uot. Into what room did you use to go? Her bed-room. Were you ever in any other room 2 Yes, the front parlour, and the drawing-room, and the bed-room. There was very handsome furniture in that House? Very. Very magnificent It was very genteelly furnished. * - You have seen all those rooms, and have only been there two or three times; do you adhere to that statement 2 I recollect stating that I was there six times within the last month. How long have you been acquainted with Mrs. Clarke? December 1804, {j. º The beginning of your acquaintance was in 1804? Yes. On the occasion of Mr. Shaw I went before I went on the business of Mr. Shaw, I went without any introduction whatever. On what business did you go? I was told she had commissions to dispose of, and without any introduction I went to her and asked her. by was your being told she had commissions to dispose of, the T 2 276 Mas. Hoven EN's ExAMINATION, reason of your going there, did you wish to procure commissions? I did at that time. -- - - For whom 2 I do not know that I had any particular person in view at that time. • + You were in the habit of procuring commissions? No, I was not in the habit, that was the first time I went. - . Then you did go to Mrs. Clarke upon this business of procuring commissions, besides the times you went about Major Shaw, and Johnson and Williamson 2 The first time I went to Mrs. Clarke, I told her I came to know if she had any commissions to dispose of. Was that mere curiosity in you? No, it was not. What, then, was your motive for making that inquiry At that Fº I had met with a very heavy misfortune; my agent in the West Indies died, and a house in London broke, and I was very much embarrassed. . s What mode did you aflopt to ease your embarrassments? I had hopes that would, I did not conceive it improper. You sold commissions I never sold one. 3. Yºu negotiated the sale of them? I treated, but it did not suc- CeeCI. Were all the communications you had with Mrs. Clarke verbal; did you ever correspond with her I often wrote to her. You had frequently letters from Mrs. Clarke I had. . What was the latest period you ever received letters from Mrs. Clarke? I made it a rule, whenever I received a letter from Mrs. Clarke, the next time I saw her to return her her letters. What is the latest period at which you received letters from Mrs. Clarke 2 I believe that one in which she inclosed ºne Major Shaw’s security; I believe that was the last, I do not recollect any other SII). Ce, -- Have you never received any letter from Mrs. Clarke within these few months? No, I have not. And you never kept by you any of the letters you received from Mrs. Clarke? I have not one of them. When did you part with them? I made it a rule, whenever I went to see Mrs. Clarke, to bring the letter I had received the day before, and to give them to her. - - Was that an invariable rule 2 To the best of my knowledge. You have stated in your evidence very lately, that you have been frequently in Mrs. Clarke's house in Gloucester-place, and that you have seen her in her bed-room and drawing-room, and several places in that house; is that so * Yes. - How do you reconcile that to the former part of your evidence, where you stated that you had seen her only twice? I never said so. You mentioned that you would not visit Miss Taylor, out of deli- cacy; why did not that delicacy operate with regard to Mrs. Clarke, whom you knew to be living under the protection of the Duke of York?' I stated before, my reasons for calling upon Mrs. Clarke. Did you ever upon any occasion receive any authority from Mrs. Clarke to negotiate the sale of commissions in the army Never. You have stated, that wou were informed that Mrs. Clarke had commissions in the army to dispose of; who so informed you? Gene- ral report. - * Endeavour to recollect some individual who might have told you? M Rs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 277 I do not recollect any individual telling me, I recollect asking a gene tleman Mrs. Clarke's address. Who was that gentleman Mr. Taylor; he is married to a sister of Mrs. Clarke since that. What object had you in asking him that question ? That I might call on her. . You have stated that you were in the habit of returning to Mrs. Clarke all the letters you received from her; what reason had you for pursuing that conduct? She begged 1 would do so. s Did she state any reason which induced you to do so? For fear any accident should discover her trafficking in commissions. [The witness was directed to withdraw. JOHN CLAUDIUS BERESFORD, Esq. a member of the House, attending in his place, was examingd as follows: Will you look at that letter, and state whether it is the hand-writing of the Archbishop of Tuam I have seen him write many times, and have no doubt it is his hand-writing. [A letter of the Archbishop of Tuam was read,1 “SIR, “In consequence of your application to me, I am ready to give ample satisfaction, and to bear testimony, that I have had as- surances from persons in whom I place the most implicit confidence, that you are a gentleman of most unexceptionable character in every respect, of a respectable family, and independent fortune. * & & #. the honour to be, “Sir, “Your most obedient, “humble Servant, * W. TuAM, “ Crescent, Bath, Feb. 17th, 1806.” Addressed:, . . “The Rev. Dr. O'Meara, No. 7, Alfred-street.” MRS. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Did you know Colonel Shaw Yes. Do you recollect who introduced him to you? Not exactly. Do you recollect his applying to you to procure any appointment for him through the medium of his Royal Highness the Duke of York Yes, I do. State what that appointment was. He wished to be made a Lieu- tenant-Colonel, and to get into some situation upon the staff. Did Colonel Shaw promise you any pecuniary consideration on the event of his obtaining the appointment? Yes, he did. * What was the pecuniary consideration he did promise you? I can- not say that I immediately recollect the sum, I believe it was 1000l. Did you, in consequence of this, acquaint the Commander in Chief with such offer, and apply for the appointment? Yes, I did; pre- vious to his getting the situation, he wished to be Colonel of the Manx Corps in the Isle of Man, where his father had been Deputy Gover- Ilſ)ſ. 278 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATIox. Do you mean to say that you applied for this situation for him? Yes, I did, but there were stronger claims in another quarter. Did you then apply for any other situation for him t Yes, [...did. What was that * That which he now holds. ... Do you know what that is? Barrack-Master at the Cape of Good Hope; Barrack-Master General, I believe. t Did you receive any pecuniary consideration in consequence of this appointment * Yes, I did. What did you receive? 500l. Do you recollect how you received that money? I had 300l. from Colonel Shaw, and 200l. brought by some man, I understood it was a clerk of Coutts's, but I am not positive, and on that account had a great mind to send it back again, thinking it would be made public. Were you satisfied with this 500l., 2 No, I was not. In consequence of not being satisfied with the 500l. did you make any complaint through the Commander in Chief ? Yes, 1 did. What was the consequence of such complaint His Royal High- ness said, he had told me all along, that I had a very bad sort of a man to deal with, and that I ought to have been more careful, and that he would immediately put him upon half-pay. Do you know whether Major Shaw was put upon half-pay in conse- quence of that? He sent me several letters complaining, but I did not trouble myself much with reading them; one of the letters I gave in to night, I believe; I thought him already too well off, for his conduct to me, [Letter from Colonel Shaw was read, dated in pencil, off the Lizard, 19th May, 1806.] “Off Lizard, and a fair wind, 19th May, “Although I have troubled you so often, and although my mind is nearly convinced that the hardship of which I complained HAs been rectified by the order of the Gazette in respect to my reduc- tion being rescinded, yet whilst even the suspicion of so serious an evil, and indeed an injustice continues, I know that you will make every al- lowance, and pardon my being so importunate. In addition to the custom of the army being in my favour, (as you mentioned) the fol- lowing instances are specifically so, and in the same appointment: Lieutenant Colonel Carey, D. B. M. G. Major 28th Regt. Lieute- nant Colonel Vesey, D. B. M. G. Canada, Fº Colonel 29th Regt. the late Colonel Brinsley, D. B. M. G. West Indies, retained also his full pay commission until his death ; and I believe I stand sin- gular in the army, in an officer being appointed to the Staff abroad, and reduced on half-pay in consequence. Thus my case bears in point of right, Your feeling will justify my expectations in point of promise and assurances. The first impression of receiving injury at the hands from whence I had trusted to have merited the contrary, are the only excuses. I can plead. For any intemperance that may have. appeared in my letters, you will, I am sensible, as my mind was at the time affected, readily pardon. The period may arrive in which you will know that, independent of particular consideration, I merited your good offices; but until circumstances develope themselves; you shall never understand them through me, or by my means. How- ever severely I have felt, however warmly I may have expressed my- M Rs. cI, Anke's ExAMINATION: 279 self, of this be assured, that you shall not experience uneasiness of my occasioning. Though thus decided at present, yet permit me to say that it does not arise from viewing otherwise the severe and cruel injury of putting me on half-pay. Independent of present mortifica- tion, my prospects in the active line of my profession are ruined by it, and, God knows they are not very brilliant, considering either the length, or the nature of my services. Further, madam, in my present separation from my children, its creates in me sensations particularly painful, when I reflect, that if approaching that state to which we must all at some period arrive, that I could not, (by this measure) have the consolation of resigning my commission by sale for the benefit of my large family; and that they should, in this event have no other me- mento of my having served 23 years, than in the expences of the pur- chase, &c. &c. of some commissions. In such cases the humane con- sideration of the present Commander in Chief have been eminently dis- tinguished. - * I shall no longer trespass; my only apology rests in that every feel- ing is involved in the present object. I had even appropriated my full pay for the education of two children remaining in England; but ill- ness has for some time deprived me of all my family. Let me, Ma- dam, owe good offices to you, and 1 shall be ever grateful. From your explaining this case, I am certain that his justice will be extended to me. Let me not be driven from my profession. Do away the pre- sent bar to my family joining me at the Cape; for I am sure that }. sentiments will accord, that I ought not not to serve when no longer with honour and on a reciprocal footing with those similarly appointed. “We are not likely, I fear, to be a healthy fleet; some ships are very crowded, and sickness has already made its appearance; and there are two ships, I hear, without either doctor or medicines. Farewel: and I hope to receive your commands. “Do away the present evil, and unite the appointments I men- tioned, and I will annually remit 300l. Whilst I remain, remember, do me justice, let not anything prevent this; allow not self, or family, have ever to say, that we owed misfortune to such a hand.” Addressed; * Mrs. Clarke, Gloucester-place, 18, “Portman-square.” I understood you to have mentioned on a former night, that you never had represented yourself as being a widow; do you now abide by that answer? Does the gentleman mean represented, or that I have ever said so? Have you ever said that you were, or represented yourself to be a widow 2 If I have ever said so, it was never but at the Court Martial; if it was ever at any other time, it must have been in joke ; but I never represented myself to be so; the two meanings are so different, of say- ing and representing, Do you ever recollect yourself to have stated yourself a widow at any other time but on the occasion of the Court Martial? I do not; but if the gentleman will put me in mind at what time, or to whom, I "will answer to the best of my recollection. * - Do you ever recollect yourself to have stated yourself to be a widow 280 M Rs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. at any other time, but on the occasion of the Court Martial? Then I must repeat the same answer. Have you ever called yourself by any other name than that of Clarke, since the year 1806 I do not recollect that I have ; but it is very likely, to avoid bailiffs. Is it so common a thing in you to assume a false name, that you cannot positively say when you assumed such a name, or indeed whe- ther you did so at all or not? I only wish the gentleman to point out, and I will answer it immediately, any pointed question. Is it so common a thing in you to assume a false name, that you can- not positively say when you assumed such a name, or indeed whether you did so at all or not? I do not recollect that I have done so. Do you recollect to have gone by the name of Dowler? No, I do not; but it is very likely others might call me so; I never represented myself as Mrs. Dowier. - Then you say positively, that you never called yourself by the name of Dowler, or represented yourself as bearing that name? No, I have not, without it might be in joke, and if that is asked me, I will answer the question; it must have been to some acquaintance, if to any body, as I have always lived under my own name. Did you not, within the time alluded to, live at Hampstead, assum- ing to yourself the name of Dowler? No. I lived at Hampstead, but Hºlder my own name. Nor in the neighbourhood of Hampstead? No, never any where, but in my own name. In whose house have you lived at Hampstead? Mr. Nichols's, I How long did you live at Mr. Nichols's: I cannot recollect how Ong. A considerable time Some months. During the whole of which you passed under your own name of Clarke * During the whole time. ' - In what year did you live at Hampstead? Part of the year 1808, and the end of the year 1807. You have stated when you were last here, that you had seen Mr. Dowler but twice since his arrival in England; once on a Sunday, when he called relative to the business now under inquiry, and onee in the witnesses' room in this House; do you abide by that assertion? ... I will not be caught in a story about that, and therefore I shall say I did see him once besides. Do you mean to say that you were caught in a story, when you be- fore represented that you had seen him but twice? No; it is now per- haps you wish to catch me in one. id you not say that you had seen Mr. Dowler only twice? It is very likely I might have said so. Is that true or false 2 It is true that I have seen him twice, and it is also true that I have seen him three times. Where did you see Mr. Dowler the third time which you now allude to? In this house. $ iº How often have you seen Mr. Dowler besides those three times, since his return from Portugal Those three times. Once since— yesterday. - That is the who'e number of times that you have seen Mr. Dowler since his arrival in England 2 I believe that the honourable gentleman - zº Mrs. CLARKE's ExAMINATIon. 281 ran tell pretty well, for his garret window is very convenient for his prying disposition, as it overlooks my house. This is the whole number of times that you have seen Mr. Dowler since his arrival in England Yes. You are sure of that? Yes. You are not now afraid of being caught in a story; you answer with Fº recollection ? If the honourable gentleman wishes it, I will say I have seen him oftener, if it will at all tend to anything: I do not wish to conceal that Mr. Dowler is a very particular friend of mine. , [The Chairman informed the witness thºt she did not stand there to make observations on the gentlemen who examined her, but to give correct and proper answers to the questions put to her.] I have, as well as I can recollect. - - At what other places than those you have already mentioned, and at what other times, have you seen Mr. Dowler since his arrival in Eng- land 2 I have seen him at his own hotel. When The first night he came home, I believe, but which was to have been a perfect secret, as I did not wish my own family, or any one, to know I saw him that night. Only the first night he came home? And the other times I have stated. [The witness was directed to withdraw.] Mr. Wilberforce here observed, that these questions had no tendency whatever to elucidate the important inquiry before the Committee; they were in his opinion irrelevant and foreign to the principal object. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was never more sur- prized than to hear such observations fall from the honour- able gentleman. Surely nothing was more material in this inquiry than these and similar questions. How could the testimony of the witness be either contradicted or brought into discredit, unless questions were so shaped, that by the answers given, the truth or falsehood of her evidence would be apparent. He, therefore, thought his honourable friend (Mr. Croker) was perfectly correct in the train in which he put the questions to the witness. Mr. Fitzgerald considered the honourable gentlemen (Mr. Wilberforce) as perfectly correct in his observations relative to the irrelevancy of the questions, as they merely weut to introduce into the inquiry extrageous matter, and could not in any degree affect the testimony of the wit- IlêSS. - Mr. Croker rel lied with much warmth to the remarks made by the honourable gentleman who spoke last; and insisted not only on the relevancy, but absolute necessity of pursuing the inquiry by such questions as he put to the witness. . $ 282 Mrs. cI.ARKE's EXAMINATIon. f Sir G. Warrender admitted that the questions put by the honourable gentleman bore upon the credibility of the witness; at the same time he was not of opinion, that in whatever manner they might be answered, they would imply that sort of contradiction which was calculated to remove the impression of the evidence from the mind of the public. It had been said by a right honourable gen- tleman opposite (Mº Long), that there were no minutes of the recommendation which led to Mr. Dowher’s ap. pointment at the Treasury. Now if it should be found that such a minute did exist— ! - Here the honourable gentleman was called to order by Generał Stewart. Sir George Warrender said, that his object was to shew that the examination of the honourable gentleman (Mr. Croker), could not lead to any result at all satisfactory to the country ; and in his opinion, it would be much bet- ter to make the questions to bear on facts, than upon any flaw which might afterwards be detected in the consistency of the evidence. f Mr. Bragge Bathurst declared, that if this line of examination was not tolerated, he did not see how the Committee could at all arrive at the truth. If the evi. dence ºf only one person was brought to substantiate a fact, it was surely of no small importance to know whe. ther the testimony of this person ought or ought not to be believed. - Mr. Adam contended, that the examination instituted by the honourable gentleman, affected the credibility of J)owier as well as of Mrs. Clarke, and on that account it was of no small importance. Dowler had given in evi- dence, that he had obtained the appointment through the influence of Mrs. Clarke; he had also declared, that he had only seen her twice since his return from Portugal, Now if he was convicted of saying what was not true in the one case, it was by no means improbable that he may have spoken falsehood in both. - [The witness was again called in.] Are those the whole of the times you have seen Mr. Dowler since his arrival in England 2 Yes, they are. - You haye stated you saw Mr. Dowler at his hotel; how often did you see Mr. Dowler at his hotel 2 1 have told you, oilce. Only once Only once. * What day was that ; I have already stated, it was the first day he came home. g MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 283 On Thursday? Yes, on Thursday. J. What’tinue of the day did you see him at his hotel on the Thursday?' At night. Did you pass under your own name, of Clarke, on that occasion ? I passed under no name. Do you now perſectly recollect that you saw him at his hotel since his arrival in England but on that one occasion, that Thursday night?. No, the other times I have stated. At what hotel did you see him At Reid's, in St. Martin's-lane. Did you see him more than one time at that hotel? No, I did not, I saw him at my own house afterwards. i Were you in company with Mr. Dowler for a considerable time upon that occasion ? I have stated that I was in company with Mr. Dowler; . and I beg leave to ask the Chair, whether this is a proper question, whether it is not unbecoming the diguity of the House 2 Did you see Mr. Dowler on the lºriday morning? [The witness was ordered to withdraw. [The witness was again called in, and the question was proposed.] My visit continued till the Friday morning. * * Had you any credit with the Duke of York's bankers? Which of them? With either of them? With neither. Did you ever draw any bills upon the Duke of York, which he ac- cepted? No; it was given out at the Horse-Guards, that I had com- mitted a forgery upon the Duke for 2000l. which I did not, and it followed me all over the country, and many persons were very much inclined to believe it, as Mrs. Hàmilton Pye, Colonel Gordon's sister, said she knew it of her own knowledge. Did you ever draw any bills upon the Duke of York, which he ac- cepted? No, he always drew them and accepted them himself; I never had any thing to do with them, he did the whole. - Do you mean you never sent a bill, drawn upon the Duke of York, to Birkett's the silversmith's Once or twice his Royal Highness gave me small bills for three or four hundred pounds, but they were his own signing and drawing up; it was to get my necklace, or something in that way, from Parker's, in Fleet-street, but I never drew a bill, nor never touched any thing of the kind; but I was always obliged to sign something else private to Parker, for he would not take his Royal High- ness's bill without my doing so. Then you deny that you sent any bill drawn by the Duke of York or yourself upon the Duke of York to Birkett's the silversmith's? I never sent any to Birkett's, - You have stated the number of horses and servants you kept, and that his Royal Highness allowed you only a thousand pounds a year; I believe you remained under the protection of the Duke of York for three years; during that time did not his Royal Highness pay you to the amount of 25,000l. in those three years? O dear, no! He ver frequently did not make good his monthly payments, and for the three months before he left me I never had a guinea from him; and although Mr. Adam has stated that his Royal Highness parted with me on ac- count of a bill, his Royal Highness never had the generosity to give me the money for that bill; it was only 130l. and I never had a guinea 28t MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATIon. value for it; I had given it to Mr. Corri, to save him from going to TISO1}. Tº e P Do you not believe that his Royal Highness, during the three years you were under his protection, paid 20,000l. for you including all the various sums that were advanced to you, the payment of tradesmen’s bills, &c. &c. during those three years : No, he did not. Will you undertake to say that his Royal Highness did not pay 15,000l. for you during those three years? Do you include his Royal Highness paying for the house before I went into it, or keeping me and ‘the establishment? - - Including every thing, all the advances that were made? I cannot tell what he paid for the house; I can tell what my lawyer got for it. What was the amount which you got for it 2 I believe the whole sold for 4,400l.; and I think it is groper for me to state in what situa- tion I was, which his Royal Highness knew at the time of our parting: some short time before, I had borrowed different sums of money of my lawyer, to the amount of twelve or fourteen hundred pounds, and I asked the Duke for the lease., and he gave it to me, and I gave it up to the lawyer for the different sums of money received from him before the house was got rid of; his Royal Highness had not paid the rent for the last half year, and I fancy the taxes for a twelvemonth were not. paid ; I always paid the taxes; I took 700l. on account to pay the poor trades-people and the servants; 700l. was due to Mr. Parker, for trin- kets, which were got from him to be sold in the sale. - Exclusive of the house, will you undertake to say you have not re- ceived to the amount of 15,000l. from his Royal Highness? That ſ am very sure of. - Call you undertake to say that positively? Positively. Will you undertake to say positively you did not receive 12,000l. from his Royal Highness, including every advance, and articles paid for during those three years? Yes. Will you undertake to say positively his Royal Highness did not pay 10,000l. to and for you? Yes, I can. His Royal Highness paid no- thing for me but in gifts, except what he was to have brought me re- gularly ; whatever value it might have been it was in trinkets and those things, it was presents, not in money; I cannot say what the amount of those might be, they all went from me before I left Gloucester-place, which his Royal Highness must be aware of, that I had nothing even to take me out of town. He promised to give me 200l. for my jour- ney, but Mr. Adam objected to that to my lawyer, and said, 100l. was pienty; but the Duke overruled it, and sent me two some time after-, wards. - - Will you undertake to say that the whole amount of his Royal High- nesses's advances to you and for you did not amount to 5,000 * No, I cannot say as to that. - Do you mean to say, that except the 1,000l. a year, which was given for the establishment, and which was shortly paid, you were not paid any more money, and was it not to a very large amount? No. Were you paid no more money besides the 1,000l. a year? No, I was not. I certainly complained to his Royal Highness, and he said, he would make some future arrangement. I convinced him that it was not more than sufficient to pay the servants' wages and liveries. Then if I understand you right, you say positively that you had no mns, cranke's examination. 285 more to live upon in money than 1,000l. a year? No, I should not say that; if I have been very much harassed for any thing, and could not get it from other quarters, and there was nothing in view, his Royal Highness would then bring me 100l. extra, or two, perhaps, but I do not recollect even two; I do one or so, one now and then, but not often. * Then in point of fact, the Committee are to understand you did not receive any considerable sums of money to support your establishment, except the 1,000l. a year? No. - In the course of your former examination you stated, that his Royal Highness advanced sums of money when unpleasant things happened, and that unpleasant things were constantly happening; do you adhere to that statement? This is what I have been alluding to now, but it never exceeded 200l. or came to that; I never recollect his bringing ine 200l. over what was the allowance; when I first went to Glouces. ter-place, the first present that ever his Royal Highness made me was 500/.; that went for linen and different things. - State what you mean by constântly; how often in the course of a month I mean in the course of three years. + - How often do you mean unpleasant things have happened, when you apply the term constantly? I think it is an improper term ; they fre- quently happened; but Mr. Dowler has relieved several things as well as his Royal Highness, and I think offener; I do not recollect his Royal Highness's doing any thing above twice. Do you mean to say that twice in the course of three years is your ºnation of constantly I have said that the word was improperly \lSecl. * You have stated, that when the Duke of York quitted you, he left you in debt upwards of 2000l. ; was that beyond the sum for which you sold the house, and was not the house left to you for the express pur- pose of paying your debts? There was no money left after the small debts were paid, and the 700l. I had paid among the poorer sort of people and the servants, which the lawyer can prove ; I have stated that there was 400l. or 500l. to Mr. Harry Phillips, for his commis- sion: I had no balance coming to me. His Royal Highness has stated, that I had trinkets to pay the debts as well as the house, but he knew where the trinkets were ; Mr. Comrie can state the whole. How soon after you went to live in Gloucester-place did your dis- tresses begin? A long time after; I was perfectly clear of debt when I went there. - * Did you receive any considerable sum beforehand from his Royal Highness, or only received the instalments of 1000l. a year when you went there? I had 500l. to buy some little necessary things in plate. and linen. . - That was the 500l. you mentioned before? Yes. Then that 500/. no part of it went towards the establishment? No, it went immediately in necessaries. t º How soon did you begin the establishment which you stated the other. night, as to the number of servants, horses, and other expences? Im- Inediately. - *...* - Were you accurate in stating, that what you had from his Royal ... Highness would only pay the liveries abºages? Wery, soon atter- wards I found it. • * - ' ' ' t * 386 Mrs. CLARKE's ExAMINAT row. Then how did you support this establishment in other respects; how did you feed the servants, and where did you get your monies for the other expences you might have had Some of the money has come before the House, the manner in which I used to get it. . How soon did that begin after your establishment in Gloucester- lace? I should think about half a year perhaps; I never began it till I felt distressed, and the hints I had from his Royal Highness; he told me that I always had more interest than the Queen had, and that I might use it. " - . Had your distresses begun before the end of the six months; if not, how soon afterwards . . I was going on in credit at the beginning. How much do you think you were indebted at the end of the first six months? I really cannot say, I was always frightened to look at it. Then you were largely indebted at the end of the first six months Very much so. #. your distresses must have begun, and your pressure by bills must have begun, very shortly after that time? Yes. ' ' ' Did they not continue during the whole of the three years? Yes, they did. - 8. you say nearly to what number of persons you might be in- debted on account of your establishment; what number of creditors you had 2: That is quite impossible; I have a list of a great many at home, of all that I owe money to. Do you think you had fewer than fifty 2 I shoald think not fewer than fifty but it might be fifty, or perhaps more. They were all very pressing? Most of them, as soon as I got in debt, pressed for places. Did they not press for money? When they found I did not take them up in the other way. How long were they before they found that? I always felt it was impossible to recommend a tradesman to any place; and one that was about me especially. - º they soon found they could get no places? Yes, I suppose they did. - Then they immediately proceeded to demand their monies, did not they Yes, they did: but they were always very willing to serve me, because they were handsomely paid in the end; they charged me quite as high as ever they charged the Duke himself, if not higher. Did not numbers of them proceed, at the expiration of six months or thereabouts to bring actions against you? Yes, they did.' Did not many of those actions proceed, so as to incur great costs, besides the debts; Yes, very great indeed. What do you say you were indebted when the establishment in Glou- cester-place broke up 2 Under 3,000l. - Then how were those great debts paid that were incurred, and which were so continually pressed for, from the expiration of six months, and greatly swelled by the costs of the actions? I found means in some way or other to satisfy them. Were not those means supplied directly or indirectly, to a great amount, by the Duke of York? No, never. se Can you then take upon yourself to say, that many bills, upon which actions were brought, and the costs incurred, were none of them' satisfied by the Duke of York No. MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 237 How do you know that? I know it as well as I know any other cir- cumstance. $ Did you pay them yourself? Yes. How long after your living in Gloucester-place was it before you were enabled to get any sums of money, by the patronage you talked of Perhaps three or four months, or five months, I cannot ex- actly say. Can you say to what amount you got by it in the first year? No, I cannot, I never took any account. Can you say to what amount you got by it in the course of the three years? No, I cannot, I never took any account whatever of any thing. Did . Duke of York defray the charge of no part of your expen- diture, such as horses and carriages, independent of the allowance 2 He bought one carriage, which I stated before. Did he purchase any horses : For about six months I had job horses, the others I always purchased myself. I lost about 900l. in one year, in the purchase of horses. Were those horses kept at the expence of the Duke of York, exclu- sive of the allowance No, they were not. : Do you know the father of Miss Taylor, who was examined here the other night? I do. How long have you known him 2 I have known him about ten years, but I have never seen him above half a dozen times. Have you always known him by the name of Taylor Ahways. I)id you ever state to his Royal Highness that 1,000l. a year insufficient to support your establishment? Yes, he knew it. Miss Taylor stated herself to be very poor; have you been kind to her, and made her presents from time to time f Yes, I have. Have you lately 2 Yes; I have not within these two months; about Christmas she told me she should get the money for her scholars, it was previous to that I assisted her. To what amount did you assist her 2 Very trifling, I had not much within my own power. Did the Duke of York ever send out bills in your name, for which he received the Inoney himself? I have asked for money for his Royal Highness of a gentleman, but the Duke wanted to give a longer bill for it. ... • Of your own knowledge, can you say, that the Duke of York was in the habit of drawing bills at date, in which he placed your name? O. - - Do you know that these bills, by which the plate at Messrs. Bir- kett's was paid for, were drawn in the way alluded to ? I never saw the bills; I should rather suppose they were drawn upon himself, and signed Frederick. 4. Do you recollect ever getting any money for the Duke of York, upon any bills drawn by himself, or any paper of that description, that he gave you with his name upon it? No, I do not think that I did. ! You spoke of having a house at Weybridge; was that house ever repaired at your expence.” Yes, it was thoroughly repaired, and I built a two-stall stable there ; I laid out between 200l. and 300l. upon it, if not more; I believe more; there was 40l. or 50l. alone for oil- 288 . MRS. ci, ARKE’s ExAMINATION. cloth, to screen his Royal Highness; to screen his visits, when hé was going backwards and forwards, from the neighbours. Do you know what your diamonds cost the Duke of York? No, I do not ; I never asked. Were those diamonds ever in pawn, during the period you were with the Duke of York? Very frequently; and I recollect that when Mr. Dowler paid me 800l. I took them out; so that Parker’s book would convince about the time that he got his appointment, and I re- ceived the money from him; it was within two or three days of his being gazetted, either after or before. Was the Duke of York acquainted with the circumstances of your diamonds being in pawn Yes; because he gave me his own bill once, and something else, payable to Parker; Parker can shew by his books who.it was payable to. e Do you recollect the amount of that bill? 400l. You have this night stated, that if ever you called yourself Mrs. Dowler, it inust have been in joke; and you have stated also, that when you were at Hampstead, you had not called yourself Mrs. Dowler? No, I had not, never. State whether you might not then have said anything of that kind in joke? I might have said that in joke; but I never represented myself as Mrs. Dowler, nor as any thing but exactly what I am, except at the court martial. . I º you receive any letters when you were at Hampstead 2 Yes, ICl. * Do you recollect how those letters were directed; were they to Mrs. Clarke To Mrs. Clarke, or else to Captain Thompson, for I was afraid of being arrested; or to Mrs. Nichols, the woman's name who waited upon me; she acted as my cook; she was the mistress of the house. Do you recollect any letter or letters directed to you as Mrs. Dowler No, never; I never had such a thing. Was Miss Taylor in the habit of visiting you frequently in Glouces- ter-place . She almost used to live constantly with me there, she would be there two or three days in a week; that was when her father's misfortunes were beginning. - . . . Was Miss Taylor in the habit of dining, when she was there, with the Duke of York and yourself? Very frequently. Do you recollect the names of the servants that used to wait upon you at dinner in general 2 I never used to let the livery servants come into the room, very seldom or never, the butler in general; the other servants used to bring the tray to the door; but she has been seen in the drawing-room by the maid servants, as well as the other men and the butler. , - - Had you a foot boy of the name of Samuel Carter? Yes, I had; but Colonel Wardle told me he would not mention that. - State whether Samuel Carter was in livery or not? No, he never wore livery. - - Did he attend your carriage when you went out? Sometimes, if I ...” servant in the way; but I liked to spare him as much as COUll Cl. r But he was in the habit of waiting at dinner upon the Duke of York, • * - 5 yourself and Miss Taylor 2 Yes, he was. MRs, crafike's ExAMINAtfos, 239 He &#tänly waited at dinner during the period he was in yourser- wice?’ ‘Yes. - - tº 4 How fong was he in your service? I should think about a twelve- nonth, not all that time in Gloucester-place. . . . - &; did he live before he came to you? With Captain Sutton. As his foot-boy, or in what capacity? Captain Sutton was lame, * was everything to him. * * t "At Gloucester-place did he do the work jointly with the other foot- men: Yes. Washe perfectly well known to his Royal Highness the Commander iń'Chief? Yes, he was. - • What is become of him? He is in the West Indies. ” Did you get him a commission in the army 2 Yes, I did. w In what regiment did you get him a commission? Where he is now, in the 16th foot; I think he is one of the staff. º Do you know why the Duke of York withdrew his protection from you?, Mr. Adam states, that was in consequence of my pleading my marriage to a bill of 130l. ; but I can prove the contrary to that, as I had done it once before, and he knew it; aud the man had sent threatening letters to him, and to the whole of his Royal Highness's family; his name is Charman, a silversmith, in St. James's-street; I have my own opinion of the separation. Did his Royal Highness assign any reason for it? No, he did not; but I guess the reason. Was it on, account of your interferences in military promotions? No, it was what Mr. Adam stated, upon money matters; but not that one of the bill. " : • - ! » . A ... You stafed, that you had been frequently conversant in military pro- motions, and sometimes successfully; can you confidently state, and risk your verácity upon it, that the Duke of York was ever privy to one or more of those transactions? To the whole. Do you mean to state, that you did not represent that Mr. Dowler Awas your husband, when you were at Hampstead : No, I did not represent, ' ' ' '. " . . * t oyou'meańto state, that you did not say that Mr. Dowler was your husband? I might have'said so very possibly, but never serious, because they must have known better, whoever I said it to. . # you or did you not ever say, that Mr. Dowler was your husband? I thinkit is very possible I did say so in the manner I have stated. Do not you know that you did say that Mr. Dowler was your hus- band 2 No, I do not. Did you not assign a reason for keeping your marriage with him secret? I do not recollect that I did; i could only have said it to some one who was very intimate with Ine, and knew all about me, and could }have no view in it. Was Mr. Dowler ever in the same house with you at Hampstead? Yes, he was very frequently, during the time he was in England. Did he sleep in the sane house? Yes, he did, several times, but Inot with me. - Had Mr. Dowler any acquaintance with any person in the house, except yourself?. There was no one there except myself and my chil- dren, and a French young lady, and Captain Thompson. In whose house were you at that time? Mr. Nichols's house, T [] * w 290 Mas. CLARKE's exAMINATIow, Do you mean to say, that during the time you resided in Gloucester- lace, a part of the expences of the establishment were not defrayed by . the Duke, besides the allowance that he paid to you? I have stated all I can recollect. tº . . . Do you mean to say, that none of the bills for the constant expences were paid by His Royal Highness Yes, I do. . . . . . . Did not his Royal Highness pay for the furniture of the house? I did not mean to say that, I understood constant expences; I do not put the furniture as constant expences. . . - Did not the Duke pay for the furniture ? Yes, all of it except the glass; I believe that cost me four or five hundred pounds. The chan- deliers, those I paid for myself. - * * , Did not his §. Highness pay for the wine? He sent in a great deal of wine, but I bought wine myself; I kept a great deal of company, and a great deal was drank. - , Do you mean to say, that a chief part of the expences for wine was not defrayed by his Royal Highness : His Royal Highness sent in wine, but it never was enough; I purchased wine myself, both Claret and Madeira ; and even that he did send in, he used to scold very much that it went too fast. . . + - - . To whom did you apply for the commission of Sam. Carter in the 16th Regiment To his Royā Highness. . . - Did you apply to his Royal Highness for a commission for Sam. Carter in the name of Samuel Carter Yes; it was his real name. Is it the name in which he is gazetted Yes. Was that the name by which he was usually called in your family, and even to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief ? Yes, it WąS. - - Was his Royal Highness aware that it was the same person who had occasionally waited upon him at your table, for whom yell asked that commission ? Yes, he was. - Was he recommended by any body beside yourself? No; I sup- pose it is in the office; some one has recommended bim. * - What interval elapsed from the time Carter was in your service tiſſ he obtained the commission? I should think he was living with me near a twelyemonth, altogether, not entirely in Gloucester-placq, but in Ta- vistock-place likewise. - : " . . . h º #. go immediately from your service into the Army? Yes, € (1101, - * . . - * - Did his Royal Highness see Samuel Carter subsequent to his being gazetted Yes, he #. Did he speak to Samuel Carter on the subject of his having a com- mission, either before or after he obtained the commission I do not know what his Royal Highness said to him ; but he saw him after he had been down to the Isle of Wight, and joined the depôt; he came up º me for some money, and his Royal Highness saw him in Gloucester- ºła Ce. * Is Samuel Carter any relation of your's No, not at all. What part of the time did Carter live with you in Gloucester-place I should think five or six months; I cannot exactly say, but I know he lived with me many months. At the time Miss Taylor was dining so constantly with you as you represent, was Pierson your butler He waited upon her while he was * Mits. GLARKE's Examin Ation, 291 there, and the other also: Sam. Carter has been waiting while she has been with us, and another butler, who has left me. You have stated, that Samuel Carter was a boy; what age was he when he got his commission I called him a boy because he was short; I believe he was eighteen or nineteen, of a proper age for the com- mission. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. attending in his place, was examined, as follows: It appears that an annuity of 400l. a yearwas to be paid conditionally to Mrs. Clarke; were you consulted by the Duke of York, whether that annuity should or not be paid? I have already stated all I know respecting that annuity, and if the honourable gentleman will refer to the evidence I have given, he will find that I know nothing about the payment of the annuity. - Do you confirm the statement made by Mrs. Clarke, that she had an allowance of only 1,000l. a year? If the worthy Baronet will take the trouble to peruse the evidence I have already given, he will find it is perfectly inconsistent with any account I have given that I could pos- sibly answer that question, because I am totally ignorant, as I have al- ready said, of all payments made by the Duke of York, except those which fell under my cognizance as Trustee. [The Chairman was directed te réport progress, and ask leave to sit again.] .* ( 292 ) . SEVENTH DAY. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14. •ºsiº lº- fist of Witnesses examined. MRs. ELIZABETH BRIDGMAN. MR. ALEXANDER SHAW. -* Mr. CHARLES SHAW. COLONEL GORDON. MR. WILLIAM NICHOLLS. MR. JOHN REID. ^ GEORGE ROBINSON. SAMUEL WELLS. Mr. W HART.on in the Chair. Mrs. ELIZABETH BRIDGMAN was called in, and examined by the Committee as follows: Do you recollect any thing of Pierson, the butler to Mrs. Clarke, i.e to have a note changed the latter end of July, 1805? Yes, I do. State where you live. No. 6, Vere-street. In what business are you engaged A confectioner. State exactly what passed with regard to that note. I cannot recol- lect exactly what passed, but I did not change the note. Do you recollect Peirson bringing a note to be changed at that time? He did bring a note, but I do not recollect seeing the note, and I did not change it. Have you no memorandums which you could refer to No. Perhaps you do not know the amount of the note 2 I think he said it was a 100l. note. * You did not see it, but he said so? I did not see it. Do you recollect, with any precision, the time, the day, or the month in which it happened? I do not. Some time in July 2 I cannot say what time it was, but I recollect the circumstance of his coming with the note. You cannot even be sure as to the month in which it took place? No. MR, SHAw’s ExAMINATION. 203 Was he frequently in the habit of coming to your house? Frequently, to order things for Mrs. Clarke. - To get notes changed 2 I never recollect his changing any thing more than a small note, which might be to pay any little bills she had contracted. 4. - You do not, of your own knowledge, know this was not a small note? No, I did not see it; he merely asked me whether I could change such a note. * w You did not see the note, and did not change it? No. Do you recollect what was the largest note you ever changed before for him ; I do not, but none of any high amount I never changed. Are you certain that Pierson told you this was a large note 2 To the best of my recollection he said a 100l. note. w Do you recollect whether it was in the summer time? I cannot say positively, but I think it was. Do you not carry on business in partnership with another person 2 There is another person in the concern with Mr. Bridgman, but not exactly a partner; but he knew nothing of the transaction of the note. Did you, in general, have the management of the money concerns, or the partner, in the year 1805 He had nothing to do with it, he was in the country. * [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW was called in, and the letter from Lieu- tenant-Colonel Shaw, to Mrs. Clarke, given in evidence yesterday, being shewn to him, he was examined by the Committee, as follows: k Do you know Colonel Shaw's hand-writing? I think I ought to &now it. Do you know that to be the hand-writing of Colonel Shaw 2 I think I know it to be. Did you ever see him write I have. Do you state that to be his hand-writing? I believe it is. Have you any doubt about it? I have no doubt about it; it is very like, and I believe it is. Did you ever see Colonel Shaw write Colonel Shaw is my son, and we have lived as father and son ought to do; as good friends. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. CHARLES SHAW was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: Of your own knowledge, do you know that 200l. was remitted to Alrs. Clarke, on account of Colonel Shaw No, I do not ; but I know that 300l. was. * , State at what period that 300l., was remitted. I received a letter from Colonel Shaw, mentioning that he wished to convey 300l., to his friend, and requesting that I would receive that sum of Mr. Coutts, having sent me an order to that effect, and that I would send it by a careful hand, addressed to Mrs. Clarke, No. 18, Gloucester-place. I received the money from Mr. Coutts, in consequence of the order, and delivered it myself at the door. , , When was that I unfortunately have kept no papers or any letters; but, in consequence of the summons of this House, I called at Mr. 2.94 colon E1. GoR Don's ExAMINATION. Coutts's to-day, and found, from their books, that I received it en the 8th of May, 1806; and I perfectly recollect that I delivered it that day at Mrs. Clarke's door. * Was this a remittance from Colonel Shaw from the Cape 2 From Bath; he was then immediately to leave Bath for Portsmouth, to em- bark for the Cape; the letter, I perfectly recollect, stated, that though he had received his appointment through the influence of his friends— Then you have got the letter? I unfortunately, have it not, for I. destroyed it soon after he embarked; but I perfectly recollect that he stated, that though he had received the appointment through the influ- ênce of his own friend, Mrs. Clarke had shewn a disposition to serve him; that he had already paid her 300l. previous to this, and had re- ceived an application for the last sum by way of loan, and that he was loth to refuse her, because he believed there was a disposition to serve him, though the appointment came certainly through the influence of his friend, whom I knew to have been Sir Harry Burrard, who had in: terested himself very much upon all occasions for this gentleman, and that the appointment was got by him; but that, as this lady has shewn a disposition to serve him, he had in consequence sent this 300l. that it was expressly given by way of loan. In consequence of what I read to-day in the newspaper, that Mrs. Clarke declared in this House, that this gentleman had used her ill, and had not fulfilled all his engagements, I beg to declare from my own knowledge, and I am ready to bring evi- élence to the bar of this House, that Lieutenant-colonel Shaw is a man of as high honour and as good an officer as any man in the King’s Ser- vice, and is incapable of making any pecuniary promise that he has not literally, faithfully, and honourably supported. I beg pardon, if I have been too warm ; but it is such a reflection' upon this gentleman... I am willing to produce officers, from his Colonel downwards, who will state that he never forfeited an engagement he had made in his life; his ser- vices are well known. t t [The witness was directed to withdraw. Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined by the Committee, * as follows: t * * = Can you state when Major Shaw was appointed to be Assistant Bar- rack-master-general and at what period he was put upon the half-pay? I beg to ask, whether you would wish me to answer that question as it is put to me, or to read the whole proceeding respecting Major Shaw’s appointment, from the first to the last. Answer the question at first as it is put. I do not believe that I have got the document in my possession which can exactly answer that ques- tion; it must have been about the end of March 1806, or the beginning of April. * #. you mean that it was the end of March 1806 or the beginning of April that he was appointed Barrack-master-general I believe he was appointed Deputy Barrack-master-general, and placed upon half-pay immediately afterwards. - o you know how soon afterwards he was placed upon the half- pay? I cannot from my recollection at this moment ascertain the dates, but they are very easily ascertained; a reference to the army- Hist, oi the documents in the office, or the Gazette, would ascertain it in a moment. & colon EL Goſt Do N’s ExAMINATION. 295. Are there documents in your office that would ascertain it? Yes, there are. * State any thing you know to the Committee respecting the applica- tions that were made for Colonel Shaw's situation. With the permis- sion of the House, I will read all the documents in my possession with respect to the appointment of Major Shaw, Lieutenant-colonel Shaw. The first document is a letter from Lieutenant-general Burrard to me, dated August the 11th, 1804; it is not dated where from, but it was most likely from the orderly-room in the guards. [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] “ DEAR SIR, “Aug. 11th, 1804. “I am so much employed on a board of clothing, that I cannot do myself the pleasure of waiting upon you. The enclosed will inform you of the situation of a friend of mine, whom I wish much to serve. If Col. Clinton is in London, he can tell you exactly how he stands; as can Col. Loraine. “If you can put me in the way of serving him, I shall be extremely obliged to you. He has served long, always abroad, and very gallantly, and his father was a brother captain and friend many years back. I request you to excuse the liberty I take and trouble I give you, and believe me truly, * ** Your most obt. & “ Lt. Col. Gordon, &c. &c. “HARRY BURRARD.” The next document is my answer to that letter. [Colonel Gordon read the answer.] + & (Copy.) “ DEAR GENERAL, “AIorse Guards, 16th Aug. 1804. “I fear that your wishes in behalf of Major Shaw cannot be com- plied with, his Royal Highness being of opinion, that he must join his regiment before any further recommendation in his favour can be at- tended to. “Your's, &c. * (Signed) “J. W. GoRDoN. “ M. General Burrard, &c. &c.” The next document is Sir Harry Burrard's to me, August the 27th. • [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] “My DEAR SIR, “Aug. 27th, 1804. “I shall be obliged to you if you will let me know whether Clintou has spoken to you about Major Shaw ; and if you think he may be likely to see the Commander in Chief to-morrow. He has found a major of the 39th eager to go to Ceylon, but he is himself preparing as fast as he can, however distressing it is to him. i “I am truly your’s, & “ H. BURRARD.” The next is my answer to that letter. - [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] -- (Copy) “Dear General, “Horse Guards, 28th Aug. 1804. “Clinton spoke to me with much warmth about Major Shaw, but 296 eoton E1, GoRDON's ExAMINATION. having twice mentioned his name and wishes to the Commander in Chief, I cannot again venture to do it. - “I recommended Major Shaw to speak to his Royal Highness, and state his situation. ! # - “Your's, (Signed) “J. W. GoRDoN.” “AZ. General Burrard, &c. &c.” * The next letter that appears upon this subject is from Sir Harry Burrard to me, on the 27th of March, 1805. » " [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] Put by. -- * “Private and confidential. “My Dear Sir, “March 27th, 1805. “My friend Shaw's health is by no means re-established, and his family still in extreme distress from their recent losses and misfortune. I could therefore wish his leave to be extended for two months, and I am sure it would prevent infinite distress to him. If you can manage it for me I shall be extremely obliged to you. “I have heard it whispered, that it was possible rank could be ob- tained by raising men. If it is so, and this could be allowed him, it would most materially serve him, and do away the mortification I am afraid my want of skill has occasioned; and I should not have to re- proach myself at any rate with want of success. * “I am afraid his leave will be soon out, and his anxiety will, of course, be great. Pray excuse the trouble I give you, and be assured that nothing can afford me more pleasure than serving you, as I really 3.]]) - . . . “Your obliged hum. Serv. " * HARRY BURRARD.” The next is my answer to that letter, dated the 28th of March. : |Colonel Gordon read the letter.] (Copy.) * “ Horse Guards, 28th March, 1805, “Dear General, * - “His Royal Highness has much pleasure in complying with your request for a prolongation of leave of absence for Major Shaw, which leave has been extended for two months, from the expiration of his resent leave, and the same has been notified to the Adjutant-general. “At the same time it is but just to hint to Major Shaw, that there is a duty to the service, to which the Commander in Chief, however anxious his Royal Highness may be to relieve the distresses of indivi- duals, must give attention; and, if the circumstances of Major Shaw are such as to pieclude him from joining on so remote a service, he should retire upon the half-pay until some more favourable opportu- nity. • * : . . . . ' “Ever your's, &c. (Signed) ‘‘ J. W. GoF Do N. “P. S. There is no intention at present on the part of government to raise men for rank in the Infantry. * * “Lt. General Burrard, &c, &c.” colon EL GoR don's ExAMINATION. 297 • The next is from General Burrard to me on the 10th of May follow- ing. * [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] * C. B. “Speak to me. “My Dear Sir, “May 10th, 1805. “I cannot sufficiently acknowledge, in General Archer’s name and my own, how much we feel obligation to his Royal Highness; I sin- cerely hope Archer will have opportunity of evincing his gratitude and zeal. * - “Since I spoke to you concerning Major Shaw, he has called upon kme to inform me that he cannot, conditionally not to pay if he does not proceed to India, get a passage secured, and that the captains require 400l. Now, as he is led to have some hopes still, that an opportunity may offer to promote him, from what his Royal Highness so graciously ’ said, he feels a reluctance to sink so large a sum, if there is a possibi- lity to avoid it. If you could, therefore, soon again recall him to the Duke he would abide by whatever was the determination of his Royal Highness. * - . . . f* Excuse my troubling you, and believe me truly, “Your faithful, and obliged humble servant, - “HARRY BURRARD. “It. Colonel Gordon.” * The next is my answer to that letter. [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] - “ Horse Guards, 13th May, 1805. “Dear General, * * * I have laid your letter of the 10th instant before the Commander in Chief, and am directed to acquaint you, that his Royal Highness sees no prospect of any early opportunity of complying with Major Shaw's wishes: and that, therefore, it is adviseable he should proceed to join his regiment by the earliest conveyance, * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . “I have, &c. (Signed) “J. W. GoRDoN. * Lt. Gen. H. Burrard, &c, &c.” * { * ... The next that I hold in my hand is March 1806, from Sir Harry Burrard to me.' & 3. [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] “ (Confidential.) , . * } “My Dear Gordon, “March 26, 06. *I hope you will pardon the anxiety of a soldier to get promotion; d of his friend, and the very ancient one of his old fathet, to assist him in it, particularly as he is well assured of his zeal and general worth. Under this presumption, H inclose, a letter from Major Shaw, with my earnest hopes that should any thing turn up; in which you can bring his name forward, that he may not be forgotten. I inclose it for your private reading, and request at your leisure you will return it. I will at any time attend jou, to prevent you the trouble of writing, or rather the time of it, for I know the former you do not mind. Your messen- R. 298 colon EL Goa DóN's ExAMINATron. ger knows where to find me, as I am at this orderly room for two or three hours most days. “I am truly your's with great regard, & 6 #. URRARD.” Mr. D. . “I shall be glad to speak to General Burrard this evening if possible, if not, about 2 to-morrow.” The inclosed is from Major Shaw, to Sir Harry Burrard, dated Pevensey Barracks, 19th March, 1806. [Colonel Gordon read it.} : | (Inclosure.) a “Pevensey Barracks, 19th March, 1806. “My Dear Sir, - * I fear that you must think me presuming on your many kindnesses in again troubling you, and, being without apology, I must rely entirely. on your goodness. In making, however, my present request, let me beg that, if attended with any circumstances unpleasant to you, that you bestow no further consideration, than pardoning the liberty of my having made it. -- X = - “I shall premise with stating, that previously to my removal from the Ceylon regiment, his Royal Highness had been graciously pleased to promise me promotion, on a favourable opportunity offering; and on my joining the 40th Regiment, I repeated my desire of purchasing, to which I now stand acted by a letter from Colonel Gordon. Having had further assurances given to me of his Royal Highness's favourable intentions, in the admission of my services, being now nearly 23 years in his Majesty's army, that my cotemporaries are generally colonels or old lieutenant-colonels, and that I experienced the mortification of being purchased over by an' officer from another regiment, and by many years my junior, in the profession; from these circumstances, I am induced to hope, that should Colonel Gordon favour me by bring: ing my case to his Royal Highness's notice, that I might benefit by some mark of favour in the military arrangements that are expected to take place. It is in this expectation that I venture to trouble you, and I shall feel myself sincerely obliged by yout mentioning to Colonel Gordon (should a desirable opportunity offer) my services, disappoint- ments, and present hopes; and I shall esteem it a particular º, his bringing my case at this period to his Royal Higness's remem- brance. - * = • * - - - “I shall no longer tresspass on your time but in offering my best respects to Mrs. Burrard. I remain with sinceregratitude, ' ' ' . . . . - . . . . . . “My dear Sir, ... “Your's most faithfully, and much obliged,' ' - r . . . . . “J. Shaw,” . The next letter is one from General Burrard, March 29th, 1806. [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] “ (Private.) + t ; “My dear Sir, w . . . . March 29th, 06, “To shorten the business, I send you Shaw's letter, which is nothing more than to say, that he gratefully will accept, if the deputy barrack; coloneL GoRDON's EXAMINATION. 999 mastercy at the Cape can be obtained, with the rank of lieutenant- colonel and go there in three weeks. I explained that ; and also, that (if it could be obtained) he would be put on half-pay as soon as it £ould be done. His request is to come to London immediately, if he can succeed. “I am truly, Your obliged servant, *i. Burrard. “Pray return the letter. * Lieut.-Col. Gordon.” “ C. L. “The appointment is now to go on.” I did not return the letter, and I now have it in my hand; it is a letter from Colonel Shaw to General Burrard. - * [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] se (Inclosure.) & “My dear Sir, “ Pevensey Barracks, 28th March, 1806. * I am just honoured with your letter, and I trust you will believe that I feel, though I shall not attempt to express my gratitude, for your present and many kindnesses towards me, and I can only add, that my sense of obligation can alone cease with my existence. * I have, as far as the present time allowed, given every consideration to the proposal you have made me, and should conceive myself most fortunate in succeeding to it, and should be ready to proceed in the time.you mention. I have only to request, that should the decision prove 'favourable, that I might be permitted an immediate leave of absence;’ as I should have a great deal to arrange in regard to my family. It would be my wish, could I procure an accommodation, to take my wife. and two of my children out with me, and to leave the others in this country. . " • ? ‘’’ “As our warning for the post is very short, I must conclude, beg- ging my best respects to Mrs. Burrard, and that you will believe me, with every sentiment of sincere gratitude, 3. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Yours most sincerely and faithfully, - g “J. SHAw. * Generał Burrard.” The mark F put upon this letter was, “the appointment is now to go on;” it did go on, he was appointed deputy barrack-master-general at the Cape, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and, as soon as possible, was put on half-pay. “I have further to state to the Committee, that when this subject was mentioned in the House some evenings ago, I sent to Sir Harry Burrard, to request he would bring to his recollection all the circumstances that took place upon the subject of Shaw’s appoint- ment, Sir Harry Burrard waited upon me on the 30th of January last, and put this paper into my hands, “ . < " . . . [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] The following day Sir Harry Burrard sent me this letter. " ' " [Colonel Gordon read the letter.] I have now told the committee all I know upon that subject. In the first letter that you have réad, Colonel Shaw reſers to some promises made him of promotion by His Royal Highness the Com- 30) colon Er, GoRDoN’s ExAMINATIo N. inander in Chief; do you know what those promises were I cannot state exactly that I do know, but I supposed them to have been the usual answers given to officers who make application for promotion, that their names were noted, and would be considered with the names of other officers of equal pretensions, when future opportunities offered. You do not know of any other promise which Major Shaw had re- ceived 2 No, I do not. Is it usual for field officers on the staff to be put on half-pay? When a field officer accepts a staff appointment, it is usual for him to be placed tipon the half-pay; it is the general rule of the army: there are ex- ceptions, which iº explain when called upon. f State the exceptions. The best way for me to state the exceptions would be to read to the Committee a list of all the permanent staff- * and to state all that are upon half-pay, and who are not, and why. A. Was the officer who held the appointment before Major Shaw, on half-pay or full-pay If I recollect right, Major Shaw was the first person who held it; he was appointed upon the capture of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope. - [Colonel Gordon delivered in a list of the staff officers on foreign 4 - * stations.] How many officers holding staff situations, who are upon half-pay now, were on half-pay previous to and, at the time they were appointed ~£o those staff situations? .# to the best of my knowledge, I be- Fieve when they were appointed to their staff situations, they were every one, without exception, on full-pay. { Was Sir William Keir upon full Sir William Keir was not. You have stated that the two other staff officers at the Cape are Lieutenant-colonel Sorel and Lieutenant-colonel Harcourt; were either of those officers upon half-pay when they received those appointments? . No, they were not, they were put upon half-pay since; the paper I gave in will state it exactly; and I do believe, with the exception of Sir William Keir, they were all upon full-pay; there may be one or two exceptions. g • *- Does Sir William Keir receive his half-pay ? That is a financial question that I can only answer as matter of general information ; I believe he does not, as he applied for it, and I believe he does not re- ceive it. . * >= - * Am I correct in supposing that Col. Kempt was appointed quarter- master general in Canada, on the recommendation of Sir James Craig; . Colonel Kempt being at that time absent in Sicily? Yes, he was; Co- Bonel Kempt had no notion of his appointment until it was intimated to him. . . . . ; : . . . An I correct in supposing that Colonel Kempt would have declined. that situation, if it had interfered with his situation as lieutenant-colonel of the 8 ist regiment? I am quite positive of it, for he repeatedly as: sured me so. - . . . . . - - {s the Deputy Quarter master General in Sicily on full pay, or does he receive any other pay than that of his staff situation I do not know that he does; I believe that he receives merely the pay for his staff si- tgation, and will be placed upon the half-pay in addition to that as soon as an opportunity can be found, but at the present he is aggrieved by not even having the half-pay; that is Lieutenant-colonel Campbell. colonel, GoRDon's ExAMINATION. 301 Have the staff officers whom you mention as being on half-pay, been ea half-pay ever since they have held those staff situations? I believe I have stated to the House, that to the best of my recollection they were all upon full pay when they were appointed, and were placed upon half-pay as soon as possible afterwards. “. . . Immediately upon their receiving their staff appointments they were placed upon half-pay ? As soon as possible afterwards: the Comman- der in Chief has it not in his power to place an officer, upon half-pa whenever he pleases, there must be a vacancy on the half-pay establis £nent. - * I understood you to say that an officer of the name of Bowyer in the West Indies, was on the full-pay, holding a staff appointment; what staff appointment does he hold? I said that Major Bowyer was Deputy Adjutant General in the West Indies, and he is the eldest captain of the 59th regiment; he has been ordered to join his regiment, or he will be placed upon the half-pay. . . - - r . * What regiment did Colonel Shaw belong to before he received his staff appointment? Colonel Shaw exchanged from one or two, but I be- lieve it is the 40th regiment. . . . - ‘Did General Burrard command a battalion of the Guards at that time He commanded the brigade of Guards in London. - Did you state, those documents which you read to be all the docu- ments respecting the appointment of Major Shaw They are all that I know of, in my present recollection: '. -º, All those that are in the office?. Upon my word I believe so. is it customary to appoint an officeſ to any staff appointment or any advantageous situation, without j the officer commanding the regiment to whom he belongs, what has been the conduct of that officerº That is the general mode to apply to the officer commanding the regiment; but Major Shaw had not been in the 40th regiment six months, if my recollection serves me right, and General Burrard states that he knew him from a boy. - Is it not customary to apply to the general officer, who is colonel of the regiment, in such cases? No, I cannot say that it is ; the colonel of the regiment, not being with his regiment, he is very often not so good a judge of the merits of the officer as the officer actually in the command of it, or º other officers with whom the individual may have previously, served. . . . - - e In point of fact, no application in this case was made to any person but to General Burrard? General Burrard mentions in his letter that he had Sir James Craig for his friend, and I have endeavoured to bring to my recollection whether Sir James Craig had ever spoken to me about Shaw; I cannot bring to Iny recollection that he did, but it is possible that he might. I Had Colonel Shaw ever served under Sir James Craig I really know no more of it than exactly what Sir Harry Burrard states in his letter; it is most likely he had, for he had served a great deal in India, and it is propable that in India he had obtained the patronage of Sir James Craig, 1 r * & Do you know Colonel Meyrick Shaw There is a Colonel Shaw who has just been removed into the 76th regiment, I believe his name ſis Meyrick Shaw. Do you recollect his being confidential secretary to Lord Wellesley 302 codon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. in India, then a major: I rather think that he did hold some appoint- ment under Lord Wellesley, as Lord Wellesley has more than once recommended him to the notice of the Commander in Chief. Do you recollect, that in consequence of his purchasing the lieute- nant-colonelcy of a regiment not in India, he was put upon half-pay 2 Yes, I think I recollect that perfectly, that he purchased the lieutenant- colonelcy of the 31st regiment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that as there was no charge against the Commander in Chief for an undue exercise of his discretionary power, he thought that the examination of Colonel Gordon was taking a turn that would be useless. 3. Mr. Whitbread was of opinion that Colonel Gordon should first be asked if the rules of the service had been adhered to in the appointment of Colonel Meyrick Shaw . If they had not, it would then be for Colonel Gordon to state the services which rendered Colonel Meyrick Shaw an exception to the general rule. [The witness was again called in.] Was there any deviation from the ordinary practice of the army in the appointment of Colonel Meyrick Shaw to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 76th regiment? None whatever, it was the constant practice; I stated I believe in my evidence some nights ago, that it was the rule of the army that a junior officer should not be placed over the head of a senior officer of the same rank, that is the junior major of one regi- ment should not be put over the head of the senior major in another; but Lieutenant-colonel Shaw was a lieutenant-colonel, and he was placed on the lieutenant-colonel's vacancy over the head of the major ; that is the constant practice of the army, there has been no deviation whatever in it. – Do you know what recommendation Mr. Samuel Carter had for his ensigncy in the 6th Regiment? Yes, I do. . . * - What is the date of Major Cowell's commission as major in the ar- my 2 August 1807. - - $ #. what date does Lieutenant-colonel Shaw take rank as lieute- nant-eolonel in the army 2 I should think he has been a lieutenant-co- lonel rather better than three years, I have no document by me that will state that accurately. - - Do you know that Colonel Meyrick Shaw was a great many years a commissioned officer in the East India company's service, before he came into his Majesty's regular service : I do not know it from my own knowledge, I have heard the very best character of Colonel Shaw, from various officers, Do you know whether he was removed to the half-pay without re- ceiving a difference? I believe he was. Is it not a regulation, or at least understood, that whenever an officer is placed upon half-pay without receiving a difference, government is in some degree pledged to place him upon full pay as soon as a favour- able opportunity offers? The Commander in Chief has invariably been governed by that rule. - colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 303 Do you know whether I (the Secretary at War) took aF. in- terest in Lieutenant-colonel Sorel With the greatest deference to the right honourable gentleman who put that question, I may say that he impôftuned me upon it. Éf I (the Secretary at War) importune you to solicit his Royal Highness to keep that officer upon full pay, as long as he could with propriety be kept in that situation Yes, certainly. . . . Do you know Captain Bruijker, who either is, or lately was pay- master of the 5th Dragoon Guards : I cannot say that I have that pleasure. - - 'Do you not know that that officer, who is a very meritorious officer, Awas formerly a private in that regiment 2. I have already said, that I have aot the pleasure of knowing him at all. Do you know Mrs. Clarke? I never had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Clarke till I saw her at the bar of this house two evenings ago. In the series of correspondence which you have read between Gene- ral Burrard and yourself, there is a letter sometime towards the 28th of March, wherein General Burrard, in the most earnest manner, re- news his solicitation on behalf of Major, Shaw, and a note is made upon that, desiring to see General Burrard that evening, or early next morning; did you see General Burrard in consequence of that desire so expressed ? I think it is most certain that I saw him, for his next letter contains an answer to something I must have said to him. Ou that occasion did you suggest to General Burrard, that this ap- pointment of barrack master at the Cape of Good Hope was vacant, or about to be so? I canuotº state positively that I did not; I think it most likely that I did. t º - Had you ever had any conversation with the Commander in Chief upon that subject, and had he [the Commander in Chief] ever expres- sed any earnest desire to provide for Major Shaw 2 I do not recollect that the Commander in Chief expressed any desire at all, but I cer- tainly must have had some communication with him, or Inever could have ventured of myself to have made such a proposal to Sir Harry Burrard. Did the Commander in Chief ever speak to you upon the subject of Major Shaw, except when you, in the course of your official duty, made representations to the Commander in Chief respecting Major Shaw I do not recollect that he ever did, but I beg leave to state, that it is pressing my recollection, a little hard, considering that there are eleven or twelve thousand officers of the army, all of whom, or their friends, either correspond with or address me. T)id you ever hear of Mrs. Clarke's selling, or pretending to sell commissions in the army, before it became the subject of discussion in this house? Never, but through the medium of the numerous libels that have been lately published against the Commander in Chief. Did you ever set on foot any inquiry into the truth of those state- tnents? I have already stated to the house, that in the Autumn of 1804 I had understood that numerous abuses of this kind existed, and I did set on iodt eyery inquiry that it was possible for me to do; I ascer- tained that these abuses were practised, and in a letter that is now before the house, cautioned the officers of the army against such prac- tices; even subsequent to that letter, I had proof that such abuses did exist, and I obtained the opinion of eminent counsel, and they assured me it was not even a misdeineanor, and that I could have no redress; * Af ºr 304 codon E1. Gordon's ExAMrNArion. T - upon that I represented the circumstance to the then Secretary at War, as I have already I believe stated in evidence to this house, and 3 clause was inserted in the mutiny act, to impose a fine upon it. . . From what source did you receive your intelligence of the existence offhose abuses I rather think that the source was anonymous; but upon inquiry I found that the account was true, and I traced it to Mr. Froome an army broker, and a Mr. Hebden, I believe a clothierin Parliament street: I sent for Mr. Froome; Mr. Froome told me that he had received this money; I think it was nearly 1000l. for the pay- mastership of one of the battalions of the German Legion: I think, I am speaking now from recollection, that he told me also that he had only received a per-centage of the º and paid the money to other hands: after repeatedly pressing him, I think he named Mr. Hebden the army clothier. I sent for Mr. Hebden, and after some conversa- tion, I must state to the house that I was not a little surprized at the im- pudence of that gentleman, who told me positively that he received the money, and wéuld tell me no more about it; that is the proofto which I alluded. . – • =' The name of Mrs. Clarke was never mentioned to you as a party to this or any other similar transaction? Most certainly not. . . . . Did you ever disclose to the Duke of York the circumstance of Mr. Hebden and Mr. Froome Yes, I did indeed, and to many other peo: ple, and took the opinion of lawyers upon it; which opinion I believe, i. àll the documents upon it, I can, if necessary, lay before this OllSé. - - - What was the Duke's answer? The Duke desired me to scrutinize it to the bottom, and, let it fall upon whom it might, he would make an example of them. - * . . . Since this transaction, do you know that Mr. Froome has been em. ployed by Mr. Greenwood 3 No, I do not know it. . . . You delivered in a paper from Messrs. Greenwood and Cox, relative to the exchange between Lieutenant-colonel Knight and Lieutenant- colonel Brooke, some of which you stated to have been written in the original in pencil; how did that happen? As this paper is printed, it is incomprehensible almost to me: when this paper was laid before the Commafider in Chief, I received his pleasure upon it, and I marked upon it this pencil remark “ C. L.” (Colonel Loraine) “cannot be acceded to ; his Royal Highness does not approve of the exchange proposed.” Subsequent to that, inquiries were made as to the ser- vices of Lieutenant-colonel Brooke, on whose account it was that the exchange was not acceded to. The result of these inquiries was such as to induce me to lay the papers before the Commander in Chief again; and this second pencil remark is the result of the second re- presentation I made to the Commander in Chief. Is it usual to make your remarks in pencil Sometimes in pencil, Sometimes in ink. - - ... Were you acquainted with Mr. Froome, or knew any thing of his situation in life previous to the interview you had with him on the sub- ject of this commission? I knew him as a reputed army broker to a great extent, and one of a description of persons with whom I declared open' war the moment I came to the Commander in Chief. In consequence of the transaction stated by you, were any steps taken to prevent his transacting that agency business for the army; I coron EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 305 do not understand that he ever was authorized to transact business for the army, but he transacted it in spite of every thing I could'do; he was an army broker, not an agent. . • Was it not in consequence of information which you obtained upon this subject that those circular letters were written, and the clause in the mutiny act submitted to parliament? The circular letter was writ- ten in consequence of the information I had obtained prior to the fact with which I have now acquainted the house; the clause in the mutiny act was brought into this house subsequeni, to that, and because I found that I had no redress. - 4. . . Was there ever any entry made of Colonel Knight's exchange not being approved of by the Commander in Chief? Certainly there was, and sent either to Colonel Knight or Colonel Brooke; I had the letter in my hand the first time I gave evidence before the house. Through what recommendation in your office did Mr. Samuel Carter receive his ensigncy in the 16th Foot? Lieutenant Sutton of the Royal Artillery. liery [The letter was read, dated December 7th, 1801.] - “Royal Laboratory, hyoolwich, December 7th, 1801. “May it please your Royal Highness, • * “The kindness that your Highness has at all times most graciousl bestowed on me, emboldens me to address you in the behalf of an orphan lad, nearly sixteen years of age, of the name of Samuel Carter, (whose father lost his life in the service, and whom I have brought up and educated,) in hopes that your Highness will be #. pleased to appoint to an ensigncy: a favour that I should not présume to ask but on the score of my long service and sufferings in his majesty's service; which I hope and humbly trust your Royal Highness will take into your gracious consideration, who am, with all due submission and respect, - “Your Royal Highness's “most faithful and obedient, “humble servant, “THoMA's SUTTon, - “Lieutenant Royal Artillery.” * Lieut-Col. L.” “From present circumstances, it is not in the Commander in Chief’s power to recommend any person for a commission ; but the person mentioned will be noted to be º for at a future opportunity. “ J. C.” Do you recollect when he was appointed Here is Lieutenant Suts ton's answer, to the notification, which will state it exactly. [The letter read, March 29th, 1804.] “ Lieutenant Sutton presents his most respectful compliments to Colonel Clinton, to acknowledge the honour of his note of the 21st inst. and begs to express how gratefully he feels the appointment his º: Highness the Commander in Chief has been pleased to confer On M r. Samuel Carter. --- " - " - . . . . . . . ... “London, March 29th, 1804. “Colonel Clinton, &c. &c.” ~ w - X ’ 306 colon E1. Go Roon’s ExAMINATION. ſº The appºintment must have taken place there or thereabouts: Do you know whether Lieutenant Sutton is dead : Until, I loºked into these papers, I did not know that such a man existed; I have heard that he is dead. - Are not candidates for ensigncies frequently on his Royal Highness's list for two or three years before they can be appointed: That depends upon the period; at the period of 1801, the reduction of the army, and the period of peace, it was absolutely impossible to appoint him, as the answer states; the answer is in substance upon the body of the letter; but here it is in length. -- [Colonel Gordon read the letter, dated 8th December, 1801.] (Copy.) \ “Sir, “ Horse-Guards, 8th Dec. 1801. “I have received the Commander in Chief's commands to acquaint you, in answer to your letter of yesterday’s date, that from present circumstances it is not in the Commander in Chief’s power to recommend any person for a commission; but his Royal Highness has directed Mr. Samuel Carter's name to be noted, to be provided for at a future opportunity. - * I am, &c. (Signed) “ Rob ERT BRowNRIGG. “ Lieut. Thomas Sutton, Royal Artillery, “Royal Laboratory, Woolwich.” . I should imagine the circumstances alluded to were the reduction of the army. Have not you recently known instances of candidates, respecting whom there was no disqualification, where they have frequently re- mained two or three years before they were appointed Certainly; I dare say there are a hundred upon the Duke's books at this mo- men, tor two. - * r * Is there any subsequent recommendation of Mr. Carter? I have no other documents whatever on the subject. When a recommendation is once in, is it necessary for a subse- quent recommendátion to come when that candidate is noted upon the list The usual practice is, when a person sends.in a memorial, . he follows it up by himself and his friends repeatedly, and commonly III (36°1'SOI), * o you know the date of Mr. Carter's commission? I cannot say that I know the date, but it must have been between the 17th and 21st of March, 1804. - . * In the affair of the exchange between Colonel Brooke and Colonel Knight, had not Colonel Knight previously made an application to be allowed to exchange with Colonel Pleydell? Yes, he had. Was that objected to Yes, it was. • Are the documents upon that subject now in the Office? I rather think they are. - * Did you ever hear of a person of the name of Hector Stray, an En- sign in the 54th regiment of foot To the best of my recollection, I never heard his name mentioned before. --.” - - - - -º- colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATION. 307 Have you with you any means of ascertaining whether there is such a person I have not with me; but I can ascertain it by eleven o'clock to-morrow morning. You stated, on a former examination, that you had frequently been in the West Indies; were you not born in the West Indies I was not; I have the honour of being a Welshman. To your knowledge, did Mr. Hebden, who received the 1,000?. for the paymastership, ever obtain that paymastership The paymaster- ship was certainly obtained, and that struck me very forcibly when I made the inquiries. Is it competent to you, in your official situation, to produce the documents of that appointment 2 I can produce them : it will give me great satisfaction if the Committee will do me the honour to go into them. * - At whose recommendation are paymasterships bestowed : The co- lonels of the regiments, through the Secretary at War. Has the Commander in Chief any concern with the recommenda- tion for these appointments? None whatever, except the submitting them to his Majesty. Is it a matter of course for the Commander in Chief to submit to his Majesty those recommendations for paymasterships, which are approved by the Secretary at War?. It is quite a matter of course, .."; approved of by the colonels of the regiments and the Secretary at War. t Does the recommendation of the paymaster on all occasions originate with the colonel of the regiment, or does the Secretary at War appoint? I understand the practice to be, that the recom- mendation is with the colonel of the regiment, and it is submitted to the Secretary at War, whose duty it is to take care that the securities are good. Who was the colonel who recommended the paymaster, in the case of Hebden, to the paymastership 2 I really do not know who the colonel of the battalion was ; it of course came through the head of the German Legion, the Duke of Cambridge. Who was Secretary at War at that time I rather think it was Ge- neral Fitzpatrick, I will not be quite sure. - Is there not an express regulation, that paymasterships cannot be sold I understand it to be so decidedly. Do you happen personally to know Lieutenant Carter 2 No, I do not, to my knowledge I never saw him. * Do you know from any correspondence that, although he was, as was expressed upon this recommendation, a poor orphan, he had had a sufficient education to qualify him for an ensigncy, being the son of a soldier who was killed in the service Until his name was mentioned here last night, I never heard his name mentioned. Who appoints the paymasters ?, I have already stated, that the co- lonel of the regiment recommends the paymaster, the Secretary at War approves of the sureties, and in that shape they come trans- mitted to the Commander in Chief, who lays them as a matter of course before the King. In what year did the transaction you have alluded to, relative to Mr. Hebden, take place I really do not know, but this I know, that it was in consequence of the transaction that I was induced to speak to the Secretary at War to insert a .."; in the Mutiny Act. - 2 303 colon EL Go RpoN's ExAMINATION. Do you not recollect whether the transaction did not take place before the appointment of General Fitzpatrick as Secretary at War ; whether that transaction could have ever come under his cognizance 2 y really cannot take upon me to state the exact date, it must have been there or thereabouts, I cannot speak to the exact period. Cannot you ascertain, by reference to your papers, whether it was before the month of February, 1806? ... I cannot, without reference to the Army List; the paymaster’s name was Blunderstone, of one of the battalions of the German Legion. Do you not understand it to be a matter of course, that the Secre- tary at War should recommend any paymaster that is recommended to him by the colonel of the regiment, provided he finds him to be a per- son fitted for the situation, and that he has proper security ? Quite a matter of course. * Upon what ground do you say that the recommendation of the commanding officer of a regiment, for the paymaster, is received as a matter of course at the War Office 2 I am called upon to answer a question that in no shape belongs to the office which I superintend, but as matter of general information, I understand that when the colonel of a regiment recommends a paymaster to the Secretary at War, if the Secretary at War sees no objection to such recommendation, and his securities are good, then it is a matter of course that he recommends. - In case the Secretary at War should disapprove of the securities, what is then the process I beg to repeat that I am answering questions in no way connected with my office, but as matter of general information I can state, the Secretary at War would then return it. Would not the colonel then have another recommendation which might meet with approval Certainly. Produce the documents respecting the resignation of Major Turner. (Copy.) “Sir, “Craig's Court, 5th Sept. 1808. “We are directed by Lieutenant-general Cartwright, to enclose the resignation of Brevet-major Turner, for the sale of his troop in the 3d (or King's own) regiment of dragoons, which we request you will be pleased to lay before Field-marshal his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief, together with the recommendation of Lieutenant Sit- well to succeed thereto, the purchase-money being satisfactorily settled, and no senior lieutenant in the regiment having signified an intention of purchasing. - “We have, &c. (Signed) “GREEN wooD, Cox, and Co. “ Lieut.-Colonel Gordon, * &c. &c. &c.” (Copy.) “Sir, “Canterbury, 26th August, 1808. “I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me his Majesty's consent to the sale of my commission of Captain in the 3d (or King's own) regi- ment of dragoons, which I purchased. n . . “In case his Majesty shall be graciously pleased to permit the same, . . . . . . * * * - F - 4 * coron EL Gorbon’s ExAMINATION, 309 “I do declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I have not démanded or accepted, neither will I demand or accept, directly or indirectly, at any time, or in any man- ner whatever, more than the sum of 3,150l. being the price limited and fixed by his Majesty's regulation, as the full value of the said commission. º - - “I have the honour to be, “Sir, i f $ “Your most obedient, humble servant, (Signed) “WHIchcote TURNER, Capt. “Officer Commanding 3d or } n 4 “King’s own regiment of dragoons.” A- i (Copy.) - * , * Sir, “Canterbury, 26th Aug. 1808. “I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me his Majesty's permission to purchase the troop vacant in the 3d, or King's own regiment of dra- goon’s, (vice) Turner, who retires; the senior lieutenants having de- clined purchasing. - “In case his Majesty shall be graciously pleased to permit me to— “I do declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I will not, now, or at any future time, give, by any means, or in any shape whatever, directly, or indirectly, any more than the sum of 3,150l., being the price limited and fixed by his Majesty's regulation, as the full value of the said commission. *: I have the honour to be, , “ Sir, - “Your most obedient, and most humble servant, (Signed) “R. SITwell, - “Lieut. 3d Dragoons. “To the Commanding Officer, * 3d, or King’s own regiment of dragoons.” “I beg leave to recommend the above, and I verily believe the es- tablished regulation, in regard to price, is intended to be strictly com- plied with, and that no clandestine bargain subsists between the parties concerned. (Signed) “W. CARTwright, “Lieut.-general.” What is the meaning of that mark “Put by ?”—Put by for the present, until further inquiries were made; the correspondence will explain it. * (Copy.) - “Sir, - “Portman-street, 5th Sept. 1808. “I think your Royal Highness will readily comply with the follow- ing trifling request I take the liberty of making. i. is not to accept the resignation of Major Turner, of the 3d or King's own dra- goons, in favour of lieutenant Sitwell, till March. He has behaved with unkindness towards a lady who mérited different treatment; and it is of importance to her to know where to find him for these six months; and if he quits the regiment he means to secrete himself from her. Besides, it is not quite honourable for an officer to wish to leave the army while his regiment is under orders for embarkation. Your 310. colonel Gordon's ExAMIN Arion. + - Royal Highness will therefore perceive he does not merit indul- gence. The General knows all about it, and can corroborate what I say, if necessary. ". * + -i – - “Major Turlier depends on Colonel Gordon to expedite his. resignation; I depend on your Royal Highness to prevent his obtaining it for sºme months. I flatter myself such a trifling and just request you will not refuse. - - - “I have, &c. (Signed) gº SINCLAIR SUTHERLAND.” ' ' ' ... “ C. L. s “Place this letter with Major Turner's papers.” (Copy.) - “Dear Colonel, ... Burley, 14th Sept. 1808. * In º to your enquiries respecting the scrape into which it ap- pears that Captain Turner, of my regiment, has got with some wo. man of moderate repute, I have to say that I am entirely ignorant of every thing which relates to this matter; but, for your satisfaction, will endeavour to inform myself of particulars, which when obtained, shall be transmitted to you. - . “Your’s, &c., = (Signed) “W. CARTwkIGHT. “Lieutenant-Colonel Gordon, - &c. &c. &c.” T - *- * M. D. “Private. *- “Putby.” ** Private. (Copy.) , - “Dear Colonel, “Aunho, 22d Sept. 1808. “I trust that the following extract of a letter from Lieutenant-Colo- nel Mundy will do away any unfavourable impression that may have been taken, to the prejudice of Major Turner, of the regiment under my command ; and that the business of his resignation may, in conse- quence, be allowed to go forward without further delay. “I remain, &c. (Signed) “ W. CARTwrig HT, rº, “Lieut.-General. “ Lieut.-Colonel Gordon, &c. &c. &c. * Extract. - - t . “In no one instance have I ever had occasion to be dissatisfied with the conduct of Major Turner since he has been in the King's own dra- goons: on the contrary, I have always found him to be a perfectly gen- tlemanly, honourable man. I believe he has, unfortunately for his own peace of mind, formed a connection with an artful woman, who has brought him to much trouble; but I conceive this is a circumstance which can on no account warrant the putting any obstacle to his views of retiring.” - - “ C. T. “Put by.” “Private. : “Canterbury, Friday, 23d Sept. 1808. “Dear Sir, - - . : - “I am just favoured with a letter from Lieutenant-colonel Mundy, colon EL GoRDON's ExAMINATIon. 311 informing of me, my resignation is accepted, and the business will be forwarded without delay. I can with truth say, I have turned my fortieth year, and never had my honour or character called in ques- tion, until aspersed by Mrs. S When I arrive in London, I will; wait upon you, and inform you how Mrs. S is in the habits of mak- ing improper mention about his Royal Highness. In consequence of what has happened, and in consideration of my long services, I shall. consider it as a great compliment, if I may be allowed to retain my rank as Major. I neither ask for half-pay, or future promotion; nor should I have ever made a request, had it not been for the very unpleasant communication. . . “I remain, &c. • . (Signed) “W. TuRNER. “Lieutenant-Colonel Gordon, ** &c. &c. &c.” - “Put by.” t * (Copy.) . A/ $ “Sir, “Ipswich, 7th Nov. 1808. “I am in possession of facts which place it beyond a doubt that his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief did, influenced by Mrs. Sinclair, prevent, for a while, my retiring from the service. “I ap to you, Sir, if I merited the effect which such unjust inter- ference produced, after having passed the greater and best part of my life in his Majesty's service. “Before I'left Canterbury, I wrote to you, stating to you my earnest request that I might be permitted to retire from the service, retaining my rank in the army, to which I received no answer. Agreeable to my romise, I endeavoured to obtain an interview with you when I was in ondon, but I was disappointed, owing to some informality in my ap- plication to those in attendance under you. I therefore beg leave to repeat my request upon the subject of retaining my rank in the army: the length and nature of my services, I am convinced, will be a suffi- ciently strong claim: without reverting to the late transaction exercised by Mrs. Sinclair, I beg to assure you, Sir, it’s the farthest from my dis- position to take any steps injurious to his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief’s conduct. I request you will do me the honour to acknowledge the receipt of this, and your answer will regulate my fu- ture proceedings. + j “I have, &c. (Signed) “WHICH coTETURNER, “late of the 3d, or King's own dragoons, t and major in the army. t “To Colonel Gordon, &c.” ºt - (Copy.) - “Sir, $ “ Horse Guards, 8th November, 1808. “I have to acknowledge your letter of yesterday, which I have not failed to lay before the Commander in Chief; and I am commanded to acquaint you, that, on a complaint being made against you by a Mrs. Sutherland, in a letter, of which the enclosed is an extract, his Royal Highness felt it his duty to cause inquiry to be made into the circum- 312. coloneL Gordon's ExAMINATION. stanges of the case, before any, decision could be given upon your request to retire from the service. . . . . . . . . . . . . * The result of that inquiry being honourable to your character, as appears from the enclosed correspondence from the colonel of your regiment, the Commander in Chief had no further difficulty in submit- ting your resignation to his Majesty, and which was accordingly done in due course. . . . . . . . . “Upon the subject of rétaining your rank in the army, I have to communicate to you, that the Commander in Chief has it not in his power to meet your wishes, the request being contrary to the rules of the service, and has not, in any similar instance, been acceded to since the Duke assumed the commānd of the army. -- - T : * I have, &c. (Signed) “J. W. GoRDoN. “W. Turner, Esq. Ipswich.” , . (Copy.) “Sir, . . . . . . “Bury St. Edmunds, 15th Dec. 1808. “I am preparing to lay before the public, a statement of his Royal Bighness the Duke of York's conduct towards me. . . . “I beg leave to assure you, I shall make use of your name as seldom as possible, and that with the utmost delicacy. Mrs. Sinclair Suther- land has offered to join me in a publication against his Royal Highness the Duke of York, which I positively declined. When Itaxed Mrs.S.S. with having taken steps injurious to my retirement from the service, having traced her letter into his Royal Highness the Duke of York's office, Mrs. S. S. stoutly denied having exerted herself in impeding my iń. Mrs. S. S. acknowledged she had written to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, but it was upon the subject of sup- pressing a publication ; I am unable to say which pamphlet, the one ãddressed to the King, styled the Ban Dogs, or Mr. (late Major) Hogan's. . . . . . . . . “I have, &c. - # - (Signed) “W. TURNER. “ Colonel Gordon, &c. &c. &c.” . . . . . . . . - - , , (Copy.) . “Sir, “Horse Guards, 16th December, 1808. “I have to acknowledge your letter of yesterday, acquainting me, that you were preparing to lay before the public, a statement of his Royal Highness the Duke of York's conduct towards you, and assur- ing me, that you should use my name as seldom as possible, and that with the utmost delicacy. .. s f “In thanking you for this assurance, which I presume your recollec- tion of former acquaintance in private life has induced you to make, I feel it my duty to relieve you from any delicacy upon that point, and most decidedly to express my wish, than whenever you or your friends may think fit to mention my name, as bearing upon any public trans- action in which I may have borne any part, you will have the good- ness to use it, free from any reserve whatever, and publish all or any of my letters that may be in any manner connected with it. . . - { * r. s. - “I have, &c. (Signed) “J.W. GoRpoN. colon EL. Gordon’s ExAMINATION. 313 “P. S. I take it for granted, that you have received my letter of the 8th November, addressed to you at Ipswich. - “W. Turner, Esq. Bury St. Edmunds.” | x * Do you know Mrs. Sutherland?. Until I saw her name to that let- ter, I never recollect having heard of it before, and I never saw her in my life. . * • Do you know whether Mrs. Sinclair and Mrs. Sutherland are the same person? I have understood that they were so. - You stated in your examination on a former night, that any inter- ference of the Duke of York, the Commander in Chief, with respect to exchanges, would be extremely futile; do you make the same ob- servation as to any interference of the Duke of York with respect to resignations? I beg pardon, but with great deference, I never said any such thing; I will state what I did say, and explain if necessary. [The following extract was read from the printed minutes.] “2. In any conversation that you have had upon the subject of this exchange with the Commander in Chief, do you recollect a wish bein expressed that the conclusion of the exchange might be expedited? 4. No, certainly not, the expression of such a wish would have been very futile, for it would not have expedited the exchange one half in- stant; it would have gone on in the usual course.” . . ! w Do you inean that any application on the part of the Commander in Chief would have been more futile in regard to the expediting of that exchange than any other? There appears to be some misconception in this, which I will endeavour to explain; on reference to my former examination, it will be seen that the papers were laid before the King but once a week, and that after the §. in Chief’s pleasure had been finally obtained upon the exchange or upon any thing, then the expression of his wish to further that, would not have furthered it one-half instant, it would have gone with the King's papers that week: that was what I meant to say, and I hope I did say it. " . Then the futility to which you allude, only refers to the time after the Commander in Chief's pleasure has been taken? Most certainly; that is, if the Commander in Chief's pleasure is taken on Wednesday, and that it is the due course to send in the papers to the King on Friday or Saturday, the Commander in Chief's desire to me to ex- pedite would not cause that paper to be sent in to the King on Thurs- day; that is what I mean. hen any wish expressed by the Commander in Chief, to expedite an exchange previous to that period, might have the effect of expedit- ing that exchange, might it?' I really can only answer that as I have already answered before; that when I ſay a paper before the Command- er in Chief and receive his pleasure upon that paper, with him it is final, and it goes before the King in the due course; I mean to say again, that the Commander in Chief desiring me to send in that paper would not expedite it, it would not go separate, it would go with the other papers. -- Do you mean, that if an exchange is in suspence in the office, an expression used by the Commander in Chief of a wish to expedite that exchange, would have no effect whatever? Ono, I do not mean that; it most undoubtedly would. ve Have you ever known any other instance of this sort of interference 314 MR. Nicholls's ExAMINATIow. like that of Mrs. Sutherland? I cannot bring such to my recollection, but I can say, that if that letter had been anonymous, the very same course would have been adopted. - - Had you any conversation with the Commander in Chief respecting . fhat letter? I do not think I had, farther than this; I think it will be found, on reference to the papers, that the resignation is dated the same day with Mrs. Sutherland's letter, in which case it is probable that I submitted it to the Commander in Chief at the very same period that he opened the letter; I perfectly recollect the Commander in Chief putting the letter into my hands, and desiring me to inquire into it. . . . Do you mean, that the resignation is dated the same day that the letteris dated I believe so. s ſ [It appeared on inspection, that the letters of Messrs. Cox and Greenwood, and of Mrs. Sutherland, were both dated the 5th February.] When was the resignation forwarded to Major Turner? As it is dated on the 5th, and from the agent's office, it is most probable l received it on that day, and most probably laid it before the Com- mander in Chief, in my usual course, the next day at furthest. .” When was the resignation accepted 2 That is also dated in red ink upon the back: it was approved by the King on the 23d of the same month ; it came in on the 5th. Did the Duke of York state to you that he knew Mrs. Sutherland? No, he did not. Nothing about her ? Nothing whatever. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLLS was called in, and examined by the - ." Committee as follows: Do you live at Hampstead : Yes. Did Mrs. Clarke live at your house at Hampstead, at any time, as a lodger? Yes. - What time did she come In October. What year? 1807. How long did she stay there? Till the 25th June following, or thereabouts. - When she came there, did she represent herself as a married woman or-as a widow As a widow. *:- - Did she at any time during her continuance there, represent herself in another character? Yes. • pº what occasion ? I understood that she was married to Mr. owler. - How did you-understand that? She told me so. Did Mr. Dowler come to her there? Yes. Was it upon the occasion of his coming to her, that she represented herself to be his wife? Yes. - Did she give any reason for calling herself by the name of Clarke, while she represented herself as married to Mr. Dowler? She stated her reason to be, that if the Duke of York knew that she was married, i he would send Mr. Dowler abroad. . $. , MR. NICHOLLs's ExAMINATron. 315 Was Mr. Dowler there frequently during her stay? Yes, very fre- uentlv. q Yºhave said that Mrs. Clarke represented herself as a widow; in what way did she represent herself, did she tell you she was a widow Yes, that her husband was dead three years. - When did she tell you that? Sometime after she was in the house; perhaps two months. # & When did she come into your house first? In October, the latter end of October. ... When did she tell you she was married to Mr. Dowler? Soon after Mr. Dowler came to Hampstead. When did Mr. Dowler first come to Hampstead : I forget the time, it was soon after the expedition returned from Buenos Ayres. Did she go by the name of Mrs. Dowler? No. Did you believe that she was the wife of Mr. Dowler? Yes. Did Mr. Dowler often sleep in the house? Yes. - Was there a French lady in that house 2 Yes. What was the name of that lady? Josephine, I think, they used to call her; I did not know her name exactly. t Of how many people did Mrs. Clarke's family consist? At first when she came, herself, Captain Thompson, and this French lady. Any children? Afterwards there were. How many children? Two, sometimes three. . How many bed-chambers had Mrs. Clarke in your house? Four or five; she occupied the whole house almost. Do you know whether this French lady slept with Mrs. Clarker No, I do not. Is your wife with you now 2 Yes. Is she here? Yes. Had you ever any correspondence with Mrs. Clarke? I do not un- deºid the question. * Did Mrs. Clarke ever write to you, or you to Mrs. Clarke Yes. Do you recollect when Mrs. Clarke last wrote to you? Yesterday. Did you receive a letter from Mrs. Clarke yesterday 2 Yes. When was the last time, before yesterday, that you received a letter from Mrs. Clarke 2 I do not know exactly. Have you that letter in your possession ? No. - What is become of it? I gave it to a gentleman, a professional man. To whom To Mr. Masters. What is Mr. Masters? An Attorney. l With what view did you give it to Mr. Masters? With a view for him to write to her. Upon what subject? For a sum of money which she owed me. What were the contents º letter I applied to Mrs. Clarke in town, to ask her to pay me my bill, when she was not to be seen; I told the housekeeper, unless she settled the account with me, I should dispose of some instruments of music that were left in part to satisfy me. The same evening, I received a letter, threatening that she knew I had forged a will, wherein I held an estate. Immediately I took the letter to Mr. Masters, telling him, that it was all a falsehood, and de- siring him to insist upon getting my money, and to despise her threats. Was it in consequence of the threat contained in that letter, or in consequence of the debt which Mrs. Clarke owed you, you gave that letter to this professional gentleman? In consequence of the threat. 316 . Mr. NICFrg LLs's ExAMINATron. How long was this ago? I do not exactly know, Isuppose July last, or thereabout. - . . . . . . tº Have any steps been taken in consequence by that professional gen- thenian: ‘He wrote to her, and has received no answer; and I do not think any thing else has taken place since then. . . . . . . . . . ; : Have you ever continued to apply to Mrs. Clarke since that? No, Inever. . . . . . . . . . Hid you receive any rent from Mrs. Clarke? Never. . In that letter, did she say that you had forged this will, and that she could hang you? I do not exactly know the words, but something to that effect. fied to vour laws . . . . . . . . . . . - You state that you applied to your lawyer upon that subject ; wh did he not º º: Mrs. §. I *... . sº money enough already, and I did not like to throw good money after bad. . . . . - , * * ; : . Do you ever recollect saying, you would be up with her for this? No, never to any body. . . . . . . . Do you recollect, that at aty time, in consequence of this busi- Nº. of the will spoken of in that letter, your wife and you parted? Neveh. . • " ' . . r You do not recollect your wife leaving you, upon that or any other occasion ? No. - , , - Have you, in your possession, any letters that belonged to Mrs. -Clarké 2 ‘Yes. tº f 4. Have you any objection to producing them? I should not wish to produce them, unless I should be satisfied what she owes me, unless by the request of the House. r - * - - [The witness produced a bundle of letters.j e . . . . . . . [The witness was directed to withdraw. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that if the Ietters were evidence in this case, the house would insist on their production, but if not, they ought to pause be- fore they took from the witness any property which he considered as impounded for part of the debt due to him. Mr. Whitbread said the property would not be de- stroyed, and the letters ought to be produced, if Mr. Wardle could say they bore at all upon the subject of their inquiry. - Mr. Wardle said, he would ask this question of the witness, who had read them. He would know if they treated, of the sale of commissions. * Sir George Hill objected strongly to the production of these letters, and blamed the committee for the course they were pursuing. They might contain Mrs. Clarke’s private amours for what they knew, and ought not to be heard, unless Mr. Wardle would state that he had good grounds for believing they would throw light on his charges. . . . - - , - " - ! w º M.B. NICHOLLs's EXAMINATION: 317 Mr. Wardle said he would explain all he knew on the subject. Mrs. Clarke had told him that she was burning, a number of letters relating to such matters, and had given these to Nichells and his wife to burn. . A few days ago it WaS º that a part of the number were still in ex- istence, and Mrs. Clarke had applied for them.—Nicholls at first had no objection to deliver them to her receipt, but on, calling for them yesterday, he refused, and said he had been advised not to part with them. , . & [The witness was again called in.] State how you came by those letters. They were sent down to light the fire with. . . . . . . . . . * By whom? By Mrs. Clarke. $ Did she desire those letters, when she sent them down, to be burnt? They were sent down merely to light the fire with; they were not given to me, they were put into the closet, and the maid servant used to take them out of the closet as she wanted them. Do you recollect, at the period these letters were sent down, Mrs. Clarke burning a great number of letters? I understand so ; I did not see her burn any. } - - You have read many of these ietters? I have read them since this business has been in hand. - * * s Are you aware that any of these letters relate to the circumstances that had been under the consideration of this House? Yes, I think they do. . . . . . * [The witness produced two other bundles of letters.] [The witness was directed to withdraw: .Mr, Yorke objected to the reading of such a mass of papers, which were not known to pertain to the business before the Committee, and might perhaps be improper, as well as unnecessary. He proposed that a small Commit- tee might be appointed to select what were proper, and lay them before the Committee. Mr. Barham, who had loudly opposed the withdrawing of the witness with the papers, said, that if the honourable gentleman had consulted the interests of the country, or of the Duke of York, he would not thus have interposed. He contended, that if any papers were referred to a Select Committee, the country would imagine they contained things which the House wished to be concealed. It would not do, after all the irrelevant matter that had been ad- mitted in their proceedings, to shut their eyes now. They Haust go on, since they had once begun. 3. Mr. Whitbread proposed that the letters should be de- livered to Mr. Wardle, who might make the selection of such as were necessary to elucidate the matter he had. | { * 3.18' wa. Nicholls's ExAMINATIon. d brought before the House. His fair and manly course would justify this confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought there was no apprehension as to the letters being destroyed, after being brought voluntarily to the bar. This was a difficult point to decide. He could not think of receiving letters in evi- dence which could not be proven as written by any one; which might be anonymous, and full of lies. He also dis- approved of Mr. %hitbread's suggestion, and without meaning any disrespect to Mr. Wardle, was sure that honourable gentleman would agree with him, that to be placed in the situation of selector would not be conducive to the ends of general justice. - After a long and desultory conversation on this topic, in which many plans were suggested, and in which Mr. Beresford, Mr. Canning, Mr. Barham, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Adam, Mr. Brand, Lord Porchester, Mr. Wynne, and Mr. Wardle, took part, it was at last agreed to refer the letters to a Select Committee, to reject those that were irrelevant, and lay the others before the House. * [The witness was again called in.] Have you in your pocket the whole of the letter; you took out of the House Yes. - - Produce them. - [The witness produced them.] Were you advised not to deliver those letters to Mrs. Clarke? No. Is that your hand-writing? Yes, it is. - * [Letter from Mr. Nicholls to Mrs. Clarke, dated 13th February, 1809, read. - “Madam, l * 13th Feb. 1809. “I received your's respecting your letters; and on turning the mat- ter in my mind, I don’t know how far I am authorized to give them even to jou, as having been applied to from another quarter on the same business; and as I most certainly shall be obliged to attend the House of Commons, I will look them all up and produce them there. “In fact, I think you ought to settle my account before you ask me for any thing. - *. “I am your obedient servant, “ Mrs. Clarke.” +. “ W. NICHOLLS. ... From what other quarter was it you were applied to for the letters? From no other quarter; I was waited upon by a gentleman on the same business, but in turning it in my mind, I did not know that I was eyen to give them to any person, without the consent of the House. Who was the other gentleman? I do not know his name. . . . . . Are you certain you do not know his name? I do not know his Kathle. , • , . . . . . . . . . Did you know his name yesterday 2 No, I did not. . M.R. NICHOLLs's ExAMINATION. 319 Did you tell me (Mr. Wardle) his name yesterday? I do not recol- lect that I did, I am confident I did not know his name. Recollect yourself. I am confident I did not know his name. Did you not tell me (Mr. Wardle) his name was Wilkinson 2 Ibe- lieved it was Wilkinson, but I mistook the name, and I do not know the name now; the person who came mentioned the name of Wilkin- son, but it was not the person's name who came to me; though I. m; say it was Wilkinson to Mr. Wardle, I was mistaken. , Do you mean to say, that the person who came said he was sent by Mr. Wilkinson He mentioned the name of Wilkinson, but I am not certain in what way he used that name. s - Whom did this person say he came from ? He came from Mr. Lowten. - Whoever it was he came from, did he ask for any particular letter, or only applied to you upon the general subject? He said nothing aboutt letters. * . What did you mean when you wrote that you had been applied to upon the same business from another quarter; what do these words mean? I meant the business of this inquiry. . . . Did the person coming from Mr. Lowten request that you would not produce those letters? 'No, he knew nothing at all about letters. What did he ask for He asked me some questions about Mr. Dowler, What application did this person make to you? He asked me some questions about Mr. Dowler. - Did this conversation relate to nothing but Mr. Dowler? Mr. Dowler and Mrs. Clarke. - What did he say upon the subject of Mrs. Clarket I forget almost what he asked me; he asked me a few questions about them, and I told him that she told me she was married to Mr. Dowler. What did he say upon the subject of papers? Nothing at all. Why then do you assign this person having called upon you from Mr. Lowten, as the reason for not returning the letters to Mrs. Clarke For no reason for the person having called on me from Mr. Lowten; but ºrning the matter in my own mind, I thought it most prudent So to do. * Then why have you stated in your letter, that this person having called upon you was the reason for not returning the letters to Mrs. Clarke? In turning it in my own mind, I thought that I might be censured by the House, understanding that I must attend this House, for delivering those letters to Mrs. Clarke. w Had you, at the time of writing that letter, received an order from the House to produce these letters? No. ...Did the person who came from Mr. Lowten desire you to keep back those letters, and to suppress them He said nothing at all about them; he did not know that I had a letter, to my knowledge. . At the time you saw that person, had you received an order to at- tend this house? No. -- . What made you suppose you should be obliged to attend this House? i. the gentleman, who came, said he supposed I must attend this OUISC, , - Have you seen that person sinceyesterday? Yes. Where?... I saw him? he came to Hampstead to-day, and I came to town with him. 326: MR. NICHOLLs's ExAMINATION. - Did he go to Hampstead to fetch you? Yes. : - Did he carry down the summons to attend this House? No. How came you to come to town with him He came there after I received the summons; I did not expect he would come there. His name is not Wilkinson 2 No. - Do you know what his name is I should know what his name was if I heard it: I have heard it to-day, but do not recollect it. Is it Williams? No. Did he say any thing to you to-day about the letters? No, he knew. I had the letters to-day. - . . . . . But he did not speak to you upon the subject? No; I believe his name is Wright, but I am not sure. . You stated in the former part of your examination, that you believed Mrs. Clarke was Mr. Dowler's wife; did you ever apply to Mr. Dow- Ier for the satisfaction of your debt? Never... . . . . . . Why did you not? I had not an opportunity. * . Did you ever seek for an opportunity ‘No, I do not know that I ever did; I was not anxious about the business; I did not suppose but what I should be paid. - - - . In what profession are you ? A baker by business. How long have you lived in Hampstead? Eight or nine years. . You are a housekeeper there? Yes. . . . - You have stated, that you believed Mrs. Clarke was Mr. Dowler's wife, and you have also stated that she told you when she came to Hampstead she was a widow; did you suppose the marriage with Mr. Dowler took place at Hampstead No. Why then did you believe that she was Mr. Dowler's wife, when she had previously ti you she was a widow Mrs. Clarke left my house and, went to town; when she returned, Mr. Dowler returned with her, or near that time; it was after that time that Mr. Dowler was in the habit of coming, that she told me she was married to Mr. Dowler. You have stated, that you received a letter yesterday from Mrs. Clarke; what are the contents of that letter? I have it in my pocket. . . . . . [The letter was read.] “Mrs. Clarke will esteem herself greatly obliged to Mr. Nicholls, if he will send, as he has promised, all her letters by the bearer, who she sends in complianee with the arrangement made by him two hours ago... “Mönday, one o'clock." - . _ _ " - - - “Mr. Nicols; opposite New End, Hampstead.” ..Who was the bearer of that letter I do not know who it was, a servant on horseback. . . . . . . . . . . . + $ What did Mrs. Clarke mean by the arrangement 2 I suppose she means the conversation between Mr. Wardle and myself on the sub- iect. - = . . .'; --. - - - - & - - J Repeat, as nearly as you can, that conversation. Mr. Wardle called on me, to apply for those letters, and I told Mr. Wardle I was . net inclined to give them up; in fact, I should not think fit to give them up without an order from the person to whom they belonged... Mr. Wardle left me, with the supposition that I should deliver the - Hetters up when I received an order from Mrs. Clarke; but on turn- ing it in my mind, I did not think fit to give them upiewen them. . . . * * ~ * MR. REID’s ExAMtn ATIon. 321 •% When did Mrs. Clarke know that you had these letters? I do not know how she knew it; perhaps I might mention to some one that I had these things, and it might come to her knowledge by that means. MR. JOHN REID was called in, and examined by the Committee, * as follows: .." Where do you live? . In Saint Martin's-lane. Do you keep an hotel in Saint Martin's-lane? I do. Do you know Mr. Dowler? ... I do. How long have you known him About two years, I believe; I Čannot be exact to the time. - - How long has Mr. Dowler frequented your house? About two ‘Years. .." y Do you recollect his coming there at any time with a person whom he represented as his wife? I do. r - When 2 . At all of the times he was in town, at some time or other. Has he been frequently at your house with a person whom he repre- 'sented as his wife? Not very frequently. Do you now know who the lady was who he so represented as his wife 2 I do not. - Was it the same person that always came with him? The same €I'SOh. Wheri was that person last at your house, that you knew her to be there? I think last Friday se’rnight, the day that Mr. Dowler came to town. . . . . . You do not know who that lady is? I have heard, but I do not know of my own knowledge. - .. Has Mr. Dowler supplied any body with wine from your house? No, Mr. Dowler has had some wine from my house. Where has that wine been sent to I believe somewhere by Bed- ford-square, I think, but I do not recollect; if I had expected to be asked the question, I would have made myself sure of it. Did the lady who came with Mr. Dowler go by the name of Mrs. Dowler Certainly she did, or she would not have been in my house. Was the person who was with Mr. Dowler on Friday se’nnight, at your house, the lady who used to be with him under the name of Mrs. . Dowler? The same. T}id§." ever hear her go by any other name but that of Mrs. Dow- ler?" No. d pia you ever address her yourself by the name of Mrs. Dowler? I l t * - fid she answer to that name? Most certainly. - Are you sure it was on Friday se’nnight that this lady was at your house for the last time? The last time that I saw her. . . . " Are you sure as to the day? To the best of my recollection. Are you sure it was the day Mr. Dowler arrived in town I think it was. . - Are yáu certain of that fact? As well as my memory serves me I am. * . . . Have you seen that lady any where in the neighbourhood of this House since you came I have not. 1. She passed as Mrs. Dowler on º evening Yes, she did. 322 MR. wells's ExAMINATIon. Have you ever, heard Mr. Dowler call her by the name of Mrs. Dowler? Yes, I have. And she answered to that name? Yes. *: [The witness was directed to withdraw. GEORGE ROBINSON was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: Are you the porter at Slaughter's Hotel? Yes. Do you know Mr. Dowler? Yes. How long have you known him : From the time that he returned from the expedition that came home from Buenos Ayres; that was the first knowledge I had of him. Did you ever see him with any lady that he called by the name of Mrs. Dowler Yes. At your master's house? Yes, - Living with him there? For a short time. As his wife 2 Yes, as his wife. Do you know who that lady is Yes. wº is it? She goes by the name of Mrs. Clarke, to my know- jedge. #. do you know that? By the public talk I have heard that of her, nothing further. - Have you ever been to her house 2 Yes, in Bedford-place, leading from Bloomsbury-square to Russel-square. Was there any name upon her door there 2 Not to the best of my recollection. At what time did you get the notice to come here I cannot justly tell the hour. • ? *. * #42 MRs. FAVERY's ExAMINATION. Was it to-day or yesterday ? I received the notice to attend the House, and I paid that respect to attend the House accordingly as { was ordered. T = - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; When did you receive the notice? I received it of Monday, and I received one this afternoon. = . . . . . . . - - [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mrs. MARTHA FAVERY was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: " . . .” ... Did you live with Mrs. Clarke as housekeeper, in Gloucester-place? {*S. - 3. ; : . . . . . . . . * * Do you recollect a footman there of the name of Sampel Carter €S. - . . . . . Was Samuel Carter in the constant habit of waiting at table on the Duke of York, and Mrs. Clarke and her company : "Yes,’’’ ‘’’ ” Do you know Miss Taylor ; , Yes. ' ' ' ' ' " . . . . . . . Was Miss Taylor in the habits of being often in Gloucester-place with Mrs. Clarke and the Duke of York? Yes. " ' " " ' ', " ' Do you recollect anything with regard to a note being changed, just before the Duke went to Weymouth, and Mrs. Clarke to Wor: thing? Yes, I do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State what you know about that. I know that the Duke's servant came in the morning, and I gave him this note, but iſ do not know the number of it, nor what pote it was, and he returned again about eſeve; o'clock and gave me the money; I took it up stairs, and 'then the Duke was in the bed-room, and Mrs. Clarké ; in short they were in bed. s . . . . . . . . . . . . • s * - º . : * - … " ; , Do you recollect who that servant was A German. Ludowick. Was Samuel Cárter in the habits of sharing the düty of a footman with the other man 2. He cleaned the knives, ‘....? the plate, at- tended the carriage, ànd waitéd at table on his Royal Highhess." Was not the house in Gloucester-place to your knowledge kept at a great expence 2^ It certainly was ; there were sometimes two men cooks, sometimes three men cooks. . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * Do you mean that those cooks were on any particular occasion of dinners, or when do you mean that there were two or three men cooks 2. When there was a particular dinner there were three men cooks, or sometimes more; Mrs. Clarke always wished to have her dinners go up in the best manner; to please his Royal Highness, and if there was any dinner found fault with by his Rºyal Highness, she would have another. . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . i- Have you often known Mrs. Clarke distressed for money during that period She never could påy her debts properly after the first #. people were tearing me to pieces for money; and saying that I kept it. . . " " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - # * ! When did you first live with Mrs. Clarket. When she went to Gloucester-place. . . . . . . ‘. . . . . . . ; Had you known Mrs. Clarke before that time Yes. . . . . . . How long had you known Mrs. Clarket I lived with her before she went to Gloucester-place; I have known her these ten years? more than that. – ~ * * - - : How much more ? I cannot exactly say how much more. • M Rs. FAVERY's Ex AM in ATION. 343 Have you known her twenty years? No, I have not known her twenty years. Where did you first know Mrs. Clarkc ; I knew her at Hampstead; I went to be a servant to her there. Did you not know her before that time : Yes, I went about six weeks after she was married, to live with her. After she was married to Mr. Clarke 2 Yes. Did you live with her from that time till she went to Gloucester. place No, I lived with her three or four times since; I went away and came back to her. Who first recommended you to Mrs. Clarke? The paper. Do you mean by an advertisement? Yes. Did you know nothing of Mrs. Clarke till you saw that advertise- ment? No, I did not. Did you live with her at Gloucester-place? I went with her to Gloucester-place ; from Tavistock-place to Gloucester-place. Then you lived with her in Tavistock-place? Yes, I did. Where did Mrs. Clarke live before she went to Tavistock-place 2 I do not know, I did not live with her all the time. Do not you know where she lived all that time 2 No, I was in the country with another family. With what family were you in the country I am not obliged to answer that. • . Yes you are. It was a family who are dead. Who were they One Mr. Ellis. Where did he live? In the city. What part of the city ? He was a carpenter. - In what part of the city ? I really do not know the name of the street, I cannot recollect it, it is so long ago. How long did you live there? Two years. If you lived two years in the same street, you must know where they lived. It was not in the same house, it was in lodgings. Where were the lodgings I cannot tell. In how many different places did they live while you were with them? They had different apartments; they kept shop in one part of the town, and apartments in another. -F What part of the town did they keep a shop? I cannot recollect indeed; I was at Brighton and Margate with them, and in different parts about. What other parts besides Margate and Brighton I was at Rams- gate, and many little places about, that I did not think about. Was it upon parties of pleasure the family went to Margate and Brighton and Ramsgate? No, they were all ill, the mistress and chil- dren and all ; they went for their health, I suppose. They went to these different places for their health 2 I suppose so; I cannot say what they went for particularly ; I do not know their con- Cel’ſ) S. Then why do you suppose they went for their health, if you know nothing about it? I should think so, if they went to those places. How many did the family consist of : . Four. Mr. and Mrs. Ellis? Yes, and two children. Any servant but yourself? No. Who was left in the shop while they were absent? I cannot say, I aſh sure I do not know, 344 MRs. FAve RY's ExAMINATION. You say they kept a shop in one part of the town, and had lodgings in another 2 Yeş. * º In what part of the town was the shop I really do not know ; I did not concern myself with the shop, I never went there. In what part of the town were the lodgings? In some of the streets near Cheapside, but it is out of my memory entirely; when I leave a lace, I never trouble it again. You have said that they lived in more places than one in London, what other place can you recollect besides the street near Cheapside : I really cannot recollect any thing at all about it; I do not know any thing about it. In how many different lodgings did they live in London, while you were with them I cannot say: they left me till I went to Brighton; I went to Brighton with the children. Did they live in two, three, or four different lodgings 2 I cannot an- swer that question indeed, Did you go to Brighton with the children, without Mr. and Mrs. Ellis Yes I did, indeed. - Did Mr. and Mrs. Ellis come to you there? Yes, they did. How long did they stay there 2 I believe we were there about three months. Where did you live at Brighton I will tell you as nigh as I can : opposite the sea; but I do not know the name of the street, though I was there. When did you go to Margate Really I cannot tell you such a question as that, I do not keep that in my head ; I do not know. Where did they live at Margate : In the High-street. Are Mr. and Mrs. Ellis dead? Yes, so I heard. And the children? I do not know, I never inquire after them. What reason had you for not chusing to mention this family I haye no reason at all, I answer as nearly as I can recollect. Do you know Captain Sutton I did, but he is dead; he has been dead two years, I believe, I can recollect that. Was not Samuel Calter supposed to be his natural son? I cannot tell. - Did you never suppose that? No; I cannot tell what other persons supposed. arter did not wear a livery? No. You have stated that there was a very expensive establishment in Gloucester-place; did his Royal Highness at any time give you any money to defray the expences of that establishment? He never gave me any in his life. hi Did any body belonging to him 2 No, nor any body belonging to lil]. Where did Mrs. Clarke live when you lived with her first? At Hampstead. a Was that prior to your living with Mrs. Ellis: It was before. Then how comes it that you recollect the place you lived in with Mrs. Clarke, and do not recollect where you lived with Mrs. Ellis after- . Because I lived longer with Mrs. Clarke than I did with those eople. p Did you not live two years with Mrs. Ellis Yes, I did. Po you mean the Committee should understand, that you do not re- MRs. FAve RY's ExAMINATIon. 245 pollect where you lived two years with Mrs. Ellis: No, I do not; I was at Brighton, Margate, and Ramsgate, and other places; and I sup- pose they were like a great many people, in debt, and went about in consequence, if I must tell the truth; but it is not the thing to tell far mily affairs. You have said Mrs. Ellis kept a shop in one part of the town, and Jodgings in another; now you tell the Committee you were living about all the time; how do you reconcile that? They may go about, his wife may, and he may keep out of the way, or stay at home; I cannot tell how they manage those things. Are you not related to Mrs. Clarke? No. Do you mean to deny that you are:Mrs. Clarke's sister? I do; I am not Mrs. Clarke's sister. Did you pay any of Mrs. Clarke's servants' wages? Yes, I did. What were the wages you paid to Samuel Carter 2 I really cannot say what I gave him. Did you ever pay Samuel Carter any wages? I have given him mo- ney a great many times, when he has asked for money to buy himself shoes and things he wanted. Do you recollect whether there was any agreement made for wages? No, I do not. - You have stated that you were housekeeper to Mrs. Clarke, and su- perintended a very large establishment, and had two or three cooks at . particular times; what number in general did you superintend, and have to provide for? I am sure I cannot say; there were always very ele- gant dinners went up, and what they could not do came from the pas- try-cook's; there were four men in the stable, a butler, and two foot- men, two cooks, a laundry-maid, a house-maid, a kitchen-maid, and another little girl that worked at her needle, and myself, and a char- woman to wash one day in the week. You have mentioned that there were very considerable embarrass- ments happened, and that you have been applied to for money, and have been supposed to keep it instead of paying the different creditors; did you tell her of those distresses, and apply to her for money; and if so, what answer did you get? I did inform her; she said that his Royal Highness had been very backward in his payments to her, and I must put the people off; and accordingly I did as she said: Did Mrs. Clarke ever mention to you that his Royal Highness said that he would give, or had given her sums of money, to pay those debts? No, I never heard that. - Did you never mention to Mrs. Clarke, that you wished her to ask money from the Duke of York, to pay those debts? Yes, I did. What was the answer Mrs. Clarke made 3 She said all would be paid as soon as she had it from his Royal Highness. * Were not many of those debts paid A great many were paid. You have stated, that you applied to Mrs. Clarke, telling her.that she owed certain sums of money, to get it from the Duke of York; do you know from your own knowledge that many of those debts were aſ: terwards paid Some of the debts were paid while he was there; I have paid the baker, and I have paid the butcher twice. …” Then upon your application, desiring Mrs. Clarke would apply to the Duke of York, have you often found debts paid Yes,’ſ have fegnd many of the debts paid. - s 3:6 Mas. FAvery’s ExAMINAtion. Did you know Captain Sutton by sight? Yes. Had Captain Sutton only one leg? Only one leg. * Do you know what regiment he was of No, I do not, I am sure. Do you still live in the service of Mrs. Clarke? Yes.- Have you had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of this investigation, since it commenced No, I have not. You have said that you paid the servants' wages while you lived with Mrs. Clarke; how many men-servants did you pay wages to? The coachman, his name is Parker, and William M*Dowall; I believe she paid Pierson herself; and the stable-man and the boy, four men in the stable, I always used to give the money once a week or once a fortnight, to them; there were in all, five in the stable and three in the house. Were they all servants on standing annual wages? Yes, they were all yearly servants; and there were two servants at Weybridge, a gar- deter and a cook. ~ * You have stated, that there were sometimes two, and sometimes three men-cooks for particular dinners; do you mean by those parti- cular dinners, that they were dressed for a large company 2 No, we never had a large company; this was first when Mrs. Clarke went into that house. … * Those dinners were dressed merely for two or three persons? Yes, for his Royal Highness, as far as I know, in particular. - Not for any other company? No. You went with Mrs. Clarke when she first went to reside in Glou- cester-place? Yes, I did. Do you know who the tradesmen were who furnished the house in Gloucester-place No. - - oº:: furnished the upholstery : It was somebody in Bond-street; lakley. - - \ Do $on know who furnished the china and glass Mr. Mortiock, in Oxford street. 2- Do you know who furnished the house with grates? Mr. Summers, and Rose, in Bond-street. Do you know what silversmith furnished the plate? Birketts. Do you know any of the other tradesmen with whom Mrs. Clarke dealt Parker's, in Fleet-street, she had something to do with. Who was the wine-merchant? I really do not know; I believe his Royal Highness used to send it, but I do not know ; he used often to send it, I know. . Did you ever pay any money on account of wages to any one of those men-cooks? Yes; I gave them a guinea a day, each of them; but I cannot recollect their names. – - Did you consider that as payment for that day, or as in part of an- nual wages? Only for the day. º Were you in the capacity of own maid to Mrs. Clarke, or was there any other ? I was own maid and housekeeper together. 3 - Do you know Mr. Dowler? I have seen him. . . Have you seen him frequently 2 Yes, I have seen him frequently. Have you seen him frequently in Gloucester-place : Yes, I have. Do you know, or not, whether he staid the night there?. Never, I am very sure of that. - * * - - - - - 3Did you at any time convey any messages to the tradesmen em- ployed to furnish the house in Gloucester-place? Yes, for any thing that was wanted. ' ' ' ' ' ' - * -. - irits. FAveny's exAMINATIon. 347 Concerning the manner in which it was to be done, and what articles were to be sent in Yes, Mrs. Clarke's order. Did the tradesmen seem willing to send in articles merely on Mrs. Clarke's authority ? They sent what she ordered, as far as I know ; sometimes they would not. - . Did you use any arguments to them to induce them to send in arti- cles, if they appeared unwilling so to do? No, I did not; I said when she had money she would certainly pay thein ; nothing further thau that. a' Did they tell you that they looked to a better paymaster than Mrs. Clarke, or any thing of that kind? They have asked me, whether his Royal Highness had settled with her, and given her money; and I said no, as soon as she had it, she would give it to them. - Was Captain Sutton in the habit of visiting at Mrs. Clarke's 2 Yes, she knew Captain Sutton. i Was he in the habit of visiting at Mrs. Clarke's Yes. Was he in the habit of visiting at Mrs. Clarke’s before Samuel Car- ter came to live at Mrs. Clarke's house 2 Yes, he was. When he came to visit Mrs. Clarke, was he not in the habit of bring- ing Samuel Carter as a companion? I do not know; he brought him with him, gertainly. "When Samūel Carter came with Captain Sutton, was he in the habit of going with him into the parlour? No. 1 ', § Mrs. Clarke first resided in Gloucester-place, what number of servants had she at that time? Samuel Carter was the first that went there when I went; there were a coachman and two footmen, and a butler”and a postilion; there were four men in the stable; she had them immediately as she got there. * - * Did you ever see Samuel Carter after he got a commission in the army 3 No, I do not think I ever did. Do you recollect whether Samuel Carter got a commiss on in the army while he was in Mrs. Clarke's service? Yes, and went to Deal to join his regiment. ” He left Mrs. Clarke's service for that reason? Yes. And you never saw him afterwards? No. What was your name before you were married? Favery, that is my real name. . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Are you a married woman 2 No. Did you ever hear Mrs. Clarke say why she applied for a commis- sion for Samuel Carter, more than for any other foot-boy in her ser- yice P No. “ . . * * tº 4 . By what name was Samuel Carter known to his Royal Highness, by the name of Sãm, Samuel, or Carter? We used to call him Sam. Was he known by the name of Carter to his Royal Highness? Yes, the was known by the name of Carter. ' ' ' Did Samuel Carter appear to you a person of superior manners and education to persons in that situation? I do not know; he was very well. . , “ . . . . . . * * * * ". . { ... • * * * * te - - - • Did any of the servants dine with you in general at the same table, when you lived with Mrs. Clarke in Gloucester-place? Yes, I sat down to dinner with them all. * ' ' ' ' • * KCan you mention anybody else who was in the habit of going to the tradesmen about the articles to be furnished to the house in Gloucester- 343 MR. war DLE's ExAMINATION. + \ place?. I never went, I sent a servant always, and William M*Dowall has been at Oakley’s, in Bond-street, and to Rose and Summers's, and to different tradesmen. § 1)o you know any body else who went? . Pierson used to go. You did not know any agent or steward, or any person of that de- scription, who used to go No. Do you know whether a person of the name of Taylor used to go? I am not sure whether he went; he might be sent by Mrs. Clarke, he was not by me. - To you know any thing of his going 2. No, I do not. When you lived in Gloucester-place, was Mrs. Clarke in the habit of receiving visits from other gentlemen besides his Royal Highness the Duke of Yörk? Yes, several people came. - Gentlemen? Yes, gentlemen came backwards and forwards. Did you ever know that any of those gentlemen were considered as opulent? I really do not know. You have stated, that you were in the habit of dining with all the servants; of course the coachman was one of that number 2 Yes, he Wa S. t $ Do you remember Captain Wallis visiting there? No, I never re- member such a name. - ... [The witness was directed to withdraw. GWYLLYM LLOYD WARDLE, Esq. attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: In folio 132 of the printed Minutes of the Evidence, there appears a letter written by Mrs. Clarke to Mr. Donovan, in which is the following expression, the date of the letter is January 28th, 1809: “I must be candid, and tell you, that in order to facilitate some negotiations, I had given him a few of your letters: in one you speak of the Queen, in another of the two Deaneries.” Did Mrs. Clarke give you any letters in order to facilitate any negotiation ? I never had any negotiation with Mrs. Clarke about letters in my life; I do not know what she means by the expression of a negotiation. Are these the letters which she stated you had taken away from her? I took some of Mr. Donovan's letters in the way I have before describ- ed, which I have produced to the House; but what she means by ne- gotiation I do not know. - Had you any other letters of Mr. Donovan's from Mrs. Clarke, or are those the very letters which she so positively stated you had taken away from her ? I had some other letters from Mrs. Clarke of Mr. Donovan's, which she gave me, and I examined him as to those letters in this House. For what purpose did Mrs. Clarke give you those letters? I really do not know for what purpose she gave º to me; I asked her to give them me, and I examined him upon them in this House. Have you never asked Mrs. Clarke what she meant by that expres- sion in her letter? No, I do not think I did; but I never did have any answer to it, if I had; I remember the expression striking me when I heard it read. - When Mrs. Clarke delivered these letters to you, did she mention anything about any negotiation as affecting one or more Deaneries 2 I never heard of any negotiation about any Deanery, except what these letters contain. * MRs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATION. 349 Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKEwas called in, and a letter from Mr. El- derton to his Royal Highness the Duke of York being shewn to the witness, she was examined, as follows: # Do you recollect that that was one of the letters that you delivered . Mr. Nicholls to be burned? Yes, they were all delivered to be urnt. Do you recollect that was one of them I cannot recollect that that was one of them; except what I burned myself, I gave the rest down to be burned, and they positively assured me they were burned. \Do you remember how that letter came into your possession ? I Sup- pose I may be allowed to read it before I give my opinion. w [The witness read the letter.] To whom is that letter addressed? It is addressed to his Royal Hºnº the Duke of York. - ow came that letter into your possession ? I had it to shew the Duke of York, I suppose, as I had many other letters; and after he read it, it was left in my possession. This man was arrested after he had his appointment, and I had solicited for leave for him. Then I understand you to say, that that letter was addressed to you; by whom was it addressed to you? By Mr. Elderton, or else his wife; by Mr. Elderton, addressed to me, to deliver to the Duke. Then I understand you to say, that the letter was inclosed to you in another by Mr. Elderton; is that so? Yes. . . * And that in consequence of your receiving it, you delivered it to his Royal Highness j of § I am positive that I shewed it to him, to let him know that the man was grateful. Did the Duke of York return it to you? After he had read let- i. they used to be left upon the table, and I ought to have destroyed them. Did not you understand that Sam. Carter was a natural son of Cap- tain Sutton? No, I did not; people have said so, but he told me to the contrary himself. Did not Captain Sutton take care of his education Captain Sut- ton always had the boy about him; he had several, and Sam was one: he had been very strongly recommended, I believe, by Mrs. Fitzher- bert, but they denied that at one time. ... Did Captain Sutton educate the boy He was not well educated till he came to me; he used to go to school, while he was in my ser- vice, every leisure hour. Do not you know that Captain Sutton took care of his education? I know that he took some pains to instruct him in his leisure time; he was a very good boy. Do you know what regiment Captain Sutton was in He formerly . was a lieutenant in the grenadiers; I believe he was a volunteer where he lost his leg. - You are not certain what regiment he was in 2 No; he was Deputy Fire-master at Woolwich, and had been an esteemed friend of the Prince af Wales and of the Duke of York for twelve years, but nearly died for want, except through me. * \ Did you consider Samuel Carter in a light above the rest of yourser- f wants? Yes, I did, for he was very faithful to Iſle. 350 mºns. CLARKE’s ExAMINATron. In what year did Mr. Elderton get the paymastership of the dra, ns, that you spoke of? I cannot tell, but it was before General Simcoe died. . - You do not remember the year at all No, I do not. During your residence in Gloucester-place, did you ever make any return of the Income Tax? No, I believe I did not. Were you ever assessed either for your horses, carriages; or men servants * Yes, I was. 3. Then you recollect the number 2 I used to forget the greater num- ber of them when they were put down, conceiving they had been paid for before through the Duke, or otherwise. - Look at that letter; [the letter to Mr. Donovan, of the 28th of January] that letter speaks of delivering some letters to Mr. Wardle, in order to facilitate some negotiation? I sent that letter to Mr. Donovan. - w Did you give these letters to Mr. Wardle, in order to facilitate any negotiation? Yes; not the letters that Colonel Wardle ran away with, but letters of Field officers to recommend two or three lieutenants to companies, they were to give more than the regulation, three or four hundred pounds; I understood from Mr. Donovan that Green- wood was to have some part, Froome another, himself a share, and me; these young men were to pay, I think, four hundred guineas over the regulation, and that it was the last job Greenwood was to give Froome, that it was to complete a very old promise of the Duke of York: Mr. Donovan told me he must have the recommendation of a member of parliament or a general officer, to cover himself. If you refer to a passage in your letter, it will appear that the letters ou allude to were one in which Mr. Donovan speaks of the Queen, and in the other of two Deaneries? Those were the letters Colonel Wardle took away, and which I told him were in his possession ; that letter I think mentions as far as that. - -- - [The passage in the letter was read..] I had not given him those letters, he took them, and what I gave Colonel Wardle to facilitate was the other three, the lieutenants for the companies, and he has two or three of them now, and General Cla- yering the other; and when I represented one of the young men as Mr. Sumner's nephew or cousin, I believed it, because Mr. Donovan "had told me so, and declared it in every way possible. * How could the delivery of any letters whatever, to Mr. Wardle, facilitate any negotiation ; I thought that they might, because he told me that he could do it by men that were not in the opposition, be: cause I knew that a man on that side would not do to recommend to the Duke of York any military man. Who told you so Colonel Wardle. .. -- What sort of negotiations did you think the delivery of these letters might facilitate? To get a letter of recommendation for the young men, the same sort of recommendation as general Clavering was to give me for Sumner. You have stated, that the paymastership procured for Elderton was previous to the death of General Simcoe; what circumstance makes ou say it must have been previous to the death of Genera. Simcoef # believe it was General Simcoe's regiment; I know he had been ap- plied to on the subject. * is -- . . . * : * , Mr. w Art DLE’s ex AMINATIon. 35? Are you quite positive that these letters spoken of, are the letters Mr. Wardleran away with? Yes. * Did the Duke of York ever tell you at any time, that he had been informed by any person of your having received money by getting ap- pointments in the army? No, no one dare tell him so. Bid the Duke of York ever inform you by what means the com- raissions you state to have been so irregularly obtained, were made to appear regular in the books of the office? No, he did not state to me that circumstance, only that he would take proper care and have them all right, and the subjects he always thought were proper when they were proposed. & GWYLLYM LLOYDWARDLE, Esq. attending in his place, made the following statement: • ' I wish to say, that I am now aware what Mrs. Clarke means by her negotiation: the letters that I before alluded to her having received from Mr. Donovan, and my having examined him upon them in this House, were sent to her by Mr. Donovan, as I understood, for the purpose of her getting them signed by a general officer, or a member of parliament; she stated having sent one of them to General Clavering to bé signed; the other three or four, I forget which it was, I got from her, she gave them to me; I remember her stating at the time, that if f could get a member of parliament to sign them for her, it would be just what Mr. Donovan wanted ; I said my friends were in opposition, and opposition men would not do; I kept the letters ever since, and till this moment Bever could make out what she meant by the term ne- gotiation. --- - * * g Have yet any ebjection to deliver in those letters, from which you. examined Mr. Donovan at the table of this House? They are all on the tâble of the Piouse. . ... " - Are those letters on the table of the House which Mrs. Clarke wished you to get a member of parliament to sign : No, I think not. * Are there any letters on the table of the House which Mrs. Clarke gave to you, to procure the signature of a member of parliament? I thought they had been given in, but if they are not, I certainly will łay thein on the table. * } Have you any objection to lay on the table every letter which you got, either by violence or otherwise, from Mrs Clarke I have no objection to lay upon the table the letters in question respecting those officers who were to have been so recommended, and all the letters that I had régard to in the statement I made to the House. In giving this answer Mr. Wardle was called to order, by Sir John Sebright, in consequence of Lord Folkestone's * something in the ear of the honourable mem- ºer. . . . - Mr. Whitbread rose and observed with much warmth. that his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle) was in perfect order, that ſo irregularity whatever was committed, for it was perfectly consistent with the rule of parliamentary evidence, for one member to , make communications te another in course of examination. 352 MR. warple's ExAMINATron. Lord Folkstone declared, that what he communicated to the hon. member was perfectly innocent; and that moree over that his hon, friend had finished his reply before he made the communications. Mr. Whitbread contended that it was neither indecorous nor inconsistent with parliamentary rules for members to make communications to such as were close to each other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer believed it was the general feeling of the Committee, that no individual was at liberty to suggest any answer whatever to any interroga- tory that was put in the nature of evidence to another member. He conceived that no member in the Committee had any superior advantages in this respect over any wit- ness who gave evidence at the bar of the House. Surely it would never be maintained, that a witness placed in that situation, and labouring under any difficulty or embarrass- ment respecting the answer to be made, ought to receive any assistance. Neither did he apprehend that any mem- ber of Parliament was entitled to receive any suggestion from another, when he was called upon in his place to give his evidence on any question. Mr. Windham knew of no principle recognized by par- liamentary practice, by which a member was restrained from both giving and receiving communications and informa- tion from another during the discussion of any question. On this ground he perfectly justified the conduct of the noble lord, and especially as he afterwards declared his communication to be perfectly innocent; he, therefore, thought the hon, baronet was premature in calling the hon. gentleman to order. - Mr. Canning was proceeding to animadvert with a con- siderable degree of warmth on the observations which an hon. member opposite to him (Mr. Whitbread) had made, relative to the prerogative which a member of Parliament had over any other witness giving his evidence, when the right hon. gentleman was called to order. Mr. Whitbread repeated and explained his former ob- servations with respect to the right which every member in the House has of communicating information to ano- ther. He did say what the right hon. Secretary stated, that a member has a right to derive any benefit from the suggestions of another when examined in evidence during the pending of a question, but that question being an- swered, he was no longer restricted. - t MR. GREENwood's ExAMINATION. . . 353 Mr. Canning confessed he had misunderstood the mean- ing of the hon. member, for he at first did conceive the hon. gentleman made an essential difference between a member of Parliament in giving his testimony, and an or- dinary witness at the bar; and he was the more satisfied in this case, because the noble lord had declared, that what he communicated was perfectly innocent. Mr. Whitbread protested that he never did lay down such a preposterous doctrine. -- Have you any objection to lay on the table every letter which you got, either by violence or otherwise, from Mrs. Clarke? I wish the answer I have given to be repeated. Are there any letters in your possession, relative to the inquiry before the House, as to the Duke of York’s conduct, which you have taken from Mrs. Clarke, or which she has given to you, whieh you object to lay before the House I know of none such, I have no information which with propriety can be laid before this Committee, which I would withhold from them. } Are the letters alluded to in the letter of Mrs. Clarke, at present on the table of the House? No, they are not. º When did you receive the letters from Mrs. Clarke, which she men- tions, in her letter of the 28th of January, to have been delivered to you? I have no memorandum, I cannot speak to the time. CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. was called in and examined by - the Committee, as follows: Is Mr. Froome now in your office? No. Did not Mr. Froome succeed to the situation of one of your clerks, that has lately left you? No. Did not Mr. Froome come to town for the purpose of supplying the place of that clerk Mr. Froome came to town to settle some old ac- counts of mine as Treasurer to the Royal Military College, and not at all to take the place of that clerk. Has he settled those accounts, and if so when did he leave you? He is settling then now. Where does he transact the business Very near my office at Char- ing-cross. Are you agent to the 22d regiment of dragoons No. Or ever was since it was raised? I think not; but I cannot posiº tively answer to that fact. : Do you recollect any difference between you and the Duke of York, wherein the Duke of York applied to you to appoint a paymaster to that regiment? Certainly not. , - t Is it within your #. or that of any agent to appoint a paymaster. to any regiment? The power rests, in the Colonel to recommend to the Secretary at War, who makes the necessary inquiries as to the see. curities, and then makes out the Appointment for the Commander in Chief to lay before his Majesty. * . . . . In fact the Commander in cº,” have nothing in the world to 354 MR. GREEN wood's ExAMINATIon. do with it, more than to lay it before his Majesty I never under- $tood that he had. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - Do you know Mrs. Clarke 2 I do not know her by sight. * Did you ever write to her I recollect one note I did write to her. Do you know a Mr. Elderton I did know him. . . No disagreement ever happened between you and the Duke of York, respecting appointing Mr. Elderton a paymaster'? 2 No, :Ceſ- tainly not. . - - - - . . . , Did the Duke of York ever apply to you to appoint him? Never; the Duke of York mentioned him to me as a man that would call upon me about a paymastership, and said that I might make inquiries about him, but never recommended him. What was the occasion of that note which you mention having writ- ten to Mrs. Clarke? It was in answer to a note she wrote me, to desire my interference with his Royal Highness about a brother, I think he was, of her’s; she called him Captain Thompson, that had been in the cavalry. * Do you recollect the date of that note? It was not long ago; I do º: recollect the time at all ; I should think within a month or six WeekS. - - - Do you recollect, either in that note or by message, stating to Mrs. Clarke, that you were sorry she had got acquainted with Mr. Fin- nerty Never. - Did you ever send any message to Mrs. Clarke by Mr. Taylor of Bond-street? Never. How long was Mr. Froome in your office before the first time he and }. parted I really cannot recollect ; but he has left my office for, should suppose, four or five years, I cannot recollect particularly, it was at the time I discovered he was trading in commissions that I dis- charged him. Is not Mr. Froome on the half-pay? I believe he is. Is he a captain on half-pay? No, I think only a lieutenant. How did you send that note which you wrote to Mrs. Clarke I sent it by Mr. Taylor, I think. -- " Mr. Taylor the shoemaker? Yes. ? Are you acquainted with Mrs. Sinclair Sutherland 2 I knew her some years ago. . . . - - - How many years ago? I should think six or seven years ago; I have seen her since. - Have you seen her often since No. Have you seen her lately 2, No. - How lately have you seen her; I do not think I have seen Mr. Sinclair these two years. . - On what occasion did you last see her ? Mine was a visit of civility, I believe, I had no particular object in it. Did you call upon her? Yes. Ilave you kept up your acquaintance with her from the first º of that acquaintance?. I have very little acquaintance with 'Mrs. Sinclair ; I do not suppose I ever saw Mrs. Sinclair a dozen times in my life. - - What led to that acquaintance I believe that the first acquaint- . I had with Mrs. Sinclair, was from hearing a friend of mine speak O €º - - - *r - - - - - - - -- . . . . * a " *.* MR. GREEN wooD's ExAMINATION. . 355 Did you become acquainted with her through any intimacy between the Duke of York and her ? I certainly was acquainted with her more from that circumstance. * . . Then you are aware she was intimate with the Duke of York? I am aware that the Duke of York knew her; I am not at all aware that the Duke of York was intimate with her. Do you know of any connection ever subsisting between the Duke of York and Mrs. Sutherland 2 I have heard that there was. Has any fact ever come to your knowledge which enables you to state, of your own knowledge, that such a connection ever had existed 2 I have heard Mrs. Sinclair herself say so. - Did you ever hear Mrs. Sinclair state that she was with child by the Duke of York Yes. Did you ever know of a house being hired at Hamburgh for Mrs. Sutherland to lie in 2 No. Do you know of any measures that were taken to hire a house for that purpose 2 No. * Can you to your own knowledge speak to Mrs. Sinclair having got a troop from the Duke of York, for a friend of her’s Certainly not. Did you ever correspond with her on the subject of a troop that she had applied for 2 No I think not, it is so long since; to the best of my knowledge not. . - , Can you speak positively to that fact? I can speak positively to never having had any conversation with the Duke of York. Do you recollect writing to Mrs. Sinclair upon any military matters ? I recollect she wrote to me relative to a son of the late General Deb- bridge, upon the subject of promotion, which I did not apply for; and I think she wrote to me about obtaining leave of absence for him, which, being in the natural course of my business, I think I did obtain for her; but I cannot speak with certainty. State whether of your own knowledge Mrs. Sinclair was given to understand that that officer was promoted through her application ? Certainly not. You have stated, that you sent a note to Mrs. Clarke by Mr. Tay- lor; who is Mr. Taylor A shoemaker, in Bond-street. How happened it that you employed such a messenger ? She sent him to me. Had you ever any other communication with Mr. Taylor I have seen Mr. Taylor several times on other business. Is Mr. Taylor your shoemaker No. Have you ever had any correspondence by letter with Mr. Taylor 2 O You have stated in the early part of your examination, that the Com- mander in Chief told you that Mr. Elderton would probably call re- specting a paymastership, and requested you to make inquiries; did you make any inquiries 2 Yes. . . . What was the result of those inquiries, and was he sº to the paymastership The result of those inquiries was, that I put him down in my list as a candidate for a º; - as he appointed to a paymastership Upon a vacancy happening in Sir Robert Abercrombie's regiment, jº. a very proper man for the appointment, I wrote to Sir Robert Abercrombie about him, and he recommended him to the sº at War. May I beg leave • I 2 A 2 356 to LoNEI, GoRDoN's ExAMINATION. to correct an answer I have just given, respecting my correspondence with Mr Taylor: There were two or three questions I thought it ne- cessary to put to him : knowing he had paid some money on the Duke of York's account for Mrs. Clarke, I put three questions to him, which he answered satisfactorily; if that is to be called a correspond- ence, I have had correspondence with him. Do you know of any large sum of money being paid by his Royal Highness the Duke of York to Mrs. Clarke, during her residence in Gloucester-place No large sums ever went though my hands to Mrs. Clarke, nor any sum whatever. You admit that you have had some correspondence with Mr. Tay- łor, when did that correspondence take place? A few years ago. You do not recollect at any other time having had any correspond- ence with Mr. Taylor? No, certainly not. Did you send an answer to Mrs. Clarke by Mr. Taylor, in conse- quence of the letter having been brought by him? Certainly, You stated that you recommended Mr. Elderton to Sir Robert Abercrombie for paymaster; had you any knowledge of Mr. Elderton previous to the Duke of York's mentioning him to you? I believe he had applied to my office for a clerkship, but I am not quite clear as to that point; I made several inquiries in consequence of his Royal High- ness’s recommendation. : • Were the inquiries which you made satisfactory 2 They were satis- factory in the first instance, but some time afterwards, on further in- quiry, I was by no means satisfied, and I wrote to Sir Robert Aber- crombie to that effect. What inquiries did you make that caused dissatisfaction? I made some inquiries, besides a representation I had from Bristol, where Mr. Elderton had lived, of some improper conduct there. What was the consequence of these discoveries you made respecting Mr. Elderton Representing the same to Sir Robert Abercrombie, in order to stop the recommendation. What was the effect of that communication? It was delayed for a time; afterwards to the best of my recollection, Mr. Elderton wrote himself, or got some friend to apply to Sir Robert Abercrombie, and Sir Robert Abercrombie afterwards recommended him to the Secretary at War. w Do you know what those recommendations were, or from whom they came 2 I really do not. Awere the objections removed selely by the recommendation of Sir Tobert Abercroimbie? I believe entirely. - After those objections had been made, did any conversation take place between his Royal Highness the Duke of York and yourself upon the subject : Certainly none. . How do you know that any subsequent recommendation was made to Sir Robert Abercrombie? I think I have letters from Sir Robert Abercrombie to prove that. - tº a * 3 * - [The witness was directed to withdraw. ColeNEL GORDON was called in, and examined by the Com- • - - mittee, as follows: Have you brought with you the documents specting the proposed → * colon EL G.6R pon’s ExAMINATION. 357 exchange between Colonel Knight and Colonel Pleydell? Yes, I have them in my hand. [Colonel Gordon delivered in several papers, which were read:—Letter from Messrs. Collyer.—Answer to the above.—Letter from Colonel Knight, dated June 19th, 1805.—Letter from Colonel Gordon to Colonel Knight.] “ C. L. “The Commander in Chief cannot accede to the request “ Refused.” of these officers. Licutenant Colonel Pleydell must re- main in the regiment to which he has been posted.” “Messrs. Collyer have the honour of transmitting Colonel Gordon the memorials of Majors Knight and Pleydell to exchange.” “Park-place, St. James's, 27th May, 1805.” (Copy.) “ Gentlemen, “Horse-Guards, 28th May, 1805. “Having laid before the Commander in Chief your note of the 27th instant, I am directed to acquaint you in reply, that his Royal Highness cannot accede to the exchange therein proposed, between Major Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards, and Lieutenant Colonel Pleydell of the 59th regiment of foot; and Lieutenant-Colonel Pleydell must remain with the corps to which he has been posted. I am, Sir, (Signed) “J. W. Gordon. “The inclosures in your letter are herewith returned. “Messrs. Collyer. “H. R. H. has no objection to his receiving a difference, and when an eligible successor can be recommended, H. R. H. will take it into consideration.” “ No. 35, Maddox-st. Hanover “ Sir, Square, June 19, 1805. His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief not having acceded to my exchanging with Lieutenant-colonel Pleydell, I fear my motives for wishing to return to the infantry may have been misrepresented to his Royal Highness. “l therefore take the liberty of stating them to you, and request the favour of you to submit them to the consideration of his Royal Highness. “I am desirous of returning to the infantry, with a view to receive back the difference, to enable me to arrange some pecuniary concerns which press upon me at this moment; and in case his Royal Highness should be graciously pleased to acquiesce, I intend to solicit the further indulgence of a temporary retirement upon half-pay for the recovery of my health, which is much impaired by a service of 20 years in the West Indies, in Holland, in Egypt, and elsewhere; and as I do not mean to solicit H. R. H’s. permission to receive the difference between full and half-pay, I flatter myself his Royal Highness, when my health is re-established, will consider my past services, and allow me to return to a service, which I never can quit for a moment without the deepest regret. g And in case his Royal Highness should have no person in view to succeed me in the 5th £º Guards, I humbly beg leave to submit 358 colon EL GORDoN’s ExA MINATION. . the name of Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Brooke of the 56th regiment (an old cavalry officer) who has written to me on the subject. “I have the honour to subscribe myself, “Sir, Your obedient, humble Servant, “ H. R. KNIGHT, “Major 5th Dragoon Guards, and Bt. Lieut.-colonel. “To Colonel Gordon, &c. &c. &c.” “Sir, “ Horse Guards, 21st June, 1805. “Having laid before the Commander in Chief your letter of the 19th instant, I am directed to acquaint you, that his Royal Highness has no objection to your exchanging to the infantry, receiving the difference; and when an eligible successor can be recommended, your request will be taken into consideration. * I have, &c. (Signed) “J. W. GoRDoN. “Bt. Lieut-col. Knight, 5 D. Gds. “35, Maddox-street, Hanover-square.” Are you acquainted with Major Turner? I was acquainted with him. What was the period of your acquaintance with him 2 I think it was in the year 1803. When was the last time that you saw him previous to his tendering his resignation ? I cannot recollect the precise day, but it was a very short time before he gave it in, he called upon me, and stated his intention of so doing. .# Did he solicit any other situation ? No, I cannot recollect that he did. Did he request to be put upon the staff of the army serving in Spain : I do not recollect that he did ; it is very possible that he might, but I do not recollect that he did. Did he state to you the reasons for which he intended to resign : Yes, he certainly did. What were those reasons? Major Turner called upon me, and told me, it was his intention to give in his resignation, and retire from the army ; I expressed some surprise at this, having had some previous acquaintance with him, and told him, I think, that he had better consider of it before he took so decided a step. I think Major Turner told me, he had got into some unfortunate scrape with a woman, and it was ne- cessary for him to quit the service; the exact words I do not recollect, but that was the tenor of the conversation that passed between us. There was very little more or less. Did he state the nature of the scrape 2 No, he certainly did not; but I have some recollection, that he was about to do it, and that I stopped him, as my custom is, not wishing to enter into the private affairs of officers more than is necessary. Did he state the name of the lady ? I am pretty confident he did not. When the application was made for the exchange between Colonel Knight and Colonel Pleydell, were the usual inquiries made, and were they acted upon? This is rather an embarrassing question. I should answer it in this way ; that the Commander in Chief did not think Colonel Pleydella proper officer to be placed at the head of a regiment of cavalry. is it your belief that, upon a complaint made from any quarter against GENERAL Rochfort's ExAMINATION. 359 A. any officer who was soliciting either for exchange or resignation, that complaint being, that the officer had behaved dishonourably by a lady, that would lead to an inquiry on the part of the Commander in Chief? That would depend very much upon the mode in which the complaint was made; the complaint in questión stated, that the general knew all about it; inquiry was therefore made of the general, before,any deci- sion was given upon it. * - - . Did it ever come within your knowledge that any resignation had been stopped, or any proceeding taken at the Commander in Chief’s office in consequence of an anonymous letter? I cannot exactly say that a resignation had been stopped; but this I can say, that all anony- Imous letters are invariably attended to. , Is it not the invariable practice of the Commander in Chief to for- ward all anonymous letters, conveying complaints of any circumstances attached to the army, to the generals commanding the districts, or the officers commanding regiments, concerning which complaints may be conveyed in those anonymous letters ? I have already said that anony- mous letters are always attended to, and are sent for inquiry in their proper course; they happen almost daily. [The witness was directed to withdraw. General ROCHFORT was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: Do you recollect a person of the name of Samuel Carter, that lived with Captain Sutton 2 . I do. Do you happen to know whether Samuel Carter was reputed to be the natural son of Captain Sutton? I always understood that he was. Did he live with him as such He lived with him as such, as it ap- peared to me. You knew Captain Sutton? Very well. He brought him up as his son? Yes, he did to the best of my knowledge. Did he give him a good education ? I believe the best education he could; he was very capable of educating him himself, and I believe he took a great deal of pains with the boy. - Was he in the habit of dining at Captain Sutton's table 2 I cannot tell. I never dined with Captain Sutton at his house. When did Captain Sutton die? I cannot exactly say; two or three years ago, I believe. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. Lord Folkstone stated, that Duff, one of the parties whom he had that evening mentioned to the House, as having papers in his possessiou, which came into his hands through the medium of one Kennett, in the city, had, since he addressed the House, called him into the lobby, and informed him, that he was willing to deliver up the papers. He had seen some of them, which he had communicated to the right honourable gentleman opposite, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), who concurred with him in thinking they were worthy the observation of the 360. GENERAL Roch Fent’s ExAMINATION. House. The persen who had them, having mentioned: it would be inconvenient to him to attend that evening, he had dispensed with his further attendance. He had ac-, cordingly promised to bring him the papers to-morrow maorning, and he would call the attention of the Com- mittee to them at their next meeting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he apprehended the Committee would proceed to-morrow, and they should be able to finish the business. _ ! | The House being resumed, the Chairman reported pro- gress, and asked leave to sit again to-morrow, which was ordered, . . & ( 361 ) r-4 - * * * NINTH DAY. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17. *nº lººm" List of Witnesses examined. MR. ARCHIBALD DUFF. TAYLOR, Esq. (a Member.) W. ADAM, Esq. (a member.) THE RIGHT HON. C. LONG (a Member) W. HUSKISSON, Esq. (a Member.) HENRY SWANN, Esq. (a Member.) LIEUT. COLONELTAYLOR. CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. G. L. WARDLE, Esq. (a Member.) MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE. CAPTAIN HUXLEY SANDON. MR. JOHN REID. MR. ALICE CORRI. GEORGE WHITTAM, Esq. Mr. Wh AR to N in the Chair. Lord Folkestone moved, that Mr. Chapman first clerk. in Lord Castlereagh’s office, do attend the Committee; and that the Right Honourable Charles Long be requested to attend in his place at the House to day.—Ordered. . . . Lord Folkestone moved the order of the day for the House to resolve into a Committee on the inquiry respect- # º conduct of his Royal Highness the Commander in hief. ar * The House resolved accordingly, t Lord H. Petty said, that at the request of a very re- spectable solicitor resident in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, named 362 THE commANDER IN CHIEF, &c. Tyndale, he felt it necessary to state, that he was not the same who had been examined at the bar in the course of this inquiry, and he was apprehensive that without such explanation his name might be confounded with that of a man with whom he had no interference nor connection whatever, and that he was ready and desirous to verify the fact at the bar. … • - The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he saw no dan- ger of mistaking the gentleman for the other, who stated himself to live at Chelsea. - Mr. Bankes said, he understood the Tyndale who had been examined as a witness, was not now forthcoming ; but afterwards added, he was given to understand he had this day attended as a witness before the select Committee on abuses in East India appointments. ' '. Lord Folkestone now rose, and said, that, before he pro- ceeded to call in the witnesses, it might be deemed con- venient to put the Committee in possession of the parti- cular subject to which he meant to examine the first wit- mess, Mr. Duff, the solicitor, who attended in consequence of the order of the House yesterday, with some papers he had to produce. Those papers, he understood, came into the hands of Mr. Duff, in the year 1804, in consequence of his being solicitor to the statute of bankruptcy, against a man named Robert Kennett, who had formerly been an upholsterer in Bond-street, and afterwards lived in Lin- coln's inn-fields, in the profession of a curer of the tooth- ach. A proposition was set on foot by his Royal Highness the Duke of York to raise for his use the sum of 70,000l. or 80,000l. by way of annuity, and this Mr. Kennett undertook to forward the views of his Royal Highness, in consideration of provision being made for him by a re- spectable situation under government; upon the success of his undertaking, was to depend the success of the ne- gotiation for the loan. Accordingly application was made by his Royal Highness to Mr. Pitt, to Earl Camden, and others, to procure Mr. Kennett a situation at home or abroad, and particularly one which happened just then to be vacant in the West Indies. A secretary to the Duke : of York acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Kennett's letter, proposing the terms of this negotiation, the receipt of, which he acknowledges in another letter, but in this he ex- pressed.no disapprobation of Mr. Kennett's proposal ; and it would appear upon the face of the letter, that the suc-. - - - MR, DUFF's ExAMINATION. 363 cess of the Duke of York, in obtaining the situation, would depend upon the loan. He should adduce the letters before the Committee, and particularly that of Colonel Taylor, to which he alluded. He then moved that Mr. Duff be called to the bar. - The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose. He did not mean, he said, to oppose the motion of the noble lord ; but at the same time it did not appear to him that the evidence, or the papers now proposed to be produced, had any connexion with the subject, respecting which the Committee were instructed to inquire, namely, the conduct of his Royal Highness in his capacity of Commander in Chief. They had no relevancy whatever to the manoeu- vres of Mrs. Clarke, or the stories with them connected, nor any relation to military business. However, he had no wish that any paper should be withheld that in any degree might throw light upon the general cause; and he therefore abstained from any resistance of the noble lord's motion, rather from a wish not to be thought desirous of stifling any information respecting the whole subject in agitation, than from any relevancy the motion had to the question before the Committee. * Lord Folkestone could not exactly understand the right honourable gentleman's meaning by his phrase—the manoeuvres of Mrs. Clarke; but if the suggestion he (the noble lord) had offered to the House last night, had been adopted, namely, an additional instruction to the Com- mittee to enlarge their inquiry into the general conduct of the Duke of York in other respects, the papers now moved for would be highly relevant. Mr. ARCHIBALD DUFF was called in and examined by the Com- mittee as follows: r What are you ? A Solicitor. Do you know any thing of Robert Kennett? I am a solicitor to the commission of bankruptcy against him. . . - * . At what time did that bankruptcy take place: Some time in the year 1803. In consequence of being solicitor to that commission of bankruptcy, have certain papers relative to this inquiry come into your possession: In consequence of the bankrupt’s papers having been seized by the messenger under the commission, I have become possessed of certain letters, which I have now in my pocket. Produce those papers. [The witness produced them.] When did those papers come into your possession? I cannot ascer- tain the time; some time, I think, about the latter endof 1805, or some time in 1806. * - 364 MR, buff’s ExAMrNArtók. Have they been in your possession ever since They have. - Are those all the papers in your possession relative to this business? They are all the papers which I have been able to find among the bank- rupt's papers, in which, in any manner, the name of his Royal Highness the Duke of York is mentioned. - * Did you at any time state, that you believed there was a paper in your possession which you could not readily put your hand upon? I stated last night to Lord Folkestone, while I was in attendance at this House, that l believed there was a paper which I could not readily put my hand upon; but to-day I communicated to Lord Folkestone that I had every reason to believe that that paper was not in my possession, and that the recollection of that paper must have arisen from one of the bankrupt's letters, which is now in the clerk's hand. Do you mean by not being in your possession, that that paper did not exist, that there was no such paper? I stated to Lord Folkestone then, as I now do, that I believed there was no such paper. * you acquainted with the hand-writing of Kennett? Perfectly wełł. - Look at those papers, and see whether any of them are the hand writing of the bankrupt Kennett? No. 2 is his hand-writing. Look at No. 12; is that the hand-writing of Kennett? No. 12 con- tains two papers; one is Kennett's hand-writing, and the other is not. What are those papers? They appear to be respecting appoint- ments at Surinam, which have ... from the surrender º that colony. - Is ºt the paper which is Kennett's hand-writing 2 Yes. Do you know whose hand-writing the other is? I do not. Is No. 14 in the hand-writing of Kennett? It is. * - Is No. 17 in the hand-writing of Kennett? No. 17 contains two papers; one is not in the hand-writing of Kennett, the other is. What is the paper which is in the hand-writing of Kennett? That which is in the hand-writing of Kennett appears to be an application from him to Mr. Greenwood, for Mr. Adam’s address in Scotland. Do you know whose hand-writing the other paper is? No. Ps §. 18 the hand-writing of Kennett? Yes, it is. You have stated, that there was a paper which you have not if your possession, and which you believe not to exist; to your knowledge, was snch a paper ever in existence? I was led to believe that such a paper had existed, from a distant recollection of having read the paper some time ago; but upon referring to the papers again to-day, and the place in which I found them, namely, the bankrupt’s desk, I am satis- fied that no such paper ever was in my possession, and that the only circumstance which could have led me to that belief, was the bank- rupt's letter, No. 18, and so I stated to Lord Folkestone to-day. Is the Committee to understand that you believe that paper never to have been in existence? I believe it never did exist. . What business was Kennett? Kennett was formerly an upholsterer in Bond-street; he was, at the time when the commission was issued against him, living in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and carried on, or pre- tended to carry on, the business of tooth-ach curer, curing the tooth- ach by smelling a bettie. - Did he ever obtain his certificate under that commission? Cer- tainly not. * MR. LoNG’s ExAMINATIeN. 365 Did he pass his last examination under that commission? He did, after a vast number of examinations, and numerous delays. o you know what is become of Kennett now? I know not; I saw him about a month ago. & tº Do you know any thing particular that has occurred to Kennett since the commission of bankruptcy I know what his lordship alludes to, but I wish the question was more particular, and not so general. Did he ever stand in the pillory He was prosecuted by order of the Lord Chancellor, at the instance of his Majesty’s attorney-general, for a conspiracy to defeat that commission, and cheat his creditors; . that prosecution he was found guilty, and was put into the pillory. Had he been a bankrupt before the bankruptcy to which commis- sion you were solicitor?. He was. State the dates of both bankruptcies. I cannot with precision. Can you state the date of the second bankruptcy with precision ? To the best of my recollection, the 23d of April, 1803. Can you state in what year the first bankruptcy took place? I think (but I cannot charge my memory with precision) in the month of January, 1801. [The witness was directed to withdraw. EDWARD TAYLOR, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his Place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Will you look at No. 3, and state whether that is Colonel Taylor's writing; Yes, it is. Is §. 6 Colonel Taylor's hand-writing 2 Yes, it is. No. 8? Yes, it is. No. 9: Yes, it is. No. 10 'Yes, it is. No, 13 * This is not his hand-writing. Does it purport to be? It is written in his name; but it is not his hand-writing. * No. 20? The note is; there is an inclosure in it, which is not. Mr. ARCHIBALD DUFF was again called in, and examined by the - Committee, as follows: Whose hand-writing is No. 133 I do not know. It is not the hand-writing of Kennett? It is not. * [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. attending in his place, was examined, as follows: Look at No. 4, is that your hand-writing: Yes. . 3. No. 5? It is not my hand-writing; but it was written at my dic- tation, º No. 19? This is my hand-writing. The Right Honourable CHARLES LONG, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: * * Have you ever seen Mr. Adam, once private secretary to Mr. Pitt, write I have. 366 Mr. Huskisson’s Examin Atron. Cam you speak to Mr. Adam's hand-writing? I can. Look at No. 11. That is not his hand-writing, it purports to be ä. Y. . + - * * - *f; No. 15 your hand-writing? No. 15 is my hand-writing; No. 16 I cannot speak to. WILLIAM HUSKISSON, Esq. attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: - Will you look at No. 21 I have frequently seen Mr. Chapman write, and, to the best of my belief, this is his hand-writing. [The following papers were read:] No. 2. “The principal sum of 70,000l. to be advanced to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, by way of annuity, (at ten per cent.) either in one or two parts, as shall be approved by his Royal Highness, in the following manner, viz. *The said sum or sums to be charged on the Oatlands, and all the adjoining estates, manors, &c. - 4. ! “The purchaser to nominate any two lives (in order to save in- surance). - - “His Royal Highness to be at liberty to pay off the principal sum or sums any time after three years, (in the usual way) either by giving six months notice, or paying six months in advance. “The annuity to be payable quarterly, either by an assignment of the exchequer order, or an undertaking from the trustees of the said order to pay the same.” t - No. 6. “Lieutenant-colonel Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Robert Kennett, and begs to acquaint him, that his Royal High- ness the Duke of York has not any objection to writing to Mr. Pitt respecting the application which Sir Horace Mann has made in his favour. , . - - - . “Oatlands, Sunday, 22d July, 1804.” • , - No. 3. “Lieutenant-colonel Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is directed by his Royal Highness the Duke of York to request he will call upon Mr. Adam, in Iincoln’s-inn-fields, upon Wednesday morning next. - * - * - “Oatlands, July 29th, 1804. - - . • - . Addressed, “Robert Kennett, Esq. 13, Moore-place, Lambeth.” . . No. 5. “Mr. Adam's compliments to Mr. Kennet, and means to see him on Tuesda evening, before which he cannot be in town. . . * Lincoln’s-Inn, Thursday.” . * - Addressed, “Mr. Kennett.” . * * * No. 4. . “Mr. Adam is sorry that his business elsewhere detained him yesterday, He will be glad to see Mr. Kennett here to-day at eleven o’clock. * \ t - .* - “Lincoln’s-Inn, Thursday Morning, 2d Aug.” - - Addressed, “Mr. Robert Kennett, “I3, Moore-place, Lambeth.” MR. Swan N’s ExAMINATION. 367 HENRY SWANN, Esq. a Member of the House, attending in his • . place, was examined as follows: - . . . Have you ever seen Sir Horace Mann write? I have seen Sir Horace Mann write very often. , Will you look at No. 7, and state whether it is Sir Horace Mann's writing? I will certainly admit that it very much resembles the hand. writing of the honourable Baronet; but though it does so, resemble it, it is not the usual mode of that honourable Baronet's signing his name, for it is signed “H. Mann,” and I very frequently correspond with him: he signs “Hor. Mann.” - Do you believe that to be the hand-writing of Sir Horace Mann? It '. something of the character of the hand-writing of Sir Horace all Il. - Do you or not believe that to be Sir Horace Mann's hand writing? I certainly believe it is." t Will you look at No. 16; is that Sir Horace Mann's hand-writing? I do not think it is; I believe it is not. [The following papers were read,1 w No. 7. “I shall rejoice sincerely at your success, if it can be an object with you to obtain a situation in such a climate. The channel you mention may be more efficacious than the exertion of my interest, which I will strenuously renew if it is necessary, when I see a prospect. of success. - - “Your's faithfully, . . - - . . “ H. MANN. “Margate, July 22d.” y Addressed: “ Robert Kennett, Esq. No. 13, Moore-place, Lambeth.” No. 8. “Oatlands, July 16th, 1804. SIR, t . “I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yester- day, which I lost no time in laying before the Duke of York. I am in consequence directed to request you will have the goodness to call upon Mr. Greenwood, in Craig's-court, on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock, his Royal Highness having desired him to communicate with you on the subject of your letter. - . . “I have the honour to be, - “Sir, “Your most obedient, “Humble Servant, - - - > ** H. TAYLOR. No. 9. “Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Kennett, and begs to acquaint him, that, having called this morn- ing upon Mr. Pitt's private secretary, for the answer to his Royal Highness's application in his favour, he has been promised that it will be sent in the course of the day, if possible, and he will forward it, as soon as received, to Mr. Kennett. “Horse Guards, Thursday Morning." Addressed: *- “Robert Kennett, Esq. &c.” ** 368 MR. Long's Ex4MINATron. , No. 10. “Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is directed by the Duke of York to transmit to him copy of a letter from Mr. Pitt's private secretary, in reply to the ap- plication which his Royal Highness made in Mr. Kennett's favour for the collectorship of the customs at Surinam, which answer his Royal Highness regrets is not conformable to his wishes. Colonel Taylor would have sent it earlier, had he not been absent from London, when it was sent to the Horse-Guards. “August 7th, 1804.” No. 11. “Downing Street, Friday, 3d August, 1804. “My Dear Sir, * I have not failed to state to Mr. Pitt the wishes of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, communicated through you, that he would nominate Mr. Kennett to the office of collector of his Majesty's customs at Surinam ; and I am directed to request that you will submit to his Royal Highness, that, desirous as Mr. Pitt must at all times be to attend to his Royal Highness's commands, he is fearful that, from prior engagements, he is so circumstanced, as not to have it in his power to do so on the present occasion. t “I am, &c. t t (Signed) ** W. D. ADAMs.” Addressed: * Lieut.-Col. Taylor.” No. 12. - 4. SURINAM. * The following appointments have resulted from the Surrender of this Colony; viz. ! “Sir C. Greeen, to be governor and commander in chief. “Capt. Drummond, 2d batt. 60th regtment Brigade Major. “Capt. Campbell, 66th regiment commander of fort Zelandria. “Capt. Maxwell, R. N. harbour master. “ G. Chalmers, Esq. collector of the customs. “Laur. Donovan, Esq. comptroller of ditto. - “J. Bent, Esq. army agent and contractor for prisoners. cc Pringle, Esq. colonial secretary. “ R. R.; private secretary. “ D. Monro, #. resident commissary, “R.A. Hyndman, Esq. resident paymaster. “ Lieut. Rowan, 64th regiment aide-de-camp. “Lieut. Imthurn, 2d battalion 60th regt, military secretary, Vendue master at a percentage, on the same footing as at Demerara.” The Right Honourable CHARLES LONG, attending in his place, was examined as follows: f - Do you recollect ever writing a letter of which No. 15 purports to be a copy I have no recollection of it; it is very likely I might have written such a letter; it does not appear to be a very accurate copy; it is dated “ Bromley #. ;” I never dated. Bromley Park, but Bromley Hill. • * MR. Long’s ExAMINAT fon. 369 [The following paper was read: No. 15, letter from Mr. Long.] No. s 5. “ Bromley Hill, Kent, Aug. 30th. & & ir, * * “I am sure Mr. Pitt would have been very happy to have attended to your request respecting Mr. Kennett, but I know, upon the ap- lication of the Duke of York, he was informed that the office of col- ector had been appointed to. As to the other office, having received a letter written by the desire of H. R. H., the Duke, I made enquiry respecting it, and I do not find that there is any.such office as assistant commissary and agent for prisoners, (or commissary general as it was called in the Duke's letter) to be appointed from hence; the com- missary general in the W. Indies, Mr. Glassford, recommends such deputies as he finds necessary for conducting the business of his de- partment, and they are usually appointed by the treasury in conse- quence. The office of agent for prisoners I conceive to be under the direction and appointment of the transport Board. “Believe me, Sir, “Most faithfully your’s, ** C. LoN G.” (To Mr. Long.) Can you state to whom the letter just read was written? It appears to be in answer to that of Sir Horace Mann's, but I cannot state whether it was so or not. w - [The following papers were read.] No. 17. “R. Kennett will be obliged to Mr. Greenwood, for Mr. Adam’s address in Scotland, and if he can inform him about what time he will return. • * “Saturday Morning.” Address: “W. Adam, Esq. “Blair Adam, “ N. Britain.” No. º - “Blair Adam, 4th Oct. 1804, Scotland. & & ir, “I wrote to Mr. Greenwood, who would probably signify that I had received your's, and would go forward with the business as soon as I returned to town; I now (in case of your not being at a certainty) write to yourself, to say, that I shall, desire to see you as soon as I return to town, which will be the middle or soon after the middle of this month. - “I am Sir, - “Your obedient, humble servant, “WILLIAM ADAM.” Addressed : * Mr. Kennett, “ 13, Moore Place, - “Lambeth.” T- No. 20. “Lieutenant-colonel Taylor encloses, for Mr. Kennett's perusal, a letter from Mr. Chapman, and is very sorry to find from it that the situation of Vendue Master is disposed of. r. Chapman has been out of town, which accounts for the delay, in regard to the re- eeipt of the information now given. 2 B 370 LIEUT.-colonel, TAYLor’s ExAMINATION. “Should Mr. K. wish to see Col. T. he will be here to-morrow be- tween three and five o'clock. . “ Horse Guards, 22d Nov. 1804.” No. 21. “ (Private.)” “Downing-street, 22d Nov. 1804. “Dear Taylor, * “. Lord Camden desires me to request you will express to the Duke of York his great regret, that the office of Vendue Master of Surinam was disposed of before you communicated his Royal Highness's wish in favour of Mr. Kennett. “Believe me, “Very sincerely your's, “JAs. CHAPMAN.” “I should have given you an earlier answer, but have been out of town.” * Addressed: “Lt. Col. Taylor,” in an envelope, to “Mr. Kennett, &c. &c.” Lieutenant-colonel TAYLOR was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Look at that letter. (No. 8) Is that your hand-writing 2 Yes, it is, Peruse the letter, and state to whom it was addressed. I believe to Mr. Kennett, from what I have heard of this business: there is no address. Peruse No. 13, and state to the Committee, whether you ever § the letter of which that purports to be a copy I believe did. Peruse No. 18, and state whether you ever received the letter of which that purports to be a copy. I think I did. Have you the letter which you received, of which you believe that to be a copy 2 I have not. Do you know what is become of it? I believe I destroyed it. It appears as if this was a draft of two distinct letters; do you mean that any letter you have received contained both those letters, or only one of them I can only speak from memory; I think the transaction was in 1804; it is impossible for me to charge my me- . accurately respecting it; I have kept no papers upon the subject. Which of the two letters do you think you received a copy of There is one of the letters I can read with difficulty; it is erased, i. there are pencil-marks in it; I believe them to be two distinct etters. & Did you receive both I believe I did, I can only speak from memory. You destroyed both that you received I am confident I destroyed all I received. . One of these appears to have part written in pencil and part in ink 3 can you charge your memory whether that which you received had that written in pencil or that written in ink I cannot charge my men]ory. f LIEUT.-colon ELTAYLoR’s ExAMINATION. 371 [The following papers were read:—No. 13. Note from Colonel Taylor to Mr. Keunett.—No. 18. Rough draft of two letters from Mr. Kennett.] No. 13. “Colonel Taylor presents his compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is extremely sorry that he could not wait, as the Duke's carriage was waiting for him. He is directed by H. R. H. to say, that he will apply for the situation of Assistant Commissary General, &c. &c. at Surinam, but that he will be able to do it with more effect if Sir H. Mann will write to H. R. H. recommending Mr. Kennett. “Rob ERT KENNETT, Esq. &c. &c. &c. “Horse-Guards, Aug. 15th.” No. s 8. Moore Place, Lambeth, Sept. 16th, 1804. & & Sir, I called “I did myself the pleasure of calling on Mr. Greenwood yesterday, respecting the loan to his Royal Highness, and of my intention to write to Mr. Adam, which I did by last night's post, wherein I requested Mr. A. to say, if I could forward the business in any way previous to his returning to town. “I beg leave, Sir, also to observe, I was with the gentleman yes- and I still flatter terday in the city, respecting the business of Surinam, and who still myself with the possibility of getting the appointment of C. hoping if possible, to be yet favoured with the appointment of the collectorship, (in preference to any other) and in the event will he that H. R. H. wishes. advance to any amount the situation in particular (of army agent, &c.) being of trivial emolument, adequate to the risque of the climate.” “SIR, “With all due reference and respect to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, for his application in my behalf of the appointment of army agent, &c. at Surinam, but as the emoluments of it are but trivial, adequate to the risque of the climate, (and the short time it may be in our possession) I beg leave to decline accept- ing it. Permit me Sir, to observe, “As there is yet a probability of succeeding to the A without presuming the appointment of Collectorship of the Custom,” I hope I may have pre- A A ference, but as I believe there is no warrant made out for it—but in Sir, in that case, H. R. H’s, patronage the event that it is inevitably disposed of, allow me to solicit the situa- for A A tion of Vendue Master, at a per centage, on the same footing as at Demerara. Addressed: “ Lieut.-Col. Taylor, &c. Oatlands.” State to the Committee what you know of the transaction respecting which, in your first letter, No. 8, you desired Mr. Kennett to call upon 2 B 2 372 LIEUT.-60LoNEL TAYLon’s ExAMINATron. Mr. Greenwood. As far as I can recollect, Mr. Kennett wrote to ºne at Oatlands a short note, stating that he had something to propose to me for the advantage of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and desiring that I would see him; I am not quite certain whether Lap- pointed him there or in London, but I think at Oatlands. Mr. Ken- nett mentioned to me I think then, or in a note (I cannot charge my memory exactly, having kept no notes,) but I think he verbally men- tioned to me, that he could procure for his Royal Highness the loan of thirty or forty thousand pounds ; and as far as I recollect that was all that passed then except that I said I should submit it to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and let him hear further from me upon the subject. Do you recollect the date of this conference with Mr. Kennett? I do not. State it as nearly as you can 2 I really cannot recollect. Do you recollect the year? I do not recollect the year, I was told of it coming here. Do you mean to state that this was the first step in this transaction ? Yes, it was. That Mr. Kennett volunteered his services He did. Did you inform the Duke of York of this application of Mr. Ken- nett's I did. What was the result 2 I was desired to refer Mr. Kennett to Mr. Adam. Do you know any thing more which took place respecting that transaction : . At that time, or subsequently, Mr. Kennett mentioned to me that he was very much supported by Sir Horace Mann, with whom he had been long acquainted; and he told me, that Sir Horace Mann had desired him to say he should feel very much obliged to me, if I could use my influence with the Duke of York to assist him in ob- taining a situation. I am not certain whether that was in his first ver- bal communication or in his second. Was the second communication long after the first? No, very shortly. Between the first and the second, do you know whether Mr. Ken- nett had seen Mr. Adam : I believe not. What passed at that second meeting I really cannot state exactly what passed ; I cannot charge my memory with the particulars. ... Did you state to the Duke of York when the offer of the loan was made by Mr. Kennett, that Sir Horace Mann would be much obliged to the Duke if he could procure for Mr. Kennett a place Mr. Ken- nett’s communication respecting Sir Horace Mann was subsequent to the offer of the loan; the offer of the loan had been communicated to his Royal Highness previous to the communication respecting Sir Horace Mann. Are you certain that the communication respecting Sir Horace Mann was at the second meeting : I am almost certain, as far as I can be from recollection. Are you certain that it was after the first conversation with Mr. Tay- lor? I have stated that it was subsequent to the first. Do you mean to state that you are not certain whether it was at the º or $fire subsequent meeting * Yes, it certainly was not at the first, MR. GREEN WooD's ExAMINATION, 373 Did you ever state that communication respecting Sí Horace Mann's wishes to the Duke of York 1 did. Sz How soon after Mr. Kennett had informed vou of that wish of Sir Horace Mann's did you mention it to the jº of York 2 I think almost immediately. You do not know what interval there was between the offer of the loan and that communication respecting Sir Horace Mann's wishes 2 I really cannot say. Was the negotiation of the loan ever concluded ? I believe not; but I do not know; for his Royal Highness has not been in the habit of em- ploying me...in his money transactions. o you know any thing more of that negotiation about the loan Mr. Kennett called upon me several times, and wrote to me occa- sionally ; but it is very difficult for me to recollect what passed upon the subject, from the time that has elapsed; but as far as I recollect Mr. Kennett mentioned to me repeatedly that he had seen Mr. Adam : he complained of Mr. Adain's delay; and at one time he said he really began to think that his Royal Highness and Mr. Adam were indifferent about the loan, from having been put off so often as he had been. State to the Committee what you know with respect to the steps taken to procure Mr. Kennett a place, and the correspondence with Mr. Adam and others upon that transaction? In consequence of Mr. Kennett's communication to me, particularly that in which he men- tioned that Sir Horace Mann was very much interested in his favour, I stated to his Royal Highness the Duke of York Mr. Kennett's wish to obtain an office; those offices were specified by him ; I do not re- collect what they were, and his Royal Highness authorized me to write to Mr. Long upon the subject; I do not recollect writing any other letter; I probably have, but I cannot charge my memory, having had no reference to papers. * Were the two letters of which you have read the copy, (No. 18.) shewn to the Duke of York? I cannot recollect, but I believe not. Was the substance stated to the Duke of York? I dare say it was. Have you any doubt that it was I have no doubt that I did state it to the Duke ; not that I can positively say that I did ; but I pro- bably did. - as it in the regular course that you should state it to the Duke I certainly should have stated it to the Duke if I received such letters, believing the communication to be intended for him. s: Do you know whether Mr. Kennett ever obtained any appointment? I understood not. What was the situation about the Duke of York which you filled at that time ! I was private Secretary to his Royal Highness. - * . [The witness was directed to withdraw. CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. was called in, and examined by the Committee as follows: -> Do you recollect Mr. Kennett coming to you ? I do. * State to the Committee all you know respecting that transaction. I know very little about the transaction, further than Mr. Kennett's call- ing upon me, I understood by the Duke of York's commands, commu- 374 Mr. &REEN wood's ExAMINATIon. nicated by Colonel Taylor; I heard what he had to say, but I consi- dered it a wild proposal, and did not much attend to it." When was this I really cannot recollect the time. What was the proposal which you state to have been a wild pro- posal? A very large loan, and without anything required but personal security; that was the proposal, to the best of my recollection; I may be mistaken. - To what extent was the loan To the best of my recollection 30,000l. ; I am not at all clear upon it, but I think it was so. Did Mr. Kennett state to you, that he wished for any thing else in consequence of the advance of this sum of money, besides personal . ? I understood his object was to obtain some appointment for a friend. - #" What sort of appointment I do not recollect. Do you know who that friend was I do not. Do you mean an appointment under Government I concluded so; upon recollection, I doubt whether it was not some appointment in the West Indies that was his aim. # Did you state this conversation to the Duke of York? I stated the substance of it. What was the Duke’s observation ? I do not think that his Royal Highness gave much attention to it, but said it might be inquired into, or something to that effect. Do you know whether it was inquired into ? I rather think that Co- lonel Taylor or Mr. Adams, I am not clear which, had directions to in- quire about it. Do you know, of your own knowledge, any thing more about it? I really do not. Did you ever see Mr. Kennett upon the subject afterwards He called upon me two or three times. What passed upon those occasions? Repeating his offers, and I pay- ing very little attention to them. - Did he at each time repeat his application for a situation under Go- vernment I do not recollect that he did. Are you certain about it? He might have possibly stated his wish for an appointment under Government more than once; I cannot be certain of it; but in general, the conversations were very short with me. - Did you communicate those conversations to the Duke of York 2 I do not think that I did, all of them. Did you communicate some of them to the Duke of York 2 I re- member telling the Duke of York, that I did not think it was a pro- posal that could be of any effect. -. Did you ever state to the Duke of York his wish to obtain the situa- tion under Government 2 I believe I did. Bº Kennett ever apply for a situation under Government for him- self? Not to my knowledge. * Always for a friend? ... I always understood him so. hi Are you certain that he so stated it? I am certain that I understood Inh SQ. Did you know who Mr. Kennett was I heard that he had been in trade in Bond-street. Did you know what profession he carried on at that time? No. LIEut.-co LoNEL TAYLOR’s ExAMINATION. 375 Did you know where he lived? No, I rather think he lived some- where beyond Westminster Bridge, but I do not know where. Did you know that he had been a bankrupt I do not know that . for certain, I knew he had been in trade, but whether he had failed or not, I do not recollect. Did you ever inquire into this man’s character 2 I had heard an indifferent character, I did not inquire about him. Did you state the result of those inquiries to the Duke of York I believe I stated that he was a man not to be attended to ; I think so. Are you not certain that you did so 2 I think it must be so, because it was my feeling. sºon have no doubt that you did so state I have no doubt that I iCº. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Lieutenant Colonel TAYLOR was again called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Pending the transaction with Mr. Kennett, which you have men- tioned, did you make any inquiry respecting his character I did not, he was only known to me from Sir Horace Mann’s recommendation. Did any friend of your’s state to you anything heknew of him? In the course of his visits to the Horse Guards, where he came three or four times, more or less, he was met by a person who asked me whether I had long known him; I stated to him that I only knew him from Sir Horace Mann's recommendation, and from his communications to me Subsequent to that. He then told me, that he had formerly known him ; I think he said he had been a stock-broker, but I am not certain; but I am certain that he said he had failed, and that there were circum- stances attending his failure which were not to his credit, and he cau- tioned me against him. Did you communicate to his Royal Highness the Duke of York this information ? I did. What passed between yourself and his Royal Highness in consequence of your making this communication ? His Royal Highness ordered me in consequence, to drop every further application in his favour. Is there any other circumstance connected with the communications you held with Mr. Kennett that you can recollect, and which is material to this inquiry I cannot say I recollect any other. Do you recollect when that information was given you, respecting Mr. Kennett? I do not, it was after I had had several communications with him, as I have before stated. Had you any communication with him afterwards None that I recollect; I might have some verbal communication with him, but none that was material, certainly. * From whom was it you received this information ? I was desired by the person giving me the information not to name him. tº When you first saw Mr. Kennett, did he come recommended by Sir Horace Mann 2 He did not. * Did you see him frequently before he was recommended by Sir Horace Mann - I think it was the second time that he mentioned the interest Sir Horace Mann took in his favour, and I think he brought a letter from Sir Horace Mann to me. \ t 376 MR. AnAM's ExAMINATIon. Did he bring that letter in consequence of any wish expressed by you that he should bring some recommendation before you would enter into a negotiation of this sort? He did not, the recommendation from Sir Horace Mann was spontaneous. - Did you not know that Mr. Kennett had been a bankrupt? I did not, I knew nothing of Mr. Kennett till I received that information. [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. attending in his place, was examined by the - Committee, as follows: State to the Committee what you know of this transaction. When this transaction was begun to be stated by Mr. Duff, and that he men- tioned Mr. Kennett, I had not, at first, the most distant recollection of such a transaction ever having taken place; but as Mr. Duff went on and stated some circºnstances, the recollection of such a transaction recurred to my mind, and the circumstance of my two notes and my letter having been put in my hand, has made that recollection still more accurate, as far as it is possible for me to call that accurate at all which rests in recollection at so long a distance of time. I remember to have seen Mr. Kennett on the business of this proposed loan, and upon that only; nothing, as far as I can recollect, was ever stated to nie by him but that; and the first impression I now recollect that I had of it was, that it would not turn out a loan that could be entered into. I apprehended that soon after my first interview, if I had more than one with him in the month of August, I must have left town for Scotland, and, consequently, have known nothing of what was proceeding, if any thing was proceeding in the interval; and I can only account for the last letter, the letter written from Scotland, in this way; that pre- vious to my departure from my residence there, I had been considering the different matters I was to enterinto probably when Ireturned to town, and amongst the rest had written upon that subject. I do not recollect ever to have seen Mr. Kennett after my return ; at the same time I think it is probable that I may have seen him, but the loan was put an end to, and all intercourse with Mr. Kennett was put an end to without any thing being done. I think it right to say, that I knew nothing at all of Mr. Kennett when he first called upon me, or any thin 8 respecting his character. This is all I can call to my recollection. 3 Did you make any inquiries respecting the character of Mr. Ken- nett? I have no doubt that I must have made inquiries, though I cannot recollect them; and I think the information, which Colonel Taylor mentions, must have been communicated to me. you mean that it was communicated to you by Colonel Taylor, I can only say that I presume it was, but I cannot speak from any cer- tain recollection. º - § ou cannot say whether you heard it from Colonel Taylor? I cannot say positively whether I heard it from Colonel Taylor. Nor can you recollect when you heard it? I cannot recollect when I heard it, but I think it must have been after my return from Scotland, in October, 1804. . . . . - What was that information That he was a person not at all likely to accomplish the object, and a person of the character which has been alluded to by Colonel Taylor. • , ; , - * R. Adam’s ExAMINATION. 377 GWYLLYM LLOYDWARDLE, (having deliveredinsomeletters.) was examined by the Committee, as follows: Are the letters which you have now delivered in, the letters which are alluded to in Mrs. Clarke's letter of the 28th January I presume they are; they are the letters of the officers she was to have got recom- mendations for ; I know of no other letters, and I possess no others. Ståte with as much accuracy as you can, the time when you received these letters from Mrs. Clarke? I have no memorandums enabling me to state the date precisely. - In what year was it? It was within the last two months. Are they the letters stated to have been delivered to you with a view to facilitate some negotiation ? Yes, I suppose so; they are letters of ecommendation of officers for promotion, which I understood from rs. Clarke were sent to her by Mr. Donovan for her to get further recommendations upon. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. was examined in his place, as follows: Were you consulted as to whether the annuity to Mrs. Clarke should or should not be paid : No, I did not know of its having ceased to be aid. Then the Committee are to understand you did not advise the non- payment of the annuity 2, Certainly, I did not. Was it known to you that the Duke refused to pay his annuity ? I knew it in no other way than by the communications which I had with his Royal Highness, as well as I can recollect at the time I received those letters from Mrs. Clarke, which have been laid upon the table of the House. Do you know the reason of such refusal? ... I did not know the spe- cific fact or facts that was the cause of the discontinuance of the pay- ment of the annuity, but I know in general from the same source, I mean from conversations with His Royal Highness, that the annuity was discontinued in consequence of an impression upon his mind, that Mrs. Clarke's conduct had not been such as to fall within the cendition upon which the annuity was originally granted; when I say originally granted I do not mean to have it inferred that there was any regular grant of the annuity, but that I was desired to state at the time that I communi- cated to Mrs. Clarke that his Royal Highness was not to see heragain; that she was to receive a quarterly sum in the manner that I have stated in my former evidence, 100l. a quarter. Did the discontinuance of that annuity arise at all from the Duke's knowledge of her interference in military promotions I had no reason to believe that his Royal Highness was at all acquainted with any such interference at the time the annuity was discontinned. I wish to add, that the annuity was an annuity the payment of which, as I have alread stated in my evidence, did not fall within any fund of his Royal High- ness’s that was under my administration. I hope the Committee will not think it improper I should go on to state, that this matter may be clearly and distinctly understood, which was a little misunderstood on a former night, notwithstanding the manner in which I endeavoured to ... express myself in the early part of this proceeding, that that portion of his Royal Highness's income which he retains for his own expenditure ** 378 . . . MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATIon. in his family, on his property, and in whatever other mode his expen- diture is applied, is not in the least within the province of my trust or knowledge; that all that is within my trust or knowledge is, that sum which has been appropriated by his #j Highness towards the pay- ment of the interest and the liquidation of the principal of those debts. State, if you can, at what time, and by whom the impression was made upon his Royal Highness's mind to which you have referred 2 I certainly do not know by whom it was made, nor do I know at what time it was made. I have already stated the time at which I first became acquainted with it, or nearly so. MRS. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Are these the letters which you delivered to Mr. Wardle, in order, as you stated in your letter to Mr. Donovan, to facilitate some negoti- ation [The letters delivered in by Mr. Wardle being shewn to the Witness] Yes, these are the letters. When did you deliver these letters to Mr. Wardle? Soon after I received them from Mr. Donovan. º When did you receive them from Mr. Donovan; I do not recollect. The letters appear to be all dated in the beginning of the year 1808, had you them in your possession from the time of the dates until you delivered them to Mr. Wardle ; I cannot exactly say. Look at that letter, and say whose hand writing it is : A letter being shewn to the witness] I do not know. Look at that letter (No. 2) and say whose hand-writing you believe that to be 2 I do not know the hand at all. Look at the letter (No. 3) and say whose hand-writing you believe that to be 2 I do not know. These letters, purport to be certificates from officers; did you give these letters to Mr. Wardle with a view to his procuring the signature of any member of parliament as an additional recommendation, not knowing whose hand-writing the original recommendation was 2 I gave another to General Clavering, and he took the precaution of inquiring at Mr. Greenwood's, or the Adjutant-general's. I believe it is one of those I gave to General Clavering, that signed “Ross.” These letters purport to be certificates from officers; did you give these letters to Mr. Wardle with a view to his procuring the signature of any Member of Parliament as an additional recommendation, not knowing whose hand-writing the original recommendation was? Yes, Mr. Donovan told me they were all correct, and that they were the officers’ recommendations in a proper manner. Did Mr. Donovan tell you they were the hand-writing of the respec- tive officers whose hand-writing they purport to be 2 Yes, he did. Do you now know the hand-writing of the person who wrote either of these letters? No, I do not. * Do you know the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan Yes, I have had a great many letters from Mr. Donovan. - ... . Look at that letter, and say whether that is not the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan I think that looks very like it, but I would not take upon me to say it is, when it is signed “William Wallace;” I think it. looks very like it. - * r - MRs. CLARKE’s ExAM in Ation. 379 { At the time you received that letter, did you conceive that the body of the letter was of the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan? No, I certainly did not, nor should I without looking at it again. I would not thin that a man would presume to put another mán's signature; and I am not sure that it is his writing now, but it is very like it. Was the only reason for your not supposing it to be the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan at the time that you received it, that the signature was the signature of another person? I never made any remarks upon it at all ; perhaps I did not read it. Did you put letters into the hands of a Member of Parliament to pro- cure his recommnndation, those letters being original recommendations themselves, without reading them? Yes, I should, because the person would take care that it would be proper before he got any thing done, as General Clavering did; he went to ascertain the writing, and found . it to be correct, as he told me. s Look at both the letters signed “Wallace.” [They were both shewn to the witness.] One is only a copy of the other letter? Mr. Donovan has copied this letter; I suppose you perceive that; if you read them, they are both the same. When did you receive the copy, and when did you receive the ori- ginal 2 I cannot tell; here they both are; I can tell nothing further than that. * Did you receive them both at the same time I cannot tell. The letters are not merely a copy; one is addressed at the bottom, and the other is not? General Leigh is left out in one. g Which is the original That I will leave to the honourable House to find out; but the other is addressed on the outside to General Leigh, that is the only difference; what is at the bottom of one is on the out- side of the other; it is only half a sheet of paper, that he could not put it upon the back perhaps. How do you know that Mr. Donovan has copied the one from the other?.. Because it appears from looking at them; I think that the look- ing at them would convince any one. ; You have now no doubt of one of these letters being Mr. Donovan's hand-writing? No, I think one is his hand-writing perhaps; it is very likely; I do not know. Are these the letters which you state yourself, in your letter to Dono- van of the 28th of January, to have put into Mr. Wardle's hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiations? Yes, I think they are; but General Clavering had one; I do not know what is become of that. Are these all the letters you put into Mr. Wardle's hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiation ? Yes. - y;" to which you refer in your letter of the 28th of January 2 (2S, - Explain to the Committee in what manner you conceived these letters in Mr. Wardie's hands were to facilitate a negotiation ? He told me he would get some recommendations from some members of parlia- IIlent. - Mr. Wardle told you that he would use those letters for the purpose of facilitating this negotiation, by getting the signature of some mem- bers of parliament? Yes, he did, and he has made a different use of them; I dare say he never tried. g * ...Then you were led by Mr. Wardle to expect he would accomplish $89 MR. wARn Le’s EXAMINATION. the object for which you put these letters into his hands, that of facili- tating a negotiation from which you were to receive some pecuniary advantage? Yes, but I find now he was only laughing at me; it was only to get into the secrets of Donovan and myself. hat was the reason assigned for the non-payment of the annuity, or was there any reason assigned 2 There was no reason whatever assigned, { - Do you recollect what the conditions were upon which the annuity was to be paid No, there were no conditions at all; Mr. Adam promised faithfully, both to me and to my lawyer, to see it punctually paid. I believe you are going to call in Mr. Reid; it is quite unneces- sary, for I do not deny any thing Mr. Reid said about sending me W1116. Why, if the letters now produced are the letters you delivered to Colonel Wardle for the purpose of facilitating some negotiations which relate to army promotions, do you describe one of them, in your letter of the 28th of January, as referring to two deaneries In my opinion it did not refer to any such thing. {Mrs. Clarke’s Letter to Mr. Donovan, of the 28th of January, was * . read. , Those are the letters he took º Can you state nearly the total amount of the different sums that were paid on your account by the Duke of York, during the period you continued under his protection ? I knew nothing at all about it, what he paid. r Do you recollect whether your coachman in Gloucester-place, was en board-wages? He lived in the house till he married, and then he was on board wages. MR. REID being called as a witness, Mrs. Clarke-I beg to ask, whether it is necessary for Mr. Reid to be called in while I am here; may I not take the sense of the honour- able House upon that ? - [Mr. Reid not being in attendance, the witness was directed to withdraw.] GWYLLYM LLOYD WARDLE, Esq. was examined in his place, & as follows: - - Did Mrs. Clarke put any letters into your hands, avowedly for the §. of facilitating the negotiation, and stating that to be the object : She put them into my hands, and said, she wished I would get them signed for her; but till she made known the circumstance last night, I really did not know what she meant by the term negotiation. r What answer did you make to this proposal? Really, I believe, I said my friends were on the wrong side of the House, or some answer of that description, and that very little more passed; and I took the letters, and kept them ever since. Then if you stated that your friends were on the wrong side of the House, what led you to make that statement, not understanding what she meant by facilitating the negotiation ? Certainly, when I-heard her note read, I had not the most distant idea of what she meant, nor ha I till l heard her state the circumstance last night. - – Were the letters she put into your hands for the purpose of facilitat- MR. W.ARDIE's ex AMINATIon: 381 ing the negotiation, the three letters you have delivered in this evening, or the letters referred to in her letter to Mr. Donovan of the 28th Jas nuary? I believe the letters referred to in her letter of the 28th Janu- ary were on the table of this House at the time she wrote that note, or very nearly so; I had the letters she refers to in that note a long period before that letter was written; I had the letters respecting the ijeanery and the Queen, I believe, long prior to my having those I have deli. vered in to-night. t Then the Committee is to understand, that the letters referred to in Mrs. Clarke's letter to Mr. Donovan of the 28th of January, as having been put into your hands for the purpose of facilitating the negotiation, were not the letters described by Mrs. Clarke in her letter to Mr. T}onovan? I should conceive it impossible, for I had them a long pe. riod before, and I believe they were upon the table of this House at the time she wrote that letter. Were you aware that one of those letters which you delivered in this evening was in the hand-writing of Mr. Donovan; I certainly was not, I hardly ever looked at them till to-day; I perceived that one was a copy, but I never attended to it at all. * [The following extract from Mrs. Clarke's evidence was read.] “Q. Explain to the Committee in what manner you conceive those letters in Mr. Wardle's hands were to facilitate a negotiation? A. He told me he would get some recommendations from some members of Parliament.—Q. Mr. Wardle told you that he would use those letters for the purpose of facilitating this negotiation, by getting the signature of some members of Parliament? A. Yes, he did; and he has made a different use of them; I dare say he never tried.” Is that statement which has just been read true? I have before stated, that when Mrs. Clarke gave me these letters, I said, that my friends were on the wrong side of the House, or something of that kind; and I really do not recollect that any thing further passed upon the subject. Did you make the promise which Mrs. Clarke has stated you made? I certainly did make no direct promise; I gave her that sort of answer, which I have a dozen times repeated to this Committee. Did you make any promise whatever, director indirect? I have an- swered that question frequently : I never said more to her upon the subject than I have stated to the House. Is Mrs. Clarke's statement true or false? Really, after I have most posi- tively stated all that passed upon the subject, I should think the honour- able gentleman is as equal to draw the conclusion as I am myself, it depends so much upon the impression at the moment, and my actions at the time. I was anxious to get the letters; that I made any direct or positive promise I am not at all aware; by my taking the letters away she might draw that conclusion, but I have not the least recollec- tion of such a promise having been made by me. Can you positively state to the House that you did not give Mrs. Clarke reason to believe when you left her, that you would carry into effect her wishes as far as was in your power? I have before stated, that I do not recollect making her any promise whatever. • Did you, directly or indirectly, promise Mrs. Clarke that you would comply with her request? Whether or not my taking away the letters, and making her the answer, I have before repeated, might indirectly lead her to suppose I would do it, is more than I can say, 382 MR. war DLE's ExAMINATIon. . . . Upon this Mr. B. Bathurst begged to observe, that when one of their own members was called on to give evidence in his place, he stood in the same situation as any other witness. . No witness in a court of justice would venture to make his statement, and then tell the judge and the jury to draw their own conclusions, in a similar case. He therefore was of opinion that the honourable member was bound to answer the question. - 3. Mr. Martin contended, that the question was merely a repetition of a question that had been several times answer- ed. Did the honourable member mean to ask whether the general statement of Mrs. Clarke was false The right honourable gentleman who had just sat down ap- peared to him to have fallen into a misapprehension re- specting the practice as to evidence in courts of justice; for unquestionably it would be a sufficient answer to a re- petition, of a question in any court of justice, to say that the question had been already answered by the witness. Mr. Bathurst denied that the question of the honourable member had yet been answered. Mr. Whitbread agreed with the right honourable gen- theman, that the question, “Whether the statement of Mrs. Clarke be true or false,” had not yet been answered; but the question had been put in a shape which appeared to be pressing hard upon a member of that House. (No 1 no! no!) His honourable friend had often declared what he had said to be, that his friends sat on the wrong side of the House. It was possible that Mrs. Clarke might un- derstand the words of his friend to imply the promise she stated. She and his honourable friend might have a dif- ferent understanding of the conversation that passed on the occasion. But though he admitted that the question, “true or false,” had not been answered in a direct shape by his honourable friend, he contended that it had been repeatedly answered in substance. Mr. Wardle had no hesitation to answer the honourable member's question if he had known how, . He was cer- tainly anxious to get the letters, and had already stated all that passed; but it was impossible for him to say what might have been the impression upon the mind of Mrs. Clarke. 1 - - ~~ The Attorney-General observed, that there could be no doubt of the propriety of the question. Mrs. Clarke had stated that the honourable member had made her a pro- # M.R. w AR PLE’s ExAMINATION. 383 mise, and the honourable member denied that he had made any direct promise. The next question, therefore, to ask was, whether the honourable member had made to her any direct or indirect promise, and surely there could be no offence in that. **, Mr. Wardle again stated, that he had no objection to answer that question. He never had made Mrs. Clarke any positive promise, and had already informed the house of ..If. he had said upon the occasion. The member who put the question, declared that he had put it in that particular form from a feeling to- wards the honourable gentleman. (A loud laugh.) Dur- ing the examination this night, and last night, he had ob- served that questions had been put in an indefinite form, to which answers had been given that did not prove satis- factory to any body. To avoid all ambiguity, therefore, he had put the question in a direct shape, in order to afford the honourable member an opportunity of giving an an- swer. It was the honourable member who had the con- versation with Mrs. Clarke, and it was he, therefore, that was competent to draw the conclusion. Mr. Barham thought that it was more a question of conclusion than of fact, and the honourable gentleman could not be called on not only to give his own opinion, but his opinion of the opinions of others. - Mr. Croker said he had done his duty in putting the question, it was for the honourable gentleman to answer it as he thought fit, and the Committee to require what ap- peared to them necessary. º Mr. Wardle—“I was anxious to get the letters, but made no direct promise that I am aware of.” Mr. Reid was called for, but was not in attendance. Mr. Beresford rose to put a few questions to the honourable member (Mr. Wardle), whilst the Committee was at a stand waiting for the witness. Lord Folkestone rose to order. He thought the proceed- ing which had just taken place, of the most indecent de- scription. The witness who was under examination had been ordered to withdrawathis instance, becausehe thought it would not be proper to call in the other witness while she was still at the bar. That suggestion had, however, been over-ruled, and Mr. Reid was called for ; but when it was found that he was not in attendance, the gentleman opposite had resorted to a kind of interlude, in Q $84. ME, wARDLE's EXAMINATIONº. a course of indecent examination of his honourable friend, in order to eke out the time till their witnesses should arrive. He must add, that it was no improper representation of the whole to call it a highly indecent, improper, and indecorous proceeding. Mr. Beresford replied, that the representation made by the noble lord of his conduct, was neither a faithful, just, nor a true representation. He had not communi- cated with any body about him as to the questions he had to put, and had acted solely upon a sense of his duty, think- ing the time he rose the most convenient to put his ques- tions to the honourable ruember. Unless the Committee should stop him, he should, if not then, at least before he left the House, put those questions to the honourable mem- ber. Lord Folkestone disclaimed any idea of accusing the honourable member of having communicated with others. It was the whole tenor of the examination that he com- plained of. The Chancellor of the Erchequer begged to offer an observation on the censure which the noble lord had thought proper to cast upon some persons, whom he chose to consider as a corporate body, in bestowing that censure for the course that the examination had taken, The ob- ject he had himself in view in calling in Mr. Reid was, that, as Mr. Reid had given evidence as to the female who passed at his hotel as Mrs. Dowler, and it was im- possible he could state her to have been the witness at the bar, he might, by appearing with her at the bar, be enabled to ascertain that fact. Upon inquiry, however, it was found that Mr. Reid was not in attendance, and whilst the Committee had to wait for his appearance, he was himself prepared to make that statement, to which he proposed to call the attention of the Committee after the case was closed on the other side. Mr. Reid had been sent for, but in the mean time several members thought proper to put questions to the honourable gentleman, out. of which had arisen that debate which incurred the cen- sure of the noble lord, and in which he had himself taken no part. He could assure the Committee, that no indivi- dual had communicated with him on the subject of the Questions that they had put, and which called down the animadversion which began with him singly, and was af. terwards extended to others. As Mr. Reid was not yet. () MR. waRDLE’s ExAMINATION. 385 come, if the Committee would permit him and the othar gentlemen upon whom the noble lord’s censure had fallen, and would consent to let the matter rest here, he was pre- pared to state a fact which had been ten or twelve days in his knowledge, and which had been communicated to several gentlemen upon both sides of the House. He had reserved the communication of this fact till the case had been closed, and if the Committee should be of opinion that the circumstance ought to have been communicated earlier, the fault was entirely with him. His Royal Highness had wished him to make the statement earlier to the Committee, and consequently he alone was culpable if it had been improperly withheld. The fact he had to state was, the suppression of testimony as to one of the charges which had been brought before the Committee, namely, that with respect to Major Tonyn's case. It ap- peared by the minutes, that a sum of money had been lodgéºl by Captain Tonyn to be paid to Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Donovan in the event of his promotion taking place. it appeared, also, that after some time, Captain Tonyn be- came impatient, and demanded his security back in May or June. (Here the right honourable gettleman referred to the parts of the minutes of the evidence of Mrs. Clarks and Captain Sandon relative to that part of the transac- tion.) The important suppression to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee was in the evidence of Captain Sandon. But before he menſioned the circum- stance, he should state to the Committee the manner in which he received the information. On Saturday se’naight. a letter had been delivered to him by Colonel Hamilton, from his learned friend opposite (Mr. Adam), acquainting him that Colonel Hamilton had an important communica- tion to make. He saw Colonel Hamilion a few minutes: after he waited on him, and learned from him, what he, collected from Captain Sandon, since his arrival in Eng- land from abroad. Colonel Hamilton was an officer in the Waggon Train, to winich. Captain Sandon also be. longed. On his arrival in England, Colonel Hamilton, learned the state of things with respect to the charges brought forward in that, and, amongst others, that re. specting Major Tonyn's case. Colonel Hamilton then sent for Captain Sandon, who stated to him all he knew of the transaction, being all he had stated at the bar of the House afterwards, with the ºption of what he had sup> r 2 - 2S6 M.R. w ARDLE’s ExAMINATIon. pressed. Captain Sandon said, that when Major Tonyn became impatient, he went to state the circumstance to Mrs. Clarke, who sent him back to Major Tonyn to inform him that she had received a note from the Duke of York re- specting his case, which note was shewn to Major Tonyn by Captain Sandon. The note was, “I received your note, and Tonyn's case shall remain as it is.” This note was intended to shew that the person to whom it was writ- ten had influence, and in consequence Major Tonyn con- sented to let his security remain. When Major Tonyn was gazetted, Captain Sandon was directed to shew him another note, purporting to have been written by the Duke of York, and stating, “Tonyn will be this night gazetted.” The former note Captain Sandon shewed to Colonel Hamil- ton, and said, that he thought it would be the best course to destroy it. Colonel Hamilton, on the contrary, strongly dissuaded him from destroying so material a part of the evidence. The other note had been given to Major Tonyn by Captain Sandon, but was not afterwards given back. Colonel Hamilton mentioned the matter to his learned friend, and, by his advice, went to Captain Sandon, when he obtained a copy of the note, and again repeated his injunction to the captain not to destroy the note. He understood that Captain Sandon, when he came to Lon- don, proposed to see Mr. Lowten, agent for his Royal Highness, and also to wait on Mrs. Clarke, in order to his being examined by each. His learned friend had sent Colonel Hamilton to him, and followed soon after himself. It appeared to him, as he trusted it would to the Commit- tee, that his learned friend and himself should instruct Colonel Hamilton as to the course which Captain Sandon should pursue. They recommended that he should not submit to be examined either by Mr. Lowten or Mrs. Clarke, but keep himself clear of all interference on either side, until he should come to the bar, but above all things not to destroy the paper. These were the in- structions which had been given to Colonel Hamilton. It would also strike the Committee that his communication ought to have been made to his Royal Highness the Com- mander in Chief. But whatever might be the result of the investigation then pending, neither he, nor his learned friend, as members of parliament, could, consistently with a sense of duty, make themselves the depositaries of this secret. As it had been communicated to them they felt MR. war DLE’s ExAMINATIon. 387 they were bound to make it public. The communication of the circumstance, had been made to the Commander in Chief late on Saturday. His Royal Highness utterly denied all knowledge of the matter, and declared the note to be a forgery. The Commander in Chief came shortly after to his house with his learned friend, and restated with the strongest conviction, upon the best efforts of his memory, that he had no knowledge of the matter, and that he wished it to be sifted to the bottom. As to the fact of the note re- lating to the appearance of Major Tonyn's name in the Gazette, his Royal Highness could not be so positive. He could not state that he night not have written such a note, in answer to a note which might have been addressed to him ; he could not call the circumstance to mind. The other note, however, his Royal Highness most positively denied having written. His learned friend had stated what passed between Colonel Hamilton and Captain San- don, who acted as it was wished he should. He told Colonel Hamilton that he would come here, and, as he did, tell the truth, but that he had destroyed the note. When they found that the note had been destroyed, they ceased to have any communication with Captain Sandon, and left him to come to the bar, and state what case he should think proper. He had come to the bar, but had suppressed this important feature in his evidence, which, whether the note were a forgery or not, ought to be com- municated to the Committee, in order that, if a forgery, the authors might be detected and punished, and, if not, that it might have its due weight in the pending investi- gation. He had thought it his duty to make this commu- nication to the Committee; and if there was any impro- priety in having delayed it till this period, the fault was his, though he had reason to suppose it ought to have been brought out in the examination of evidence at an earlier period of the inquiry. Mr. Adam observed, that the right honourable gentle- man who just sat down, had stated this most important circumstance with so much correctness, clearness, and accuracy, that little more remained for him than to cor- roborate his statement. The honourable member then briefly recapitulated the several facts mentioned by the former speaker, and stated, that in his interview with the Commander in Chief, his Royal Highness distinctly and clearly disavowed ever having written such a note. 2 C 388 cAPTAIN SANDON's ExAMINATION. On the day subsequent to the interview, Colonel Ha- milton mentioned to him the destruction of the note. It was then agreed between him and the right hon- ourable gentleman, that they should both make com- munication of the circumstances to certain gentlemen on cach side of the House. The right honourable gentle- man had done so to his side, and he to a noble lord (Lord H. Petty), an honourable member near him (Mr. Whit- bread), and another. Captain HUXLEY SANDON was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: - You were examined the other day on the subject of Major Tonyn's promotion; did you on that occasion state all the particulars you re- collected of that transaction ? To the best of my récollection I did. You did not keep back any important fact? No, not that I re- collect. You stated that Major Tonyn was dissatisfied with the delay ; that you observed to him, that he had better wait for a few days, ior that you thought in all probability he would be gazetted; and, after, ar- guing the point for a little, he said, for two or three Gazettes it does hot signify; let the business go on; and if i find I am gazetted in a week or ten days, the business Shall be as it originally was I believe that was what I mentioned. And that was what then passed ? That is what I can bring to my re- collection. That is ali you can bring to your recollection? Yes. Did it pass in those words? As nearly as I can recollect. g Do you recollect any of the arguments you used to persuade Major Tonyn to think that this friend of your's had an opportunity of in: fluencing the Duke Not particularly; I told him I thought he had better wait two or three gazettes, and most probably he would be gazetted; indeed I had reason to suppose that it would : that was all that I can recollect. & Did you inform Mirs. Clarke of Mr. Tonyn's inclination to withdraw his money 2 Yes, I did; I waited upon Mrs. Clarke, which Irelated before, and told her he was dissatisfied at the delay, and desired he might have his memorandum again, which was for the 500 guineas: Do you recollect what passed with Mrs. Clarke upon that? Mrs. Clarke said he was a shabby fellow, but she wanted money, and begged that I would desire him to stop for a few days, and most probably he would be gazetted. s That is all that you can recollect that she desired? That is all that I can recollect she desired. You are quite sure of this . To the best of my recollection. Recollect yourself thoroughly that you may not be taken by sur- prise ; will you now continue to state, that, to the best of your recol- lection, this was all that passed ? I think it is all that passed, that is Iny opinion. & Do you recollect whether there was any paper shown to Major CAPTAIN SAN Don’s ExAMINATION. 389 Tonyn in the course of that conversation? A paper, how do you mean 2 Was there any paper shewn to Major Tonyn 2 Mrs. Clarke gave me a note that I should shew to him. Then you did not state all that passed ? I took her note to say that he had better wait. A note from Mrs. Clarke 2 Not immediately a note from Mrs. Clarke to him ; she said, shew him this note, that he had better wait. He doubted that; he doubted that I had any body that I could apply to, he doubted my ability to get the situation. Then you did use some other arguments than those you stated in your evidence by the production of this note? I merely said I thought this was the business. I did not mention who it was that was the inte- rest; I said I had a paper which would shew that probably he had better wait; merely to say, that he had better wait. What was the note to say, that Major Tonyn had better wait? That I cannot recollect, I cannot charge my memory what it was. Do you recollect from whom the note was? From Mrs. Clarke. A note from Mrs. Clarke to yourself? Yes, merely to say that if he would wait a little time he would have it. The note you shewed was a note from Mrs. Clarke to yourself, to prevail upon Major Tonyn to think he had better wait? hether the note was addressed to me, or to any other person, I cannot say; but it was said, you had better take this note, and shew to him, and let him see, that if he will wait the thing will be carried through. e Your recollection is, that it was to the effect of advising Major iºn to wait a little while 2 To wait with patience for a few Gazette 3.V.S. †hat is the substance of it? That was the substance of it, as well as I remember. Did you see Mrs. Clarke write the note when you called upon her ? I do not recollect that I did. You are not sure that you did not I am neither sure that I did, nor that I did not, she was very impatient about the money. You have no recollection whether you saw her write the note or not 2 No. You are quite sure you received a note from her Yes, I am quite sure I received a note from her, Did you see Mrs. Clarke more than once, to communicate to her the doubts of Major Tonyn? I cannot recollect, I cannot call to my memory whether I did see her again. * There was not more than one note: No, I had only that piece of paper which I mentioned. Do you recollect what you did with the note; did you give it to Major Tonyn That I do not recollect, whether I gave it to Major Tonyn, or what became of the note. * You really do not recollect? No, I do not. Though you are not quite sure whether you saw Mrs. Clarke write the note or not, are you certain whether it was Mrs. Clarke's hand- writing? I cannot pretend to say, I rather think it was. Have you always stated this part of the case in the same way; I believe I have, I think I have. *. Did you never tell any body that this note was a note in the hand- 390 CAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATION. writing of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? Not that I re- collect. Are you sure of that? I am very confident of it. When did you first hear of these charges against his Royal Highness the Duke of York? I landed at Plymouth, I think, on the 24th of the month, and in coming from Plymouth to Portsmouth, by accident I took up the Traveller, and there I read these charges. Do you know Colonel Hamilton Perfectly well; I have the ho- nour of being in the regiment with him. Did you represent to Colonel Hamilton this part of the story in the way you have represented it now I certainly asked Colonel Hamil- ton's advice how I should act upon the business, being the Colonel of the regiment I belonged to, and I related chiefly what I knew of the business. What you have stated now? Yes. Recollect yourself; did you not state to Colonel Hamilton that the note which you shewed to Major Tonyn was in the hand-writing of the Duke of York? I do not recollect that I did. Could you have done so I should imagine not. Are you sure you did not shew him the note : If I had, I certainly should not have forgotten it. That is not quite an answer to the question? I had not the note to 6°W. Did you not either give or permit Colonel Hamilton to take a copy of this very note that we are talking of Not that I know of. You surely must know that fact, whether you gave him a copy, or gave him an opportunity of taking a copy of this note 2 I really can- not bring it to my recollection. If you had not the note in your possession, you surely would be able to bring to your recollection whether you gave him an opportunity of º it? I rather think there was something of a note. hen was it that you now begin to recollect there was something of a note 2 It must be when Colonel Hamilton took the note, or saw the note. Then he did take the note : He must have seen the note of course, if he took a copy of it. You told me you thought he did not take a copy of it? I cannot pretend to say whether he took a copy of it. Do you mean to say, that there was or was not a note referable upon this subject, which you shewed to Colonel Hamilton? Yes, I think there was a note. t Was it the same note you shewed to Major Tonyn ! That I do not recollect; I rather suppose it must have been the note that I did shew to Major Tonyn." g Did you tell Colonel Hamilton that it was the same note? I do not recollect that circumstance āt all, whether I did tell Colonel Hamilton it was the same note. * Your memory, at the first time a question is put to you, is not always so perfect as it is afterwards; do you recollect whether you did represent it to Colonel Hamilton as the same note you had shewn to Mºº I shewed Colonel Hamilton the note. ſou now recollect that there was a note, and that you shewed it to Colonel Hamilton? Yes, perfectly. CAPTAIN SANDoN’s ExAMINATION. 391 What is become of that note 2 I believe the note is mislaid. When did you see it last? I saw it about six days ago, I think. A note that you did not recollect to have been in existence when you began your examination, you now recollect to have been in existence six days ago? Yes. * Have you looked for it lately 2. Yes. When? Yesterday, and the day before. { This note, which you did not recollect to have been in existence? It is true; could I have found it, I should have brought it. I think you were examined just six days ago? Was it six; I really do not recollect the day. Did you see that note the day of your last examination ? It might be the day after, or the day, but I cannot recollect which. You have done all you could within these few days to find it? I certainly have. Are you quite sure you have not actually destroyed it? That I am very confident I have not. R. you quite sure that you have not said you had destroyed it? No, never did I say that i}. destroyed it to any body. Did you not tell Colonel Hamilton that you had destroyed it? No. That you are positive off That I am certain of . Did Č. amilton ever desire you not to destroy it? . Colonel Hamilton desired me to speak everything that I knew, and to shew everything I had. Did he not expressly desire you to copy that paper, and not to de- stroy it? He desired me not to destroy any paper P had. H. he not expressly desire you not to destroy that paper? Cer- tainly. # he not do that more than once? I am sure I do not know; I have not more than once conversed with him. You had conversation with him at Portsmouth, had not you? Yes, but § did not know that I had this paper, for I hardly knew it InVSelf, ź. not you tell him you had a paper which you might destroy if you pleased ?, No. You are quite sure of that? Yes. p And that he did not advise you upon that occasion not to destroy it? If I had had any idea, I might have destroyed it without telling him; I told him, and he advised me not to destroy it. Where was this At Portsmouth. Had he it at Portsmouth? I had not the paper with me at Ports- mouth, I told him I thought there was a note in existence. Upon that occasion he did advise you not to destroy it? He did advise me not to destroy it; he said, do not you destroy a single thing. / When was it that Colonel Hamilton took a copy of this paper? I believe it was the day after he came to town. Do you recollect where you were when he took this copy? It was at the Coffee-house. At what Coffee-house, in what part of the town? I think it is Southampton-row. p When Colonel Hamilton took this copy, did he again remark to you, that you should keep this paper, and not destroy it? He desired me not to destroy it. - 392 .e. ArrañN saw Don’s Examination. * Did he at no second time desire you not to destroy the paper? Certainly. - t; ... -T * Did you see Colonel Hamilton again in the course of the same day ? i rather think I did. - ... * Where did you see him 2 I saw him at the British Coffee-house. What did Colonel Hamilton say to you when you saw him at the i.” Coffee-house? It was upon régimental business I met him ſł. - - - - - There was noteference at all to this subject Nothing to this, I do not recollect a word. . . . Do not you recollect that he did upon that occasion also desire you not to destroy the note? No; I do not recollect that. g Did he not give you some advice with respect to your conduct re- i. to these charges? The same advice that he had given me €IOre. * - Which was, that you should not destroy the paper? To speak all I knew, and not destroy the paper; but this was in the morning, not at the second time when I saw him at the British Coffee-house; we came into the street together, he went one way, and H another. Then nothing passed between Colonel Hamilton and you upon the subject of these charges at the British Coffee-house? I do not recol- lect that there was. . - Do not you recollect Colonel Hamilton advising you not to suffer yourself to be examined upon the subject before you came to the bar of the House? I believe not at that period; he told me, when I was speaking to him in the morning, you had better be quiet upol, the sub- ject, say nothing to any body upon the subject, but when you are called, speak what you know, and do not destroy the paper. Bo you not recollect, that at the British Coffee-house, Colonel Hamilton advised you not to submit to examination, but to speak the truth when you came here; and above aii things, not to destroy that note * Not at the British Coffee-house. Did he, at any place subsequent to your meeting with him at the Coffee-house in Southampton-row, in the eourse of that day I do not think I have seen him more than three times since I have been in London, and he has been with his regiment at Croydon. .. .* T You did see him a second time that morning? At the British Coffee-house. - And upon the occasion of seeing him at that Coffee-house, or your going from that Coffee-house, did he not repeat this advice I do not recollect that he did." 1 - t 2 Do you not recollect stating to Colonel Hamilton that you would follow his advice, but that he would be very angry with you, for that since he had seen you last you had destroyed that paper? Never such a conversation took place between us. - Neither at that time or any other No. You "s: stated to Colonel Hamilon that you had destroyed that paper? No. - id §º tell Colonel Hamilton that there was another paper that #. had shewn to Major Tonyn, when the promotion was gazetted * I had not another letter, I could not tell him that. * it does not follow that because you had not it, you could net tell hina you had had it? I never had it. - Did you tell him you had had it? No. cAPTAIN SANDoN’s ExAMINATIon. 393 You did not tell him you had had it, and given it to Major Tonyn? No. - When did you see this paper last? I think it is about five or six days ago. - Where? In my own room. w -- Have you seen it since you were examined last? No. Are you sure of that? Sure of it. - You stated, just now, you had seen it either the day befere, or the dav after That was the time I saw it. - 1Bid any body else see it at that time? Not that I recollect. - Have you shewn it to any body else besides Colonel Hamilton since you have been in town No. Where did you put it when you saw it last? Among some other papers which I had in my bureau. ou are quite confident you have not got it now . I have mislaid it. somewhere. - Nº. you carry it about with you in your pocket at any time? ever. - Was it with you when you were in Spain? No. How came it to be with you in the Coffee-house in Southampton- row, if you never carried it about with you? To shew Colonel Hamilton. Had you it with you when you were at the British Coffee-house? O. - Had you gone home between being at the Coffee-house in South- ampton-row and coming to the British Coffee-house? Yes. Where do you live? In Lyon's Inn. You stated that Mrs. Clarke gave you the note in question ? Yes. Did you read the note when she gave it to you? I believe I did. Was it a sealed note or an open note : An open note. - You stated that you had not the note with you abroad; where did you lodge before you went abroad 2 At Lyon's Inn. Did you leave your papers at Lyon's Inn? Certainly. The note you say was not a sealed note; to whom was it directed? I do not recollect that it had any address. . You surely must recollect when you read the note; did you read it when Mrs. Clarke delivered it to you? . It is so long ago I do not re- collect; it is five years ago nearly, and I cannot charge my memory whether I read it or not. Were you not to receive some pecuniary consideration from some person of other on the gazetting of Major Tonyn Not a farthing. Why were you so anxious that Major Tonyn should wait a few days in hopes of his being gazetted 2 To oblige Mrs. Clarke, who wanted the money exceedingly. - Were you confident that he would be gazetted in a few days, from the influence of Mrs. Clarke? No; I doubted her influence very much then. s Can you, by any possibility, now produce the note? It is not about II, C. f - Can you, by any possibility, now produce the note * If I can pos- sibly find it, I will produce it. - Is it possible that you should find it? I have searched every where, and I cannot find it. & - . . . 394 cAPTAIN sandon’s ExAMINATION. Is it possible that you should find it? I should hope it is pos- sible. What is the ground of that hope Having put it among other pa- ers in my bureau. to- *. Is it then in the bureau? That I do not know. Has any body access to that bureau but yourself? Now and then my wife. Do you know that that note is now in the possession of your wife or any other person? Not to the best of my knowledge. º k 3.We R. given that note into the possession of any body to be ept? O. * Have you given it into the possession of any person to be handed to another person to be kept? R. - Is it or is it not destroyed? Not, to the best of my knowledge. Have you given it to any person to be destroyed? Never, to the best of my knowledge; I have not destroyed it. Do you know that it is destroyed? I am pretty clear that it is not destroyed. - r If you are pretty clear that it is not destroyed, where did you put it when you last had it? Among some papers in my bureau. Have you the key of that bureau now about you? No, I believe my wife has it. What makes you so clear that it is not destroyed? Because I never desired it should be destroyed. When you say you never desired it should be destroyed, that answer has reference to some other person to whom that desire must have been expressed, if you have desired it; whom do you mean when you refer to some other person, to whom such desire must have been expressed ? I know of no other person in the business. Then what do you mean by saying you never desired it should be dº I was asked if I had desired it should be destroyed, and I Sal Ci IIC). d You were asked whether it was destroyed? And I said, not by my €SII’e. You neither destroyed it yourself, nor desired any other person to destroy it? No. | Then it is in existence? I should hope it is. You say that you put this paper into a bureau with other papers, when did you do that? I believe it was at the time, of course the last time I saw it, which might be five or six days ago. How long was it before you were examined here before? I do not recollect. In what room in your house is this bureau, in which you say you put it? It is in my sitting room; I have but one sitting-room. Have you j that bureau for it since? I have looked for it, but could not find it. - Have you examined the papers in that bureau, to see whether it is among them? I have a variety of papers, it may be among them ; I have searched, but could not find it. Do you mean to say you have searched in that bureau for it? Yes, You have said that you saw this paper six days ago, was that the same paper which was given to you by Mrs. Clarke; I think it was. Are you sure that it was? I am very certain that it was, tapTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATION. 395 Tid you read it six days ago? No. . If you did not read it six days ago, how are you sure it was the same paper you received from Mrs. Clarke? It is a remarkable piece of paper, and I could not forget it. T) hat was there remarkable in the paper but the writing on it irty. - º, have said that you saw the paper six days ago, and that you looked for it two days ago; where did you look for it two days ago? Where I had supposed I had put it, in the bureau. You said that you left it six days ago with other papers in a bureau; º you looked two days ago, were the other papers there? I think they are. - º this paper was the only one then missing? It appeared so to me. Who had the key of your bureau, between this six days ago and the two days ago? Sometimes myself, sometimes my wife, sometimes it is left in the bureau. Do you think that if a messenger was sent with you now to your rooms, you could find the papers? I really do not know. What do you believe I really cannot tell ; I looked two or three times for it, and I could not find it two days ago; it is mislaid in some place or other. - What reason had you, in the beginning of your evidence this night, for saying you did not believe such a paper had ever existed It was a very unpleasant circumstance, and I would have wished to have for- gotten it. What circumstance do you mean was unpleasant? The whole of the business I thought unpleasant. w Why did you, having come to the bar of this house to disclose every thing else you knew upon the subject, think this circumstance particu- larly unpleasant? I did not think this circumstance particularly, but the whole of it, as I mentioned before, unpleasant. - When you shewed this note to Colonel Hamilton, and he took a copy of it, did you at that time read it? No, I did not. r hen you first mentioned the note to Colonel Hamilton, how did you describe it Speaking of the promotion of Major Tonyn, I said there was a note in my possession i. mentioned something about his promotion. By whom did you state that note to have been written ? I cannot take upon me to say. . . . Can you take upon yourself to say you did not state it to have been written by the Duke of York? I never saw the Duke of York’s hand- writing, and therefore I could not. Can you take upon yourself to say you did not state it to have been written by the Duke of York I certainly could not. Did you ? No, I did not. Did you state it to have been written in the name of the Duke of York 2 No. -. In whose name did you state it to have been written ? I stated no Flame. w - As you permitted Colonel Hamilton to take a copy of this note, did you yourself take a copy of it? No; having the original, there was no OCCàSIOI. Did you think this a note of any importance : No, I did not. * w 396 cAPTAIN SANDon's ExAxin Affon. Was the copy Colonel Hamilton took of the note a correct copy? I “do not know. . . . — = 7 ---. * Did you read the copy which Colonel Hamilton took? No. - Was there any signature to the note : Tothe best of my recollection, JOpé, -- -- - * - Did you know whose hand-writing it was: No. . . Bo you know Mrs. Clarke's hand-writing 2 Sometimes. # Was it in her hand-writing? I really cannot take upon me to say. Did you ever see her write Repeatedly. : Does Mrs. Clarke write in different hand-writings, or always in her own I have repeatedly had notes from Mrs. Clarke, which have been written so differently, that I could not have supposed them to be the same person’s writing. . . Have you, either before or after you communicated this note to Colonel Hamilton, had any conversation or communication with any person whatever respecting that note Not to the best of hy recollec- tion. . . . . . . Was any person present, six days ago, and two days ago, when you were searching for this note? No. # -- You are sure there was no person in the room at that time No, except my wife, she might be in the room. . # -- Had your wife and you any conversation upon this subject? Of course, a great deal, which we have every day. " Did she ever state to you she had destroyed the note? Never. Did she ever state to you that she had delivered it to any other person Never. Did you ever desire her to take it out of the bureau ? Never. How was the copy taken Colonel Hamilton copied it. * Was it compared with the original after it was copied? Not that I $now of. - - Where did you put it after it was copied ? Into my pocket-book. With other papers, or singly 3 Singly. . Did you go home from the coffee-house? Immediately. How did you deposit it in the bureau ? By putting it into the bureau. Did you put it in a bundle with any other papers ? Not that I re- collect. F - - - # Endeavour to answer positively to questions within your own know- ledge? I cannot recollect whether I did or not. . i Have you searched all your bundles of papers as well as your loose papers? Generally speaking, I think I have. g How can you undertake to say, it is not in your bureau, if you have not searched all your papers? I think I have searched all my papers. When you met Colonel Hamilton at the British Coffee-house, you say you did not tell him it was destroyed? Certainly not. Did you say any thing to him about the note I had no conversation with him upon the subject. t s * Then you did not say to him, that “ they had forgot the note?” *No, “they forgot it.” - . Any such words as that? No. - What is it makes this particular circumstance of the note so unplea- sant to you? It is no further unpleasant than my losing the note ; if I could find it I should produce it with the greatest pleasure, , , . " Did not you say, that the reason for your not admitting that you cAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATION. 307 knew of this note, at the beginning of this examination, was, that it was an unpleasant circumstance that you wished to forget: The whole of the business I conceive to be unpleasant, and I was very’sorry that I had any thing to do with it. What is there particularly unpleasant in the circumstance of this note * My having lost it or mislaid it. - #. can the circumstance of your having lost it, induce you to deny your ever having had it? From the reason that it was unpleasant throughout the whole. - + What is the unpleasantness you conceive in confessing you have lost it, if it be true? I should be very sorry that I had lost it, and I hope I shall find it. ºr What is the unpleasantness you conceive in confessing you have lost it, if it, be true? †. is the unpleasant part, that I have lost it. What is the unpleasant part That ſhave lost it. How can the circumstance of your having lost it, induce you to deny your ever having had it? From the reason that it was unpleasant throughout the whole. Did you not deny, at the first part of your examination, that you had such a note? I conceived that I had not the note. Were you asked whether you had not the note now, or whether such a note had ever been in existence? I was asked, in the first instance, whether the note was in existence, or whether a note was in existence, and I.believe I doubted it; since which I have recollected it. [The witness was directed to withdraw. [It was moved and seconded, that Captain Huxley Sandon, in his examination before this Committee, has been guilty of gross. prevarication; which being put, was carried nean. con.] . . [The chairman was then directed to report this circumstance to the house, and ask leave to sit again.] The Serjeant at Arms having taken Captain Huxley Sandon into custody, by order of the House, a request from him was com- municated to the House, that he might be brought to the bar; which being done, he addressed the house as follows: I most humbly hope that this honourable House will do me the honour of excusing my prevarication; and I beg to assure them it is not from a bad heart, but a confused head. I am exceedingly sorry I have done any thing to displease this honourable. House. I come here to offer every thing in atonement I possibly can, and I hope the house will do me the honour to hear me. hi Mr. Speaker. If the prisoner has more to offer to the House, this is is time. - Capt. Sándon. With regard to the evidence Is it to the evidence I am to speak? ... Mr. Speaker. You will offer to the House whatever you think be- comes your case and situation. t Capt. Sandon. ºft. of the House for my prevarication, and I beg that the House will do me the honour to excuse my extraordina behaviour; and will be assured, that all I have, and all I know now certainly will relate. With regard to the note in question, it is not destroyed; I have it in my possession at my chambers; if it is required I can gº and fetch it; I think ſcan put my hands upon it; the note * 398 Mrs. CLARKE's ExAMINATIow, that you were speaking of was given me to shew Major Tonyti, and to say that his promotion would not go on unless he paid the money. took the note, and produced it to Major Tonyn, with that message. I shewed him the note, with what I mentioned before, desiring him to wait three or four days. I believe he said what I related to this honour. able House before, that he would, in consequence of this note which I shewed him. I brought back the note, and I have it now in my pos: session. He was gazetted, and the 500l. was paid to Mrs. Clarke, and the 25l. to Mr. Donovan. If this honourable House would wish to see' the note, I will go and fetch it. As to who wrote the note, I cannot take upon me to say: Mrs. Clarke told me it was written by the Duke of York. Mr. Speaker. Does the prisoner desire to add more ? Capt. Sandon. I have nothing more to say relative to that; I only humbly hope the House will do me the honour of excusing me the pre- varication I made use of. - [The prisoner was then taken from the bar; and the House de- termined that he should be sent in custody to his chambers to fetch the papers; and that he should be brought before the Committee of the whole House whenever they should see fit.] [After some time the Committee was resumed.] Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in and examined by the Committee, as follows: Do you recollect what passed between you and Captain Sandon in consequence of any application from Major Tonyn, expressing his im- patience at the length of time that elapsed before he procured his ap- pointment No; I really do not know, although I have been reading Captain Sandon's evidence just now in the room I have been in. Do you mean the evidence he gave on a former day when he was examined 2 Yes. In the 5th number of the minutes? I believe it is one of the last that has been printed. You do not recollect Captain Sandon's coming to you at all upon the subject? I recollect that Captain Sandon was employed by Major Tonyn ; I am confident as to that. Do you recollect Captain Sandon's at any time acquainting you with Major Tonyn's impatience upon the subject: No, I do not, although I, have been reading about it. - You do not remember any representation having been made to you by Captain Sandon, that Major Tonyn intended to withdraw the de- posit he had made, in consequence of delay: No, I do not recollect it; though he might have, perhaps, mentioned it. * Do you recollect having sent any message to Major Tonyn by Cap- tain Sandon I cannot recollect that I did; perhaps it is º but it is a long while since. - Do you recollect having sent any paper to Major Tonyn by Captain Sandon What sort of paper. s = Any paper ? I could speak more positively if it was mentioned what sort of paper. - Any written paper? Of my own writing, or any other person's 2 Any written paper? I do not recollect; I was always very cautious of giving any written paper out of my hands. MRs. CLAR KE’s ExAMINATION. 399 As far as you recollect, you have not sent any written paper to Ma- jor Tonyn? I do not think I did, but I cannot speak positively. As you were so cautious in putting any paper out of your hands, would you not have recollected that circumstance if it had occured? If he meant to insinuate that there was any writing of the Duke of York's, I never did in my life to any one. You are quite sure you never committed any paper to Captain San- don, which you represented as the writing of the Duke of York? I am guite certain, not to any one whatever, except lately, and once to Mr. Manners a few notes. ... If you had sent such a paper by Captain Sandon to Major Tonyn, is it possible that you could have forgotten it? No, I should not have for- gotten any thing of that sort belonging to the Duke of York. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Hovenden I was. Do you recollect at any time having received a note from the Duke of York upon the subject of Major Tonyn 2 No, I do not; there was no ºccasion for any notes to pass, because I was in the habit of seeing his Royal Highness every day, except he was in the country, and that happened perhaps only for a week or ten days in one year. Did you ever hear Captain Sandon say, that he had shewn a note to Major Tonyn, which purported to be a note of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? No. i You are not aware of any note, purporting to be a note of the Duke of York, being shewn Major Tonyn by Captain Sandon 2 No, I am quite clear nothing of the sort was ever mentioned to me before. Do you mean to state, that you did not give any note to Capt. San- don which might appear to be a note of the Duke of York No. You stated that you sent some notes to Mr. Manners; do you mean : º; that those were in the hand-writing of the Duke of York : Cer- ainly I do. Did you or did you not send any note to Captain Sandon I never recollect sending him any note, but more especially any note of the º of York’s, because I should have been afraid of entrusting it to III]. [The following questions and answers were read: “Q. As you were so cautious in putting any paper out of your hands, would you not have recollected that circumstance if it had occurred A. If he meant to insinuate that there was any writing of the Duke of York's, I never did in my life to any one. Q. You are quite sure you never committed any paper to Capt. Sandon, which you represented as the writing of the Duke of York A. I am quite certain not to any one what- ever, except lately, and once to Mr. Manners a few notes.] How does it occur to you to think that Captain Sandon might have insinuated any such thing Because I think he might have insinuated anything; I think he is very equal to it. f Captain Sandon has presented any note to Major Tonyn, purport- ing to be a note written by the Duke of York, and given to him by you, is it true? I do not think it is, and I am almost sure it is not; perhaps he has written one himself. e During the negotiation with Major Tonyn for the majority, was any representation made to you by Captain Sandon, that Major Tonyn 400 Mrs. cI.ARKE's ExAMINATIow. was tired of waiting, and threatened to withdraw the money he had des posited I do not recollect it. . -" Did you ever express to Captain Sandon a wish on your part that Major 3. would not be impatient, because you wanted the money ‘which you were to receive upon his success? No, that would be the very reason I should wish him to be impatient. In the last interview you had with Captain Sandon upon the subject of Major Tonyn, did he write any thing in your presence 2 It is impos- sible for me to say, it is so long since. Do you recollect Captain Sandon having read any thing to you in that interview 2 No, I do not. - Do you recollect a paper being produced before you by Captain San- don at that interview I do not. - - Did you ever express, here or any where else, that Major Tonyn was a shabby fellow, for his impatience in wishing to withdraw his note : No, I thought him a perfect gentleman when Mr. Donovan introduced. him to me, and wished him to be made a lieutenant-colonel previous to * to America; I fancy he is in America now. Had Captain Sandon any and what interest in the success of this ne- gotiation respecting Major Tonyn? Yes, I believe he effected it with me; there was no promotion in the 48th regiment, the Duke of York. had stopped it, *i. for two years, and the Captain was very eager to get out of it on that account. Was Captain Sandon to have any per centage or proportion of the profit arising from the success of the negotiation, and payment to be made upon Major Tonyn's success in his application for promotion? I believe that he was, for I have understood from a great many persons, that Major Tonyn was a very generous sort of man, and Captain San- don would not have interested himself so much as he did for him with- out some reward. Did you ever understand from Captain Sandon himself that he ex- pected any such advantage 2 Yes, I did, and from every one that he mentioned to me. - - Before you came to the bar of this House, had you any information of the substance of the examination of Captain Sandon before the Com- mittee to-night? Not the least: [The following Question and Answer were read. “ Q. As you were so cautious in putting any paper out of your hands, would ou not have recollected that circumstance if it had occurred 2 A. If he meant to insinuate that there was any writing of the Duke of York's, I never did in my life to any one.”] Why did you suppose that the person proposing that question meant to . to º: 'º. of the Duke of º; ? #rom what one of the gentlemen said to me. .. e - * Do you mean any question which has been put to you since you came to the barf Certainly. - i. question? The questions from the Chancellor of the Ex- Cilećller. Xid you give Captain Sandon any part of the profit you were,to re- ceive from the promotion of Major Tonyn? I do not recollect that I did, but he used to give himself, I believe, from Colonel French's moneys. * MR. REID’s ExAMINATION. 401 You did not give him any yourself? I do not recollect that I did. You have said, that you understood from Captain Sandon, that he was to derive some profit from the promotion of Major Tonyn; State what Captain Sandon said to you upon that subject. Only that m 500l. would be ciear, and that where he had his from would be from the other party, what emolument he was to get by it. Mr. REID being called in- * Mrs. Clarke.—Is there any precedent, may I ask, for having two witnesses at the bar of this House at one time? - Chairman.—I apprehend the Comunittee will call to the bar what witnesses they please. Mr. JOHN REID was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Do you know the witness at the bar Yes, I do. Did she ever come to your house under the name of Mrs. Dowler? By no other name. * Is the witness at the bar the person whom you represented as having been frequently at your house with Mr. Dowler? Yes. Mrs. Clarke.—Before Mr. Reid leaves the place, I beg leave to say, that I never said I was Mrs. Dowler; he might put what construction he thought proper upon it; it was very proper that he did, perhaps. (To Mr. Reid.) Did she ever answer to the name of Mrs. Dowler in your presence? To my servants, I have no doubt that was her an- Swer; upon all occasions whenever I spoke to her, I always, I suppose, said “Ma’am,” but if I mentioned any name, it was Mrs. Dowler. , Did you ever hear her addressed as Mrs. Dowler in your presence? Yes, I have. Did she answer to that address * Yes. * Did you ever hear her answer to the name of Clarke? I never heard her called by any other name but that of Mrs. Dowler; I never heard her called by the name of Clarke. r Did you believe her name to be Dowler? I had not a doubt of it. And you believed her to be married to Mr. Dowler I had not any doubt of that. Nº. nothing ever occur to induce you to entertain a doubt of that? eVer. - - You always believed the witness at the bar to be Mrs. Dowler, and the wife of Mr. Dowler? Yes, I mentioned that before, and I men- tioned a very particular circumstance why I thought so. . . . . . Have you ever heard Mrs. Clarke say that her name was Dowler? I never heard her mention her name at all. - + Would you not have been afraid of the credit of your house if yºu' had called her by any other name Good God! I should not have thought of any thing of the kind;... ! . . . . . * -- - - Did any letters ever come to Mrs. Clarke by any name whatsoever, while she was at your house? Not to my knowledge; they never came under my inspection, they came to the bar, - - - By whom did you ever hear her called Mrs. Dowler? By all those that spoke to her there; when they came to imy’hôüse, if they asked for t her at all, they asked for Mrs. Dowler. 3. 2 D * 402 M RS. co RRI's ExAMINATIox. Did Mr. Dowler ever call her Mrs. Dowler in your presence? Upon my word I could not take upon me to swear it, but I always understood it to be so, and I never had any doubt about it. By whom did you understand it to be so? By Mr. Dowler himself cº her Mrs. Dowler. * -- Did Mr. Dowler and that lady always come there together? No. Did Mr. Dowler lodge there at any time: Yes. And that lady came occasionally? Yes. Mrs. Clarke.—That was when the bailiffs were after me. (To Mr. Reid.) Were there many inquiries made at your house in the name of Mrs. Dowler 2 I seldom answer any inquiries at all, I leave my wife to do it; and it is the business of the bar-maid. [Mr. Reid was directed to withdraw. Mrs. Clarke.—May I speak a word; I merely wish to ask a question of some of the Crown Lawyers. [The Chairman informed the witness that could not be permitted.] (To Mrs. Clarke.) Do you know Mrs. Hovenden? Yes, I do. Was it at the period of time when she was under the protection of Mr. Dowler, brother to the Mr. Dowler who has been examined at the bar He has no brother. Were you in the habits of visiting the Taylor family when they lived at Bayswater? Yes. Do you know Mrs. Taylor very well ? Yes. Do you know Mr. Taylor ; , Yes. Did you know there was a Mr. Taylor Yes, Miss Taylor's father. Did you ever see Mrs. Taylor write 2 No, I cannot say that I did. You never have been in the habits of corresponding with her? No, only with Miss Taylor, and Mr. Dowler does not know Mrs. Hoven- den. Do you know a Mr. Chance, a stock-broker? No, I do not. Do not you know that the Mr.Taylor you speak of was Mr. Chance? No, I know he is not; I know he is Mr. Taylor. Do you recollect a circumstance about two or three years ago, of the Miss Taylor who was examined at this bar, being about to be married to a Mr. Knowles? No, I do not; I know there was a young man paid his addresses to her, I believe a physician, but I do not know that there was any marriage intended; I fancied she had not liked him. Do you not know that did not f on on account of her name not being Taylor? No, I do not, for I know her name is Taylor, and she has five brothers in his Majesty's service, who bear the same name; three in the army, and two in the navy. Do you know the age of Miss Taylor? No. Do you suppose her more than five or six and twenty? I cannot tell any thing about her age. Ł. you know that Mrs. Taylor is a widow, and not a married woman? No, I do not, because I know her husband. Did you keep a man cook at the time you lived in Gloucester-place? €S. Did you keep more than one? The man generally used to bring his assistant with him; it is a regular thing that when you have a man cook, that an assistant comes with him. * : You did not keep a man cook by the year 2 No, they staid a very short time with me, any one; his Royal Hºme is very difficult. [The witness was directed to withdraw. MRs. CóñRi’s ExAMīNATION. 403 Gwylly M LLOYD WARDLE, Esq. was examined in his place, ** as follows: Have you placed upon the table of this Committee all the correspon- dence you have had with Mrs. Clarke, relative to the accusations you ave brought forward?, No, certainly not. . . Have you any objection so to do? Yes, most assuredly, I have a very great objection. k - a Have you any objection to lay upon the table all those letters which you took from Mrs. Clarke? Those letters are already all laid upon the table; 1 do assure the honourable gentleman, I do not know that I have a letter of Mrs. Clarke's at this moment by me. Mrs. ALICE CORRI was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: - ... 4 Are you married to Mr. Corri, the music-master? Yes. How long have you been married? As near as I can recollect, five years next April. g Do you know Mrs. Clarke? Yes. Do you recollect a conversation that passed between Mrs. Clarke and your husband, yourself being present, with regard to certain papers which Mrs. Clarke expressed great anxiety to have burnt? Very little. Relate what passed upon that occasion, as far as you recollect, I recollect Mrs. Clarke telling Mr. Corri she was just going to him, that he came very apropos, for that there had been something satirically in- serted in the newspapers, something relative to a female Clerk; I can- not recollect the whole of it, not thinking that I should be called here; and she begged, if there were any letters, Mr. Corri would immediately burn them. - \ * .. Were you employed in burning them 2 Yes, Mr. Corri gave them to me. * . Did you actually destroy them all? . Not then; I did not destroy any of them at the time; I laid them in a box, and never thought of them till just before this proceeding began; I think last Saturday fort- night or three weeks, Mr. Anthony Corri, son of Mr. Corri, brought a newspaper to us, stating that his father would be called to the House of Commons; it immediately then came to my mind, that I had those Ketters by me, and he advised me to burn them; and he said, I had better not say any thing éither to his father or any body else, but to burn them; which I did two clays afterwards. . - . What motive did Mrs. Clarke assign for wishing to have those let- ters destroyed? I really do not know; I cannot say; I do not re- collect.it. . •. * * Did she not express a fear with respect to the Duke of York? I have something faint on my memory, but I could not say it positively; for the convésation was directed to Mr. Corri, and I overheard a word or two; I £º. thought of being calléd here, and therefore did not pay particula; attention to, it; I have a very faint idea, but cannot re. collect exactly. º º * Did any thing pass º: apprehension of the Duke's anger? I have some recollection, but I cannot positively say; it was something of the kind. r - 4 2 D 2 404 MR, whitram's examinArros, Did you ever peruse the letters that were in your possession ? I looked them slightly over before I burnt them. " - Are you sufficiently acquainted with the contents of the letters to speak positively as to the subject? I cannot recollect one word that was in them, for I was in a very great hurry, and very much afraid test Mr. Corri should know that I had disobeyed his command in not burning the letters sooner; and I burnt them as quick as possible. t [The witness was directed to withdraw. ...” Captain HUXLEY SANDON being brought in, in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Have you found the paper? I have. Have you got it with you? The messenger has it, and every other paper that I had that was connected with it. GEORGE WHITTAM, *. examined by the Committee, as Oi!CWS: Where did you find this paper? I found this letter in Captain San- don's bureau ; this is the letter, I understand, I was sent in search of particularly. - - Have you any other paper? There were two other letters of Mrs. Clarke's in the bureau, which Captain Sandon put into my hands. Any other letters any where else Here is a bundle of letters of Mrs. Clarke's principally; they were in this brown paper, and in Cap- tain Sandon's bed-room; they were taken out of the paper, and I sealed them up. [Mr. Whittam was directed to withdraw. (To Captain Sandon.) Look at that paper, and see whether it is the paper you shewed to Major Tonyn? I think it is. * Is that the paper you received from Mrs. Clarke? Yes, it is. You received it from her own hands? Yes, she gave it me. Was any one present at the time? I believe not. [The riote was read.] * I have just received your note, and Tonyn's business shall remain as it is—God bless you.” - Addressed,—“George Farquhar, Esq.” Did not Colonel Hamilton give you the advice which he had given you before, either at the British Coffee-house, or in the street near the ritish Coffee-house, on 3. meeting on the Saturday ? I do not re- collect that he mentioned anything in the street; in the Coffee-house he could not, for there were others in the same box; he said, will you come out, and we went out. Did he not when }. went out? We went out together. In the street did he not say something to you upon the subject? I do not recollect it. - Did he not desire you not to destroy the papers, and did you not say that he would be very angry with you, for that you had destroyed it? Never to my recollection. . . . . . . . . . What are the other papers which you have given in? They are letters from Mrs. Clarke to me. tº sº -- . Are they on the subject of Major Tonyn's business? Not precisely CAPTAIN SANDoN’s ExAMINATION. 405 i. Major Tonyn's business; upon the levy, and Major Tonyn's USIII eSS. What is the reason you denied having possession of this letter? I can urge nothing upon my behalf; and 1 hope this honourable House will do me the favour to excuse it. . Were you directed by any person to do so? No. f - What motive had you for so doing? I had no motive whatever; I am ashamed of myself for my conduct; I could have none. When you delivered that letter to Major Tonyn, did you deliver it open or sealed It was open. W. - You have stated that you considered this to be a paper of no im- portance; if you considered it to be a paper of no importance, assign any possible motive you could have for taking so much pains to con- ceal its existence? I can urge nothing. You must perceive there is a great deal of difference between being able to urge an excuse, and being able to assign a reason; you are not desired to give an excuse, but to assign any probable reason, because it appears that some reason you must have had : I can urge no reason whatever for it. Were not you conscious that you were telling a falsehood: I have already acknowledged that I am ashamed of what I have done. Then do you expect the Committee to believe that you came hither and told a falsehood deliberately, which you knew to be such at the time, without having any motive for so doing? I had no motive what- ever for doing so, but I again beg the House to do me the favour to excuse me for telling them that falsehood. - When Mrs. Clarke gave you that letter, did she tell you it was written by his Royal Highness the Duke of York? I do not exactly recollect whether she said it was written by him, but she said it came from him. Do you know the hand-writing of the Duke of York? I never saw it in my life, to my recollection. Did Mrs. Clarke at any time express any anxiety to recover the letter she had intrusted to you? No, she never mentioned it, and I never heard any thing more about it. -- Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of Mrs. Clarke? Yes, Does it appear to you that the note in question is the hand-writing of Mrs. Clarke? No, it does not. Have you had any communication with any other person on the subject of the production or non-production of that letter in this place? None. - Who is George Farquhar, Esq. to whom the letter is directed I really have no knowledge who he is. ; l You stated before, that Mrs. Clarke was used to write in different hands, do you now assert that? In the letters that are there you will find a vast variation in the hand. Did you ever see Mrs. Clarke write ... Repeatedly, * sºld you know her hand-writing if you saw it? Yes, I think I should. - Do you or do you not know who wrote that letter? No, I really do not. - In the course of your long acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke, and your communication with her upon business, did she ever, upon º; ;" communicate to you a note from the Duke of York? eyer, 406 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. She never communicated a note from the Duke of York on any: business but this? Never. - Can you recollect what she said upon communicating this note; whether it was communicated with any caution to take care of it, Ör. not to communicate it to others? No, I cannot recollect any thing of the circumstance. w . . . - - + Did Mrs. Clarke, or any other person, ever desire you to destroy the letter in question? Never. - - You have stated that you have seen Mrs. Clarke write different hands, did you ever see her write different hands? No. • Then what do you mean to say she writes in various hands? In the letters addressed to me, which are now before the House, there is a variety in the hands. -- - [The witness was taken from the bar. Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE was called in; and the note delivered in by the last witness being shewn to her, she was examined by the Committee, as follows: - . . . + Do you recollect ever seeing that paper before? I suppose I must have seen it before, for it is his i. Highness's writing. *. What reason have you to suppose you have seen it before ? I do not know how it could have got into that man's possession unless I gave it to him, and it was a direction I used very often to get from his Royal Highness, “George Farquhar, Esq. Do you now recollect having given to Captain Sandon a letter upon this subject? No, I do not, nor do I recollect giving him that; but I think I must have given it to him, because it must have been in my possession first. tº Do you always write the same kind of hand? I cannot exactly say bow I write, I generally write in a great hurry. [Two bills being shewn to the witness.]—Those are the two bills for which Captain Thompson was arrested the other day. Are they both your hand-writing?...Yes, guiding my mother's hand; they were both before the court-martial. . . . . - 1 *. Were they both, guiding your mother's hand? If you will read the rminutes of the court-martial, you will see. Were they both, guiding your mother's hand? Yes, I think they Were. Ae" - - Did your mother hold the pen and you guide her hand, when you wrote both those? It was the general way in which I had done with her, for these four years. - - * * * Did you in point of fact, on that occasion, guide your mother's hand when she held the pen 2 Yes, I did. . . . " + . . . . . And in both of them?' 'Yes, I believe I did; it has quite her Sanction. . ~ - . I do not ask whether you had the authority of your mother to draw these bills in your mother's name, but whether you can now recollect. that your mother held the pen while you guided her hand in writing both those drafts? What would be the insinuation if she did not?' You must answer the question. Then I must answer º the best of : recollection: my mother was in the room at each time, and * *; you think, perhaps, there is a difference in the hafid- writing. - º . . s. . * * . . f Mºns. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 407 You must answer the question. I am not quite positive, but I dare say I did, for I knew she was privy to both, and was in the room when both were done; but there was something irregular on the back about the indorsement; perhaps you wish to make it appear a forgery. I do not aim at any such object, but wish to know whether you can take upon yourself to state that those bills were both written with your mother's hand, you guiding it? I am positive as to one. Which I cannot say which ; if I had at all been terrified about the bills from any thing improper in them, I should have got them out of the way. Do you write the same kind of hand when you are guiding your mother's hand as when you write your own Very nearly, only that I do not write so quick when I am with her; I have done it five hun- dred times; she cannot write without a guide, not lately; it must be my own writing, because she has very little use of her hand, therefore it is my writing, and not her’s. Does not the fact of your having your mother's hand in your own, while guiding the pen, make a difference in the appearance of the letter? It is very likely that it may, I never attended to it; it has generally been something short where her hand was used, such as signing' her name, or half a dozen words. - … Look at these, and see if both are not written in that way with th same hand 2 I really cannot say; I do not see much difference between them ; I should rather think this one was the one, if it was either ; if I did write it alone, this dated July, that is the quickest writing, it seems as if it was done quicker than * other, º, Do you mean to say you do not see much difference between the writing of those two notes? . It does not strike me there is a great deal of difference; I have seen the notes before, and I believe made nearly the same observations; and if I was at all conscious of any thing im- proper in them, I certainly should have paid them before, for I dare say I have had it in my power. Do you ever write different hands? No, I do not know that I do, I do not pay any attention to it; other people are the best judges. . . Is the indorsement of the note that is indorsed, in your hand- writing? No, it was done the same; my mother was by, and I guided her hand. That is guided too? Yes, it is upon the same bill, and Mr. Man- ners was by both times, and I believe he was not much better ac- quainted with the bill drawing up than ourselves, which made some- thing incorrect here; nor was Captain Thompson, to whom he gave them as paymaster. Have you ever imitated other hand-writing? No; you do not mean that I imitated the Duke of York’s Have you ever imitated any hand-writing? No, not to make any use of it; I might, with two or three women, laughing, or any thing in that way, imitate a hand, but not to make any use § it whâtever; not to send it out ever. f - You have dome it, to see whether you could do it? I do not know that I have done it, but it is very often, when women are writing, that they might say, come, you write a hand, and see whether it is like any one’s hand; I have done it lately; several of us were sitting together, and we were playing at sqme kind of game; perhaps there might be some bad construction put upon that. - ^ v - zºº 408 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINAT fon. What have you done? I have said, ‘is not this like such a sort of hand,’ and, “that iike such a sort of hand.” - What sort of hands were you imitating at that time, when you asked, “whether it was like this sort of hand’ or ‘that sort of band ** I do not know ; it is very ridiculous to mention here I think. There is a game you play at, you put down a man's name and then a woman's, and where they are, and what they are doing, and then make a long roll of it. Is it a part of the game to imitate the hand-writing of the man whose name you put down 2 No, but it is very likely when you have written a man's name to say, ‘it is very like the way in which he writes it himself; or when speaking of a woman, “it is very like the way in which she writes her's, if they should be friends whom you Ił8 Iſle, Is it any part of the skill in that game to write the name as nearly resembling the hand-writing of the person whose name it is as possible 2 No, I should think not; I wrote, without knowing it, something in the office here, that I was told was very like the writing of a per- son here. Whose writing did they say it was like? They said it was like the Speaker's hand. Is there any other person’s hand-writing that you have resembled : It was accident, I never saw his writing. Have you never told any, body that you could imitate the hand- writing of any one? No, I do not recollect that I have ; there was a story went about that I had forged for 2,000l. with the Duke of York’s signature, “Frederick,” but I never did, I never signed his name in my life, except when he has been there, and we have been trying together, how near I could write to him, and he to me. ou have tried sometimes to see how near you could write to the Duke of York? Yes, but I never did it but when he was by. Could you write very near when you tried ? I do not know, he is the best judge of that; I believe if he was asked, he would not say I had ever made use of his name in any writing. In point of fact, when you did attempt to write like him, did you succeed? I am sure I cannot tell. ! You know his hand-writing? Yes, he fancied it was a great deal like his signed Frederick; that was all I ever attempted about it. Bo you know a person of the name of Town? Yes, I do, a velvet ainter. - p Did he ever instruct you in velvet painting Yes, he did, Do not you recollect having told him, that you thought you pro- bably might make considerable proficiency in that art, as you made great proficiency in writing, and copying hand-writings? No, R. never told him any such thing; you will recollect he is a Jew: it is ridiculous. You are quite sure you never said any such thing? No, I should never have said such a thing to such a man. , Did you ever write in his presence 2 I do not know; he used to be with me a good deal in the morning, when I was learning the velvet painting, and it is very probable I might have been writing to many ersons when he was there; besides he was to have got a loan for the uke of York from Jew King, but his Royal Highness would not MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 4.0%) have any thing to do with him when he found they were Jews, when Town went to him, but I do not know that it was Jew King at the time; he told me it was a regular gentleman. Did you ever, in a playing way, attempt to imitate the hand-writ- ing of the Duke of York?' I do not think I did to him. . Not to Mr. Town 2 No. & -- Have you to any one else? I do not think I have, but he has seen a great many ladies, when he has been with me in a morning, and if he listened to any of our conversations, and made remarks upon it three or four years afterwards, I cannot say any thing to such a thing; the only question is, to ascertain whether I ever did make use of the Duke ef York's name; if I had I am sure it would have been against me long before this; perhaps he might have stolen something that might have been lying about the house. That Town might? Yes, he might very likely. Some of this writing, perhaps? He might have taken papers away perhaps, and thought they might have been the Duke of York's; I believe he had a note of introduction from me to the Duke before he had seen those people about the money. Did you, in his presence, ever, imitate any other person's hand- writing but the Duke's I do not know that I ever did at all in his presence. But he may have been in the room when you did this with other ladies, and have overheard you? Perhaps he might; he has been there three or four hours of a morning. He may have been in the room when you were with other ladies, and have overheard the conversation which passed between yourself and your visitors? Perhaps he might; I did not stick to the painting, and perhaps in the morning persons might call upon me. [The note being again shewn to the witness.] Look at the seal of that note; do you know that seal? It is the Duke of York's private seal; I dare say I have many like it at home. What is the inscription upon it Never absent. is the motto in French or English? In French. Who is George Farquhar * There is no such person in existence, I believe; it was one of my brothers; I lost two in the navy, and that was one of them. You do not recollect to have received that letter which you state to be in the hand-writing of the Duke of York 2 No, but I must have received it because it is addressed to me, and it is his Royal Highness's writing; I do not think he ever wrote to any other person under the name of George Farquhar but me. Do you recollect having applied at any time to his Royal Highness, to suspend the promotion of Major Tonyn I do not recollect that I did, it is a long while ago; if it is meant that I wrote that note of his Royal Highness's, Idare say he will not deny it, if it is shewn to him; I have seals that will exactly match with it on other letters of his own. Do you recollect any application to his Royal Highness which could have given rise to an answer similar to that contained in the note which has been read?" No, I do not recollect anything about it. You do not understand to what the contents of that note allude? No, I do not; for I have quite forgotten it; I think Captain Sandon must have taken it out of the house without my permission. 410 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINA troN. Did his Royal Highness at any time leave that private seal in your possession? No; he has that and another that he used to use. You said that you had several impressions of the same seal in your possession; are those impressions unbroken? No, certainly not. Are you positive you have no impression of the Duke's seal unbroken in your possession? I do not know; I should rather think not; I was always inclined to read what he sent to me. Are you positive that you have not any impression of the Duke's seal unbroken in your possession ? Do you mean if I had torn the letter, and not broken the seal 2 | It is not necessary to break the seal to open the letter? I dare say I have many not broken, that you might very easily distinguish to be the same seal as that. Did the Duke wear this seal to his watch? I do not know, I am sure. I believe not. - Is the reason you have for guiding your mother's hand when she writes, your mother's hand being so unsteady that she cannot write without somebody guiding her hand? Yes; she cannot hold her hand steady at all. - --- You believe that one of those bills was written by your mother hold- ing the pen, and you guiding her hand? I guided altogether entirely; in fact, it is my own writing entirely whenever I make use of her hand. The whole body of the bill as well as the signature ? Yes; it is my writing more than my mother's, She held the pen and you guided her hand? I do not know whether she held the pen, but I am in the habit of doing these sort of things, when I want my mother's name, but I never did any thing without her sanction at all. * * That is not the question at all. I do not know what you might in- sinuate; the bills have been already before the court martial, and I dare say they made as many observations as possible upon them, and if I had been at all alarmed I should not have allowed them to continue so long; but I believe this has nothing to do with the question before the House. - Do you wish this Committee to understand that you wrote these bills, or your mother? You may say I wrote them. And her hand was not guided by you ? If her hand is in mine, and I guide, I write it, and not her. - When you guide your mother's hand, your mother has the pen in her hand, has she not? Yes. And you only move her hand and guide it? How do you know but what I move the pen; if she takes the pen up, I should take it down lower perhaps. ; * I do not know it, I wish to know it. Then you shall see us write at any time. - - Did you hold the pen or not I forget; there are the bills, and I forget all about them. - Then you holding the pen, you wish the Committee to understand that in so far you wrote both these ? As you please. [The chairman directed the witness to answer the question. I have answered it; that is all difference of opinion. r Then you holding the pen, you wish the Committee to understand, MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. #11 that in so far you wrote both these ? I fancy I said I did not write them both. * Did you in point of fact write them both, or only one, and did your mother write the other? I tell you it is impossible for her to write. To what do you ascribe the marked difference in the hand-writin of these two bills They do not strike me as being very different, but I certainly cannot write so very quick when I am writing with my' mother’s hand as with my own. Do you mean to say you do not see any difference in the hand-writ- ing and signature of these two bills No, if you were to see the differ- ence in my letters; if you see a dozen of my letters, you will see them all different; you would see a difference in each, f t If you guide your mother's hand, that hand being so unsteady, must there .#. some unsteadiness in what is written under that guidance? No, it is entirely my own writing, although I guide her hand. Then both these bills are entirely your hand-writing 2 If you please to understand that, you may ; but I had the use of my mother's hand, and they are my writing then. * You have stated the signature to the bill of the 20th of May, signed “E. Farquhar,” was your mother's writing, under your guidance of her hand, and that that explains the difference in the hand to the sig- nature of the two bills 2 I did not say it explained the difference in the writing. S - Yoj have stated, that the indorsement of the bill which is indorsed was made by your mother, you guiding her hand 2 Yes. Look at the bills again. It is no use looking at them, I have looked -at them before. ~ Look at them again; look at the signature of the bill of the 20th of May, and at the signature of the bill of the 15th July, and at the endorsement of that bill, and endeavour to state, if you can, whether they are all written by the same hand? They are all written by the same hand, because théy are written by mine and by my mother's. Can you give no other explanation of the difference in the appear- ance in that writing No, I cannot. 4. Did Major Tonyn lodge in the hands of a third person 500 guineas, 500l. of which, after he was gazetted, went to yourself, and 25l. to Mr. Donovan I did not state any such thing, for I did not know what Mr. Donovan had; I only stated what I had myself. e What had you yourself: What I said before. Was that 500l. 2 Yes. Was it not natural for you, as +. knew you were to receive 500i. to hurry the gazetting of Major Tonyn as much as you could Not if there were any circumstances against it. 'Did you not wish that Major Tonyn should be gazetted, in order that you might get the 500l In the end I did. ' , If you had written any letters to the Duke of York on the subject, with that wish in your mind, would it not have been a letter to urge the gazetting of Major Tonyn I do not recollect, writing him any letter, nor dù I recollect having any answer about, it iſi writing. If you had written to the Duke of York upon the subject, would you not have been more likely to have written to hasten'the gazetting of Major Tonyn than $9 ** do not know..." 7, “ . . . ; he witness was directed to withdraw. J. 412 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that notwith- standing Captain Sandon, by producing the paper in question, as well as others which might bear on the pre- sent subject of investigation, had certainly made some atonement, which might be the subject of future consider- ation with the committee; yet he could not think, in a case of such flagrant prevarication as he had been guilty of, he should be allowed to escape without a severe notice of his crime in the first instance. He would therefore move, that for the gross prevarication of which he had been guilty, Captain Huxley Sandon should be committed to Newgate, which was ordered accordingly. . The Chancellor of the Exchequer then proceeded to state, that it would be impossible to close the inquiry in that sitting, because he would wish to bring proof such as could be relied on as to that letter being or not being the hand-writing of the Duke of York, and that could not bé done till to-morrow. When he opened the case of the suppression of evidence, it was under an impression that the letter was destroyed, and he could not therefore think it necessary to summon Colonel Gordon, who was the person most likely to prove the Duke of York's hand in the most satisfactory manner. He was also of opinion, that the Committee could not with propriety, during the present sitting, take into their consideration the papers found in Captain Sandon's bureau, some of which he owned bore upon the inquiry now before them. He would propose, therefore, that a select committee, similar to that which was formed the other night, should be ap- pointed to inspect those papers now brought to light, and report to the House such of them as in their opinion bora upon the present investigation. That committee might sit this morning, and make their report in the evening to the Committee of the whole House, who would immedi- ately go into the consideration of it. He moved, therefore, that a select committee be appoint- ed to inspect the said papers, and to report to the Com- mittee of the whole House, whether any part of them were relevant to the matter of this inquiry.—Ordered. The same five gentlemen were then named, as were the former committee, and three to be a quorum. * * Mr. Wharton brought up the minutes of the proceed- ings of yesterday’s committee, which were ordered to be printed. 4. - gºefort of select committers. #13 REPORT. The select corhmittee, appointed to inspect certain letters, which have been delivered in to the Committee of the whole House, appointed to investigate the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, the Commander in Chief, with regard to promotions, exchanges, and appointments to commissions in the army, and staff of the army, and in raising levies for the army; and to report to the House such of them, or such parts of them, as may be relevant to the matters referred to the consideration of the said Committee of the whole House—have agreed to report as follows: Your Committee have inspected the several letters referred to them by the House; and are of opinion, that all the said letters may be rele- want to the matters in question. * The said letters are as follow : l. S “11, Holles-street, Cavendish-square, July 26, 1808. “Sir, * * Perhaps you may have forgotten there was such a person in ex- istence as the writer I have been in the country for a year and a half. and I am but just returned from it, to remain in town; and I should feel myself particularly obliged if you will favour me with your friend Colonel French's address, or his agent in the inn, in Holborn, which has slipped my memory—Pray forgive the trouble, and believe me your most obedient, - ** MARY ANN CLARKE. “Captain Sandon, Royal Waggon Drivers.” 2 JL “14, Bedford-place, Russell-square, July 23. “Dear Sir, - * “On Saturday I was favoured with your answer, but as I have re- moved from Hölles-street to this place, to save you the trouble of calling there, these lines are addressed you. I am now with my mother, and I fear for the whole of the summer. I did not want any thing of French but to ask a question. I am, Dear Sir, “Your obliged, ºzc, &c. “MARY ANN CLARKE. * Captain Sandon, Royal Waggon Train.” Two penny post unpaid Tottenham C R. 3. “Mrs. Clarke will be glad of a call from Captain Sandon, if he is returned to town, to-day or to-morrow. “Gloucester-place, Friday, “Colonel Sandon, Bridge-street, Westminster.” 4. “I am thoroughly convinced of the money being tao trifling, and I have mentioned it to a person who knows the full value of those things, so you may tell Bacon and Spedding they must give each of them more two hundred, and the Captains must give me fifty each more. I am now offered eleven hundred for an old officer. M ** * M. A. C. “I must have an answer this evening to this, as I am to speak with * ºf 4 REPort of sff.E&T to MMITTEſ. him on it. I have mentioned as your being concerned for me. f gó to the Little Theatre this evening. ** 1804. Colonel Saridon.” 5. “Will you, my good Sir, drop me a line Monday morning, say- ing if you have been able to influence any person who is with Pitt, to attend the house on Monday to give his vote. - “I have this morning received the inclosed from Corri, and where he marks under he alludes to your business, and as I know he is a story teller, I send you his letter. I am, Sir, &c. : a \ : --r -- * - “M. A. CLARKE. * Col. Sandon, No. 15, Bridge- ti . . - street, Westminster Bridge. * - º . . " - “Pitt's Motion, &c. Corri—complaint.”. 6. “DEAR SIR, - “He will do it—so let the proposals be sent in by when he gets to town, which will be as soon as you get this, for one thousand at first.—The duke of Cambridge has already four thousand. You have not any occasion to be very particular as to their being Protes: tants, for I don’t think it of any consequence to him | | | I think you had better attend him on Tuesday, to ask his opinion of the papers sent in on Saturday, as I told him I had seen the proposals, which you intend- ed to alter and leave that evening. Pray when you go put on a nice pair of boots, and let it be about half-past 3. . - r - “Adieu-burn this. * Mrs. Clarke's Letter, relative to German Levy. 7. “Can you give me a call to-day about one or two, or about five? I wish to see you much. Tell Spedding to write in for what he wants, as the D. says that is much the best. Can you get half a dozeri or so that wants interest? I want money, which is more imperious, this is what I want to see you upon, so you had better see Gilpin first. “What is become of Bacon 2 “Colonel. Sandon. “Interest and money.” 8. “Dear Sir, - + - : - “Pray do something for me as soon as possible; the IPuke told me this morning that you must get on faster with your men, he has written to town for that purpose. You had better send me the exact number of all you have sent, and I will shew it him. > * “Colon ELSANDoN. - “He complains of the slowness of Recruiting the Levy.” - * * 9. “I send this by a servant to Hampton hoping you will get it sooner. - “Dear Sir, - , “Thursday Morning. “The Duke has neither seen General Tonyn nor his son—his son he does not know, and it is six months since he saw the General. He has ordered him to be gazetted, and is fearful it will be done ere he can stop it—he will be at the office to-morrow, and if not too late will stop it. He assured me it was entirely owing to me that he thought to do - - Aslett and Bligh the best by putting him where two others Majors have left A and he. Would of course be two steps higher. . REpoRT of SELEeT eoMMITTEE. 415 * I hope to see you to-morrow, when you will be able to give me the answer from Tonyn; shall be in town about 5. . . . . “The King and all the Family are coming to visit the Duke, being his birth-day ſ! ! Full of compliment, you see. “ 12 o’Clock, 17th August, 1804. - “Colonel Sandon, -- “ No. 15, Bridge-street, Westminster Bridge, London. ** 12 o’Clock “Two Penny. - August 17, 1804. . POST Noon. Twickenham. 10." “Mrs. Clarke's compliments await Col. Sandon, thinks it best for him not to come to her box this evening, as Greenwood goes with both the Dukes this evening, and of course will watch where your eyes direct now and then; and should he see and know Col. S 2 may make some remark by saying or talking of the Levy business, and it may be hurtful to his and Mrs. C's future interest. “9th Oct. 1804. See Richard Caeur de Lion. “Col. Sandon, No. 8. Lyon's Inn.” l 1. “Dear Sir, “Cap’tn Tonyn cannot be made this month as I expected; the D. tells me it will be at least three weeks, he having so much to do in re- viewing ; and there are some other promotions now to take place— however the thing is dome. - “The little boy will be attended to. On Monday I shall go to TVauxhall with a party, when perhaps Ishall have the pleasure of seeing you ; it is the only night this summer I shall have the opportunity, as on that night he is obliged to attend the House of Lords, as they ex- pect a great fight on Pitt's Motion.—I shall at some time take an opportunity of mentioning your majority. I asked him what he thought of you ? A d - - - clever fellow You are to have the bounty that Pitt is to give to the line, so that every thing goes on well.—I told him I should see you at Vauxhall on Monday. I am now at the end of my paper, so shall say adieu. “He says General Tonyn is a stupid old fellow. “M. A. C. “Relative to the majority and advance of bounty. “ Colonel Sandon, No. 15, Bridge-street, Westminster Bridge.” “Weybridge, Friday Noon. 12. “Dear Sir, “ burn this. “I have mentioned the majority to the D , he is very agreeable to it—it is the nephew of the Gen’l; his son purchased a company last week—Do you think it at all possible to oblige me on Monday with one hundred. I shall be in town Sunday. If I had had the plea- sure of seeing you at the races, I intended to have pointed you out to the D– If you are in town, you will have the goodness to send a line in answer. It will oblige much your most --- “Obedt. M. A. C.” 4 ESHER r C “Colonel Sandon, 16. ' Majority, JUN 9 “ No. 15, Bridge-street,. - June 8th, ig04, 1804. “Westminster Bridge, Mondon.”. * f #16 it?Pö#t of SELEöf Ö6MM fºrff'ſſ. 13. ‘. . . . - • *- “Thursday, “I’ll tell you, Colonel French, you can materially serve me, by iving me a bill for two hundred, for two months or ten weeks; “I shall at all times be happy to serve you in any way. I like Capt. Sandon extremely, I suppose he is the managing person? == “Drop me a line in answer. * M. A. C. “1st Letter from Mrs. Clarke” - 14. “Mrs. Clarke's compliments attend on Colonel Sandon, will be glad to see him to-morrow from eleven till one. - “Thursday, Feb. 28.” * - Two Penny * Colonel Sandon, 2. POST “No. 8, Lyon's Inn, Coventry St. “ Wych Street.” 15. “My Dear Sir, “I am vexed to death, you will know the state of my finances, and Ihit upon Spedding for Tuesday, when, behold, the regt. he is in, did their exerciseso bad that the Dukeswore at them very much, and has stopped the promotion of every one in it! He said so much to the Col. Wemyss, (I think) that if he had been a gentleman he would have given up—but he intends looking over the mémorial to-day, as S. has not been long in that reg, and he is an old officer. So that you see if he gets his promotion, how very much he ought to be indebted to my good offices. I must beg hard for him, the #. is very angry with you ; for when he last saw you, you promised him 300 Foreigners, and you have not produced one.--O, yes, master Sandon is a pretty fellow to depend on. I wish I had hit upon Eustace first. I told you, I believe, that they must be done gradually, his clerks are so cunning. Get Spedding to write out a list of his services, and send it to me as a private thing to shew him, not addressed to any one.--Adieu.” 16. “Dear Sir; “I asked this morning if he had himself read those pas pers I gave him of the Col's., he said that he had; but that he still asked so much more than other men, that he could not think of closing with him: However let him send again, as perhaps he forgets his papers in his hurry, especially as he had those at home. - * I cannot do myself the pleasure of being [torm] 17. “Dear Sir, - “I shall esteem it a favor if you will make immediate inquiry about a lieutenancy, (I understand there are two to be disposed of in the 14th Lt. Dragoons) as Charles Thompson is determined to quit his next week, and I wish for his own sake that he goes direct to the other; as the Duke might be displeased with any one being idle at this critical moment. If you are in the way I shall expect a line—just to say if you think it possible for him to purchase so soon.—His R. H. goes out of town to Chelmsford Saturday, and returns to town to his office 3 o'clock Tuesday. “ M. A. C. “ Gojones Sandon, No. 15, Westminster Bridge, * Bridge-street, Westminster.” REPORT of SELECT CoMMITTEE. 4.17 18. “Dear Sir, “Major Taylor has proposed to do something in the Irish levies for his Lt. Colonelcy, but it will not be effected; the friend of our's says he will let him purchase, altho’ he is so young a major, but this you know is nothing to us; so do you see him, and if you enter upon the same terms as before, I think I shall be able to teize him out of it; let me know the result of it soon as possible. “Do you think it at all possible for you and French to let me draw a bill on you for 200l. I am so dreadfully distressed I know not which way to turn myself, and before that will be due you are aware of what is to be done for me in that negotiation. Thank you for the Pig, it was the most delicate thing of the kind possible. Adieu. “Dear Sir, I am, i “Wednesday, Jan. 30. “ &c. &c. &c.” 19. “Dear Sir, “As I leave town on Monday evening, and running short of Cash, will you be kind enough to send me by Monday the Hun- dred Pounds. “Colonel Sandon.” “ M. A. C. 20. “Dear Sir, “Most unfortunately Lord Bridgewater has asked for the vacancy 'ere indeed it was one, so that that is done [torn] ; but H. R. H. will let me know if he can at 4 o'ck.—He does not go out of town, as intended, to-morrow, on account of his Majesty having been insulted yesterday, and still fears it.—I have a bill due either Saturday or Monday, I know not which day; can you get me the five hundred guineas—he has been signed, and will be in the Gazette to- morrow ; you know who I mean. “Instead of a 60 guinea harp let it be 100, as I have told him you was going to present me one, therefore it must be very elegant. “Tell Zimmenees he shall have [torn] he wishes for 700 guineas 77 of ſtorm] he shall have it in a month. “Don’t fail burning my scribble soon as read. “I do not go out of town to-morrow. “Colonel Sandon, No. 15, Bridge-street, Westminster: “ or, Duke-street, Adelphi, No. 9, Office.” 21. “Dear Sir, - “Thursday. “I am extremely sorry to inform you (for the poor boy's sake) but it is impossible to admit him, as he has that misfortune you mentioned of being one-eyed. Do you think it possible to get me a vote on Monday for Pitt's motion It will if carried be of some con- sequence to us hereafter, try all you can. • * “I remain, dear Sir, your's, &c. “ Colonel Sandon, “ M. A. CLARKE. “ Bridge-street, No. 15, Hestminster Bridge. “Send me an answer.” 242. * What you ask will be at your service, and the letter will be at your office Monday morning. * Colonel Sandom.” * 2 E 4 |8 in EpoR f of select cowſ MYTTEſ. 23. “Mrs. Clarke will be glad to see Captain Sandon to for, row, before twelve o'clock, if he is in town; if not, Monday at five.— “ Friday. I o’Clock “ Colonel Sandon, 2 6. JY “ No. 15, Bridge-street, Two Py POST 1804. N. T. “ Hestminster Bridge.” Unpaid. $ 24. * Dear Sir, s “There is not any such thing in contemplation as the written question. Will you again ask about an India Lieutenancy as the Duke assures me there are two for sale. In consequence of what F mentioned to him of Kenner, he has made many enquiries, and finds him to be a black sheep; he offered to bribe Col. Gordon a few days since M. A. C © (; , “ Colonel Sandon.” * 48th Antedate. 25. “ Dear Sir, “ Ere I leave town I scratch a few lines, begging you to be on your guard in every point; but of my name in particular, for the future never breathe it.—I am confident you have a number of ene- mies, for yesterday the was assailed from seven or eight different persons with invective against you—He is a little angry at something; et will not tell it me—l think this fellow Kenner tries his friends—they aid fine complaints against you—did you tel} Zemminees that as soon as Tonyn was gazetted you would get him done? in the same way, and that I was the person 2 Let me see you on Tuesday, “ Adieu, I am interrupted.” 26. “My dear Sir, º: “Be so good as to look at the Gazette to-morrow evng, as I rather expect some of the names to be inserted. I have others which I assure you upon my honour. The present for my trou- ble for the Majority is seven hundred guineas, so if you have any more this must be the sum—I shall be in town on Monday, if you will have any thing to communicate. I remain, “Friday evng. “ Dear Sir, your's, &c, &c. “ M. A. C.” 7 o’Clock “ Colonel Sandon, 28 Sp. “ No. 8, Lyon's Inn, Two-Penny 1804 Nt. “ #’hych-street, POS T. “Strand.” 22d 27. * Dear Sir, 8th “ I made a mistake, it is the 22d Regiment Mr. Thomp- son is to purchase into, or the 8th. Shall I see you to-day ? C ...: - “ M. A. C.” “What is Thompson to say to his Colonel 2 - “Charles Farquhar Thompson, 13 to 8 or 22d. “Colonel Sanden, 15, Bridge-street Westminster.” 28. “I gave the papers to his Royal Highness; he read them while with me; said he still thought men high ; but that an answer would be left at his office as the way of business, $ BEpoRT of SELECT committee. 419 , “I told him if any was appointed, to give the Col. the preference. Burn this soon as read.--I do not comprehend exactly what you mean by five other things; I don't think it possible. * * 3.29.’... “Can you send me one hundred pounds to day 2 and let fne see you to-morrow morning. , ! . y “Colonel Sandon.” “M.A. C.” 30. * Dear Sir, Friday. A” ºwiiſyodgó to the Horse Guards for the today, and leave a proper letter as coming from Charles Thompson, asking for leave of absence for a fortnight; but if his services should be wanted he would join immediately; if you know any belonging to the Adjutants; you could get it by td-morrow. * & .. * Colonel Sandeh.” “M. A. C.” 31: “I have a lettér which says you are a midney-lender, in colleage with a notorious man, called Dell!! I wish to shew it you. “I hope you will attend the Duke to-day, as Clinton leaves him on Thursday, and he has all the writings for you in Hand: he will not leave his office till six.— * , s s .. “I shall be glad of a hundred guideas, if possible, this week. Sa- turday week Tonyn will be gazetted. How comes on French Call to-morrow, if possible. . . * * :- . . . . . . . • r ... “Colonel Sandon, 15, Bridge-street, Westminster. *** * 33. “As your servant has called, and fearing you may not have my letter—beg you to see the Duke to-day at all events, or else things . be longer about, as Colonel Gordon takes Clinton's place on Thurs- ay.” & 33. * Dear Sił; # * i : . . . . . • * * * “Pray what can Speddings mean; by asking on Thursday, through General Tonyn, for leave to go upon half pay? *Tis odd behaviour, and #. must think that some one thinks me used very ill;-of course, till this is fully explained, I shall drop all thoughts of any thing else. “ Saturday. * I remain your's * Colonel Sandon.” .. * M. A. C.” 34, “Sir, * , “ I am exactly treated as I have been led to believe, from more than one quarter, but will thank you to send me Colonel French's address to-day, before the post goes out.—I have nothing to do with your agent, you know. . * * t “I remain, Sir, your most obedient, . • * . “ M. A. C.” , 35. “As Colonel Sandon did not call according to promise, Mrs. C. hopes he will have the goodness to send her a bill at two months, in the morning;-Surely all things will be settled before that becomes due. Mrs. C, hopes he will not disappoint. “ Monday. * . * Colonel Sandon, Lyon's-inn, Whych-street.” AE? •ºt. 4:20 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE, 36. * Sir, - -- . . . . . . “You have disappointed me dreadfully, a bill of ore hundred at three months is useless, it must be for two fitindred at three ; : ... -- ~ * * . f for one hundred hionths, or one at six weeks or two months. I beg you to return it by the bearer, as I mentioned my situation to you.-Word it thus:- promise to pay six weeks or two months after date, to Mr. Thompson, or order, the sum of one hundred pounds for value received. * Pray let me have it this evening at all events. . ...” $ _ p. * M. A. C.” 37. * Nºrs. Clarke's compliments attend £aptain Sandon, will feel herself much obliged if he will do his best for Thompson in the ºtius business, as on his getting the men early will give him first 3aſº. - - - ... “.. Mrs. C. has not been able to get an answer from H. R. H. about Taylor. “, Dec. 26, * Colonel Sandon, No. 8, Lyon's-inn, Whych-street.” Two Py.’ Bec. 26th, 1804. 7 o’Clock POST Bec. 26, 1804. 26 Dec. Blandford. J. S. 1804. N n. 38. * Mrs. C. must again intreat the assistance of Colonek S—. He well knows she has always done as he has wished her to do. “ Colonel Sandon, No. 8, Lyon’s-inn, Hºhych-street.” 39. “I am told an answer is left out for Colonel French, at the office, and that he now has dropped three guineas per man.— “I am not aware of what the answer is intended to convey. “ Mr. Corri. [torn.] k will. 40. “I hope you will not disappoint me, as on you alone de- pends my hopes of taking up a bill over due. * Colonel Sandon.” . * 41. . . “2, Westbourne-place, Sloan-square, “Dear Sir, * December 2d. . " - “Let me know where you are, and I have not the least doubt but I can serve you essentially, and remain as ever your friend. “ MARY ANN's CLARKE. “ Captain Sandon, Waggon Train, Spain. * * “ By Messrs. Greenwood & Co. Lyon-inn, Strand, London.” 2d Dec. 1808. PortsMoUTH, Jan. 29, 1809. G. Jan. 30, 1809. { 421 ) TENTH DAY. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17. —ºm- List of Witnesses examined. COLONEL GORDON. {SENERAL BROWN RIGG. MR. ANDREW DICKIE. MAJOR GEN. ALEX. HOPE (a Member.) W. ADAM, Esq. (a member.) MR. BENJAMIN TOWN. MR. JAMES BREWER. MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE. CAPTAIN HUXLEY SANDON. Mr. Wh ART on in the Chair. Mr. Adam said, that he wished some of the maids should be summoned who attended Mrs. Clarke in Glou- cester-place, to prove whether they saw the list of recom- mendations of officers which Mrs. Clarke said she was in the habit of pinning up at the head of her bed, and which the Duke of York used to take down every morning. He thought they should, to be examined on this point. Mr. Whitbread said it would be to no purpose, as no doubt the maids would say they never saw it in the morning, and Mrs. Clarke would say she never pinned it up till night. * ! Mr. PWharton stated to the Committee, that he, as their Chairman, had received a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Tucker on the subject of this inquiry, which he would beg leave to read to the Committee; ** SIRs . . “Edinburgh. * I have learned with extreme regret, that the name of my much lamented brother has been introduced into the inquiry now pending before the House of Commons, as having obtained his promotion in the army through the undue influence of Mrs. Clarke. I have to state to you, 422 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO that my brother was advanced in consequence of his ser, vices in India, under Lord Cornwallis, and obtained a brevet rank, by his exertions in the Egyptian expedition under Sir David Baird : he obtained an effective majority on account of his zeal at Corunna, ere he met his fate. I have no doubt there are many officers, members of the House, who both know and wiłł speak to his merit. With respect to myself, I have to say, I have obtained all my commissions, except my Ensigncy and Lieutenancy, by gradual advancement. I have served in many expedi- tions, and hope I have merited my Sovereign's favours by my services. You, Sir, will have the goodness to oblige me by giving this letter all the publicity in your power. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your's, &c. “ G, TUCKER.” Sir A. Wellesley rose for the purpose of paying a just tribute to the talents and services of the officer in question. He had known him particularly well in Portugal, and certainly esteemed him a very meritorious officer. He was the more willing to state this, as he had many communi- cations with the officer's family; and he believed, that at the time Colonel Tucker was about to be promoted, seve- ral applications had been made to him offering him ad- vancement, by money-brokers, which that officer spurned at with becoming contempt. He knew that Colonel Tucker got his promotions properly, and all by brevet rank. ( Hear!) Iord Temple was happy to add his miſe to the applause of the gallant General as to the brother who had fallen, and he was sure the same justice would be done to the liv- ing brother. He would move that the letter should be entered on the minutes. Sir Thomas Tºrton objected to the letters being entered on the minutes, as it could not possibly be evidence. Mr. Sturges Bourne said, that one serious charge (that of Colonel French) was entirely grounded on similar evi- dence. Lord Temple thought that if the writing was first proved the difficulty would be done away. This was deferred until some person was to be found who could prove the writing. Mr. Wardle wished here to read a letter which he had received from Miss Taylor relative to her testimony — “Sir—Mrs. Hovenden has chosen to draw some infer- ences unfavourable to me in her evidence. I have only 424. coloneL GoRpoN's ExAMINATHoN. i COLONEL GORDON was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: I need not ask you whether you are acquainted with the Duke of York's hand-writing? I certainly am. Look at that paper, [the short note spoken to by Mrs. Clarke last might] the outside and the inside. [Colonel Gordon looked at the letter.] I have formed my opinion upon it. - State to the Committee your opinion. The utmost I can say is, that it bears a very strong, resemblance to his Royal Highness's hand-writing; but whether it is or is not I cannot take upon myself to say. ( - You speak to the inside of the note, when you made that observa- tion? To both inside and outside. Have you any reason to doubt that it is the Duke's hand-writing I donot think that I can, consistently with my own honour, give a stronger opinion than that which I have already given. Are those letters the hand-writing of the Duke of York I think that is the hand-writing of the Duke of York; [a letter re- specting General Clavering1. I am of the same opinion with respect to the other. . . . ** I observe that you gave your opinion with respect to the first letter, on a comparison with other papers in your possession, and that you did not compare the two last letters that were. shewn to you with those other papers; for what reason did you make the comparison in the one case and not in the other ? The papers with which I compared the first scrap of writing, were letters that I have received from the Duke of York in 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807 and 1808, which con- yinced me that the Duke of York varies very little in his hand-writ- ing; I thought it necessary to make a very accurate comparison of the first paper, when so small a scrap of writing was produced to me, and I found that that scrap of writing, as I said before, bore a strong resemblance to the Duke of York's hand-writing ; in look- ing over the two last letters, eaglºpf which contained two or three pages of writing, I thought it dº tºnnecessary to make any such COLT1) aſ 18OH]. *::::: , as the opinion which you fºr ed with respect to that writing on that scrap of paper, formed in consequence of your knowledge of the Duke of York's writing, or merely from the comparison which you made From both. .# If a letter of the same hand-wiłing as that which you call the scrap of paper, had been addressed to you, and received by you, should you have hesitated to act upon it 3 l observe that scrap of paper had no signature affixed to it, I therefore would not act upon it. - P; that scrap of paper had had the Duke of York's signature af. fixed to it, would you have acted upon it ! If that scrap of paz per had had the signature of the i.e of York affixed to it, I would have acted upon it. If, in the same hand in which that scrap of paper is written, there had been the signature of Frederick, of the same hand-writ- ing, would you have acted upon it? . Unless I saw the hand-writing in which Frederick was written, I canãot' possibly answer that question. [The witness was directed to withdraw. The commANDER IN CHIEF. 423 to say, that she visited me once at Bayswater and once at Dalby Terrace. She has said she would not place her daughter under my care. I do not know whether she would do that or not : but I know she sent her niece, of the age of 14 years, on a visit to me. (Signed) “ANNE TAYLOR.” Mr. Wardle did not desire this to be placed upon the minutes. - - & # * The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished now that some person should be called forward to prove the Duke of York's writing. . . 4 # Lord Folkestone said, that he heard Mrs. Clarke had various letters now to produce with seal unbroken, similar to that which was appended to the private note:of the Duke of York, which was found in the bureau of Captain Sandon. - *...* * . . . " : Mir, Yorke said, the only reason why he had aské about the unbroken seal was, that if the writing had been forged, there would be no difficulty in forging the sealsº The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection, if §: thought necessary, to confirm the testimony of Mrs. }larke. w * - : ; Mr. W. Smith wished to know, whether the honour- able member intended to found any proceeding upon the letter of Miss Taylor; he thought her case was a peculiár: ly hard one ; he did not see why any shadow of disgrace should attach to her (cries of Hear! and Order!). fshould imagine (said Mr. Smith) that when any man rises in this house to advocate the cause of an unprotected female, he should be suffered to proceed. tº f The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the honour- able gentleman was proceeding in a disorderly course. If he thought Miss Taylor had been treated severely, he should have noticed it at the time, and not now, after such an interval: if this proceeding was allowed, the conse- quence would be, that those who were accused must de- fend themselves, and thus the time of the House would be wasted. & -- Mr. Smith thought that the time of Miss Taylor's letter being read was the most proper for him to make his re- mark on the subject, and he only wished to know whether any proceeding was intended to be founded on her letter: however, as the House did not seem inclined to entertain the subject, he was not anxious to press it. i 4. GENERAL BRow NRIGG's ExAMINATron. 425 General BROWNRIGG was called in and examined by the Com- mittee as follows: Look at that paper which will be put into your hand, [the short anote] and say, whether you believe it to be the writing of the Duke of York. Have you formed any opinion of that hand-writing 2 I think it resembles the Duke of York's hand writing; but I cannot positively say it is his hand-writing. [The letter respecting General Clavering being shewn to General Brownrigg] This is certainly like the Duke of York's hand-writing, that I have now looked at ; but I do not think the address is ; the address is not like his Royal Highness's writing. - Do you believe it is his hand-writing? It is so like his hand-writ- ing, that I should conclude it is ; I speak of the letter, dated Sandgate, August, 24, 1804, [The other letter produced by Mrs. Clarke was shewn to General Brownrigg] This letter is also like the Duke of York’s writing. What is your opinion upon it; do you believe that to be his writing I do believe it to be his hand-writing ; it is so like it, that I conclude it to be his writing; and this letter, dated the 4th of August, 1805, is not at all like his hand-writing ; I should not sup- pose it is. - Look at the short note; look over leaf; what is your opinion of that; what do you believe respecting that My opinion is, that it is not so like the Duke of York's hand-writing as the others; it does not resemble the Duke of York's hand-writing in the same degree that the others do; there certainly does * to me a simi- larity between the Duke's writing and this ; yet I cannot ºr. Sº positively, as to its being his writing as I do to the others; I cannot speak so decidedly. Is the direction of that note more or less like the Duke of York's hand-writing than the direction of the other notes you speak to 2 I think it is more like it; I think the address appears to be written in the same hand as the inside; the address is written in a better hand, it is written fairer and more distinctly. From your observation of the hand-writing of the short note do you or do you not believe it to be the hand-writing of his Royal High- ness I certainly do not believe it to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York, that is to say, I could not swear it was the Élie of York's hand-writing. If the Duke of York's signature had been to that note, would you have acted upon it? I really think I should, looking at it cursorily, as I should in reading a short note from the Duke of York, and without having any suspicion that it could not be the Duke of York's hand- writing, I very probably should have acted upon it, if his signature had been to it. * In this case, what gave you any suspicion that that could not be the Duke of York's writing 2 Because I happened to be in the House of Commons last night, and heard this note made a matter of question in the House ; that is my reason. - Are the Committee to understand, that you do not believe that note to be the hand-writing of the Duke of ". I can only repeat what 426 solo NEI, GoRDON's ExAMINATION, 4.* * I have before said in answer to the same question ; I think I have als, ready answered that question in my last answer but one. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. Colonel GORDON was again called in and examined by the Com- mittee as follows: 4. Did you ever hear that there was any suspicion raised respecting the small note which was lately put into your hand, whether it was the Duke of York's hand-writing or not, before you were examined at the bar upon that subject Certainly I have. When and where? The best way for me to proceed is to tell the thing exactly as it happened from the beinning to the end. I think, last Saturday week about half past ten at night, the Duke of York and Mr. Adam called at my house; I had been extrêmely fatigued and was going to bed; I was undressed; I went in my #ndress into the room, where were the Duke of York and Mr. Adamſ; the first word that was said to me was by the Duke of York, and I think the words were these : “Here is a very extraordinary business ºffereºs a forgery.” . Upon which Mr. Adam related to me, that Gäptaik Sandon and Colonel Hamilton had come to town ; that Colonel Hamilton had called upon him and told him, that he had seen a note of the Duke of York’s in the possession of Captain Sandon, . After some further conversation, more general, upon this point and others connected with it, it was de- termined that I should desire Colonel Hamilton to call at the Horse- Guards the next day at one o'clock, to meet Mr. Adam ; I did so, and the next day at one o'clock the messenger brought word to me that Colonel Hamilton was waiting in the usual waiting room ; Mr. Adam went out to him, and that is all that I can speak as to this note, of my own knowledge. • - Do you mean to state, that the suspicion which you had heard of, respecting this note, was an expression of the Duke of York respecting a forgery : Certainly. How do you know that this is the same note to which the Duke of York alluded ? I really do not know any thing about it, I never heard of any other note. - ; : Have you ever heard of that note from that time to this ; Yes, I have. In continuation of what passed on Sunday, + think, I may state that I went the next day, the Monday or Tuesday; to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I had further conversation upon this very note, but I think merely recapitulation of what I have alfeady stated to this Committee, ' ... ." • * - Have you had any other conversation about this note since that time, with any person 2 I have carefully avoided any conversation upon it; but I think the other evening, three or four evenings ago, waiting in the room above stairs with Colonel Hamilton, some conversation, very ge- neral, arose upon the subject of this note ; but it was so very general, so very loose, (for, as I have mentioned before, I carefully avoided in- terfering in it) that I can only bring to my recollection that some con- versation did arise. 4. * - Håve you had any conversation whatever, respecting that note, but this which you have mentioned? I think I mentioned the subject in strict confidence to General Alexander Hope and also to General colonel, GoRDON's ExAMINATIon, 427 Brownrigg, perhaps to Mr. William Harrison, with whom I communi. cate confidentially; beyond that, I do not think that I have. * What was it that you stated to those gentlemen?' I must have stated to them pretty nearly the very same-words that I have stated to this Committee, as nearly as I can recollect, nor more nor less. Did you see any copy of this note: Yes, I did. ' ' , , When was that? I think it was the same evening that the Duke of York and Mr. Adam called upon me. . . . In whose possession was it, Mr. Adam's or the Duke of York's 2 I think it was in the possession of Mr. Adam. - - . Have you had any conversation with the Duke of York upon that subject since that evening? . Yes, I have. . When was that ? I have had frequent conversations with him upon it. # *...i those conversations as nearly as you can. I think a detail ºf those conversations would be little more than repetition of the Duke of York’s assertion, that he thought the thing was a forgery, wº When was the last conversation you had with the Duke of York upon that subject? I will repeat the last conversation, I think, which took place this morning about half-past ten o'clock, when I went to the Duke of York at my usual hour of business; the first word the Duke of York said to me this morning was, As you are to be called upon to answer certain questions in the House this night, I will not speak to you one word upon the subject. I said, Sir, fhave been told that I am summoned to speak upon the subject of the note, to prove the hand-writing, there therefore can be no difficulty upon the part of your Royal Highness in making any communication to me that you think fit, as usual. The Duke of York, I think, said, I can only state what I have stated to you before, I have no knowledge of the thing, and I believe it to be a forgery. * ..." ~ Was that likewise the substance of the other frequent conversations you have had with the Duke of York upon this subject? . Certainly the substance; and, as nearly as I can recollect, the words. [The Witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Windham observed on the delicate situation in which the witness had been placed ; he held a confidential situation under the Duke of York, and many conversa- tions must certainly have passed between them, which it would not be proper to communicate. He might be al- lowed to remark on this now, as the mischief had occur: red, and as a guard in future. In cases where law offi- cers were concerned, they were allowed to entrench them- selves in their situations, and no questions were asked them which could lead to a discovery of a confidential communication. He thought the privilege should be general. . . . . . . . . . * Mr. Whitbread rose to Yindicate his noble friend. If any improper questions were asked, they would of course be stopped before they were answered : many questions 428 GENERAL B ſtow NRIGG’s ExAMINATo N. * l however required an answer, which he was aware it might be unpleasant to give ; duties were painful, but yet they were to be performed. After a few words on this subject from Mr. Windham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Yorke, Mr. ANDREW DICKIE was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: You are a clerk at Messrs. Coutts's. I am. Did you ever see his Royal Highness the Duke of York write I have seen him sign his name many times, “Frederick.” Did you ever see him write anything beyond his name? I have seen him frank a Hetter. * [The two letters being shewn to the witness] Do you think yourself sufficiently acquainted with his Royal Highness's hand, to be able to form any satisfactory opinion upon the letters shewn to you? It bears a similarity; but without the signature being to it, I cannot speak to Af - its being his Royal Highness's hand-writing. †ajor-General ALEXANDER HOPE, a member of the House attending in his place; the short note was shewn to him, and he was examined by the Committee as follows: Have you observed that note? I have ; it appears to me like the hand-writing of the Duke of York; but to state whether it really is or is not, is what I cannot undertake to say. [The letter dated Sandgate being shewn to General Hope.] I apply the same answer to that as to the note, only that I certainly should say that I could speak more positively, I think, to that than to the note ; but I must always qualify what I say, that it is a shade of difference only, I could not say positively, that it is or is not; but certainly the letter appears to strike my mind more forcibly as the hand-writing of the Duke of York than the note, [The other letter being shewn to General Hope.] I make the same answer as to the second letter. Poes that shade of difference, which you state, give you a degree of belief that the letters are the hand-writing of the 5. of York, pre- ferably to that of the note, arise from the quantity of writing there is in the letter, or from any difference in the hand-writing of the note and the letter? I think it very possible it may arise from the quantity of the writing; it strikes me, it seems more like the writing of his Royal Highness; I do not feel able, certainly, to state the comparison be: tween the characters of the note and letters; I spoke from a general in pression, as it struck my eye. General BROWNRIGG was again called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: If you had not been in the House of Commons last night, should you have had any doubt of that short note being the Duke of York's hand- writing? I certainly should, because I do not think that it is very like the Duke's writing, º & t [The witness was directed to withdraw. MR. Drckie's ExAMINATION. 429 WILLIAM ADAM, Esquire, attending in his place, a note was shewn to him, and he was examined, as follows: ... What is your opinion of the hand-writing of that note I think it is Pike the Duke of York's hand-writing; but Ieannot positively say more than that. . [The letters being shewn to Mr. Adam.]. The letter dated Sandgate, is, in my opinion, in the hand-writing of the Duke of York; I entertain the sanie opinion with regard to this letter, dated from Wey- mouth, as with respect to the last. Do you mean that you speak more positively to the letters than you do to the note I do. * - Have you ever been told by the Duke of York, that the note at which you first looked was a forgery -Colonel Gordon, in his testi- ºnomy upon that subject, has given a very correct description of what I heard the Duke of York say. s * Did the Duke of York represent to you that note in the same light in which he represented it to Colonel Gordon, namely, that it was a forgery . When I first made the communication to the §. of York, on Saturday evening the 4th February, he deckared without hesitation that he had no recollection whatever of such a note, and that it must be a forgery. When I went with him to, Mr. Pérceval's that evening, he made an asseveration precisely to the same effect; and afterwards, when I went from Mr. Perceval's to Colonel Gerdon's he made the assevera- tion at Colonel Gordon's, which Colonel Gordon has already given in evidence. - Are those the only occasions on which the Duke of York has in- formed you that that note was a forgery Of course I have had re- peated conversations with his Royal Highness upon the matter now depending before the House, and in the course of those conversations, without being able to specify the particular time, his Royal Highness has held the same language. You have stated, that you thought the writing of the note was like the writing of the Duke of York; do you perceive in the formation of the character of that note, anything unlike the . of the Duke of "York? I cannot say that in the formation of the character, I perceive any think unlike the writing of the Duke of York; but from the short- ness of the note, and from there not being a possibility of correcting judgment with respect to hand-writing, by the general appearance of it, which takes place in a long letter; 1 am incapable of Speaking with the same positiveness with respect to that as with respect to the letters. TMr. ANDREW DICKIE was again called in, and examined by the * . . Committee as follows: t What situation do you hold in Messrs. Coutts' house? Principal Clerk. Are you not, or were you not in the habit lately of accepting bills for that house; I have been for a considerable time. t Are you not therefore in the habit of observing with.#'. attention. “ upon the hand-writing of individuals who are connected with Messrs. Coutts and Company I am in general, but there is a clerk in our housewho is more conversantin thesignatures of the different customers, 430 Młł, town’s ExAiſin A Tron: who examines the signatures before the bills are brought to me to accept. - . . . - - - . . . º: not occasionally your business to ascertain the genuineness of hand-writing? No. - Have you ever seen any draft filled up as well as Šighed, by the Com- mander in Chief? ... I have seen drafts signed by the Commander in Chief, but as to the filling up I cannot pretend to say. ... [The note and the letters being shewn to the witness.] Do you see. any difference in the hand-writing of that note and those two letters, and if you do, what is that difference? There seems a little difference in the note; it strikes me that it is not so like the Duke's, I think, as the others. - - - 2% ~ + - Explain in what that difference consists. Being smaller, and not like the others in point of letter-writing. . . . . . . Did you put in the words “not so like the Duke's?” What I meant by that is this ; two letters were laid before me, and I am asked:whether I concéive them to be the Duke's writing or hot; I conceive the note not e so much like. ... Did you insert the words “not so like the Duke's "I beg to alter that; not so like as those two letters which were shewn to me; purport- ing to be the Duke's. . - - - + Have you not stated, that you had never seen so much even as a draft filled up by the Duke To my knowledge, I have seen his Royal Highness's signature, but I never saw his Royal Highriess fill up a draft; . but I am not the cashier of Messrs. Coutts' house. Do you conceive yourself competent to say, except in the article of signature, whether the letter is like the Duke's hand-writing or not ? I am not sufficiently conversant in his Royal Highness's letter hand- writing. . . - - * ‘s g. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. BENJAMIN TOWN was called in, and examined by the - Committee, as follows : . x - s Where do you live? In Bond-street. In what business are you? An Artist. In what line? A Velvet Painter. - Are you acquainted with Mrs. Clarke Yes. . . yers you acquainted with her when she lived in Gloucester-place? €S. - Do you ever recollect having heard her say any thing respecting hand-writing? Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upon what occasion, and what was it that she said? In the course of conversation she observed she could forge the Duke’s name, and she had done it and she shewed it me upon a piºce of blank paper, and I could not tell the difference between the Duke's and her own. What led her to make this observation ? That I cannot recollect. What was your business with her at the time of this conversation I gave her a lesson that morning in the art of painting. 4. yieve you attended her for any time, to teach her the art of painting f {es. -" * _ * # : Did the observation at all arise out of the painting and the lesson that you were giving? I do not rightly comprehend you. . gr Did the observation she made to you arise out of the subjeet that was M R. Town’s exAMINATIoš. 43i before you, the lesson you were giving? No, there was writing of the .table, some papers, - . . . . . . . . .”.' ... . . . What led her to make that observation? That I cannot recollect. Was that all that she said That was all. . . . . . . . . Did you ever see her imitating any hand-writing? None but that that I have mentioned before; she shewed me the Duke's writing, which she said it was; I cannot say whether it was or not. ‘’’. ‘’’ ‘’’ ‘’’’ ‘’’ Did she imitate it in your presence 2. She did. ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' " Ilad she been drawing at that time? Yes. . . . . . . . Tid she say anything about her proficiency in the art No. " Do you mean that she only introduced the observation, that she could forge the Duke of York's hand-writing, and immediately imitated it in your presence? She did. 4 . . . . . . . . . ; Did you make any observation upon it Yes. . . . . . . What observation did you make? That it was a serious friatter. What did she say upon that, or did she say anything? She laughed. Did she say anything? She did not." . . . ; º ... You say ºrs. Clarke produced the signature of his Royal Highness the Duke of York; did you ever see any where else the signature of º the Duke of York No. r - Was the signature at the bottom of a letter, or was it by itself? That which was shewn for the Duke's was on a square piece of paper; what it was I cannot say that was written. - . . . - - , , , , , Did you read any part of that writing? I did not. ' ' . Are you sure that the signature which you state to be the signature of the B. of York, was not written by Mrs. Clarke? It was shewn to the for the Duke's; I cannot say whether she wrote it or not. What was the word or words which you believe to be the Buke's sig- ñature, which Mrs. Clarke imitated? She observed that the Duke signed his name three ways, Frederick, York, and Albany; and which of the three I cannot positively say, it was one of, those three I am certain. * * t * - - You are not certain whether it was Frederick, whether it was York, or whether it was Albany I cannot positively say, but it was one of them. . - s - . . . . . " What branch of painting do you profess to teach Flowers, land- scape figures, and fruit. . - . . . . . . . . * - . In your instructions to your pupils, do you ever teach them to draw letters in any particular way, with flourishes and flowers, or any thing of that kind? Yes, I do. . . . . . " - Should you know the writing if you were to see it, which resembled that which Mrs. Clarke wrotein imitation of the Duke of York’s No, I should not. The one that she copied from, the one she shewed me, that she said was the Duke's, I should know if I was to see it. Did Mrs. Clarke state that she could imitate the Duke of York'ssig- nature only, or his hand-writing in general She only observed his signature. * - From the attention to formation of letters in regard to your art, you probably can speak to what sort of hand it was that was shewn to you as the ljuke of York's ; was it a small hand, or a large one It was a small hand. - + Was it a flourishing hand, or a plain oné A plain hand. *- You mentioned, I think; that Mrs. Clarke told you she could imitate 432 MR. BREWER's ExAMINATION. r-" the Duke of York's hand-writing She did, and she shewed it me on a square piece of paper. - The word was “imitate * No, “forge.” Were you much in the confidence of Mrs. Clarke 2 No. You were not at all in the confidence of Mrs. Clarke when she shewed you how she could forge the Duke's hand? No. To whom did you first communicate this fact, of having heard Mrs. Clarke make useof these expressions 2 Lady Haggerstone. At what time She was taking a lesson. How long ago? I look upon it to be about three weeks, or more ; I cannot say to the time positively; I look upon it to be three weeks, or rather better.' . . . . . Had any body applied to you, to ask whether you could give this information, or did you, of your own accord, voluntarily mention it first to Lady Haggerstone 2. It was in the course of conversation; she was observing one thing and the other, and she brought up the Duke's affair, the business concerning the Duke ; and I suppose Lady. Haggerstone had mentioned it somewhere, and therefore I was called up to give evidence. - - Is it the impression upon your mind, that Mrs. Clarke had great facility in imitating hand-writing * Yes, the Duke's hand, that that was shewn to me for the Duke's. You have said, that in your presence, Mrs. Clarke, upon a piece of paper, copied the signature, as you supposed, of the Duke of York, which was so exactly similar, that you could nottell the difference; do }. mean to say, you conceived Mrs. Clarke was equal to imitatin and-writings with great ease ? She copied that extremely well, as thought; I never saw her copy any other writing. How long is it since you gave any lesson to Mrs. Clarke the last time? I cannot say, without referring to my book. Did you and she part on good terms? She is in my debt. Was there ever any quarrel or animosity between you upon any subject? None whatever. r §ou never question her about paying your debt? Yes. Had you ever any dispute upon that subject? None whatever. . Has she paid you all that is due to you ? No. T - Had you any conversation with Mrs. Clarke about a loan of money # €S. - a State the substance of that conversation to the Committee.—She said fe Duke wished a sum of money; she begged of me to inquire of Mr. Abraham Goldsmid, if he would ; he said he was no money-lender. Did you eversay that a person of the name of Jew King was to lend him money She requested of me to go to Jew King. * [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. JAMES BREWER was called in, and a letter being shewn to the witness, he was examined by the Committee as folllows: , Do you know that to be the hand-writing of Lieutenant-colonel John Tucker : It is. - You have seen him write : Very frequently, boilo NeL Tucken's LETTER. 435 fA letterfrom Colonel Tucker to the Chairman of the Committee e ºf was read.] . . . . . . . . . - (Public.) * , Adjutant General's office, “ Sir, - Edinburgh; Feb. 12, 1809. “Having perceived, with considerable regret, That the name of my lamented brother, who was lately lost in his Majesty's sloop Primrose, has been brought forward by Mrs. Clarke, in her examinaton before the honourable House of Commons, I trust you will excuse my addressing you, with a view to remove any impression from the public, that either he or myself have obtained our promotion, at any time, through the means of undue or improper influence; for which purpose I hope I may be permitted to state facts, without incurring the imputation of resumption or vanity. My brother's military eareer was commenced in 1790 in India, where he served during the campaign of Marquis Cornwallis in that country. He subsequently served, in Egypt; as major of brigade to Lt. General Sir David Baird, through whose friendship and good opinion he obtained the brevet rank, which he held in the service: that of major was conferred upon him in consequence of his situation as deputy adjutant general to the forces employed under Sir David Baird, at the capture of the Cape of Good Hopé; and that of lieu- tenant-colonel was obtained for him by the same excellent officer, on their return from the Cape. He had obtained an effective majority a few weeks prior to his mélancholy and lamented faté, having served as assistant adjutant general in Zealand, and as députy ddjutdmit general to the army under Sir Arthur Wellesley in Portugal. tº “Of his merits as an officer, many distinguished members of the honourable House are able to speak; and, I doubt not, will do justice to his memory and character. . . . . . . " ' - - " .. 5 j # “With respect to my own promotion, I dah Soleminly declare, that I have obtained it in regular regimental succession, by purchase, with the exceptioi of my ensigncy and lieutenancy; which were given to me, and the brevet rank of lieut, colonel, which I received, in conse- quence of liaving been selected by Sir Samuel Auchmuty, to be the bearer of his dispatches, announcing the reduction of Monte Video, iii South America, by assault, on the 3d of February, 1807. I have had the honour of serving, as a volunteer, on several expeditions, and I feel confident that I have used every endeavour to merit the favours which my gracious Sovereign has deigned to confer upon me. ºffee it due to my deceased brother, and to myself, to make this communication to you, being solicitotis that my brother officers nay not be induced to believe, from the declaration of Mrs. Clarke, that any undue or improper influence has, in the least degree, tended to rocure rank to either; and, as my feelings are naturally interested on this unpleasant subject, I earnestly request that you will have the good- Hess to cause this statement to be made as public as possible. Trust- ing to your liberality, - “I have thºughout to be, r - ‘Sir; * Your most obedient and humble servant, T. “John G. P. Tuck ga, * To the Honourable the Chairman . . lf. Colonel.” of the Comimittee, &c. &c.” 2 F 434 proceed INGs Riºſ, ATIVE Toº The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, The Committee should proceed to the examination of the letters which had been submitted to a Committee last night, to make it statement, which would serve as an answer to a question ut on a former night by an hon. member of that House. The question referred to the expence which the Duke of York had incurred for the maintenance of the establish- ment for Mrs. Clarke in Gloucester-place. As far as he was enabled to inquire, no accurate account could be made out of the total amount of that expenditure. There were many items, however, capable of distinct proof, which he had been enabled to coheet, the aggregate of which would give the Committee some adequate idea of the actual state of the case. Besides what had been ex- pended for the fouse and furniture, &c. it had been ascer- tained, by a reference to his Royal Highness's banker's books, that a sum of 5,570l., had been paid by drafts for the support of that establishment. He was also authorized to state, that his Royaf Highness had at vari- ous times given to Mrs. Clarke divers additional sums, which he had at present no means of ascertaining, though of considerable amount. - No one payment had been paid in Mrs. Clarke's name during the whole continuance of her living under the protection of his Royal Highness. With regard to the drafts upon the banker, that point might be proved by evidence at the bar, or before a select Com- mittee, if the Committee should be of opinion that it should be gone-into : it would appear, from the evidence of the servânt, who was uniformly employed to take the drafts to the bank, and who, when he brought back the money to his Royal Highness, uniformly waited till his Royal Highness made it up in packages, or under covers, to be sent by the same servant to Mrs. Clarke's house. With respect to the other sums paid by his Royal High- ness on account of that establishment, they could easily. be ascertained from the books of the various tradesmen, and other persons who supplied the furniture, jewels, plate, that had already been so often mentioned in that House, and wine. The whole sum paid from Jan. 1804 to June 1006, was 16,761. If the Committee had a wish to go into the question, he was prepared to bring evidence to the bar to prove the statement. (A cry of No! No 1) So far he was authorized to state, and he trusted that it would be a satisfactory answer to the question put to him by an TRE. CoxixtANDER IN chiefs 435 hon, member on a former night, and remove any unfa- vourable impression that might have arisen from the sup- position that only 1000l. a year was allowed, as stated by the witness at the bar, for the support of the establishment. in Gloucester-place. - Mr. Cripps returned thanks to the right honourable gen- tleman for the attention which he had paid to the question: put by him on a former night. Every gentleman must be convinced, that whatever might be the result of this inves- tigation, it was desirable to obviate, if possible, at the out- set, the effect of the impression, which might be made by an erroneous representation of the state of the case, First impressions were generally strongest, and it was with a vicw to prevent the effect of an erroneous impression, that he had put the question he did on a former night. The answer of the right honourable gentleman was as specific as it well could be. As he was upon his legs, he should observe, that however this inquiry might terminate, the Duke of York would have one consolation arising on it; because, without the opportunity afforded by it, the un- paralleled regularity with which the business of the army was conducted at the horse guards, as detailed in the evi- dence of Col. Gordon, would not have been given to the bublic. e p Mr. Creevy wished to know whether the sum of 5,570l. was over and above her allowance of 1000l. a year, which the Duke of York agreed to pay Mrs. Clarke. The Chancellor of the Erchequer replied, that that sum included all the sums paid by drafts on his Royal High- ness's banker for Mrs. Clarke's establishment. As to the other sums which had becn paid on the same account, as no memorandums respecting them were to be found, they, of course, were not comprehended in the surn stated ; but he apprehended that the 1000l. a year must be in- cluded. * º: Mr. Beresford observed, that this was one of the most serious inquiries that had ever been carried on before par- liament, or the public. It was not only the impression it made on that House, but on the city and the country in ge- neral that was to be considered. It was vain for them to shut their eyes to any part of the cause, and suppose that thereby they would shut the eyes of the nation. It was competent to any member of the Committee to state what he heard in every part of the town upon the subject, from 2 F 2 • * 436 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To persons of strong sense and sound judgment. The impres- sion was—(A loud cry of order! order!) - The Chairman observed; that he understood the hon. member to have risen to put a question to the right hon. gentleman on the floor; otherwise he was out of order. Mr. Beresford said, that he had intended to conclude what he had to say with a question; but as he was not suffered to go on, he should put his question—“Do you know that the Duke of York did pay any and what sun, towards keeping the house in Gloucester-place for Mrs. Clarke, in addition to the 10001, per annum ? The Chancellor of the Earchequer replied, that he knew nothing of the allowance of 1000l. a year, but from the witness at the bar. He never knew any thing of it from his Royal Highness. What he had stated, he had taken from a paper which he had in his hand, and which was an account of drafts paid to Messrs. Armer, Lucas, and Co. for the establishment at Gloucester-place, from January 1804 to June 1806. Lord Henry Petty rose to order. He had understood it to be the rule of the Committee, that each witness should answer only to facts within his own knowledge, from which rule the statement of the right honourable gentle- iman was a departure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that he had only answered to a question put ; and however irregular that question might be, an objection to it would come with propriety from any other quarter. Mr. Whitbread admitted, that the right honourable gentleman was not to blame, but insisted, that it was im- possible to place his statement upon the minutes. Mr. Fuller insisted that the statement must be placed somewhere or other. An honourable member had put a question, whether no more that 1000l. had been allowed for the establishment in Gloucester-placc, leaving it to be inferred, that ſhe rest was to be supplied by sinister means. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer; or any common member like himself, came forward with a stateinent to do away with such an impression, it ought to be placed upon the minutes, and no honest man could object to it. (Loud cries of order, order 1) g Mr. Cripps declared that he had been misunderstood by the honourable gentlemen, as he had put the question in order to obviate any such impression as that alluded to by the P1 tºurable gentleman. | The comm ANDER IN chief. 437 Mr. Fuller—“Then, Sir, any answer to your question is sufficient. (Order! order! order!). Any answer to your question—(Order order! order!). Any answer to your question is sufficient. (Loud cries" of order 1 or- der 1 order!). Why am I out of order? Why am I out of order Why not give an opportunity of making known the answers through the same medium as the question ? - tº a Mr. Beresford stated, that his wish had been, when he rose before, to move that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be placed on the minutes, as they were the only true representation of their proceedings. Lord Folkestone rose to ask a question of the Chancel- lor of the Exchequer, but was called to order by Mr. Secretary Canning, who objected to any examina- tion of his right honourable friend, because he had not stood forward as a witness, but merely produced a state- ment in answer to a question which had been put to him. - Lord Folkestone had not meant to examine the right honourable gentleman, though he saw no reason why he should not, if necessary, be examined as well as any other member of the Committee. The noble lord then put a question respecting the amount of some drafts, and the times at which they were drawn, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, in sums of 200l. and 150i. each ; and between jºy, 1804, and May, 1806. Sir G. Warrender thought that the course suggested by the right honourable gentleman, of referring the matter to a Sciect Committee, would have been the wisest. Lord Temple, in this protracted investigation, depre- cated any proceeding, such as the appointment of a Select Committee, which would protract it still more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained. Mr. Fuller then said, after the statement of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, he would ask of the House and of the public, whether they would wish that more than ----as flºis statement should be expended upon the ºnas appeared at the bar.—(Laughing, and - der order!) “If I, Sir, had been allowed to proces ‘I wished, I should long since have stopped this foolish, this silly inquiry. (Order 1 orderſ or- der 1) The first six questions that were put to her at the bar, were enough to shew her shuffling and prevarication. (Loud cries of order! order' order') 453 P Roo eBDING, &c. . A Member observed, that the impression made by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, that the 5000l. were in addition to the 16,000l. mentioned by the right honourable gentleman, . . . . . The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that the 5,570. were included in the total sum of 16,7611. . . . Sir G. Warrender wished to know whether 16,000l. was the utmost limit of the expence gone to by his Royal High- ness on that occasion. T = Mr. Seeretary Canning stated, that when his right honourable friend mentioned that sum, it was only to negative the statement which had been made by the wit- ness (Mrs. Clarke), and which had gone very far abroad, that the Duke did not allow her more than 3000l. in three years. The object, however, of the statement was by no means to ascertain what had really been paid, but merely to negative an erroneous statement which had made some impression. . . . - - A The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, that the only reason why he doubted whether those papers ought to be referred to a Committee, was, that it would be very dif. ficult to bring the matter to any thing like legal proof. All the proof that there could be of the payment of . the 5,570?. could only be, that such sums had been paid by the Duke's bankers, and that packets had after- wards been sent by the Duke of York to Mrs. Clarke.— Whether those packets did or did not contain the sums stated, as having been received from the bankers, could only appear by the asseverations of the Duke of York. As that was not legal proof, he doubted of the propriety of leaving the papers to a Committee. T , , After some desultory conversation, it was resolved, that the letters taken at Captain Sandon's lodgings, should, when proved, be read in evidence. . . º The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that it. would be better uot to permit the witness, (Mrs. Clarke), who was to prove the hand-writing, to read the contents of the letters. It often happened that withiºghost tead, the letters before they would ackn hand-writing, and that at least prepared examination which was to follow. sº It appeared to be the sense of the Committee, that the Chairman should admonish. Mrs. Clarke, that she was not to read the letters produced to her, but simply to state, . . t.A. PTAIN sandos's ExA Misſ AT10N. #39 ºupon looking at them, whether or hot they were her hand-writing. . . . . . . . Mrs. Clarke was then called, and was accordingly ad- -monished by the Chair. Near forty letters were then ! shewn to Mrs. Clarke, and she was asked whether they were her hand-writing. She barely looked at the letters separately, and admitted without hesitation that they were her hand-writing. . . * * • , , - The letters which were taken at Mr. Sandon's chame bers, were then put in and read. & -- Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE, was called in ; and was informed by the Chairmán, that when any letters were put into her liáñds, to as- certain her own hand-writing, she was not to read the contents of those letters. . . This is my hand-writing. . (No. 1.) [Mrs. Clarke identified other £etters, numbered to 41.] Mrs. Clarke. No. 42 is a piece of the Buke of York's letter which had come from Dover, with his seal upon it; it is directed “George Farquhar,” and has the same, sort of seal as the note, that Captain * * & Sandon had here last night. w . . [The papers from No. 1 to 42 inclusive, were read.] Captain HUXLEY SANDON was brought to the bar, and was exa- . . . . . . . . . mined, as follows: . . . . State to the Ceramittee from what motive you, when you were the first time examined about the business of Major Tonyn, did not men- tion the note which you produced last night? I really an extremely ashamed of myself that 1. not; aud. I hope the honourable House wº nie, 4 . . . . *. What motive had you for not mentioning that note, when you were first examined at the bar? I really had no motive, - Were you aware that it was a material circuinstance to the point on which you were examined? Certainly it was. . . . Wereyou not aware that you were bound to give such information as was within your knowledge respecting that fact? I did not understand that I was obliged to give it; f they'ght, if the question was asked me, I was obliged to answer it. a " State the reason why you did not mentioait on your ſirst examination. f really do not know how to answer the question. Why, when you were asked about this note, did you' * * * : * * : * * * * * deny knowing what was become of it? At that period the note was º fast flight did you not know what was become of the note Not till I went hoyº it was mislaid. ºr [The witness was taken from the bar. [The witness was again brought to the bar.] Chairman. Captain Huxley Sandon, I am instructed by the Com- faittee to remind you of the heavy punishment which has been inflicted tigon you for gross prevarication, under the infliction of which you are 440 . cAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATIon. still labouring; and to inform you, that if you persevere in the same º system of gross prevarication, you have not yet experienced all the pur - nishment which can be inflicted upon you by the justice of the House of Commons. . . . . - . , Capt. Hurley Sandon. Mr. Chairman, I really do not mean to pre- varicate; I am very sorry this honourable House has that idea; I will speak everything I know ; it is my wish, I assure you, not to preva- ricate; I will telſ every thing 1 can possibly know. . . . . . Do you recollect any conversation which you held with Colonel Hamilton somewhere in London, since your réturn to London, when you informed Colonel Hamilton that the note was destroyed, wherein § used this expression, “they have forgofit,” or tº ſprgötten them?” Not upon my recollection, upon my honour; I will certainly say every thing I know; it is my wish and my inclination. * ... ." Do you recollect any conversation which you held with Colonel Ha- milton’somewhere in London, since your return to London, when you informed Colonel Hamilton that the note was destroyed, wherein you used this expression, “they have forgot it,” or “forgotten them " No; I never made use of that expression. t - - Was it with a view to any emolument or advantage to be derived from the possession of that letter, that you concealed it? No, cer- tainly not - - - * , . - What was the motive which induced you to conceal that letter from the House, till, by the punishment of the House being inflicted upon ou, you, by the fear of that punishment, were induced to produce it? # had no particular motive for keeping back that letter. Do you, then mean to state, that without any direct motive for so º .." told a deliberate falsehood at the bar? I am sorry to say that I did. t s + w Did you, or did you not, at the time of your examination here last might, think that that note was of importance? Certainly I did. in what way did you think that'note of importance? Because it was the note that I presented to Majbr Tonyn, which convinced him that it was the interest I had with Mrs. Clarke that got him the ma- iority. - - - . . . . . . . - ! #. you know, of your own knowledge, the hand-writing of that note I never saw the hand-writing to my knowledge, before. Did Major Tonyn seem to know the hand-writing, or did he make any observation upon the note, and what?, I do not recollect that he did ; I shewed him the note, and at that F. he said, then the matter might'stand over for two or three Gazette, days, or a Gazette day or two. . . . - . . State why it was of importance to you to conceal that letter. I had no particular reason why I concealed it. - Did Colonel Tamilton, when you shewed him that note, tell you it was the hand-writing of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? No, he did not. " ", " . . - - . . . . What remark did Colonel Hamilton make upon that note, when you . shewed it to him? Previous to my shewing him the note, I told him that I understood it was his Royaſ Highness's haud-writing; he asked me what kind of hand it was, whether it was a neat little hand, and whether the large T’s were made in a particular way, turning over; and when I shewed him the note, I asked him, do you think it is his Royal Highness's hand-writing; he made me no answer. - . CAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATIon. $41 Did ou apprehend any danger or inconvenience to yourself, from acknowledging that the note was inF.'. possession ? No, I did not. [The witness was taken from the bar. Mr. W. Smith then said, he hoped that Captain San- don would not be brought again to the bar to give evi- dence. He had so completely disqualified himself from any sort of credit, that he thought it would be worse than wasting time to ask him any more questions. . . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he by no means differed with the honourable gentleman who spoke last, as to the credibility of the witness alluded to; but he could wish that he might be permitted to appear once more at the bar, as it might be in his power to give some clue, or throw some light on the papers which had been so recently put under the consideration of the House, in consequence of his prevarication, and the measures adopted thereon. Mr. Wardle said, he wished to obtain the attention of the House to a few observations he was desirous to offer to their attention. It would easily be recollected with what a pompous display of eloquence the right honourable gentleman had, on their last meeting, ushered in the state- ment he had made of a circumstance which he had, till then, purposely kept back, and which he had then thought proper to bring forward, in an attack upon him, founded on an accusation of his having been guilty of a suppres- sion of evidence. Many and repeated had been the at- tacks, which had been made against him from , various quarters since the commencement of this inquiry, and he had endeavoured to treat them all with the indifference which was due to them. . That attack, however, which had been made on him by the right honourable gentleman in the course of the last night's proceedings, was of a more serious nature than any of the rest, and he would own that he really felt it as most harshly and most unjustly imputed to him. He had deemed it his first and paramount duty, in the prosecution of this inquiry, to carry it on in such a manner as was most likely to attain the ends of publicjus- tice, which was solely and entirely the object aimed at, and with that view had refrained from attending to the various and violent attacks which had been made, and the broad insinuations thrown ought against him. A time, however, would shortly arrive when he should have an op- portunity of answering and repelling those attacks, and of shewing that he had been actuated only by what he 442 cAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATron. thought a due discharge of his duty to his country as an independent member of parliament. Conscious, as he was, of having fulfilled that duty to the utmost of his power, he should content himself for the present with the observa. tions which he had thus thought it incumbent on him to make upon the subject. ... " * The Chancellor of the Ercheqver said, he rose for the purpose of saying a few words, in answer to an address to the Committee from the honourable gentleman who had just sat down, which to him appeared the most surprising he had ever heard in that House. He appealed to the recollection of the whole Committee, and even to the honourable gentleman himself, if he had not, from the come mencement of the present inquiry, endeavoured to carry it on in such a manner as, in his mind, to avoid the possibility of such a charge as the honourable gentleman had so un- justly brought against him. From the particular situa- tion which he held in that House, he might have placed the eonduct of this inquiry on other persons than himself; but in justice to the royal personage who was the subject of it—the son of the revered master whom he served— he thought it would be a more direct and a more striking proof of his respect for the good opinion of his Sovereign, and of the public, as well as of that royal personage who now stood accused, to stand forward, and openly and fairly support and defend the innocence of the accused, than to put it into any other hands. In doing this, he had endeavoured to act with every degree of candour and openness; and if he could reasonably flatter himself with any part of his conduct being entitled to the approbation of the Committee, and free from misrepresentation or mis- understanding, it was precisely that which the honourable gentleman had thought proper to select as the ground of his animadversion. As to the witness and prisoner who had just left the bar, and had proved himself unworthy of the smaallest degree of credit, either from the Committee or any one else, he had never said a syllable which could be construed fairly as tending to support him. He did indeed say there had been a suppression of evidence, but he had not the most distant idea of imaputing that to the henourable gentleman, or to Mrs. Clarke, or to any other than himself. As to any attack which might have been made upon the honourable gentleman in the course of this inquiry, lº could only say there had been none from him; captAIN SAN bon's ExAMINATHon. 443 and he hoped, therefore, that whatever fault the hôhour- able gentleman might find with what he termed the pom- pous manner.of his introducing the statement he had made to the House, he would do him the justice to exonerate him from a charge which, as he was perfectly conscious he had not deserved, he would be sorry should be attti- buted to him either by the Committee, the höhötirable gentleman, or the public. Mr. Whitbread said he had distinctly understood the right honourable gentleman in the statement he made last night, to say expressly, that he meant not any thing against his honourable friend, but merely alluded to the witness who was the object of that statement. He could not avoid bestowing on the right honourable gentleman his warmest praises for the very manly, open, and candid Inanner in which he had conducted himself through the whole of this inquiry. He was certain it must have been dbserved by the whole Committee, and wanted only the addition of his honourable friend's testimony, who had un- questionably misconceived him, to make it complete. He hoped, therefore, his honourable friend would reflect on what had passed, and he was sure he would come to avery different opinion on the subject to what he had so, lately expressed. - , Lord H. Petty coincided in opinion with his honour- able friend, who had just, sat down, as to the open and candid conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout the whole of the inquiry, which he thought deserving his warmest approbation, and of which he was sure a misconception only could have drawn to it the animadversion of the honourable gentleman, who had with equal candour brought forward those charges. - Mr. Wardle said, he had certainly felt otherwise the moment he delivered his sentiments; but from what had been said by his honourable friend, and the noble lord who had just sat down, and since the very handsome ex- planation which the right honourable gentleman had done. him the honour to give upon the subject; he was very happy to say, that what had fallen from him so recently on that head was merely the effect of misunderstanding. [The witness was again brought to the bar.] . . . Have you any recollection inoy long it was before the appointment of Major"fonyn appeared in the Gazette, that you shewed the note you 444. cAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATIon. 4 * received from Mrs. Clarke to Major Tonyn ! I think it might be two or three Gazette days; eight or nine or ten days. - - , Look at that paper, [No. 42]. I know this paper. . . . . How came that paper into your possession? It rolled up the note that I had to shew Major Tonyn. - Was it in that state when you received it? Exactly in that state. Had it no other writing upon it? No, nothing more; it rolled up . the note I received from Mrs. Clarke to shew Major Tonyn. Do you recollect why Mrs. Clarke gave you that bit of paper to roll up the note? No, I cannot recollect why she did it; let me recollect why, there was some reason why it was given; I cannot positively take upon me to say what the reason was, but there was some reason why the note was rolled up in that piece of paper; there was some reason, which I cannot now really recollect. - - Try if you can recollect it... I cannot recollect; but I am perfectly sure there was some reason why she gave me the note rolled up in that bit of paper; I think, if my memory will bring me through, it was when the Duke was reviewing somewhere upon the coast, and it was to prove to Major Tonyn, in some way or other, that that note was writ- ten by his Royal Highness. - g - Do you mean that the Duke was reviewing near the coast when you shewed this paper to Major Tonyn He was on the coast, I under- stood, at that period: she had received this letter, which she produced: I do not know whether she did not produce the letter, and read part of it to me, and then she tore off a piece, and rolled up the other, and said, this will convince him that this comes from his Royal Highness, who is now upon the coast. . - - - - How could that letter, not having upon it the Duke's name, convince any body that another letter that appeared to be in the same hand- writing was the Duke's 2 I really do not remember now ; but that he was at Dover or in Kent, reviewing, at the period, I perfectly well re- collect. Do you not recollect that the Duke of York's name was upon the frank of the letter at the time it :. to you? I never saw it. Was there any thing respecting the seal that was to be observed? Not that I recollect. ` , - . . . . Why should you give credit to that cover more than to the note? It is so long since, that I cannot recollect why, but that there was some, reason Iain certain. - - - ..! Recollect yourself how you came to go to Mrs. Clarke's on that day, whether by accident, intention, or solicitation. I should think it was from solicitation. } . . In what room did you see Mrs. Clarke? I really cannot say; I used to see her in every room; such as the drawing-room, and the dining- robrn, and her little dressing-room. 2. Will you recollect whether any person was present? No, I do not r£collect that circumstance. * sº * ... , On what business did you go there on that day ? I think it was from her solicitation, that I might go to Major Tonyn, to inform him that she had got this paper, or that I was to take the note and shew it to Major Tonyn, it came from his Royal Highness the Duke of York; but there are some letters which I gave up to this honourable House, that I think Inention something about that very business. . . . . - CAPTAIN SANDoN's ExAMINATIon. 445 Did you state to Mrs. Clarke, that Major Tonyn wanted his security back again, or his money : That he wanted º his memorandum. " What contrivance was it between Mrs. Clarke and you to keep Ma- jor Tonyn from recovering that memorandum ? I know of no parti- cular contrivance; she desired I would go to him, and speak about the majority. *, Then the Committee is to understand, that you went there and had a conversation with Mrs. Clarke, how to manage to keep Majof Tonyn in temper until this majority could be had, and that you found there a note, purporting to be a note from the Commander in Chief, ready written and sealed? I do not exactly recollect that circumstance; T have related previous to it how I came acquainted with Major Tonym: and when I had the honour of being introduced to Major Tonyn, it was on the very demur, when he was tired of the business, and thought the influence I had could not get the matter done, and desired me to get back the security; the consequence was, I informed Mrs. Clarke of the subject. . . . * * - ! - And she had a note ready ? No, I beg your pardon, not that I re- collect, then. & 2. The note was not ready? Not that I recollect. . Then if the note was not ready, how came you to bring it away with you ? I do not recollect; she told me she had got a note, and shewed ine this note, and desired me to take it to Major Tonyn; I of course took it, and told him that it was the interest by which we would obtain the majority; I did not know at that time that was from the Com- mander in Chief; Mrs. Clarke gave me the note, and said that he had better wait two or three Gazette days, and in all probability he would be gazetted. - - * * Did you find the note there, and was it sealed or not? When I first saw the note, it was not sealed; it was broken open, the seal was broken. - . Was it re-sealed? Not in my presence. . . Did you deliver it sealed to Captain Tonyn No, I took it in my hand, and shewed him the note. Will you undertake to say that there never was a contrivance be- tween yourself and Mrs. Clarke, on any occasion of this kind, to fabri- cate such a note 2, . Positively never. You have stated that the Commander in Chief was reviewing on the -coast when you received that note from Mrs. Clarke 2 So I understood from Mrs. Clarke. - - - * * ... How long had his Royal Highness been absent from town at that time f. I really cannot say. - A. ſad he been three days absent I really do not know. There are certain pencil marks and other marks of your's upon the apers which were laid upon the table last night; were those marks and dates the dates of the times that you received those papers? If you will do me the honour of letting me see the papers, I will say for what purpose I }. them, to the best of my recollection. [No. 9 was shewn to the witness.] On that you will find a pencil mark, “ 17th of August, 1804;” state what that pencil mark means. This of course must be the date of it; here it is upon the post mark. Was the pencil the date when you received it? No, it could not be, for here is “ August the 17th.” 446 caprArn sixpos's ExAMINATIow." - What is the meaning of this pencil mark? That must be from some- thing of this sort, for here is 17th of August upon the post mark. - §. is the meaning of that pencil mark? I suppose it must be the date of the letter. : r Is not that pencil mark your hand-writing 2 I think it is, but the . words “Mrs. Clarke” upon it, are not mine. [No. 12 was shewn to the witness.] You will observe there is a . pencil date upon that letter of the 8th of June, 1804; what does that pencil date mean, was it the day you received the letter? No, this must be wrong, because it is June 9th, and here is “June 8th,” and June the 8th does not look like my hand-writing; the word “majority” is mines Has that letter been out of your custody since the time you received it, till last night? No, certainly not. Then is it possible any other person than yourself could have put. that date to it? No, I should imagine not; but still it does not look like my hand-writing. Do you recollect the purport of the note 7 No, I entirely forget what it is. - [The note was read.] Hearing the purport of this note, state how this note, which men- tions “a stop to the business,” could possibly encourage Major Tonyn in the idea of its going forward The note says, does it not, that it is to go on? - On the contrary, it says it stops, “shall remain as it is;” how can this note, which speaks of its remaining as it is, encourage this gentle- man in the expectation of its going on 2 . It was then going on, and I should imagine it was meant that it should go on. If you attend to the purport of the note, you will find that it says it shall stand still ; what do you understand by the expression in that note, that it is to remain as it is: I really do not understand it, I must confess. [The witness was taken from the bar. [The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. - Captain Huxley Sandon was ordered to be remanded to Newgate. - - The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that it would be necessary the letters he had just alluded to should be sealed, and placed in the custody of some proper person or persons. It seemed, however, difficult to fix in whose hands they should be left, so as to give the members of that House an opportunity of seeing them, and making such. extracts as they might severally think proper to make. The Speaker intimated, that the proper officer to take care of the papers was the clerk of the journals and papers, and he should be ordered to permit members of the House to peruse and make extracts from them, but no one else. The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, that an obser- CAPTAIN sandon’s ExAAttrarign. 44? wation had been recently made by an honourable gentle- man, which appeared to him as highly important as any that had been made in the course of this examination, viz. that on a close inspection, the turn and texture of many of the letters in the note of the Duke of York was different from those of the other letters said to be written by him. He could, therefore, wish that some other persons, such as those of the Bank or Post-office, who were in daily habits of examining different hand-writing for the purpose of detecting forgeries, might also be permitted to see them, and be called on for their opinions before the Committee : and to obviate any objections, it might be ordered, that no such persons should be permitted to peruse them, but by ail, order from the Speaker. ‘. Mr. C. Wynne thought it would be better that such in- spection should take place at the bar, and then the Com- mittee might see any impression, which surprize at the difference, if any should be found, might raise on their countenance. Mr. W. Smith expressed his opinion that the observa- tion alluded to by the right honourable gentleman, was highly important, but as it contained a most minute criti- cism, he thought an examination of the several letters at the bar, would be too brief and sudden for the gentlemen inspectors to form that decided judgment which was ne- cessary. He should therefore prefer the proposition of the right honourable gentleman. Lord Folkestone said, he was sorry this had not been mentioned sooner before the Committee, because he thought the more letters written by the Duke of York, which they had to compare with the note, the better able they would be to form a decided opinion as to the difference. It had been proposed that Mrs. Clarke should produce a bundle of the Duke's letters, which she had in her possession, but that not being agreed to at the time, there would not now be an opportunity of having an inspection of these letters along with the others. } Mr. Mellish said, he had carefully perused the note and the two letters, and on a comparison, perceived a great difference in the turn and formation of several of the letters, which made him doubt their being of the sane band-writing. it was then ordered, that all the papers alluded to 448 captain sandon's ExAMINATION, should be sealed up in a box, and delivered into the cus. tody of the clerk. > That they should remain so sealed up in his custody, put that at particular hours, viz. from eleven to three, they should be shewn to members of the IHouse, and to . such other persons as should be authorised by an order of the Speaker. * - ( 449 ) ELEVENTH DAY. MonBAY, FEBRUARY 20. §§ aí -- List of Witnesses examined. THOMAS METCALFE, M. D. MR. SAMUEL JOHNSON. MR, ROBERT SEAR LES. MR. THOMAS NESBITT. MR. THOMAS BATEMAN. MIR. THOMAS BLISS. * BRIGADIER GENERAL CLAVERING, CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. COLONEL GORDON. W. ADAM, Esq. (a Member.) THE RT. Hon. SPENCER PERCEVAL, (a Member.) MR. BENJAMIN TOWN. JOHN MESSENGER. Mr. WhART on in the Chair. Mr. Wardle moved the order of the day for going into à Committee for inquiring into the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. Sir Thomas Turton wished previously to ask a question of the right honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer, re- specting the statement made by him the other day, re- lative to the sums of money that appeared to have been transmitted from his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke. Many of these sums were very considerable; and, there- fore, he wished to know whether the right honourable gentleman meant to examine any evidence on the subject in order to obviate any prejudices that might be en-. tertained through the want of § more minute examination. T 450 PROCEEDIN&S RELATIVE TG The Chancellor of the Erchequer answered, that when he made the statement a few days ago, he had mentioned to the Committee that the different tradesmen who had received sums of money from Mrs. Clarke, were in at- tendance to prove the sums they had respectively receiv- ed; and he at the same time stated, that if the House was disposed to go into a particular investigation upon the subject, it might be expedient to appoint a select Com- mittee for the purpose. He had also stated, that it would be impossible, he feared, to bring specific proofs of the actual conveyance of the money from his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke, as the messenger who conveyed it could only prove that he had brought the sums from the banker to his Royal Highness, and afterwards conveyed a number of separate parcels from his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke, but could not prove their contents. He re- gretted, if the House was disposed to adopt the plan of a committee that the interval had been lost. There had been a variety of opinions expressed on the subject, but no gentleman intimated any wish for the select com- mittee at the time. If, however, the House was now dis- posed to adopt the committee, he had no objection. Sir T. Turton said, he did not hear the right honour- able gentleman mention a committee; but he feared that the opinion of a select committee would not be satis- factory. - The Chancellor of the Erchequer was, however, of opi- nion, that the report of a select committee on this sub- ject, like other select committees, to whom particular points had been referred in the course of this inquiry, would be satisfactory to the House, as the former reports had been. He had conversed with the members of the other committees, who acknowledged that every thing had been conducted, on both sides, with the utmost can- dour and fairness; and he therefore thought, that such a committee in the present case, composed more nume- rously, if deemed expedient, would much expedite the business, save the time of the Flouse, and be perfectly sa- tisfactory. - Sir T. Turton said he did not mean satisfactory to the House, but to the public; for his own part, he was per- fectly satisfied on the subject, and had no doubts to re- move; but he thought the evidence would with much better effect be examined at the bar. THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. '45} Mr. Abercromby rose to express his wish that a mis- statement, which appeared on the face of the minutes of evidence taken before the House, should be corrected. It related to the evidence of Mr. Greenwood, in the case bf Mr. Elderton, who was appointed to a paymastership in consequence of his recommendation; but Mr. Green- wood was represented on the minutes to have said, that subsequent to his first recommendation; he found upon inquiry that Mr. Elderton was a person unfit to be recom- mended, in consequence of which he forwarded a remon- strance to the Duke of York upon the subject, but Mr. Elderton's appointment had taken place riqtwithstanding. Now having himself some doubts as, to the accuracy of the statement, he had appealed to Mr. Greenwood him- self, whose authority he had for stating that the minutes on this point were inaccurate; and he proposed to call Mr. Greenwood to the bar for re-examination, in order to Gorrect the error. * — ” • The Chancellor of the Ecchequer said that the evidence of Mr. Greenwood had not stated his haying made a sub- sequent communication to the Duke of York after his first recommendation; but he stated that he found Mr. Elder- ton a person of improper character after his first repre- sentation, and that the appointment had taken place bé- fore his second representation reached the Duke. - Mr. Charles Adams wished to ask the right honourable gentleman, in which of the conferences stated by him to have taken place with different persons, in the transaction of the particular ſidte in question, he was informed of the suppression of that note by Captain Sandon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said; he received his information from Colonel Hamilton. Mr. Whitbread, with the leave of the House, before it resolved into the Committee, moved, in the usual form; for a copy of the letter addressed by Mr. Pinckney to Mr. Secretáry Canning; and of any correspondence which ensued thereon.—Ordered. t The House then went into the Committee. . . The Chairman informed the Committee, that he had re- ceived a letter from General Clavering; stating that there is a seeming inconsistency in his evidence; and expressing a wish that he might again be called before the Com- mittee in order that he, might explain it. [.4 cry of read! read!] - - 2 G 2 452 proceedings Retative to Lord Temple moved, that the letter mentioned by the Chairman to have been received by him from General Clavering, be read. ... • * Sir M. W. Ridley spoke a few words from under the gallery, but in so low a tone, that we could not hear what he said. - - _ - The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if General Clavering wished to correct any thing which appeared to be inconsistent or contradictory in his evidence, fet him be summoned, or let him attend if he was there; but he saw no reason why his letter should be read. Lord Temple answered, that as he understood General Clavering was then attending, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion. , Mr. Johnson was them called in as a witness. - Mr. PP'hitbread rose, and the witness was desired to withdraw. The honourable gentleman then said he ap- prehended the Committee had already examined several persons who were deemed the most competent to know the Duke of York's hand-writing. It would seem from what he had been given to understand, that this gentle- man, who has then produced as a witness, knew nothing of the writing of his Royal Highness; and it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that the Committee should now resort to an evidence not nearly so strong as that of those witnesses who had already been examined. Such a rule as that which the Committee was now about to pursue, had once obtained, he believed, in courts of jus- tice, in cases of capital offences, but it had for some time been discontinued. If that were really the case, he begged the House to consider seriously what must be the effect of calling this witness before, they agreed to admit him to the bar; for however inclined they might be, to give every indulgence in their power to the royal personage who was accused, yet they should well weigh in their minds whether any other person would, if standing before them on the same or similar charges, be allowed an equal degree of favour. In his opinion, they had given latitude to Colonel Gordon, in permitting him to take a paper from his pocket, and compare it with the note which he was called upon to say, whether it was, in his opinion, the Duke of York’s hand-writing; yet atmost immediately afterwards forty letters were shown to Mrs. Clarke, and she was told ‘hat she must not read any one or any part THE com MANDER IN CHIEF. #53 of any one of them; but must, from merely viewing the signature, say positively whether they were her’s or not. It would seem rather hard she should not have been al- Howed to see whether any alterations or interpolations had been made in any of them, but from solely the name at the bottom, should be obliged to allow they were her’s. He knew very well the Committee had decided by their proceedings that they were not be confined within the strict rules respecting evidence, by which the courts of law regulated themselves; but having made this allow- ance to Colonel Gordon, he must throw it out for the con- sideration of the Committee, whether having already com- mitted impropriety would justify them in adding to those improprieties; by allowing a witness to be examined, who Could only speak upon the writing of a person whom he had never seen write; a practice which certainly would not be allowed in the courts below. Under these circum- stances, he wished the Committee to pause before the determined, for it seemed to him, . ...; such import. ance, that if a vote should take place on it, he should give his against the witness being admitted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that this objection of the honourable gentleman ought to have been made when the subject was first introduced to the notice of the Committee; for when it, had been decided that such evidence should be resorted to, it seemed father hard that any opposition should now be made to it. He sup- posed, #. the honourable gentleman left the House the other night before the subject was mentioned in the Committee. In the course of the last night's discussion on this' inquiry, an honourable member under the gallery had observed, that having carefully compared the note with the two letters which had been actually proved to be the Duke's hand-writing, the letters in the note appeared to him, from their formation, to be more like an imitation of letters than a regular hand-writing. Oa this it was thought necessary that the information should be attended to, and followed up as accurately as possible ; and as it would be altogether out of the power of all the members of that House to examine the papers so minutely as to form a decision on the point, it was thought most advise- able to apply to four or ſive persons of the Post-office and the Bank, who were in the use and habit of investigating such points in cases of life and death. If these letters and 454 PROCEEDING's RELATIVE To note were only to be submitted to a jury of twelve men, they might all of them examine all the letters so minutely, as to decide the point by themselves; but in so great a number as the members of that House, such an examina- tion would be absolutely impossible. Such a proceeding had been allowed in a trial at bar by four judges, sit- ting in solemn decision in the Court of King's Bench; but in one case, that decision had been denied to be law by one judge at Nisi Prius. The present proceeding, as he obs served before, had been adopted the other night; and though it might not fall in with the observations of the honourable gentleman on the subject, it was somewhat hard the witness should now be objected to, after it had previously been agreed upon that he should be examined, and that he had been sent for accordingly. * As to the observation of the honourable gentleman, viz. that it seemed as if the Committee were inclined to give indulgence on one side and not on the other, he thought it was by no means the case. In one instance a person was called to examine § hand-writing that was not his own, and in the other, a Writing that was her own. If there had been any irregularity, it was in having ad- mitted Colonel Gordon's evidence, but none in Mrs. Clarke's ; for if any thing should arise in the course of the letters produced to the injury of Mrs. Clarke's evi- dence, she would be allowed to have an examination of such parts, and if any alterations and interpolations had been made, she would be able to detect and point them out. ... From the mode adopted by the Speaker, he was cqually ignorant of the evidence this witness would give as the houourable gentlemen was or any other person whatever ; but he thought as he had been called upon by the Committee to make the examination, and had done so, he ought to be permitted to give his evidence on the sub- ject, be it whatever it might. * Mr. Whitbread said, he saw no difference between a jury and the members of that House, as he thought no member would give his judgment without having exa- mined the papers carefully with his own eyes, and after he had so done, he believed there was not a member who would not give his opinion in preference to his own eye: sight, before that of this witness, or any other who formed his judgment from the same basis. - Lord Folkestone said he came prepared to make the THE CO AIM A Ni).E.R. H N CHIEF. 455 * same objection, in which he had been anticipated by the honourable gentleman below him ; and he must observe generally, as to this kind of evidence, that whenever it had been resorted to, it was always in the case of its be- ing the best evidence that could be obtained on the sub- ject. Mrs. Clarke had given a direct testimony, and if gentlemen would seriously and carefully attend to the whole of her evidence, it would appear to be as correct, fair and honourable a testimony as could be given. Four gentlemen of honour had been examined on the point in question, who all agreed that it was so like the Duke of York's hand-writing, that they believed it to be his. (A cry of no no ') * * With respect to the doctrine of being allowed to prove any thing by a comparison of hands, the last case which had been determined on the subject, was at Maidstone. It was that of Jackson v. Cator, for a libel ; and Mr. ūarrow, for the plaintiff, called evidence such as this to prove that the libel was written in a feigned or suppo- sitious hand, and that there was a similarity between this feigned hand and that of the defendant Cator. The no- ble Lord then read an extract from the speech of Lord Ellenborough, who was then Attorney-general, and coun- sel for the defendant, by which it appeared, that he said he was not desiring the court not to go the length of judges in the worst of times, but only the judges who were then administering the laws of the land. He referred to the case of Revett and Braham, which had been quoted by the right honourable gentleman opposite, being the trial at bar he had mentioned, and shewed that that case had , afterwards been reversed by Lord Kenyon. The witness was asked whether he could say the libel was like the hand-writing of Cator, but Lord Kenyon would not allow him to answer the question, because, he said, that compa- rison of hands was no evidence. And in a similar case, which came to be heard before Mr. Justice Yates, that most upright and learned judge held expressly, the same doctrine, and said he did not know any case where com- parison of hands could be admitted. In an indictment for forgery, a person who had seen the party write might be admitted to prove it, but not by a comparison on a similarity of hands. There was also submitted by Lord Ellenborough to the court, the case of the seven bishops, in which Chief Justice Jefferys and another judge were $456 • Progee DINGs her, ATIgE ro willing to receive such evidence, and Mr. Justice Powell and another were against it, which shewed that the law- yers even of that day never thought it right to prove forgery by a comparison of hands, Mr. Baron Hotham's decision in the case of Jackson and Cator, and in which he rejected the doctrine laid down in Revett and Braham, was an authority which compelled him to acquiesce en- tirely in the opinion of that learned judge. The so- licitor for the plaintiff, in the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to take down a host of inspectors from the Post-office, to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The defendant was prepared with another host of inspec- tors from the Bank, who would have proved the direct contrary. This statement had been made to him by the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of great hon- our and credit in his profession, and shewed how very great the difference of opinions was, with regard to the comparison of hands. He would therefore entreat the Committee to weigh well the matter, before they allowed such evidence to be called to the bar. * Mr. Heresford said a few words, in favour of the wit- ness being called in. - Mr. W. Smith said, that having given his opinion in favour of the proceeding on the last night of the inquiry, he should certainly maintain it then, though in direct op- position to that of his hon. friend and the noble Lord, with whom he was generally in the habit of voting. The subject, indeed, divided itself into more branches than he was inclined to enter, upon at that moment, but he could not help offering a few observations on it. He was sorry the mode of examining witnesses on oath had not been adopted, as he thought this House ought to examine on path as well as the other, and he believed the custom had obtained in the other House from the circumstance of their being more frequently used to-act in judicial capa- city. As it was, the House must now proceed in the way that it set out with. There appeared to him great con- fusion in the manner of arguing the subject. The first question in these cases, generally was, have you seen the party write 2 and in answering this the witness did not give his opinion on having seen the party write, but on what he had written, which is merely matter of opinion from comparison of the hand-writing. That this, how- ever, was, after all, a very uncertain mode of proceeding, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 457 He was ready to admit: . This had to him been strongly exemplified in a case which occurred in that House a few nights ago. An honourable gentleman had been exa- mined as to the hand-writing of Sir Horace. Mann, who ... had on that occasion said, that the first paper produced to him was the writing of Sir Horace, and the second was not. He (Mr. Smith) had carefully and minutely exa- mined both, and though he had never seen Sir H. Mann write, from the first paper being allowed by the honour- able member without any doubt, to be the hand-writing of Sir Horace Mann, he (Mr. Smith) should have felt no doubt, the second was also ; with no other difference, than that the one had been written with what is ggnerally called a better pen. As to the gentlemen who had been called to prove the Duke of York's hand-writing, ihey had done themselves honour on the occasion, by the great caution with which they had given their evidence. If the House had strictly adhered to the rules adopted by the courts of law, he would allow they should confine themselves to it: but having once taken a greater latitude, they ought not to permit themselves to be circumscribed, and therefore he thought that Col. Gordon's comparison of hands was not liable to the objection his honourable friend had made to it. As to Mrs. Clarke, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had well observed, that if any alterations or interpolations had taken place, she might be allowed to correct them. He could not, therefore, but think it right that the witnesses should be examined as to the comparison of hands. * Mr. Bragge Bathurst said, that as this point had been objected to, it behoved them to look well to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought. They might set up technical or legal proofs to bar such a mode of proceed- ing ; but this case was nothing like what is so called in courts of law. As to Mrs. Clarke, he should give no opinion on her evidence. He should not follow the ex- ample of the noble lord who had panegyrized the lady on the occasion, because he thought it was premature to do so at present. As to the others there was not one of them but General Brownrigg to whom a legal question had been put, and that question he had answered so as to deny that it was, in his opinion, the hand-writing of the Duke of York. . So far, therefore, from the fact being absolutely proved, there is still a doubt, it stands at pre- A58 - proceed ING's RELATI've to sent in equilibrio, and the question now was, whether the House might not apply to persons who are adequate to speak on the subject ; and for his own part, he saw no rea- son why they should not endeavour to obtain as much in- formation in it as they could. A case had been adduced, where a person was asked, whether a libel was in the ge- nuine hand-writing of the plaintiff, and that was allowed. The person's hand-writing was then shewn, and he was . asked whether that and the libel were not the same. That was a comparison of hands, and was objected to. The inspector was asked whether the writing shewn him was a feigned hand, and that he was allowed to answer. The House ought therefore to go as far at least as the courts of law, and that is what is wanted to ask of this witness from the Post-office. Because the Duke's hand-writing, as to this note, is not proved at all, it is desirable to know whe- ther it is likely to be a real or a feigned hand. He was therefore of opinion the witness ought to be examined. Mr. Brand was decidedly of opinion that the witness ought to be examined. Sir Samuel Romilly said, the question appeared to him to be of such high importance that he thought the Com- mittee should not determine on it before they were in pos- session of more information. The object was very differ- ent from that of courts of justice, and therefore the flouse could not be bound by the same ties. The right honour- able gentleman opposite had not stated the matter fairly, when he merely talked of a decision at bar, and one at Nisi Prius. The fact was, that in the case of Revett and Braham, which was a trial at bar, the decision was so contrary to the established principles of law, and gave so universal and great an alarm to the whole bar, that on the subsequent occasion in the case Nisi Prius, Mr. Baron Hotham, who was well known to be a judge very diffident of his own opinion, took on himself to reverse the ław held on the other case, of the trial at bar : and it was very evident, and perfectly well known, that he, a single judge sitting at Nisi Prius, never would have un- dertaken to overturn that decision of the court, had he not been well aware that it had been highly and loudly condemned by the universal opinion of the whole bar. There was no question of law so nice, as that of saying whether any certain piece of writing is that of any one particular person or not; the property, the liberties, and T II E ("G M M ANDER IN C II IEF. . 459 the lives, of all the subjects of this realm, were deeply in- terested in it; and it ought never to be forgotten in that House, in particular, that Algernon Sydney lost his life by admitting a comparison of hand-writing, and as Lord Ellenborough had so lately argued the case most seriously, the House ought well to consider whether this was really law or not. He should be sorry to take up the time of the Committee, by going deeply into the reason of this case, but he had really heard nothing to convince him in what had been advanced that night on the subject. If the House were to judge by what had fallén from the honourable gentleman below him (Mr. W. Smith), a comparison of hands was unquestionably better than seeing a person write; that argument, it seemed to him, went too far, for it proved the comparison to be the best, which was a doctrine long since exploded. The right honourable gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bathurst) had said that the House had examin. £d four gentlemen, but had not put the proper questions to them. Then why not put these questions to them * They were still to be called before the House, and it was much better to put these questions to them in such a man- her as the right honourable gentleman should point out as a proper one, than to admit evidence so very alarming as this appeared to him to be. He begged the Committee to recollect that the evidence to be produced was to decide the point by a comparison of hands; that this was deem- ed contrary to the established law of the land; and is it, said he, the evidence of those persons which shall be allow- ed to determine this positively to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York: He thought it ought not, and should therefore object to the witness being called to the bar. Mr. Beresford said a few words explanatory of what he said before. . . $ The Attorney General said his right honourable and learned friend who had just sat down, could not more highly respect the judicial opinion of Lord Ellenborough than he himself did ; but when he considered that in the case alluded to he went to Maidstone as counsel for the gefendant, all the law he had then held on the subject was merely that of an advocate, doing the most he could for the cause of his client, but was by no means to be con- sidered in the light of a judicial opinion. He could not allow the reason given by his right honourable and learned friend for Buran liatham's overruling the decision of the ,460 MR. Metc.ALFr's ExAMIN-Ation. court, because it was the universal opinion of the bar that that decision was contrary to law. In the case of Revett and Braham, the point was, whether the hand-writing yas feigned or real; and this was to be determined by ersons from public-offices, who acted as inspectors. In the trial before Baron Hotham, the inspectors from the JPost office were asked whether the hand-writing of the defendant Cator was a feigned hand ; so far it agreed with the case of Revett and Braham ; but it went further, and having proved the opinion that the hand-writing was feign- ed, they proceeded to ask whether it had been feigned by the person who wrote the libel, and this was to be done by shewing the defendant's writing, and then com- paring it with the libel ; this was refused; but so far as whether the hand was a feigned hand, Baron Hotham, in the case of Jackson and Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Braham. The question, however, them was, whether, as the Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witnesses should be allowed to be called, and whether the Committee shall receive any further assistance towards proving the hand-writing. The Committee had already exceeded the strict rules of legal justice, and were then only asked to admit the evidence of persons who have been accustomed to examine, and to say whether certain hand- writing, submitted to their inspection, be feigned or real, and whether they will not be better able to judge, from ersons of such experience, than by their own only ; on jhat ground, he should apprehend the Committee would come to a decision. - The question was then put, and the witness was allowed to be called in without a division. * - 5 - THOMAS METCAIFE. M. D. was called in, and examined by - the Committee, as follows: s: ..You are a Physician I am. r - Are you Mrs. Clarke's medical attendant?-I am. Have you seen Mrs. Clarke in the course of this day ? Yes. Is her state of health such as to prevent her attending to give evi- gence to-day ? I think totally so. ! Can you form any opinion when Mrs. Clarke's health will permit her to attend ? I should think in the course of two days. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. [It was moved and seconded, that the evidence to hand- writing about to be produced, be not received; which being put, passed in the negative, without a division.] . MR. NESBITT's ÉxAMINATION. 461 Mr. SAMUELJOHNSON was called in, and examined by the Com: mittee, as follows: * tº 3. . . . . . . f. , ! What are you? Inspector of Franks at the general Post-offee. . . How long have you been in that situation I have been in the office about thirteen years, or rather more; in that situation aboutsix years; I think it was in 1802 I was appointed to the franks. a * In that situation, is it your particular duty to look at hand-writing, aiid observe its different variation ? It is our duty to perceive that no franks pass either from the House of Peers or the House of Commons, but franks by the Peers or the members themselves. * In the éoùrse of that duty, it is necessary for you to be very parti- cular in your examination of hand-writing? As much so as our time will permit. ... - ‘. . . . . * [The two letters and the note being shewn to the witness...] You have seen these papers before, in the room of the House of Commons? I have. * * * 3- . . . . ; The paper to which particularly I wish to direct your attention is the small paper; in your opinion, is that smaller paper the same hand- writing as the larger papers? It resembles it so nearly, that I should think it was. • * * *s In point of fact have you occasionally, from inspection only, detected sº false or feigned signatures? Yes. '. [The witness was directed to withd Mr. Robeft SEARLES was callel in and examined by the Cºil w. mittee, as follows: What are you? A deputy inspector of franks. , r . . . . How long have you been in that situation ? About eighteen-months. [The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] You have seen these papers before? I have... . . “. . . . . . . . Look at them, and tell me whether you think they are all the same hand-writing? I think they are. . . < p * Y [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr THOMAS NESBITT was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: What is your employment? I am in the service of the Bank, In what department of the Bank are you? Principal of the letter of attorney office. t - º ... In that office are you in the habit of examining hand-writings, that are suspected to be forgeries? Yes, constantly so. - , - How long have you been in that employment? Between thirty and forty years, in the daily habit. .. - * * 3 Áré you in the habit of examining writings that you so suspect, by comparing them with other writings, acknowledged to be the hand Öf the same party? Certainly. -- In making such comparison, what is your usual habit of doing it? A signature to a letter of attorney for sale is left at the Bank for me to examine, and if to any other letter of attorney the proprietor has 462 MR. Nesbitt's Éxamination. put his name, or has accepted the stock, this letter of attorney in qūes- tion would be examined by those signatures. . . - º In so doing, are you in the habit of observing the turn of the dif: ferent hands in writing the names, to see whether the party writing turned his hand the same way f Certainly. * * * [The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] Have you seen these papers before? I have. * -- Is there any difference in the turn of the hand between the note and letters? [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Bathurst, and another honourable member objected to the question, as tending to cause the withess to give an opinion not precisely his own. - * * * The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the propriety of putting such a question. It was not intended to cause the witness to give an opinion, not his own ; but it was perfectly proper to suggest what his honourable friend (Mr. Brand) had suggested to the witness, in order to assist him in forming a proper judgment. º After a few words from Mr. Elliston, Mr. Beresford spoke to obviate the objections made to the question. Mr. Wilberforce did not think the objections well answered. If persons were summoned before the Com- mittee, who from their habits and professions were thought competent to judge of the hand-writing of his Royal Highness, why were their thoughts to be interrupted 2 They have already formed their judgment of the Duke of York’s hand; or why were they brought forward : Why were persons selected so competent to decide, if they were to receive instructions here? In his opinion it was proper to let them give their own opinions, by any such questions, uninstructed. The question was given up. * - - [The witness was again called in.] State whether you think these several papers were all written by the same person, looking both at the directions and the inside of the letters ? I have looked very attentively at the note particularly, and compared it with these two letters, and after a great deal of attention and care in looking at almost every letter in the note, I am of opinion that it was not written.by the same hand. On what circumstances in that note do you ground your opinion? Because I perceive a neatness through almost every letter of the note, which is not, I think, to be found in the letters; and the whole of the writing in the note appears to me to be of a smaller character than the letters in general are; I think I perceive a stiffness in several of the letters in the note, which I do not perceive in the two letters dated Sandgate and Weymouth. - - Mr. Nes BITT's ExAMrNApion. #63 : , Have you any further observation to make? I will just add, that in the two letters dated Sandgate and Weymouth, there appears to me to be a general freedom I do not perceive in the note. You state, that you perceive in the formation of the letters of the note a neatness of character which you do not perceive in the letters: do you not conceive that difference may arise from the difference of the pens and ink used in the writing. hat circumstance has not es- caped my mind, but after looking at that also, I am still of opinion ...that it was not the same writing. You stated, that you are principal inspector of the letter of attorney office; in examining letters of attorney in that office, is it not your principal business to look at the signature ? It is. Is that your only business : No surely not; that is the principal business. ...” - f What other part of the hand-writing are you accustomed to examine, besides the signature? It is necessary for me to read over the whole of the letter of attorney, to see that it is correct in all its parts, and when so done, to compare the signature with any former signature, and if it agrees, of course it is admitted ; if it does not agree, we have other modes of proof, such as looking at other signatures, comparing the hand-writing of the witnesses, and still other proofs. Is it expected that the hand-writing in the body of the letter of attorney should be written by the person who signs his name at the bottom The letters of attorney are almost universally filled up by the clerks in the office over which I preside; the body of the letter of attorney is uniformly filled up by them. f f . . Then is not the comparison of writings to which alone your atten- tion is directed, altogether a comparison of signatures.” It is. Have you, in looking over the note, observed that there are no dots to the i's in that note : I have not. . Have you observed whether there are any dots to the i's in the two letters? I think I have observed dots in some parts of the letters. _Look over the letters again, with a view to that circumstance. [The witness looked over the letters.] I do not observe several, but I do find, in the first letter I have looked into, one; that is the letter dated from Weymouth. Have you observed but one i, in these two letters, with the dot over it? I have not observed more. Having adverted to that circumstance, do you remain of the same opinion with regard to the hand-writing 2 I do not think that should change my opinion, because I think that the ensemble of the note ap- pears to me altogether a different kind of hand. You have stated to the Committee, that you looked over these let- ters and the note with great attention; how did it happen that so re- markable a circumstance as that escaped your attention ? I do not at all wonder that such a circumstance as that should escape my atten- tion, it is the first time I have ever been called upon in this House, however, and surrounded as I was, by gentlemen on every side at the time I was examining into the letters, as far as my time and attention would allow, I do not wonder that that circumstance escaped my at- tention. How long a time were these letters under your inspection in the Committee-room above stairs : I think about an hour; but in the 46% Mr. Nesbitt's ExAMINA rior, coarsé of that time, I had a great variety of letters to look ove?, of Mrs. Clarke's and other persons, which I was directed to look at, and which I did look at, and observed the characters with some attentioſ: Do you remember an instance of a person endeavouring to forge or imitate the hand-writing of another who did not put dots to thei's, who in that forged or imitated paper was accustomed to put dots I do not exactly recollect any circumstance about dots of i's, but I have refused signatures, and perhaps daily do that, which turn out to be for- geries, though generally innocent ones, but not actually the signature of the parties that should be there. - Dóes the circumstance of there being no dots to the i's in the note before you, make any difference in your opinion ? It certainly was a circumstance that I did not advert to, and therefore, as far as that goes, I certainly think it is of weight, but not sufficient to alter my opi- nion. In the course of examining the signature of powers of attorney, have you not observed that the signature of the same persons varies considerably in a short period of time? I certainly have, and that may arise from a variety of circumstances, such as ill health; a signature made before or after dinner has frequently been very materially differ- ent, and indeed a variety of other circumstances would alter the sigha- ture materially. - Have you not admitted the validity of signatures of the same per- soil, so varying as you have stated, in a greater degree than the varia- tion between the writing in the note and the two letters ? I havé no doubt but I have, but it will arise from this circumstance, probably, that where the signature of the constituent differs materially; we have then the signature of two witnesses to look at, and # the signature of either of those witnesses should be well known to mé to be in all probability a true signature, I mean a signature that passes before me very frequently, that would operate in my mind to admit the power of attorney, though there might be some considerablé ya- riation between the constituent’s signature in the one instance and in the other. Have you not admitted the validity of the hand-writing of those varying signatures, where the witnesses have been totally different per- sons, and totally unknown to you? I think I have not, because that is my particular business to attend to, not to admit any thing that is not in itself exactly what it ought to be, without stich proof before me as should enable me to admit it. - - What proportion of the signatures of the witnesses to the powers of attorney, in the country, are you acquainted with? I cannot say the proportion of hand-writings of witnesses that I am acquainted with but certainly a great number, and you will allow that, when I tell you. that every day I admit from forty to fifty, sixty and a hundred; hardly any day is less than forty, and very often a hundred. You must know that powers of attorney, executed by the same tº in the country, are attested by very different witnesses Cer- tainlv. - I º, you not depend upon the signature of the person who executés the power of attorney, much more than upon any name of any witness to the execution of that power of attorney? I certainly do, that is the first object. MR. NESBITT's ExAMINAtion. 465 Do you not principally depend upon the signature of the person who executes the power of attorney, notwithstanding the variations in the hand-writing of that person 2 I certainly do. And you have admitted the validity of those signatures with greater variations than you find between the note and the two letters? I cer- tainly have, but collateral evidence has come in to satisfy me of the va- lidity of the signatures. \ . Do you consider the note as having been written in imitation of the hand-writing of the letters? That was my opinion at the time I was examining them. Is it in the usual and common habit of yourself to be called upon for your opinion, and to give an opinion upon the similarity of hand-writ- ing, where there are no signatures of names whatever ? It has very sel- doni happened of late years, formerly it was more frequent, because of late years I have understood that such kind of evidence has not been admitted in the Courts of Law. . Having stated that you have been chiefly conversant with the exa- mination of signatures, do you judge of them by comparison with other signatures of the same person, or a general comparison of the hand- writing of the person supposed to sign : " I judge of them by a compa- rison with other signatures of the same person. r Have you ever seen papers in which the signature and the other writing in those papers, purported to be, and to your knowledge were, written by the same person I have. Have you in those cases observed that the signatures are in many cases different from the general writing? I certainly have ; and I. must acknowledge that signatures in general are much easier to judge of than common lines of . because signatures have always ap- peared to me a set kind of hand, which a man takes up, and in general does not part with. - Previously to your examination of the two letters and the note, had it been intimated to you by any person, and by whom, that there was reason to doubt of the authenticity of the note 2 I think I should an- swer to that, that I read the newspaper every evening, and therefore I have read all that concerns this business every evening as constantly as it has passed. Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the newspapers I cer- tainly came with no prejudice in my mind, but I came determing d to form my mind from what I should see in the note and in the letters. Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you enter- tained was by , what was suggested from reading the newspapers? I think I said that I came here with no prejudice, but to form my mind from what I should find in reading over the note and the letters. Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the newspapers I conceive that I might reason upon the subject, but certainly I came here with no prejudice whatever. Is the Committee to understand, that the first doubt you entertained was by what was suggested from reading the newspapers ? I certainly, did reason upon the subject in my own mind, but I came here with no prejudice whatever, 2 H 466 M. R. N Es BITT's ExAMINATIox. Have you carefully examined both the letters, and do you find in any parts of either of those letters any difference, in the hand-writ- ing;' are both those letters exactly in the same character and style of hand-writing I did not perceive any particular difference in the mode of writing in those two letters, but that they were all: written with the same kind of freedom, except where the ink ap- peared to fail, and that will constantly be the case under such a circumstance. 4. - Is or is not the difference in the note and the letters greater than that which you have frequently observed between acknowledged pieces. of hand-writing of the same person The difference between the note and the letters appears to me to arise, taking it altogether, from the neatness and the stiffness of writing, which I do not observe in the two letters; as to there being a greater difference between the note and the letters, than any two signatures which I have admitted, I really cannot tell how to answer that ; the differences in signatures are so very frequent and so various, that I cannot well explain myself upon that subject. You have said you have only been able to judge of the authenticity of one signature, by comparing it with another; how are you then a better judge than any clerk in any couriting house in London - - [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Dent objected to the question. - - Mr. Whitbread defended the question ; he said, if the witness had only to be asked whether Frederick was like Frederick, then the witness might be competent to pass an opinion ; but when he confessed he could only judge of the authenticity of one signature by comparing it with another, then he thought the question a just and pro- per one. "- Mr. Canning considered it unfair, because the witness did not come to the bar voluntarily to be examined, pre- suming on his own superior comretency, but he came on a summons to give the best opinion he could form. Mr. Whitbread could not agree in any such opinion. When the witness was summoted he was set up as a judge, and of course should be able to prove the competency which he, if not openly, at least tacitly, assumed. [The witness was again called in.] From your habits of business at the Bank, have you more frequent opportunities of comparing the general hand-writings of parties, than persons ºgº. in any mercantile or other counting house in the city of London? I am persuaded not, and I have thought myself frequently incompetent to such kind of examinations, because my constant prac- tice has been with respect to signatures only. You having stated that you had been occupied one hour in examining all the papers, inclusive of Mrs. Clarke's letters, what time did you de. vote to the examination of the three letters now in question ? I think MR: BATEM A N's Ex A MINATfon, 467 it is probable that I might have been from half an hour to three quarters on the one, and the rest of the time on the various letters of Mrs. Clarke, and so on. Might not the short note and the two letters have been the hand- writing of the same person, supposing the short note written in the morning, and the letters after dinner, or vice versä 2 I think that might possibly have been the case, but then that written in the after- noon would have been much worse than that written in the morning. If two powers of attorney had been presented to you for your exami- nation, one in the hand of the letter which was acknowledged to be the hand-writing of the party who presented it, and the other in the hand- writing of the short note, with your observation would you officially have refused the acceptance of that latter power of attorney : If there had been no other circumstances as collāteral evidence in favour of it, I certainly should have demurred to the signature. Have you not said, that writings, differing as much as these, have ultimately turned out to be genuine : If I have not, I am persuaded they have done so. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. THOMAS BATEMAN was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: In what business are you ? In the service of the Bank of England. In what deparment My employment is the examining powers of attorney, in the first place as to the accuracy of them, and then ex- amining their signatures. w [The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] Have you examined those two letters aud that note, for the purpo e of discover- ing whether they are written by the same person r not f : I have. How long have you been employed in the department in which you now are Nearly twenty years. You are still in that situation ? I am. You state, that you have examined these two letters and that note, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person 2 I have. Look at them now, and tell me whether they were in your judgment written by the same person I think there is a very correspondent similarity. In your judgment, is the note written by the same person as these letters were written by ? I can only say that there is a very marked similarity. Upon examining these letters and the note, have you any reason to think they were not written by the same person I have not any reason to think they were not ; I have no reason at all upon that subject. Upon examining those letters and the note, have you \ny TeaSOn to think they were not written by the same person After what I have said, I think I cannot answer that question but in the way I have an- swered it. If two powers of attorney came before you, signed, one in the cha- racter of the note and the other in the character of the letters, would you have passed them both as written by the same person? I think I should, {The witness was directed to withdraw. 2 H 2 £68 M R. BLISS's ExAMINATrox. Mr. THOMAS BLISS was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: - What is your employment One of the Investigators of the Bank. of England. . What is your business in that department? To examine and inspect into forged notes. *. . . . How long have you been in that situation ? About fifteen years. Is it your business to discover whether the signatures to those notes are or are not genuine It is. Do you examine any thing but the signatures to those aotes? The whole of the notes; every writing on the note; it leads to many other things, the paper, the writing, the engraving, and the whole of the notes. - * Do you examine any writing upon the notes, except the signature ? Yes, very frequently. - - What part of those bills which you examine is written, except the signature? The date and number. - Do you, examine Bank. Post Bills as well as Bank-notes No. . Then there is nothing of writing upon those bills you examine, but the dates, the Humbers and the signatures Nothing else, except it Imight be writing by the public, at times, upon the notes. 3. [The two letters and the mote were shewn to the witness.] Have you examined the two letters and the note now put into your hand, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person or not : I have. According to the best judgment you can form, are they of are they not written by the same person 3 I should suppose they were. ſiave you any doubt upon that subject at all 2. From letters that I saw afterwards, I have some doubt; but if I had not seen any other let- ters, from the appearance of those I should have had no doubt. What letters did you see afterwards I saw different letters on the table where examined these, that i was desired to look at, from, I be- lieve, No. 3 I to 40 or 41. is the Committee to understand, that, from the observation you have made upon the lette‘s and the note you have just seen, you have no doubt but they were written by the same person : I did not say I had. :40 doubt, I said thought they were. Have yoti or have you not any doubt upon that subject, alluding to the three letters you have just seen 2 From the letters that I saw since, many of thern seeming to differ, I have some doubt of it. Have you or have you not any doubt upon that subject, alluding to the three letters you have just seen From the examination of the three letters, which I looked at as carefully as possible, I thought they were all of one hand-writing. - Whose letters do you imagine those were that you saw besides : There were papers numbered as far as 40 upon the table; I went in at a late hour; only one being allowed to go in at a time, I looked only at ten, from 30 to 40 or 41 ; and I understood from those letters they were written by Mrs. Clarke. - Explain how the comparison of Mrs. Clarke's letters induced you to doubt about the similarity of the three others? After I had been de- sired to look at two letters, and the other, to compare the hand-writing, q ENERAL CT, AVERTNG’s Ex A MINATION. 469 H was desired to look at the other letters, and compare them with the first two letters alsº. - - - . How did that comparison alter the opinion you had before fºrmed * Because, theºgh they were writtten by one person, yet they differed in the writing; there were some very plain to read, and some more diffi- cult to read; some written rather larger, and some rather smaller. I understand you to have stated, that the two letters and the note appeared to you at first to be of the same writing? I did say so. Therefore, though these were written at different times, there ap- peared no great difference in the writing? There did not. . . . . . ... How was that opinion altered by finding that another person did at different times write different hands? From the difference of that hand-writing; some of them. I compared, in some measure bore a 'semblance to the first two letters; if I had seen no others than the first Atwo and the note produced to me, I should have been clearly of opinion, without any doubt, that they had been the same person's writing; but I explain now from the ultimate judgment of what I looked at, which impressed upon me this, that the letters that I saw, though they were one person’s writing, the writing differed materially, some very small and some larger, and from the very free easy-running hand, some seena $o-exactly alike, and some different, that it would be doubtful to judge of that person's writing at all times, whether it was her writing or not. Is it from those letters differing amongst themselves, or from some of theim agreeing with the two fetters now shewn to you, that your doubt arises? It is from some of those letters being differently written of themselves, and some of them having a small semblance of the other writing.’ ‘’’’ ‘’’’ ‘’’ . . . . . . . . . '...}}. ". . . . . . 3. tº faloe Retters most resemble the two letters or the note? One or two of the letters resembled the two letters and the note. * Is it from that resemblance that you doubt now that the two letters and the note were of the same hand-writing 2 . The difference amongst themselves would be the only reason that would create any doubt in my mind. . . . . . . . .. ... . . - * 'w - . ; : . You have said, that some of those letters were in a large and some in a small hand, and yet you suppose them to be the writing of the same person? I understöðd that they were the writing, and thought ithat they were the writing of the same person. . . . . . . , is not the hote in a smaller hand than the letters? I think, as near as possible, the major part of it is the same size as the letters, - ... Did you perceive any similarity between the hand-writing of any of the letters last shewn you from 30 to 40, and the note? There were orić of two of the letters that I thought bore a semblance of the two Hetters and the note: * . . - Is that the circumstance which led you to doubt at last whether the two letters and the note were written by the same person? It certainly was. " ' ' . . . . . . . [The witness was directed to withdraw. [Brigadier General CLAVERING having sent a letter to the Chairman, requesting that he might be called to explain his evidence; he was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: ! What part of the evidence which yū; gave on a former night, do you how wish to explain There is a part of the evidence that I gave 470 G ENER A L cy, Av ERING's ExAMINATION, on a former night, that I wish to explain. But I request permission, before I explain it, to state why I requested to come forward this even- ing: It was intimated to me yesterday, by a friend of mine, and other members of the Committee, that an idea had gone forth, that part of the evidence I gave on a former evening was not correct; I certainly started at the idea, having been thoroughly satisfied in my own mind that it was my intention to state every thing to the very best of my knowledge. Yesterday, however, I referred to the minutes, which before I had not seen, and it did certainly appear to me that the an- swers I had given to the questions, were not perfectly such as I would have given, had I clearly comprehended those questions; and how- ever extraordinary this may appear to the Committee, I, pledge my sacred honour and word the mistake was perfectly involuntary on my art, and it was my entire intention, as well as my wish, to give every information in my power, and I should feel myself particularly ho- moured and flattered by as many questions as the Committee shall think it proper to put to me upon this occasion. With the permission of the Committee I will now refer to the questions put to me on the former occasion. In page 153, the question was ; “Had you any com- munication whatever on the subject of army promotions with Mrs. Ølarke ** My reply was, “I never proposed any conversation of that kind, nor do I recollect any ever having existed, except at the period I before alluded to, when she requested I would recommend to the consideration of the Duke of York, Lieutenant Suinner of the 20th regiment.” It is perfectly clear now to me, that by the addition of the word ‘whatever’ after ‘communication,' an epistolary correspondence was intended, but I certainly understood it to be a personal commu- nication or conversation, for, in the two preceding questions, the idea of conversation, and conversation only, had been included ; and in the º; question likewise it appears also evident to me, that that was in the idea of the honourable member who proposed it, that he meant conversatiqp, for the question is, “Had you any incidental conversa- tion with Mrs. Clarke upon that subject?” and my reply was, “A period of so many years having elapsed since that time, it is impossible to speak positively and accurately to a question so close as that, but, to the best of my belief, I do not think I had.” The next question, and the reply, which I wish to advert to, is this:– “Do you, of your own knowledge, know that Mrs. Clarke used her influence in favour of any person whatever in the army with the Commander in Chief?” My reply was, “I do not.” . I certainly did misunderstand that question altogether, and that I did misunderstand it, I have the most positive proof for stating to the Committee : one of the first conversations I }. after withdrawing from this bar, was with a noble relative of mine, a Peer of the Upper House, in which I stated (and he has authorised me to say, if it is necessary, he will confirm the same) that my surprise was, that a question had been put to me which I conceived concerned others, and that my regret was, that the question had not been put which did immediately concern myself, for if it had, I should have given that reply which, in my own mind, conveyed a thorough convic- tion that Mrs. Clarke never possessed that influence over the mind of his Royal Highness which it is supposed that she possessed. I have nothing further to add upon that immediate head. • *. GENERAL CLAVERING's ExAMINATIon. 471 [The five letters delivered in by Mrs. Clarke on the 13th º, ºn instant, were shewn to General Clavering.] $º Clavering.—They are my hand-writing. . . . . . * * n the former examination, you were asked whether you had ever known of any person who had asked Mrs. Clarke to use her influence with the Commander in Chief; to which you answered positively, that . you had not. When you were asked whether you knew of any trans- action of that nature, you say you understood that any transaction in which you might have been engaged was excluded in the intention of the person asking that question : T certainly did, both to that question and to the following one, for I conceived that my answer to the third , question from the bottom, was an answer which applied equally to the two last. * . . . . . . . . • ‘ *5. you or did you not ever, in writing or otherwise, ask, Mrs. Clarke te use her influence in your behalf with the Commander in Chief? I did. . . . . . . . . . • * . . . . . Had it any effect? ...I believe not. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Did you obtain:what you asked for I made two applications; I did. not obtain the first, and I believe that what was granted me in the sé. cond, was not through her influence: . . . . . . . . . . - Was it granted to you?: Will you permit me to answer that questionſ not immediately directly; it was granted, but it must equally have been: granted, and it could not have been denied me, if such application had: not been made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . ; . . . ." §ſſ! ...Why then did you apply through Mrs. Clarke . . Were I permitted? to state the circumstances, I believe it would be better understood; than by any other answer. In the year 1803, I was placed upon the Staff as an Inspecting field officer, as colonel. In the year 1804, the gºvernment thought proper to raise all the officers, of the rank of colonel to that of brigadier-general: I received a notification from the War-Office, that I was appointed a brigadier-general, and about a fortnight afterwards I received a second notification, to say, that my appointment was not to be that of brigadier-general but brigadier- colonel. The circumstance: appeared to me so extraordinary, that I wrote upon that occasion to Mrs. Clarke, to know if she could discover. why the alteration was made from brigadier-general to brigadier-colo- nel ; she replied to me, that upon inquiry it was found to be a mistake; and that all the brigadier-generals who had been, previously appointed: and afterwards removed, were to be restored to their first appointments. of brigadier-generals; and the reason was evident, it was supposed that the militia and the volunteers might possibly be assembled to act to-: gether; by the militia act, no colonel in the army can command a colonel of militia, consequently, our appointment to the situation of brigadier-colonels would not have had the effect it was intended to Have had ; therefore we were again appointed to our driginal situation, that of brigadier-generals. * How came you to apply for an interpretation of amy mistake, or any extraordinary circumstance, to Mrs. Clarke, and not to the office of the Commander in Chief? Because, according to the custom of all offices, the persons holding the ostensible situations could not have given me the information that I desired, or rather, they would have been reprehensible if they had given it me, for in all probability, though they { * 1 , » 472, GENERAL CLAVER ING's ExAMINATION. might have been acquainted with the reasons, they would not have been justified in declaring them. - - - - - - What secret source of information, which it would bave been repre- hensible for the ostensible officers in the office of the Commander in Chief to have given, did you suppose Mrs. Clarke to have : I cer- tainly did suppose that Mrs. Clarke was informed of what was passing in the War-office; I mean generally in the office of the Commander in Chief, and therefore I had reason to suppose that she would give me every information that was in her power. What was the reason 2. Because on any former occasion, as far as I can at present recollect, she had been always extremely communica- tive. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - From whom did you know or suppose that she had derived that com- munication which she was so communicative of to you ? Certainly from his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief. . . .” How do you reconcile the answer you have last given to the answer you gave before; you supposed Mrs. Clarke to have no influence with the Commander in Chief? The reply that I before gave, went to - Mrs. Clarke's influence over his-Royal Highness in the distribution of military promotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ; , . . . . . . . Of the two applications which you state yourself to have made f through Mrs. Clarke, which was the one that was successful, whether by her influence or otherwise? If I recollect rightly, I had before the hºnour of stating, that the rank of brigadier-general was restored to . me, which I could not have been denied ; it was granted to all the colonels of the regular service of the year 1802, in which brevet I was, with others both above and below me, and consequently it could not have been denied me, without a marked stigma, . . .”. . . . . . ; Which of the two applications, which you have stated yourself to have made through Mrs. Clarke, was successful, the first or the second, whether through her means or any other ?'...Heertainly have to apolo- gize to the Committee, if I have not made myself understood. . . . . ... What were the two things which you applied for? . The first circum- stance upon which I wrote to her was, or rather a letter was written, which I was accessary to, it is immaterial whether-I wrote it or not, was relative to the raising a regiment. I was given to understand that she- had very greatinfluence in military promotions, and I conceived; there- fore, it would be a fair speculation to try whether that influence did: exist, or not; a letter was accordingly-written to her, stating, that in case she obtained me permission to raise, a regiment, she should re- ceive iO00l. She wrote me, in reply, that his Royal Highness would not hear of it, or scouted, the idea, or words to that effect; and conse- quently from that answer, it was my decided opinion that she did not: possess an influence pºwer his Royal Highness in the distribution of mi-- litary promotion. * * * * . . . . . . . . Did you in point of fact obtain leave to raise that regiment? ... I did not. r . . . . … : Did you make a second application, and what was that application for The other application, if it may be so termed, was not for any promotion, but to know the reason why, after having been appointed pºisºneral I was reduced to the situation of a brigadier-co- Ol) ei. - - - - . . . . x - - - Have you ever made any other application to Mrs. Clarke for infor- nation, for promotion, for exchange, or for any other thing? I cannot GENERAL ci. Avering's ExAMINATIon. 473 3. bring to my recollection that I ever have made any other application to her upon any one of those subjects mentioned, but if any of the ho- nourable gentlemen here can give me the smallest clue to guide my recollection, I shall be extremely happy to give 'every information in my power. -- . . . . . . . . Being convinced in the first instance by the Duke of York’s having, as Mrs. Clarke informed you, scouted the idea of your being permitted to raise a regiment, for which you had made an offer of 1000l. and' having from thence inferred that she had no influence; how camé you to make any second application to her? ' If I am correct, I before stated that I was satisfied, from his Royal Highness's answer to her, if such, was his answer, that she did not possess any influence over him in the point of military promotion; that his Royal Highness might havé per- mitted her to talk upon military subjects, but that as to military pro- motions she had no influence. . . . . . ... -- Do you know that at the time you made application through Mrs. Clarke for leave to raise a regiment, any officer received that permis- sion which was refused to you? If my memory serves meright, there: were three or four young regiments raised at that time in Ireland, ºut not in this country. - . . . . . . . . . . . ." ...’ Were they raised upon the same terms with regard to the payment of money, as the tender made by you for raising your men? They were not; my proposal was, as far as I can recollect, for I had forgºt- ten that, till I saw it in the evidence, my proposal was tº. from the militia; the régiments in Ireland were raised with a bounty. ". From whom did you receive the information first, that Mrs. Clärke. had influence with the Commander in Chief relative to militärºró: motions, which induced you to have the first letter written, ortóżgiº nive at the writing of the first letter to Mrs. Clarké, in brider to gº ... that influence in your favour? “My information upon that head was merely report, but the letter alluded to was suggested to me.” ‘’” Had you ever any other than a written communication with Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of your own promotion ?, Tô the best of ºnly opinion, l had not; the reason why I think so is, that at that time I was, stationed at a distance from London. - . . . . Is the Cornfijittee to understand you to have said, that if you'had: applied to the Wār-office for information; after its having º fied that you were a brigadier-general; and your being pilfbac to the rank which you call brigadier-colonel, you would not have &btained, that information? I do not think that "Pshould, nor'should I have: made the application, conceiving"that such application would have been improper. ' ' ' , … . . . . . . ." ...". ...Why then do you suppose you could obtain information respecting * military arrangements from Mrs. Clarke, which you coild not obtain from the War-office?.. Because I see a considerable degree of distinc- tion between making application for infortúation to a lady of the de- scription that she then was, and making it to those official persons who would not have been justified in giving me the information that filesired. What reason had you for thinking that Mrs. Clarke had information. of what was passing at the War-office; which information would have been refused to ràilitary officers regularly applying Because T was of opinion that by fier influence over the Commander in Chief, which she described herself to me to possess, she could obtain any information of - * * . - ... " ./ that descri pion, - 474, GENERAL CLAVERING's ExAMINATIon. How is the Committee to reconcile that declaration with that which . you have made, that you did not then believe her to have any influence over the Commander in Chief? If I am correct, I before said, that, the influence she possessed over his Royal Highness the Commander in : * Chief did not go to the distribution of military promotions. Did it then go to the obtaining information of regulations in the War-office, which regulations were withheld from public notice? As she always gave me to understand she could procure almost any pro- rhotion whatever, I conceived that the only way to obtain that which I wished for was by application to her. . . . . . . . . Did you in point of fact obtain the information you sought for through her means? I did not; the information that I received was, as far as I can recollect, that there had been a mistake in removing us from the situation of brigadier-generals to brigadier-colonels, and that that mis- take was shortly to be rectified. -r - Was that or not the information you did wish to obtain It was not the information that I wished to obtain, if I am perfectly correct, because'ſ do not think she stated the reason why we were removed from the situation of brigadier-generals to brigadier-colonels. I hope the hônourable Committee will excuse any mistake I may make in this, for there, has a period of several years elapsed since this correspondence, and may fall into an error: it is my endeavour to give every informa- tion in my power. - - - - - - - ... Iºk aſ the letter in the Clerk's hand, and read it. [A letter, dated the 11th of November 1804, was shewn to General Clavering.] You there express your thanks to Mrs. Clarke for her attempts to serve you, , though unsuccessful. I am of opinion that must have alluded to her adt being able to obtain me permission to raise a regiment. ...You speak, further on the coming to town; when you and Mrs. . Clarké met, did any conversation arise as to military promotions, or militäry matters? It is above five years since I wrote this letter, and I am stire it is impossible for any person whatever to recollect any con- versation of so trivial a nature after so long a period. s You have positively stated in your former examination, that you never had any conversation; you have referred the explanation which you wished to give to the Committee to-night, to the difference between Cºmmunication and conversation, and that it was conversation you un- derstood the question to refer to; do you now adhere to the answer of the former night, that you never had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military promptions, or military matters? I do not. récollect having had any conyersation with her upon the subject; it is: possible that something tending to it in the course of conversation might, have been alluded to, but at this distance of time I cannot charge my memory...with it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘. .. ... Having stated, that in the original application to Mrs. Clarke you proffered her the sum of 1000l. to obtain that which you wished at the: time; did you ever, on any other occasion, make her an offer of money, ºr any valuable consideration of any kind, for the purpose of obtaining Her supposed intluence with the Commander in Chief? I am positive never aid. . . - – Did you ever, without making any previous offer, make her any, pecuniary recompense, or give her any valuable consideration for any service she might have done you, or endeavoured tº do you, with the Colāīnāāder ii Chief? I never gave her any thing in my life, unless GENERAL CLAVERING's ExAMINATon. 475 it might be accidentally ; being in the room when the milliner brought her a shawl, I told the miiliner she might call upon me for the pay- ment for it. - - ‘. . - I understood you to say, that you considered Mrs. Clarketohave very little, if any, influence with the Commander in Chief, on military pro- motions? ' Yes. ... . . . ." Do you found yonr opinion on the refusal to allow you to raise a regiment, or have you any other reason for that opinion I ground my opinion upon my own case, and also conversation with various military officers upon the subject; for though various reports have gone forth, to the prejudice of his Royal Highness, upon that subject, I never heard of any one case that could be brought home, nor do I believe there is any such case. f Did you ever º to Mrs. Clarke, by letter or otherwise, to get you É. upon the staff. I was placed upon the staff upon the 24th of Sep: ember 1803, as the Gazette of that date will, show; and his Royal Highness's first acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke did not commence till four months afterwards, in the month of January 1894; , , . . . . . Did you not write a letter to the Attorney General, desiring that you might be examined at the bar of this Committee upon this subject? I did, and I should be extremely happy to state the reason why I wrote that letter. . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledging as you have done, that you have written letters to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of military promotions, and also have had conversations with her upon that subjećt, state with what view you wrote that letter to the Attorney General? ...About a day or two after this inquiry commenced, I perceived in the public. É. that my * - t ilame had been introduced, and, apprehensive that his Royal Highness might suppose that I had been engaged in any improper military trans- actions, I went down to the Horse-Guards, to explain the transaction to Lieutenant-Colonel Gordon : Colonel Gordon did not see me, but referred me to Mr. Lowten. I called upon Mr. Lowten, and he put various questions to me; and, after my replying to those questions, he told me it would be necessary for me to go down to the House to be examined. I replied to him, that was what I should wish particularly to avoid; but that if he stated absolutely it was necessary, I certainly would attend, but that it was the farthest from my wish. When I did come down here, it was deemed right I j write a letter to the Attorney General, and accordingly such letter was written, and I stated in it, that I appeared here at Mr. Lowten's desire: after reading that letter to Mr. Lowten, and two other gentlemen who were present, it was observed by one of them that Mr. Lowten's name should not appear, in consequence of his being agent for his º Highness, consequently Mr. Lowten's name was expunged; and therefore it ap- peared I was a voluntary witness upon this occasion, whereas I was not so, but came forward at Mr. Lowten's desire. "Why, after the evidence you have given here before the Committee, did you write to the Attorney-General, with a view of shewing you knew nothing at all about these transactions?—The honourable mem- her who puts that question is under a mistake, I never wrote such a letter. w t r ' With what view did you write the letter to the Attorney-General; and why, after having written that letter to the Attorney-General, offering to do away the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, do you come to give 476 GENERA+, clavenist's ExAMIN'Atros. #: the evidence which you have given at the bar of this Committee I am very sorry to say I do not compréhéâd the question. With what view did you. write that letter to the Attorney-General? Mr. Lowten stated to me, that he conceived my evidence would be of considerable consequence in this fióuse; and therefore, as it was absolutely necessary that I should be introduced to this House, a letter was written to the Attorney-General, as the best modé' of bringing. me forward. . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . - Did you inform Mr. Lowteñº of all your transactions with Mrs. Clarke, at the time Mr. Lowten gave you that advice? I did not, of all of them. ... ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It stands upón'the minutes of the evidence, that “ Brigadier-General “Clavering having stated to a member of the House that he was de- “sirous of being examined, Brigadier-General Clavering was called “in, and examined by the Committee as follows:–Have you sent a “letter foºme (pāmely, the Attorney-General) this evening? I did “so: Desíring that you might be examined? I did so.” I under- stand that yºu préséñied yojitself is a yoluntary witness; you state #ów, that yºwere - ; ...that yºre tºwiſhig tº examined, but were desired by Mr. ſº inean to stafé that you were a voluntary of diſºnvoliſhtāry"Witness at this barg—I have no objection to state, that it was the last wish ºf pay heart to be examined at this bar. Mirºwten stated, it was extremely desirable that I should be examified, ºnd flištěfēše Taegeded; and I apprehended the distinc- tion between 3 yūſāntary aïdafi involuntary witness to consist in this, that I was not'stinimoned to attend at the bar. - - Did Mr. Lowten represent to you what his reason was for wish- ing you to put yourself forward, instead of a summons being issued to you in the usual way 3–He did not state any thing upon that subject.**** **, - - - For what piirpose did you go down to the Horse-Guards, and aſter- wards ..º. ?—! was anxious to remove from the mind of Lieutenant-Colºnel Gordon any idea that I had been concerned in any traffic in comfäissions, as appeared in the newspapers, Colonel Gor. don refused to see me, and referred me to Mr. Lowten. . . . . Were you-desirous to do away that impression from the mind of Colonel Gordon at the time you'recollected that you had offered that 1,000l. for a cominission?—I was desirous of removing from his mind any unfavourable impression that might häve occurred from reading , the reports of what had passed in this Committee. . . . . … Were you desirous of doing. ie state of the facts to Colonel Gordon, or concealing it?--It was my intention to have st:ted the fact which was alltided to off the preceding evening, in which any dame was brought forward, and that was relating to Lieutenant flumner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - Was it for the purpose of contradicting that fact, that you went to * * ing so, by stating the tru Colonel Gordon —ſt was for the purpose of explaining the mode in which my name came to be introduced by Mrs. Clarke, in the trans- action in which Łieutenant Sumner's name was brought forward. IDid you mention to Mr. Lowter this transaction, of the offer of the 3,000l. to Mrs. Clarke 3–1 believe, I did not; but I should have had no scruple in doing it, for 1 had mentioned it to a thousand persons before, - : – GENERAL CLAveſting’s ExAMINATior. 47% ...Are you sure you did not mention it to Mr. Lºwtºn?—I think I did not. ... ? - - 1. & l-' * - . . . . . . ; . • Were you appointed a brigadier-general in a district, after "having been inspecting field officer of a district?—I was comitiháed in the district to which I was originally appointed. . . . . . . . . Had you the rank of brigadier-general, after having been eolonel or lieutenant-colonel inspecting field officer –-I was promoted in common with all the officers of the same rank with myself at the same time. * * - - Did you apply to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of that promotion, directly or indirectly, by letter or in conversation?—I am quite certain that I did not apply to her upon it; and I am the more certain, be- cause I recoilect that the first information I received of any of the bri- gadier-generals being to be appointed, was about a month before it became public, and that was from her. * , . Was that information communicated to you privately, as a secret?–. He was communicated by letter, but no secrecy enjoined, to the best of Iny opinion. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. . . Mr. Charles W. Wynne rose to discharge a painful duty; but painful as it may be, it was a duty, and he should not shrink from the discharge of it. The Com- mittee must be aware of the nature of the testimony given by the witness who had just withdrawn, and as he had been warned that he was to give his evidence āt his own peril, and had exposed himself to the animadversion of the House, he should move that General Clavaring has prevaricated in his evidence. . . . . . General Mathew contended, that no prevarication what- ever had taken place; and that the witness at the bar was incapable of prevaricating. | - The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that an al- Rowance was to be made for a person not accustomed to be examined at such a tribunal. But at all events it was not sufficient for any member to move that a witness had prevaricated, without shewing the grounds of the mo- tion. Mr. C. W. Wynne then explained the various parts of the General's evidence, which he charged as contra- dictory and prevaricating. - Mr. N. Calvert declared, that he had not heard the evidence distinctly, and if he was to be called upon for a vote, he should move that the short-hand writer should read the whole of the evidence. Mr. Yorke observed, that General Clavering had come to the bar to explain his former evidence, and that it was not therefore a trifling variation that was to be considered prevarication. He thought that it would be better to put 478 GENERAL claveking's ExAMIRAtion. eff any consideration of such points, unless in the case of gross and wilful prevarication, till the investigation should' º be concluded. The day of reckoning would coine, when the House ought to take up the consideration of the va”. rious acts of corruption; imposition, and swindling, which had come out in the course of this inquiry. - Sir Thomas Turton argued, that as the witness had come to the bar to contradict or correct his former testi- imony, he could not be said to have prevaricated. The Secretary at War thought, that as General Cla- vering had on a former night given evidence in which he found he had been mistaken, he had no other course but to come down and explain the mistake. However con- tradictory this statement had been to the former, there was no prevarication in what he stated to-night, as he had concealed nothing, but told of his offer to Mrs. Clarke of 1000l. for her influence to get him a regiment. Mr. Wilberforce said, that if he were absolutely called upon to pronounce an opinion, it must be in favour of the motion, as the contradiction was so very strong. If Ge- neral Clavering had, upon reading his evidence, and finding that it conveyed a false impression, come down without delay, and explained it the next day, it would have had a very different aspect; but he had waited eight or nine days before he thought proper to make this ex- planation. Under all the circumstances, however, he con- sidered that the best course would be to adjourn the dis- cussion on the proposed resolution. . . Mr. Wynne said, that he had felt the case so strong, that he did not apprehend any doubt; but as there was a doubt, he should very readily agree to postpone the dis- cussion. The Chancellor of the Earchequer said, that in case of prevarication, he thought the House should proceed im- mediately to the punishment of the witness. In case, however, of a witness contradicting a statement he had be- fore made, he thought it would be much the best way to go through the whole of the case, and afterwards consider what course should be taken with the witnesses who had contradicted themselves. He thought, therefore, the ho- nourable gentleman would do best to withdraw his motion for the present, and bear the matter in his mind till that time should arrive. t Mr. Wynne; on this suggestion, consented to withdraw his motion. r colonel Gordon's examination. 479 CHARLES GREENwooD, Esq. was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Is there any part of your evidence, respecting the appointment of Mr. Elderton, which you now wish to correct?—Yes. State what that part of your evidence is.-I there mentioned some unfavourable reports which I had heard of him, as having heard of them before the appointment took place ; it now appears, upon referring to the transactions of that period, that those reports were not received till after the appointment had taken place. Is there any other part of your evidence on that subject which you wish to correct?—No. g t [The witness was directed to withdraw. Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: : Do you recollect the date of Colonel Clinton's leaving the office of public secretary to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, and of your succeeding to him —It was on the 26th of July 1804. On the 26th of j. had the name of Captain Tonyn been sent into his Majesty for promotion to a majority ?—No, it had not. Then, if any person could state at that time that Captain Tonya would appear in the Gazette of the following Saturday, that person must have been either entirely ignorant of the course of office, or must have intended to deceive the person to whom such information was given f—I should suppose so. - - ~ In point of fact, would it have been possible in the course of office, between the Thursday and the Saturday, to have received his Majesty's. pleasure respecting that promotion ?—It would certainly have been possible to have received his majesty's pleasure on the Thursday or the Friday, supposing the thing to have been so settled. In the usual course of office could that have taken place?—Suppos- ing the thing to have been settled, it might certainly have been so. On what day was Captain Tonyn's name sent in to the King for pro- motion ?—I have not got the documents with me, but I think, upon recollection, it was the 9th of August. Then he did not appear in the Gazette either of Saturday the 28th, or of the Saturday following —No, I think not, but I have not got the documents at hand. [The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 18th August 1804, page 999: “31st Regiment of foot, Captain Alexander Leith, to be Major.—Captain George Augustus Tonyn, from the 48th foot, to be Major.” You will observe that Major Leith's commission is dated the 1st of August, and Captain Tonyn's the 2d.; can you state the reason of Major Leith's being dated the day preceding 2 . They were both promoted at the same time, and Major Leith had been the eldest Captain. §. have stated, that the King's approbation to Major Tonyn's promotion was obtained on the 9th of August, he appears in the Ga- : ºf%* º 480 colonel, Gordon's Exxxiin Arrow, zette of the 18th; in case the Commander in Chief had thetight it right on the 16th of August to stop the publication of Major Tonyn's promotion, in the Gazette of Saturday the 18th, he could have done it? Yes, he might. - - - - - Is there any instance, in point of fact, of the Commander in Chief directing the publication of promotions in the Gazette to be stopped, after they have received the approbation of his Majesty Yes, very frequently casualties happen between the periods of gazetting, and the periods of submitting them to the King; consequently such appoint- ments are not gazetted. . . . . . . . . . - Then if the Commander in Chief had sent an order on the 16th, to you or the proper department, to stop the publication of Major Tonyn's promotion, it would not have appeared in the Gazette of the 18th If the Commander in Chief had sent such an order, it pro- bably would have been suspended. - - In point of fact, do you know whether any such order was sent I think it was impossible, I should have had some recollection of it, and I cannot find any trace of such a thing. - - And it was not suspended ? It was not, it was gazetted among other promotions. - Do you know where the Commander in Chief was on Thursday the 16th of August, 1804? I cannot take upon myself to say positively where he was, but the 16th of August is his birth-day, and he comi- monly º it at Oatlands. - Do you know whether he was at the Horse-Guards on the following day, the 17th of August? I cannot take upon myself to say, but it is a point very easily ascertained by reference to the dates; I have not the papers at hand to answer so precisely as that. Do you recollect the Commander in Chief applying to you, either verbally or in writing, between the 16th and the 18th of August, to ask you whether he was in time to stop the publication of Major Tonyn's promotion 2 No, I have no such recollection. - Can you inform the Committee, whether any officer of the name of Aslett is to be found in the army list for that time : I have caused re. ference to be made to the army list, and no such person's name could be found in the list of the army. - Was there any major of the name of Bligh promoted about that time I have caused a similar reference to be made to the army list, - #. and I can find no such person. #: Do you know whether an officer of the name of Bligh was removed about that time from the half pay of the 54th foot, to be lieutenant- colonel of the 14th On inquiry, the only officer of the name of Bligh who was removed about that time, was the honourable Colonel Bligh, who was removed from the half-pay to a regiment of foot, What was his standing as lieutenant-colonel in the army 2 I really do not know, but a reference to the army list will point it out at CIl Ce. Then, in point of fact, there was no major of the name of Aslett, and no major of the name of Bligh, promoted or removed about that period? None that I know of. - Do you know of any officer of the name of Bacon, in the army There is a Captain Bacon in the army, but I have no knowledge of him whatever. - - --- º: ** * co LoNEL Go RDON's ExAMINATION. 481 Did he apply for promotion about the period of July, August, or September, 1804? Not that I know of i)o you know any thing of an officer of the name of Spedding I find upon inquiry there was a Captain Spedding in the 48th regiment at that period. Are there any documents in your office, respecting this officer's ap- plications for promotion I think I have the documents here. It ap- pears he applied for promotion, and was refused ; and he then applied to go upon the half-pay, which was granted, and he is now, I think, npon the half-pay, [Colonel Gordon delivered in the papers.] “In August 1804, Captain Spedding of the 48th regiment applied for promotion (No. 1), and as he was known to Sir Alured Clarke, an application was made to the latter for the character of Captain Spedding, by whose answer (No. 2), it appears that Sir Aiured Clarke does not recollect such an officer. “In Nov. 1804, Capt. Spedding applied to be placed upon £ pay (No. 4), on account f a large family, and an intricacy which had recently occurred in his private affairs.” No. 1. 34 The memorial of Capt. John Spedding, 48th Regiment. 28th August, 1804. Not to be noted until a fair report shall be received from the Regt, “To his Royal Highness Field Marshal the Duke of York, Commander in Chief. “The memorial of John Spedding, Captain in the 48th regiment of foot. * “ Humbly sheweth, “That your memorialist is a captain of 1798—has served the greatest part of his military life in the West Indies, and was never absent during the whole period from duty, - “. Your memorialist most humbly prays that your Royāl Highness may be graciously pleased to grant him promotion. “And your Royal Highness's memorialist, “ as in duty bound, “ August 28th, 1804.” “will ever pray.” “Inquire of Sir Alured Clarke of the character of this officer, to whom it is understood he is known.” No. 2. 62. General Sir A. Clarke. 7th Nov. 1804. * Put by. S “Rhual, near Chester, Nov. 7th, 1804. & & ir “Your letter of the 29th ultimo directed to my house in town was forwarded to this place ; but having been absent for a few days, I did not receive it till yesterday, which will, I hope, sufficiently account for O asº 432 colon Er, Gott DoN’s ExAMINATION. my not returning an earlier reply to his Royal Highness's commands. I cannot at present call to my recollection having had any personal ac- quatnce with Captain John Spedding of the 48th regiment, and conse- quently cannot give the Commander in Chief the information he re- quires; or offer any opiniou as to that officer's merit. I have been so many years employed abroad on the public service, and in such various parts of the world, that it is not impossible but Capt. Spedding may have served under my orders; and I should be extremely sorry if my in mediate want of recollection of it should operate to his disad- vantage ; if, therefore, he should be able to refresh my memory re- specting him, by any communication he may think fit to make, Ishall have great pleasure in doing him justice, and obeying his Royal High- ness's commands. “I am, Sir, with great respect, and regard, “Your most obedient “ Humble servant, “ALURED CLARKE.” “Lieut. Colonel J.W. Gordon, Secretary to H. R. H. the Commander in Chief, &c. &c. &c.” No. 3. 48 Foot. Mem. 23 Nov. 1804. Agreed to. Return this to J. M. “Sir, “Strand, 14 Nov. 1804. “I am directed by General Tonyn to transmit you the enclosed memorial, which the General begs leave to recommend to the notice of his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief. “I have the honour to be, “ Sir, “ Your most humble and obedient servant, ** W M. GILP IN.” “ Lieut. Col. Gordon, &c. &c. &c.” “Acquaint Mr. Gilpin, for General Tonym's informa- tion, that H. R. A.I. approves of Captain Spedding retiring to half-pay, and will recommend art officer from that Est. to succeed him. “To Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's forces, &c. &c. “The Memorial of Captain John Spedding of the 48th regi- ment of foot; “ IIumbly Sheweth, “That your Royal Highness's memorialist, on account of a large family, and an intficacy which has recently occurred in his private affairs, is desirous of retiring from the service upon half pay. “That he has been ten years in the army, three of which he has been in the West Indies. “That in the year 1799 he obtained leave of absence from the 11th colon EL GoRDoN's ExAMINATION. 483 West India regiment, wherein he then served as captain, and after- wards on the 17th of October 1799 exchanged to half-pay with an offi- cer of the 2d regiment of the Irish brigade, and did not upon that ex- change receive any difference. tº “That he was removed from the half-pay in July 1803, not at his own request. “Your memorialist therefore humbly hopes that your Royal High- ness will be pleased to permit him to retire upon half-pay: and your memorialist as in duty bound will ever pray. ** 10th November 1804.” 48 Foot. Capt...Hon. Geo. Blaquiere. Mem. 23d Nov. 1804. “ C. L.” * Captain Blaquiere from half-pay of Hompesch dragoons to be placed on full pay in any regiment of infantry.” “The Commander in Chief has approved of Captain Spedding of the 48th regiment being placed on half-pay. * Captain Blaquiere may be appointed to the command.” Do you know what steps were taken when Captain Spedding ap- plied for promotion? A reference was made to Sir Alured Clarke, and it appeared that Sir Alured Clarke had very little or no knowledge of him. Sir Alured Clarke's letter is here. & Was there any expectation or encouragement held out to Captain Spedding, that he would receive promotion in answer to his applica- tion? No, I think not. I find by a memorandum made upon the letter, that he was not to be noted until a favourable report should be received; in short, no notice was taken of his application; his memo- rial is dated the 28th of August 1804. Is the Committee to understand, that no notice was taken of his ap- plication, and no encouragement given to him between that application and the time he went upon half-pay, so far as the documents inform you? None that I know of Do you know whether the Commander in Chief stopped all pro- motion in the 48th regiment? I have no recollection of it. Does it appear by any document in the office, that any reason was assigned to Captain Spedding of that nature, as the reason for not giv- in; him his promotion ? I think not, I cannot find any such reason. f promotion had been stopped in the 48th regiment, is it not likely you must have recollected it? Yes, I think so, some letter would lave ºn written upon the subject, some correspondence must have 3.SS62C. p Then you do not believe that there was any order given to stop pro- motion in the 48th regiment? I have already said I have no recol- lection of any such transaction. Have you any documents in your possession that will shew in what manner Major Taylor obtained his promotion to a Lieutecant-Colo- nelcy? Yes, I have. HDid he obtain it by purchase ? No, he ought not to have obtained it by purchase; he was recommended by the colonel of a new levy, Lord Matthew. 2 I 2 484 goLoNEL Gondon’s ExAMINATION. * What was Lord Matthew's levy, an Irish levy? Lord Matthetr raised the 99th regiment, and by his letter of service was to recom- mend the officers; his letter of service I have now in my hand, and Major Taylor is at the head of it. T Then the Commander in Chief could not do. otherwise, under the conditions of that levy, than accept the recommendation of Major Taylor to be a Lieutenant-Colonel, if he had served the time pre- scribed by the regulations of the army, to be qualified to hold that rank I cannot say that the Commander in Chief could not do other- wise, but it was a transaction perfectly regular, aud in the due course of business. In point of fact, was Eord Matthew, as the officer who had under- 3. to raise the new levy, to recommend a Lieutenant-Colonel? Xertainly. Then 3. the Committee to understand that Major Taylor obtained his promotion in consequence of this levy Certainly, I know of no. other cause whatever. - 3. [Colonel Gordon delivered in the papers.] Major Taylor, 25th foot. lst October, 1804. “To Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of York, Commander in Chief, &c. &e. &c. “The Memorial of Major John Taylor of His Majesty's 25th regiment of foot; “Sheweth, * “That your memorialist served during the rebellion of 1798 in Ire- land, as brigade-major and aid-de-camp to Major-General Trench, in which situation he remained until the month of August 1799; when Major-General Hutchinson, having been appointed to the staff of the army about to embark for Holland, was pleased to nominate Memo- rialist as his aid-de-camp, in which station he served the campaign of that year. That Memorialist in 1800 accompanied the expedition under Lieutenant General Sir R. Abercrombie to the Mediterranean, and landed with the army in Fgypt; Memorialist served the former part of that campaign as aid-de-camp to Lord Hutchinson, whe was pleased to nominate him to the situation of deputy adjutant-general, upon Co- lonel Abercrombie's succeeding Brigadier-General Hope as adjutant- fº the latter having been appointed to the command of a brigade: hat in 180 l your Royal Highness was ź. pleased to obtain from his Majesty the rank of major, for Memorialist, and lately to ap- point him to a majority in the 25th regiment of foot. “Memorialist therefore relying .."; Royal Highness’s goodness, presumes to hope that your Royal Highness will not deem it impro- per, under circumstances which he has had the honour to submit, to express an humble hope, that, should an apportunity occur of pro- .."; him to a lieutenant-Colonelcy in one of the new battalions, your Royal Highness will be graciously pleased to include him in the ist of promotions. - - “J. TAYLGR, . -- - “Major 25th foot.” “Gordon's Hotel, Albemarle-street, 1st Oct. 1804.” < colo NEL GoR Do N’s ExA MINATION. 485 wº * Major of 1801, and just promoted to the majority of the regiment. “Considered with others, having equal pretensions, but no favourable opportunity at present.” 99th foot. Mem. 28th Feb. 1805. “ C. L.” “Compare this list with that already in your possession.” ** Col. Gordon. If you wish to shew these to H. R. H. to-day.” “Sir, “By direction of Lord Matthew, we have the honour to request your Royal Highness will be pleased to recommend to his Majesty, the officers whose names are contained in the inclosed list, for pro- motion, and appointments in his lordship's regiment. 4 “We have the honour to be, “With great deference and respect, 6.6 Sir, “Your Royal Highness's, “Very faithful and devoted servants, “GREEN wooD & Cox.” “Craig's Court, 13th Feb. 1805.” “Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of York, &c. &c. [Here follows a list of the officers' names.] Does it appear that he applied for leave to purchase a Lieutenant- Colonelcy I do not find any such application. , Have you any documents respecting the promotion of Captain Ximenes to a majority in August 1804 Yes, I have. Where was Captain Ximenes when he was promoted With his regiment, in Canada. Was he an old captain in the army? Yes, he was a captain of 1794, often years standing. Was he of that class of captains from his standing who was entitled, according to the view you take of the pretensions of officers of that rank and time, to a majority ? Yes, he was. [Colonel Gordon delivered in the papers.] “Ximenes was a Capt. of Nov. 1794, aud promoted to a Majority in the 62d Regt. on the 28th Aug. 1804, in con- sequence of the accompanying applications from his brother.” 1 Capt. Ximenes, Wargrave Rangers. 29th April 1804. “No 40, Weymouth-street, Portland-place, “Sir, 39th April 1804.” “My Brother, Captn. David Ximenes of the 29th Regt. (now at Halifax), being a Captn. since 1794, induces me, in his absence, to have the honour of requesting you’ll be pleased to interest yourself with His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, for the purpose of ob- taining him permission to enter on an arrangement (by me) for raising men under the late regulation, for a Majority for him. I was very suc- 486 coloneL Gorno N's ExAMINATION. cessful in raising a large proportion of the late Windsor Foresters Fen. Cav. in which 1 served from its commencement to the general reduc- tion of Fen. Cav. in 1800. I will use every exertion till his return, which I humbly hope, in consideration of his being a Captn. of near ten years standing, and having purchased every step, His Royal High- ness will graciously permit; and I beg leave further to state, that when he was on the recruiting service he was very successful. “I am, Sir, with the utmost respect, “Col. Clinton, &c. &c. &c.” ** Your most Obt. Hble. St. “Moris Ximenes, “Captn. Comt. Wargrave Rangers.” l To be noted. Maidenhead, 22d Augt. 1804. The Memorial of Capt. M. Ximenes of the Wargrave Rangers, in behalf of his brother, Capt. D. Ximenes of the 29. Regt. His brother’s claims will be considered. * “To Field Marshal His Royal Highness the Duke of York, Commander in Chief, &c. &c. &c. “The Memorial of Captain Moris Ximenes, Commandant of the Wargrave Rangers, on behalf of his Brother, Captain David Ximenes, of the 29th regiment of foot, now on duty with his regiment; - 3. “Most humbly sheweth, “That your Memorialist having seen in the Gazette several Captains romoted to Majorities, junior to the abovesaid Captain David Ximenes of the 29th Foot, most humbly prays that Your Royal Highness will be pleased to take his said brother's length of service (being nearly ten years a Captain) into consideration, and recommended him to His Majesty for promotion. “And your Memorialist will ever pray. * M. XIME NES.” “Bear Place, Maidenhead, Berks, “22nd August 1804.” f “He is a Captain of 1794, & a young man— “Approved “Capt. D. Ximenes, does your R. H. ap- C. L. 29 Regt.” prove of his being noted “I have posted for promotion—he is Capt. X, to the 62d. abroad with his corps.” J. W. G. I London 23d Decr. 1804. Major Ximenes, 62d Regt. “'Sir, “New Hummums, Decr. 23, 1804.” “I’ll thank you to have the goodness to inform His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, of my arrival here, and of my readiness to join the regiment, to which his condescending kindness has promoted me; for which promotion I should be happy to return thanks person- ally to His Royal Highness. . . . . . . . . . . . “I have the honour to be, Sir, ar “Your most Obt. Serví. - * D. Xi MEN Es, “Lt. Col. Gordon, &c. &c. &c. Major 62d Regt.” . ...“Horse Guards.” . . Mºre | For your R. Highness perusal. He must join his Regt. MR. ADAM’s ExAMINATIoN. 487 Was the levy of this regiment of Lord Matthew’s completed? It is actually now a regiment of the line, and serving, I think, in the Ba- hamas; it is the 99th regiment. Was it completed in the year 1804? It was sofar completed as to en- title him to recommend his officers; it was completed according to his letter of service, at least I believe so; it was regularly inspected by the commander of the forces in Ireland, and I know nothing to the contrary. t You observe in the statement of Colonel Brooke's services, he is appointed to the 56th regiment on the 5th of January 1805 I see it !S SO. ! Having stated, in your former evidence, that it was necessary to make inquiries into the services of Lieutenant-colonel Brooke, on the first of July, when the exchange was proposed ; were not inquiries made previous to the 5th January, when he was appointed as effective to the 56th regiment of foot from half-pay ? I take for granted that due inquiries were made; but I think I have stated in my evidence that particular inquiries were necessary on his exchange to the cavalry. You mean that inquiries respecting Colonel Brooke were made with ºct to his fitness as a field officer of cavalry I mean exactly that. t You will observe, that the only services of Colonel Brooke as a cavalry officer, are for three months as a cornet in 1793; state what the result of your inquiries into the services of Colonel Brooke as a cavalry officer were, in addition to those stated as a cornet for three months in 1793? That very circumstance made the inquiries still more necessary, and the result of them was satisfactory, as I have before stated; and that they were satisfactory, the services of Colonel Brooke have since very fully proved. } State what other services Colonel Brooke was engaged in which could give him a knowledge of cavalry, in addition to the three months during which he was cornet in 1793. I have already stated to the Com- mittee, and it is in evidence before them, that I kept no memorandum in writing of such inquiries, but that the result of such inquiries was sa- tisfactory; the conduct of Colonel Brooke, in the command of his re- giment, has proved that they were eminently satisfactory. [The following entry was read from the London Gazette of the 18th of August 1804:— “ 14th Regiment of Foot, Lieutenant-Colonel Hon. Wm. Bligh, from the half-pay of the 54th foot, to be Lieu- tenant-Colonel.” WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. a member of the House, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: You stated in your first examination, that you considered Mrs. Clarke had prejudiced his Royal Highness's interest and his name with regard to money, and that an investigation took place; in consequence of that investigation, did any proofs appear of his Royal Highness's name having ever been used by her to procure money? It is impossi- ble for me to state the particular facts that appeared, but I remember perfectly well it was certainly established that there had been transac- 488 MR. ADAM's ExAMINATION. tions with regard to goods and likewise with regard to bills, which satisfied me that the representation was correct; T made no memo- randum at the time. * Then you cannot state any particular transaction, or any particular sum for which the name of the Duke of York was made use of to raise money for Mrs. Clarke Certainly not. Can you state the sources from whence you derived the information of its being so raised ? I believe I have already stated in that part of may evidence, that, in order to obtain the information that was neces- sary to enable his Royal Highness to judge what course he should take with rspect to Mrs. Clarke, I communicated with Mr. Lowten, and he employed Mr. Wilkinson; Mr. Wilkinson made an investigation, and reported the circumstances to me. -: It appears in your evidence, that the facts of the raising of money, or the prejudicing the interests of the Duke of York, by making use of his name, were communicated, after the investigation, to his Royal Highness w were they communicated to his Royal Highness by your- self, or by Mr. Lowten, or by Mr. Wilkinson The result of the investigation was drawn up by Mr. Wilkinson or Mr. Lowten, I do not know which, and that was conveyed to His l{oyal Highness not by my hand, but transmitted to his Royal Highness when he was at Oat- lands, I believe, upon the 7th or 9th of May 1806. w I understood by your evidence, that his Royal Highness the Duke of York was very unwilling to believe the facts that were charged against Mrs. Clarke; is the Committee to understand, that, after the investigation was made, and the facts were communicated to His Royal Highness, he was then satisfied that she had made use of his name, and prejudiced his interests by so doing? I can only answer that by stating what his Royal Highness's conduct was: His Royal High- ness, in consequence of being possessed of the information which I have stated to have been conveyed to him, immediately or very soon after came to a resolution to take the step of separating from Mrs. Clarke. - . Then I understand you to say, that the consequence of laying these facts before his Royal Highness the Duke of York, was his separation from Mrs. Clarke? I can draw no other conclusion than that ; for, as I have already stated in my evidence, before that time, there was no reason to suppose that his Royal Highness intended to separate from Mrs. Clarke; and after that time, he did take that determination. Did you read, at any time, the statement that was drawn up by Mr. Lowten or Mr. Wilkinson, and submitted to his Royal Highness the Duke of York? I certainly did. Does your recollection furnish you with any specific sum that was raised by Mrs. Clarke in the Duke of York’s name, without his au- th rity? No, it does not. Probably you know whether the paper which was delivered to His Royal Highness the Duke of York, is in the possession of his Royal Highness at present? I never have seen that paper since. tº When did you first hear of the note in the possession of Captain Sandon On Saturday morning, the 4th of this month, between ten and eleven o'clock. - - e Froni whºm did you hear of it? I heard of it from Colonel Hamilton; * { - - -- • * * MR. ADAM's ExAMINATION. 489 :Colonel Hamilton came to my house on Saturday morning, between ten and eleven o’clock, before I was out of my bed. State to the Committee what passed upon that occasion. Colonel Hamilton came to my house between ten and eleven o’clock on Satur- day morning, and was shewn up to me. He immediately mentioned to me that he had seen Captain Sandon at Portsmouth ; that Captaia Sandon had communicated with him upon the subject of this inquiry; he said, that Captain Sandon had asked him how he should conduct himself; that he had told Captain Sandon that there could be no rule for his conduct, but one, which was to adhere strictly to truth, to tell every thing he knew, that it would not at all avail him to do otherwise, even if he should have an inclination, because he would be examined, I think he said, by the united ability of the country. He then told me, that Captain Sandon told him that he had some letters upon the sub- ject of his transactions with Mrs. Clarke, and that he had a note, which is the noté in question, which he believed to be in the Duke of York's hand-writing; that that note he had shewn to Captain Tonyn before he was made Major Tonyn, in order to induce him either to keep the deposit which he had made, or to replace the deposit which he had made, I cannot exactly recollect which ; that deposit he had threatened to withdraw in consequence of the delay between the first interview he, Captain Sandon, had with Captain Tonyn, on the sub- ject of his promotion, which he represented, I think, as being nearly two months; that there was likewise another note, which note had been delivered, as he stated, to Major Tonyn, which was a note saying he was to be gazetted to-night, or in words to that effect. Colonel Ha- milton told me he had given strict injunctions to Captain Sandon to preserve the note which he represented as in the Duke of York's hand- writing, and which I understand now to be the note about which there has been so much inquiry here, the original of which has been pro- duced, and every paper. I said to Colonel Hamilton, that nothing could be more correct than his instruction; that it still remained to be seen what the terms of the note were, and to be judged of whether it was the Duke of York's hand-writing; I desired Colonel Hamilton, therefore, to go to Captain Sandon, and to desire to look at the note, and to take a copy of it, and to repeat his injunctions in the strongest manner, to preserve all the papers, and among the rest the note. Colo- hel Hamilton returned to Iny house, I think it must have been con- siderably before one o'clock; it was after twelve or about twelve; he told me that he had repeated those instructions, that he had taken a copy of the note, which he brought to me, which I perused, and found to be in the very terms of the note which has been since produced; and he added, that according to his opinion and belief, it was the Duke of York's hand-writing. I then told him that such circumstances must be immediately communicated, and I wished him, therefore, to o to Mr. Perceval, with a note which I wrote, and that I would follow as soon as I could. Colonel Hamilton went to Mr. Perceval, which I know, because I found him there, and had told Mr. Perceval the story before I arrived. Mr. Perceval and myself deliberated upon the course to be taken, and having understood from Colonel Hamilton's representations (for I believe neither of us ever saw Captain Sandon till he came to the bar of this House) that Captain Sandon had been applied to by Mrs. Clarke, and I think he said Mr. Wardle, but I will 490 MR. An AM’s ExAMINAT.1on. not be sure, and Mr. Lowten, to go to them, it was Mr. Perceval's suggestions and my own, I believe mutually almost, that the most ad- visable course for us to direct Colonel Hamilton to take, was to in- struct Captain Sandon to hold no further communication with any per- son whatever till he appeared at the bar of this House, and likewise to instruct him, to preserve the note and all the papers he had spoken of. Colonel Hamilton received those instructions at Mr. Perceval's house, and went, as I presumed, to make the communication immediately to Captain Sandon, which was to be done before two o'clock, because Sandon bad promised, as we understood from Colonel Hamilton, to give his answers, to the persons who had desired to see him, at that hour. After having given these directions to Colonel Hamilton, it was agreed by Mr. É.. and myself, that this matter ought to be communicated to the Duke of York, and it was further agreed by us, that the matter should be brought before the House of Commons by us, in case it did not make its appearance in the evidence of Captain Sandon. I went in search of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, but it was the evening before I saw him; I communicated the matter to him, he expressed his surprise and astonishment, and declared the impossibility of his ever having made any such communication, and wished immediately to go to Mr. Perceval; we went to Mr. Perceval's together, where he made a similar asseveration and again At Colonel Gordon's. I did not see his Royal Highness again till between three and four o'clock on Sunday the 5th, and I did not see Colonel Hamilton until Sunday at one o'clock, when I saw him for the purpose of learning whether, he had executed the delivering the in- structions to Captain Sandon in the manner that Mr. Perceval and my- self had required; Colonel Hamilton told me that he had delivered them in the very terms ; that Captain Sandon had said, that he, Colo- nel Hamilton, might depend upon his, Captain Sandon's, obeying his instructions; but that he would be extremely angry with him, or ex- tremely enraged with him, I am not sure which was the expression, for he had already disobeyed one of his instructions, he had destroyed the note; upon which, according to Colonel Hamilton's representation, he said, good God, have you destroyed the note 2 . Of course I expressed myself to a similar effect to Colonel Hamilton when he made the com- munication to me respecting the destruction of the note. I went to Mr. Perceval, according to appointment made the day before, and commu- nicated to him this fact, as stated by Colonel Hamilton ; this be- came again the subject of our deliberations, and we again determined that it was our duty, as members of parliament, to bring the matter forward, leaving it to ourselves to judge, in some measure, with regard to the time of bringing it forward; and in order that there might not be a possibility of supposing that we brought it forward or kept it back ac- cording to circumstances, it was determined to make the communica- tion to certain members of this House. Accordingly the facts, as I have now stated them, were communicated to Lord Castlereagh, to Mr. Canning, to the Attorney and Solicitor General, to Lord Henry Petty, to Mr. Whitbread, and to General Fitzpatrick. This brings the fact down to the tranſaction in this House. - Mr. Lowten is employed as an agent of the Duke of York? . He is. Has Mr. Lowten been in the practice of examining the witnesses that were produced in support of the charges against the Duke of York : I really do not know whether he has or has not, - MR. ADAM’s ExAMINATION. 491 When you stated the circumstance of this note to the Duke of York, did the Duke of York state that he never had written such a note with a view of influencing Captain Tonyn, as it has been represented by Captain Sandon, or that he had never written such a note at all to Mrs. Clarke The Duke of York stated, that he was perfectly sure that he had never written such a note; that he had not a recollection of it at aii. t Did he state to you, that he had never written to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of military affairs? He always stated to me, that, to the best of his recollection, he had never written to Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military affairs, and that, if he had done it, it must have been very rarely. • Have you any objection to state that these were the grounds of your withholding this communication from the House till the period it was brought forward?. The ground that influenced my mind was, that I thought if the communication had been brought forward at an earlier period it might have embarrassed the course of proceeding in the in- quiry, at the instance of the gentleman who had set it on foot, and that, in considering the whole circumstances of the case, justice would be better obtained, whatever the effect of that note might be, by keeping it back till the period when it was allowed to transpire, I can only say now what were my motives and reasons for that conduct; that was what influenced me in the opinion I gave in consultation with Mr. Perceval upon that subject. I mentioned that I did not see the Duke of York again till three or four o'clock on Sunday; at one o'clock on Sunday I was informed by Colonel Hamilton, of Sandon’s having de- clared the note to be destroyed. Between three and four o'clock on Sunday I informed the Duke of York of that fact. I think it right to state that as a material fact in the case. You have stated, that one motive which you had for keeping back the mention of this note to so late a period, was, lest you should em- barrass the gentleman who brought forward this inquiry, by the pre- mature disclosure of the note; explain to the Committee how that dis- closure would have embarrassed him more than the cross-examinations which took place, when the witnesses appeared at the bar I considered this note, and the transaction respecting it, the disclosure respectin its destruction, to form one of the most extraordinary features that had ever known of in any case. If I had been in the course of examin- ing witnesses much in this proceeding, I should have avoided cross- examining to that fact, thinking the mode that was adopted a more satisfactory means of bringing it forward ; and I believe it will be found that there was no cross-examination of Sandon to that fact, nor any thing that could lead to it; and therefore, answering to the motive, and not to the fact, I can only say it does not strike me that this stands upon the same footing as the ordinary cross-examination of witnesses, according to my conception. Why should its being an extraordinary feature, prevent its being presented at an early period; is it usual for extraordinary features to be kept back in evidence of courts of justice, when they relate to the evidence that witnesses examined in chief, are given to the Court 2 I conceive, that being possessed of a fact of this sort, which I found it my bounden duty, in conjunction with Mr. Perceval, to bring before the public, whatever its consequences might be, and which the Royal A92 MR. PERCEvAL’s ExAMINATION. Duke, Hºbelieve, had expressed a desire to Mr. Perceval, should be brought before the public, that I had a right to exercise my discretion, in conjunction with Mr. Perceval, to bring it before the public at the time that, according to that discretion, we should think the best, meaning honestly and distinctly at all times to bring it before the [House. - - - You have stated, that you thought that the purposes of justice would be best answered by not bringing this fact before 'the House sooner than it was brought; will you explain how the purposes of jus- tice were likely to be best answered by the delay in bringing forward the circumstances respecting this note : I can only state how I think the purposes of justice would be best answered; I cannot be so pre- sumptuous as to say that the purposes of justice were best answered, but in my opinion they were, because it brought this particular feature of the case distinctly, clearly, and unembarrassed, before the House; that if it had been mixed up in cross-examination, or brought forward in that shape, it neither would have appeared so distinct, nor have appeared so clearly the determination of the persons bringing it forward. - - - * * The Right Honourable SPENCER PERCEVAL, attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Have you heard the statement of the honourable gentleman lately under examination, and do you wish to add any thing to that state- ment? I am not quite certain that I heard the whole. If it is wished that I should state the motives that influenced my mind, not in keep- ing this back, but in not bringing it forward before, I conceived the case that was to be made against the Royal Duke was closed. When the communication was made to me, l thought at the first it was a very extraordinary circumstance; and when I found that the note was, as the witness represented it, destroyed, coupled with the direct assertion of the Royal Duke, that this note was a forgery, I thought it to be a forgery, and I determined to act upon the supposition of its being such, and upon that impression, and with a view the better to detect it, if it were so, I thought it better that all the witnesses that could in any degree have been concerned in that transaction, should have told their own tale to the Committee, before they were in any degree informed, by me at least, or by the course that we took, of our being in possession of any fact, or inclined to make use of the information we had of any fact ; it might break in upon their own plan of narrating it to the Committee; if it had been a single case, instead of a variety of cases, that were brought before the Com- mittee, I apprehend that there could be no question; that on the part of the defence to that charge, those who interested themselves in the defence could not be called upon to produce any part of the evidence which they thought material, till they had the whole of the case that was to be brought against them laid before the Court; and considering how the whole of these cases are, by means of the same witnesses, more or less, being brought forward upon them all ; considering from that circumstance how they were all connected, I conceived it : be better that this information should not be given till it was closed. - ------ MR. Town’s ExAMINATIow. 493; Was the introduction of this evidence settled, upon the supposition that the note was actually destroyed 2 Certainly my impression was, that the note, was actually destroyed, and it was after that impression was conveyed to me, that the note was actually destroyed, that I concurred with my honourable and learned friend in thinking that it was equally necessary that fact should be brought before the Com- mittee; and perhaps I might be permitted to add, that, feeling there was a considerable degree of awkwardness in the appearance of being backward to bring forward at the earliest period a fact so import: ant as this fact was, we did think that our own honour would hardly be safe, unless we made a communication, not only of the fact, but of our determination to produce it in the manner in which we did. * WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. in his place, made a statement, as follows: Pt becomes unnecessary for me to state any thing in confirmation of what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think it right to state to the &º. that the whole course of our con- duct rested on a thorough conviction that the note was destroyed. Mr. BENJAMIN TOWN was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: State to the Committee your name. Benjamin Town. I presume, then, you are of the Jewish persuasion ? I am. You have stated on a former occasion, that in your transactions with Mrs. Clarke, she told you she could forge the Duke of York’s name: are you aware that that word is applicable only to fraudulent transac- tions f That I cannot say. -- sº Did you use it in that sense? No, I did note, , , Did you, then, when you mentioned the word forge, only mean the word imitate 2 Those were her words, that she could forge the Duke's name, and she has done it, and she shewed it ine immediately on a piece of paper. - t Did you understand that word forge to mean imitate 2 Those were the words that she expressed. Had you, before you gave your evidence here on a former occasion, read in the newspaper that part of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, wherein she spoke of you as a Jew, and said, perhaps you might have stolen a letter or two from her * I never saw the paper, nor never heard of it. Did you say that Mrs. Clarke had forged the Duke's hand-writing 2 She said she could, and she has done it; that she has forged the Duke's name, and she shewed it me on a piece of paper. What is your name 2. Benjamin Town. - How long have you had that name : My father's name is Town. Does your father go by the name of Town : Yes. How long has he gone by the name of Town That I do not know. . n * * Have you never known him by any other? No. Recollect yourself, No, I have not. What is your father . He is a Jew. What is his trade He is an artist, he teaches welvet-painting. A94. MR. ADAM's ExAMINATIon. How ſong has he taught velvet-painting Many years. . . # = Do you remember }. father carrying on any other trade but that of velvet-painting That I do not know, he might; ladies have now and then, I suppose, asked him to recommend some jewellery to them, and I think he has sent different jewelleries to the ladies. Did you ever know him go by the name of Lyons 2 No, never, I understood you to say, that Mrs. Clarke told you she could forge the Duke of York's hand, and that she actually forged his hand in your presence 2 . She said that she could, and she has done it, and she shewed it to me on a piece of paper, and I could not tell the difference between the two. How could you tell it was the Duke of York's hand-writing I did not know, only as she told me. What do you mean by forging? I do not know ; those were her words; I only tell you what she told me. _xºr Did you appear as a witness at the sessions at Clerkenwell? Yes, I did ; it is a considerable time back. l Do you know Mr. Alley, a barrister, and recollect any such bar- rister at those sessions 2 Yes; he was, I believe, Mr. Smith's counsel. State whether any thing particular happened at that sessions with re- gard to your evidence : 1 do not recollect. Endeavour to recollect whether Mr. Alley, in that court, used any strong expressions to you ? I do not recollect any ; he said that I was a Jew, and that all the Jews ought to be punished, or something of that kind; he made use of some language which I cannot recollect. ls any indictment now hanging over your head for perjury P No. Do you know of any proceedings I know there is a proceeding, but I do not know upon what grounds; it is not against me ; it is not belonging to me. 3. Are you sure that you are in no way connected with that pro- ceeding : I do not know whether it is my sister or brother; I cannot tell which. - Are you sure you are no way implicated in or connected with that proceeding: No, I am not. - What is the proceeding, and against whom It is so long since, I cannot tell ; there have been so many, and Mr. Smith has lost them : that I cannot recollect what he is doing, or what he intends oil/g. º [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM ADAM, Esquire, made the following statement in his place : s In my examination this evening, I have been asked whether his Royal Highness stated to me, that he had not corresponded with Mrs. Clarke upon military matters; in answer to which, I said, that his Royal Highness did not recellect ever having corresponded with her upon military matters; or, if he had, very rarely. The latter part of that answer is erroneous, and without that saddition, “very rarely,” the answer is correct. I)id the Duke of York state to you, that he did not recollect ever having written to Mrs. Clarke about any military business whatever ? The Duke of York certainly stated to me, that he did not recollect to have written to Mrs. Clarke upon any military matters whatever. He MR. MESSENGER's ExAMINATION. 495 afterwards said, that if he had ever written to Mrs. Clarke upon any military matters whatever, it must have been merely in answer to some question put in some letter of her’s ; and his Royal Highness said expressly, that when she once stated something to him, early in their acquaintance, respecting a promotion in the army, he said, that was business that he could not listen to, and he never heard any thing more of it afterwards. JOHN MESSENGER was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: What is your situation in life 2 I live with Mr. Parker. What is he? A goldsmith. Does he receive goods in pledge? He does. He is a pawnbroker He is. hº Mrs. Clarke ever pledge any goods with Mr. Parker * Yes, she did. * Did Mrs. Clarke ever apply to Mr. Parker to discount any bills 2 Yes, she did. Among the bills so discounted, were there any drawn by Mr. Dow- łer upon Mrs. Farquhar * Yes, there was one. State the date of that bill, and the amount. The bill was dated on the 11th of June 1805, at two months after date. What did the bill purport to be For 3631. drawn by Dowler and accepted by Farquhar. hat is the Christian name of Dowler 2 I do not know. What is the Christian name of Farquhar 2 I do not know ; Mrs. Clarke has credit by bill of Dowler on Farquhar. | Did Mr. Parker discount that bill 2 He did. Was it paid when it became due ; No, it was not. Did Mr. Dowler draw any other bills No, I believe not, not to my knowledge; I do not perceive any other bill drawn by Dowler. Is there no other bill drawn by the name of Farquhar * None drawn by Farquhar; there are others drawn by Mrs. Clarke, and accepted by Mrs. Farquhar. Were those bills paid No, not the day they were due, there was one for 100l. which we discounted for her on the 13th July 1805. That was not paid when due No ; another on the 19th of Sep- tember, drawn by Clarke on Farquhar at two months. Was that paid when due No; on the 27th of September we discounted another drawn by Clarke on Farquhar the 27th of Sep- tember, at two months, for 100l. Was that paid when due No, I believe it was not; that is the whole that we discounted. How were those bills taken up? We received on the 19th September a draft of the Duke of York's, dated on the 18th of January 1806, for 400l. dated forwards three months; it was due on the 18th Fe- bruary. r #. were the others taken up? On the 4th December, we have credited her with a bill of Bell on Pritchard, for 100l. ; another drawn by Bell on Millard, for 100l. Were any others taken up by any draft or check of the Duke of York’s We received on the 10th of February 1806, a promissor note, drawn by the Duke of York, payable to Parker, dated on the 8t of February, at four-months, for 2304. 496 Mr R. Messe NGER's ExAMINATIon. Had Mr. Parker jewels or other property of Mrs. Clarke's, in his possession, as a security for those advances? Yes. - Were there any bills in 1805 The one for 400l. was taken in 1805. Does your book state what pledge was redeemed by that bill in September 1805 It was discounted; no pledge was redeemed in September. e & Did Mrs. Clarke deposit any goods in pledge, in the year 18052 That I do not recollect. Does not your book state that? No. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Miss Taylor was called, but was not in attendance. Mr. Beresford wished to ask some questions respecting the post marks of the correspondence on the table; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that they should all be printed with the letters. The Chancellor of the Erchequer then said that there were two witnesses necessary to be examined again; Mrs. Clarke for the purpose of giving evidence as to all her correspondence with the Duke of York, to the time of her separation from him ; but as she would not be likely to be in readiness for attendance for a day or two, he thought the Committee had better adjourn till Wednesday. The Committee adjourned accordingly; and the House was resumed, and progress reported. Mr. Williams Wynne said that as soon as the names on the list were disposed of, he should take an early oppor- tunity of bringing forward the prevarication of General Clavering. Captain Sandon was ordered to be remanded to New- gate. - - - [The following entry was read from the Gazette of September 4, 1804. “ 48th regiment of foot, Lieutenant William Fry French to be captain, without purchase, vice Colquhoun, promoted in the 14th Battalion of reserve.” .* 3. [The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 6th of October, 1804:1 º - “25th regiment of foot, Ensign Henry Crotty, from the 48th foot, to be lieutenant, without purchase.” f [The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.] ( 497 ) TWELFTH DAY. wed NESDAY, FEBRUARY 23. -m- List of Witnesses examined, COLONEL DIGBY HAMILTON. MRs. MARY ANN CLARKE. WM. HARRISON, Esq. WM. HUSKISSON, Esq. (a Member.) THE RT. HoN. SPENCER PERCEVAL (a Member.) WM. ADAM (a Member.) REv. JOSEPH ELLIS. MRs. FAVERY. CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. CHARLESTAYLOR, Esq. (a Member.) THOMAS LOWTEN, Esq. 30HN WILKINSON, Esq. Miss M. A. TAYLOR. MR. DEDERICK SMITH. Hon. GEN. C. NORTON (a Member.) RT. Hon. GEN. FITZPATRICK (a Member.) MR. SECRETARY AT WAR (a Member.) RIGHT Hon. SIR A. WELLESLEY (a Member.) GENERAL GROSVENOR (a Member.) Mr. WHART on in the Chair. The House resolved into a Committee on the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York. Colonel DIGBY HAMILTON was called in, and examined by the - Committee, as follows: When did you first know Captain Sandon was in possession of that note, which is now in the º of the House He informed me so at Portsmouth, the day he arrived. Was that before or after the commencement of the inquiry in this House? It was after the inquiry fººd. 2 K 498 colo NEI, HAMILTON's ExAMINAT.1on. When did you first communicate this intelligence, and to whom diá ou communicate it? The communication was made to me on Wa. and on the Saturday following I communicated it to Mr. Adam. Did Captain Sandon tell you, that he considered this note of * importance to the present inquiry : I do not recollect that he $C, Did Captain Sandon tell you, that he believed this note was forged.& Certainly not; no conversation of the sort took place between Captain Sandon and myself. When you first saw the note, did you believe that it was forged or enuine? in my opinion, I thought it to be in the hand-writing of the §. of York, and therefore I did not conceive it to be forged. Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of the Duke of York : I have never seen his Royal Highness write; I have had occasion to see letters, which I was led to believe were his Royal Highness's wri- ting ; and I have also seen his signature to public documents. ña you desire Captain Sandon not to destroy this note 2 Repeat- edly, and laid the strongest injunctions upon him to that effect. When you communicated this intelligence to Mr. Adam, you be- lieved that the note was in existence 2 J (i. from what Captain San- don had promised me, when I saw him at Portsmouth, I took for grant- ed that he had 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 oc- currence to Mr. Adam. Did Captain Sandon tell you, that he thought it would be best to de- stroy the note 2 No. Did Captain Sandon communicate to you any thing of his motives for wishing to destroy the note : , I had no intimation whatever from Cap- tain Sandon of such an intention; I only knew, or believed, the note to be destroyed, upon his informing me that he had done so. Was the occasion of Captain Sandon's stating to you that he had de- stroyed the note, on your returning from Mr. Adam and myself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with a direction to him not to destroy it? It perhaps would be more satisfactory to the House, if I were to state the reasºns which led to Captain Sandon's making that declaration to me.—After I had seen Mr. Adam, I made an appointment with Cap- tain 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 Captain Sandon, the necessity of his preserving all the papers, and that he should con- fine himself strictly to the truth in his examination before this honoura- ble House. When I went to the British Coffee-house, there were se- veral 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 tº: towards the city ; in going towards Temple-bar, he said, Colonel, 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 Captain Sandon from that period till the day of his commitment by this honourable House : colon EL HAMILTON's ExAMINATION. 499 he came to call upon me on the morning of that day; I met him after I left my lodging in Oxford-street; he mentioned, that he came to ex- plain to me that he had not destroyed the note, but that he did not mean to produce it. I told him he 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 conver- sation as to regimental business, we parted. Captain 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 Captain Sandon tell you why he did not mean to produce the papers? No, he did not assign any reason whatever, ^ In the first conversation you had with Captain 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. In your first conversation with Captain Sandon upon this subject, did Captain 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 de- stroyed? No, that is not the order of things. Captain Sandon pro- mised 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 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, had 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 Cap- tain Sandon except getting out of a gentleman’s carriage, the day of his examination, when I had no further conversation than my expressing, that I hoped he had not had any intercourse either with W. Lowten or the other party; but nothing passed further on the subject of the papers till the morning of the day he was committed. A fortnight after Captain 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 some- thing 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 Mr. Adam to do so. . & t - - You have mentioned the very proper advice which you gave Captain Sandon, to preserve carefully everyFº and not to prevaricate before 2 K 2 500 core NEL #AMff.Ton’s ExAMINATION.. 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 censequence 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 Captain Sandon merely as the advice from one individual to another; I con- sidered that Captain Sandon came to consult me as his Colonel, officially, on the line of conduct he should pursue; I was not influeuced 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 Captain Sandon which raised in your mind a doubt whether Captain Sandon might not prevaricate and keep back certain papers? No, not even an insinuation on his part. Upon what day was it that Captain 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 cir- cumstance, and Mr. Harrison. Did you inform those gentlemen of the circumstance I did. At what time on that day did you inform those gentleman oſit, 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. Are you quite certain that I (Mr. Adam) was present at the time you made that communication?—To the other twe gentlemen : No, I spoke to the three gentlemen separately. Are you quite certain you made that communication to me (Mr. Adam) : Upon my honour I cannot 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 (Mr. Adam) conversed with you at the Horse Guards on Monday the 5th of February, have I not avoided all inter- course 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. I)id you desire Mr. Harrison to communicate this intelligence to any person; I have already stated that I desired him to mention it to Mr. Adam. . J You did not communicate what you knew concerning this note to Mr. Wardle? I have not had any intercourse, nor have j, any knowledge whatever of Mr. Wardle. & Why should you communicate it to one side and not the other? F; have had the honour of knowing Mr. Adam some years, and I con- ceived I could not go to a more hongurable man, nor to a nuan ori whose judgment I had a greater reliance than on Mr. Adam’s. . . . . . *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; colon EL HAMILTON's ExA MINATION. 501 what induced you to make an application to Mr. Adam upon that sub- ject? 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 in my mind at that moment ; perhaps I attached more importance to that paper, because it * the only paper that was said to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York. - You must have had some reasons for consulting with Mr. Adam re- specting 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 in- tegrity, and 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 pe- riod was that? After I returned to Mr. Adam, and communicated to him, that I had seen the note, and reada copy of the note, he said that the most advisable measure was, for 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 mora- ing, the first morning I was in town. W - This was previous to your going the first time to the British Coffee- house f Previous. ". Did you at any time tell Mr. Adam, or the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, 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 he might be 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 neversaw the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except prior to your going the first time to the British Coffee-house : I have seen him accidentally, but had no kind of communication with him what- ever; I have not had any sort or kind of communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer since the Saturday morning alluded to. What induced you to seek a communication with the 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 communi- cate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer all that I knew. Do you recollect having come from º to the Horse-Guards on Sunday noon, the 5th of February 2 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 § of February, at one o'clock. - " . Do you recollect having a very short conversation. with me (Mr. Adam) at the Horse-guards : I do remember a few words passed enly. - 502 colonel HAMILTON's ExAMINATIon. Do you remember, on that occasion, stating to me (Mr. Adam) that Captain Sandon had informed you, the day before, that he had destroy- ed the note 2 I do. - ... t When did you first hear of the note in question? The note was stated to me by Captain Sandon to be in his possession, together with other papers, in our first conversation at Portsmouth. State the whole of what passed between Captain Sandon and you upon that occasion? I will not undertake to state accurately or ver- batim what passed, I will give the purport of the conversation to the House, to the best of my recollection. Captain Sandon, after report- ing his arrival from Plymouth, where he had landed with his troop, said, undoubtedly I had read the newspapers, and had seen his name mentioned 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 he 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; that he afterwards met with a Mr. Donovan, who had served in General Tarleton's legion in the American war, and had been wounded there. Mr. Donovan had been surgeon to the supple- mentary militia, of which regiment he had been lieutenant-colonel; that he understood Mr. Donovan was endeavouring to negotiate 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 Colonel. French at the house of a Major |. who is since dead, and who lived in Sloane-street; that upon asking Colonel 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. Captain 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 gentieman, and the terms were agreed upon. I do not recollect the specific sums, but I think 500l., was to be paid upon the measure being acceded to on the part of his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, that this matter went on for some time, and that he had not the remotest idea through what channel the acqui- escence to the request had been granted; that the application had been regular and official, and the answers were official. Some time after this he had an application made to him respecting the promotion of Captain Tonym. Capt. Tonyn was to lodge, I believe, 500 guineas on being appointed to a majority, Captain 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 secºrity for the payment of that sum ; that upon his having made this overture to withdraw this security, Captain Sandon received a note, which is the note in question, to say, that the promotionshould not go on. That some time after, upon Cap- ^- = M Rs. cI.ARKE's ExAMINATION, 503 tain 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, and mentioning the day it would be ga- zetted, and then he stated to me that both notes were in his possession; but it is necessary I should add, that Captain Sandon fully explained to me at 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 had been paid by him through the medium of another person, that he un- derstood that influence was to be procured through the medium of Mrs. Clarke. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mrs. MARY ANN CLARKE, was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: Have you brought with you the two last notes you received from his Royal Highness? What were mentioned in the summons did not purport to be the last notes. His Royal Highness did not cease corre- sponding with me after we parted. - The notes, supposed to be the last, were that which first notified to you his Royal Highness's intention of separating from you, and the note he wrote immediately afterwards? Does his Royal Highness 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 you recollect receiving a note to that effect from his Royal Highness 2 (The copy of a note being shewn to Mrs. Clarke.) May ł. this? Certainly. (Mrs. Clarke 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. w Was the letter that you did receive in Mr. Greenwood's hand-writing, in the same hand-writing as that? It is so Rong ago, I cannot recollect, but it was the longest letter that Mr. Greenwood wrote; it was a short note I had in the morning, and the longest I received in the evening; it was written by Mr. Greenwood ; his Royal Highness 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 his Royal Highness 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 Royal Highness's servant told it to my servants. I waited dinner for his Royal Highness 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 504 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. letter, and his Royal Highness copied it, as I understood. I have mentioned it in several of my letters since to his Royal Highness. I burnt the letter. I saw his Royal Highness afterwards in his own house º same night, but he ran away from me, after Mr. Greenwood had left him. * ... " How long have you recollected that you burnt that letter Not till just now... I have burnt many of his Royal Highness's letters, and lost inally 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 Colonel M'Mahon mentions that I had many letters in my possession that would make much mischief between his Royal Highness the Duke of York 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 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 deaſ since last might. - , 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 nie very unhappy indeed, and I am afraid Mrs. Favery will be found to have told a great many stories. 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 after she had been examined at the House, she told me he was not a carpen- ter, but that he was a clergyman, and that she was afraid of bringing for- ward his name. - * - It was not the same day? No; I had no opportunity of speaking to her the Sáine day. - . . How many days after having heard that she had made this misrepre- sentation of Mr. Ellis, did you desire her to go and inform Mr. Ellis 2 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 Glou- cester-place, after telling his Royal Highness of it. It was not till yesterday she told youthat she had misrepresented Mr. Ellis's situation in life 2 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 large parties every day the Duke dined out; and about having three cooks; I never . three cooks, as I stated before, I only had a cook and his atten- * When did Mrs. Favery first live with you? Soon after I was married, but she has been in twenty places since. . - * w Did you give Mrs. Favery a character to Mr. Ellis? Either me or my MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. 505 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. Eilis 2 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. r t How came you 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 thought that 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 pro- £I’. p How long was it after you turned her away that you took her into }. service again? A 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 2 No, only once since this time. How long has she lived with you now? Yes, I believe that Mrs. Nicholls 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 dif- ference between the two, and Mrs. Favery is necessary to me; she knows all my affairs, and I believe she keeps my secrets; I have be- lieved 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 châracter 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 wife once when his Royal Highness was there; a very vulgar woman came one day when I 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 had been disclarged, which was the truth; and his Royal Highness ordered the servants to take her to some prison, which they did, and she was there two or three days for her had behaviour. . . +. You are sure you only went to Mrs. Favery once when she lived with. Mr. Ellis 2 Yes. , * And that was in a hackney-coach you are sure ? Yes, I am. [The following question and answer being read to the witness :] “ Q. Did you ever receive a list of names for promotion from any other person than Captain Huxley Sandon and Mr. ~ Donovan A. ſ 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 his Royal Highness took it down.” e - " . * * 506 Mrs. clanke's ExAMINAtron. : 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. g How long was that list so pinned up The second morning his Royal Highness 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-book to look at some other papers. I only make this remark, as I have heard a gentleman 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. º Was this list seen by any other person besides yourself and his Royal Highness? 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 his Royal Highness read it? I am quite sure, he read it in my presence, drew up 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. Did you ever live with Mr. Ogilvy No; I never lived with any man but the Duke of York. , - . Did Mr. Ogilvy ever live with you? No, never; General Clayering called on Mr. William 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 2 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 Duke of York 2. Only a few months. Did you know Mr. Ogilvy before he was embarrassed in his circum- stances? No, I did not. - .g. 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 fai- lure? No, nothing at all. . . . . - Were you examined as a witness in Mr. Ogilvy's bankruptcy? Yes, I was; but I was living with the Duke of York at the time, though un- known to the world: there is a pamphlet going about now, but it is not true. & - Since the date of your separation from the Duke of York, have you frequently had letters from his Royal Highness? 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 fact. I believe that I may have a little note or so, for they always consisted of short notes, MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATIon. 507. 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 are eight or ten in my hand. I have many notes I could shew since his Royal Higº 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 Royal Highness 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 out. 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, be- cause I know they are exactly like what I have seen here. Are those you have here subsequent to your separation from the Duke of York: No, they are not; unless one of them is. wr- Put in some one or more notes subsequent to the date of the separa- tion. 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 for- gery going about is extremely unpleasant. t - Are 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 his Royal Highness has written to me SII). Ce, * , Look at the outside and inside, for the purpose of saying whether it is his Royal Highness's hand-writing? They both are; I have dates to some at home. 4 Do you wish to put in any more papers? Yes, I wish to put in all these I have here. Here is another since his Royal Highness 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. ſwish to put in all these [delivering in several letters.] ave you sufficiently examined all the papers you have put in, to be. able to state that they are all the Duke of York's hand-writing Yes, I have. Can you discriminate such as were written before, and such as were. written after your separation from the Duke of York Yes, they are only mere envelopes, to slew 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 written before or after the separation? This was written by the Duke of York some time after, when he sent me the 200l. to go out of town after the separa- tion. 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 * $08 M Rs. CLAREE's ExAMIN Arion. * in your possession, which were written subsequent? I will j950. . . . . . ~ . . . . - ,, ... [Two notes, directed, “George Farquhar, Esquire,” were read; one beginning, “ I do not know what you mean, &c. * 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 disturo 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.” _ " - Was it customary with the Duke of York 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 had several letters, which you call Love Letters, from the Duke of York, in your possession at present 2 Yes, I have, and some of my friends have. º ‘Is there any thing in any of those letters relative to military or eccle- siastical promotions? No. - - * Has any person been present when you looked over your papers re- lative to this?. I have never let any one look over any papers. *Did you, when you lived in Gloucester-place, always pay your bills yourself, or did you sometimes pay them through the medim of your house-keeper? Sometimes myself, sometimes my house-keeper; but the common tradsemen, such as butchers and bakers, I never paid myself. ... - % Who was that house-keeper ? Mrs. Favery. Bīd Mrs. Favery ever represent to you that the creditors were so clamorous, that she (Mrs. Favery), was accused of having most likely secreted the money, by riot paying it? Yes; but then I never minded what she said. . . . . l - Tºid Mrs. Favery represent the absolute necessity of the Duke of York's supplying you with money to pacify the creditors? Yes, of course; it slie was teazed by people, she teazed me. Did this often happen? She is the best judge. Were not the creditors often paid in consequence 2. Yes, if they were very claimorous. - - , - . . . • Were not those sums to a very considerable amount? I do not know what is called considerable. . - Were they to the amount of 1000l. She would speak of different tradesmen teazing for their bills, I do not know to what anlount. Do you not know that bills were often paid to a large amount, in consequence of your applications to the Duke of York, upon the repre- sentations 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. . º 4: - * * MRs. CLARKE’s ExAMINATION. 50% Mr. Whitbread said there were but three or four letters requisite to be delivered: he therefore moved, that all the letters, except three or four, be returned to Mrs. Clarke, which was done accordingly. The honourable member then requested that Mrs. Charke would send two or three of his Royal Highness's letters, with dates, or by the ost-mark of which it could be ascertained that they had een written since the separation took place. He was particular in this, because he hoped the inquiry would close this evening, it would be necessary for Mrs. Clarke to attend again, and a messenger might go with her to bring back the letters. [Several letters were returned to Mrs. Clarke, their insertion on the Minutes not being considered material.] Do you recollect that, in the presence of Miss Taylor, the Duke of York and yourself ever talked of military promotions : , I am sure E cannot say ; his Royal Highness did not mind what he said before Miss Taylor; he was very fond of her. The witness says that several of the Duke of York’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, when Lord Folkestone desired to know by what right or title the learned gentleman was authorized to inquire where att the letters, which Mrs. Clarke stated herself to have re- ceived, were to be found Mr. Lockhart observed, 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 ne- cessary either to the conviction or acquittal of the illus- trious person, against whom the charges under investiga- tion had been brought. The witness had no right, there- fore, to withold any letters which might conduce to eluci- date the subject of inquiry. If the Committee, however, should be of a different opinion, he should not press the guestion, though upon the broad principle he was cone vinced it was a proper one to put. * { Lord Felkestone contended that the argument of the learned gentleman 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 gentleman an oppor- tunity to look them over, and judge which were appli- cable to the question under consideration. Any papers 510 MRs. CLARKE's ExAMINATION. the Committee would be authorized to demand, ought to be defined ; and the learned member would inform him, 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. Bathurst observed, that the noble lord seemed to have mistaken the object of the learned gentleman's ques- tion. They were not Mrs. Clarke's letters whieh he wished to have produced, but the letters of the royal person the charges against whom the Committee was engaged in in- vestigating. If the noble lord, or the honourable member who brought forward the charges, had put the question of the learned gentleman, 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 hoir- ourable 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 pro- duced, though if the learned gentleman 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 Adams thought that the question was a fit one to be put, but that it would be competent to the wit- ness to refuse to answer it. The Chancellor of the Erchequer agreed with his right honourable friend (Mr. Bathurst), that if any honourable 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 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 gen- tleman 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 gentleman 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. Bathurst stated, that the witness had already de- goLoNEL HAMILTen's ExAMINATIon, 5II clared in evidence, that in no one of the love letters was there any mention of military or ecclesiastical preferments. Mr. Lockhart observed, 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 as- sisted her, and the nature and circumstances of that assist- ance. He should therefore not press his question. Mr. Marryat thought the witness had said, that all the love letters wereeither in her own or her mother's possession. Mr. Rose thought, 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 ob- jection to the question. Mr. Whitbread wished the learned gentleman to with. draw his question. As to the object stated by the learned gentleman, 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 in- ferences 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 the Committee, as follows: Did Captain Sandon state to you, that he had ever received any sum of money from Major Tonyn 2 No. Did he state to you from whom he received the note: To the best of my recollection, he stated that he had received the note from Mrs. Clarke, or that it had been conveyed to him from Mrs. Clarke. When did you see that note On the Saturday after I had my first communication with Mr. Adam. sº 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 re- collect whether it was wrapped up in a piece of paper, but Captain Sandon shewed me part of the cover of a letter which had the Dover post-mark 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 §12. now certain whether you informed Mr. Adam or not I can only re- peat the reply I made to that question before: my mind was impressed with the idea that I had informed Mr. Adam, or taken effectual mea- sures 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 his Royal Highness, -: How did you know that Mr. Harrison was so employed From my having been frequently in the room when Mr. Harrison came inte it, where Mr. Lowten does his business; in consequence of my being ordered to be in attendance upon the House. - z º. From whom did you learn that Mr. Harrison was employed as the agent of the Duke of York? 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 Duke of York 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 Lieutenant-Colonel Górdon, desiring my attendance upon this House, and that I was to call upon Mr. iº. whom I should find upon making inquiry here. I received a note at Croydon barracks, which induced my attendance. When Captain 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 recollect that he did; it was merely to impress my mind that the letter and the note were directed in the same hand writing; I do not recollect any other conversation having passed. . How long have you been acquainted with Captain Sandon : , I have known. Captain Sandon since the year 1794, but Captain Sandon has never been my acquaintance; I have known him in my military situa- tion only ; he served on the Continent at the same period I did, but without having any intercourse, merely knowing him as Captain San- don; 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, f Did Captain Sandon manifest any reluctance in allowing you to take a copy of the note None whatever; it was done with his perfect £On Cull'I'êrº Cé. . . . . . . . . . . - - * After he had stated to you that he had destroyed the note, did he say i.; to you respecting the copy you ...? taken He never al- uded to it. - - + - . . . . ; Did Captain Sandon shew you the other note to which you have re- ferred 2 pon producing the note in question, I brought to his recol; kection 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 bave given . it to Major Tonyn, to convince him that the promotion was to go on. : Did £aptain 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 colon EL HAMILTON's ExAMINATION. 513 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 Duke of York, or by whom they were written. Why then did Captain Sandon compare the first note with the enve- lope of the letter? I have already stated, that he produced the enve- lope 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 Fºg the part of the envelope ; it was not entire ; there might be alf of it. For what purpose did you understand he wished to prove the two papers were of the same hand-writing, unless, he pointed out some person whose hand he pretended it to be?, I must state most un- equivocally, that Captain 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 Captain Sandon was it that you observed to him, if you did, that you thought the note ap- peared to be written by the Commander in Chief? I have never stated that I had made sich a declaration to Captain Sandon, because no such observation was ever made to me by Captain Sandon. Did Captain Sandon state from whom it was that he received the se- cond 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 un- derstood he received them from Mrs. Clarke personally, or through º other means from her; I did not enter into those particulars with ll ill. Both notes ? Both notes. º Have you not already stated that Captain Sandon appeared to think the note, of which you took a copy, was a note of some importance 2 It is impossible I could have stated any thing of the kind, because I have never stated Captain Sandon's opinions upon the subject at all. When you communicated to Mr. }. what you knew concerning this note, did you do it with an intention or expectation of its being made known to this House 2 I stated the circumstances as I have re- lated them to the House, to Mr. Adam with a view of having his opinion, and that his judgment should be excercised 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 consi- dered 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 })uke of York, and therefore it was impossible that I should not at- tach very great importance to the note. After your communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did you {: that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention not to produce this note to the House for some days? I had no know- º 514 M.R. HARRISON's ExAMINATIoN. ledge whatever of the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the business, - I think you have stated that Captain 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 Captain Sandon alluded ? T believe that if a reference is made to my statement, nothing of the sort will appear; I believe I have stated to this honourable House, that Captain 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. 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 Captain Sandon mentioned that? Captain Sandon alluded to the original person, but I have already stated to the House, that my curiosity was not ex- cited to know who that person was, and he never informed me who was the intermediate person who received the money, and transacted the business. } - - l)id Captain Sandon mention to you his intention of destroying the note On the contrary, Captain Sandon promised me that he would preserve all the papers, and that he would follow the whole of the in- junctions I had laid upon him. - g 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 Cap- tain Sandon and myself upon our leaving the British coffee-house, he did state that he had destroyed the note, and that ſ exclaimed, Good God! you have done extremely wrong. Did he mention to you what motive he had for destroying it Cap- tain Sandon has never mentioned to me any motive which can have actuated any part of his couduct. Did he ever mention that the concealement of the note would be a benefit to any person 2 Never. i. Did he ever mention that the production of it would be a prejudice to any person 2 Certainly not. - [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM HARRISON, Esq. was called in, and examined by the - Committee, as follows: - 3. Are you agent, or counsel, to the Duke of York in this business 2 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 g three of the military offices, the office of his Royal Highness 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 aſ military subjects, as connected with legal ecnsideration. MR. PERCEv AL’s ExAMINATIon. 515 Was it in consequence of so being called upon that you have at- tended constantly the proceedings of this House upon this business : Certainly. * When did Colonel Hamilton inform you that the note, purporting to be written by the Duke of York, and supposed to be destroyed, was not destroyed It was between four and five, I believe towards five o'clock on the evening of the day on which Captain Sandon was called in and committed. I met Colonel Hamilton in Parliament-street, I be- lieve 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 take 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 1 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. y Was this information given before the statement made by the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer Certainly. [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM HUSKISSON, Esq., attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Did you receive the information with respect to the note from Mr. Harrison I did What did you do in consequence? I received that information, Ibe- lieve, 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 Colonel Hamilton that the note is not destroyed ; and I believe I added, I think it can make no dif- ference whether it is, or is not, in the statement you have to make; and in the examination of Captain Sandon, I certainly stated to my right honourable friend, that I had received this information from Mr. Har- rison, who told me he had received it from Colonel Hamilton. * Had you heard of this 1:2te before that I had been informed by my right honourable friend, in confidence, of the account Colonel Hamilton had given of this 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 the Committee, as follows: 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 wish to correct or alter; if the joble lord, in 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 2 L 2 516 M. R. PERCEVAL's ExAMINATIon. of this note, had you heard that the note was not destroyed When P made the statement to the Committee, I had received such a commu- nication as my honourable friend has just mentioned, and I did in the statement that I made to the Committee, if my recollection does no extremely fail ine, state that I did by no means Know whether the note was destroyed or not, and that statement I certainly did make, in conse- quence 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 re- specting 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 mentionedit to Mr. Yorke,and I am pretty confi- dent 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 me, 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 thea communi- cated it to the different persons that I have mentioned, but I believe that no person did know of the existence of the note till l 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, ! determined to cominunicate the fact, so that the note, if it was not destroyed, should be extracted by the evidence at the bar; and when I heard that it was destroyed, H still contined to act upon that determi- nation, 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 Colonel 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 Colonel Hamil- ton, that very morning, that it was not destroyed. - Mr. If uskisson explained, that when he said that the communication he made to his right honourable friend ought to make no difference in his statement, he meant that should make no alteration in his determination. The Solieitor General thought it due in justice to his right honourable friend to state, that the matter had been communicated to him, and that his right honourable friend had uniformly stated his determination, whether the note was a targery or not, to make the circumstance. public. '; Mr. Secretary Canning also stated, that the matter had been communicated to him by his right honourable M R. ELL1s's ex AMINATIon. 517 friend, who, to relieve his conscience from the charge, took the earliest opportunity of making the communication. WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Did you receive from Colonel Hamilton, or Mr. Harrison, any infor- mation that this note was destroyed? I certainly received no informa- tion from Colonel 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 has stated himself to have re- ceived 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 communica- tion, I made the communication to the gentlemen whom I mentioned before, Lord Henry Petty, General Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Whitbread: I wish to add, that I mentioned it to those gettlemen, as Mr. Whit- bread stated, on the Monday preceding Captain Sandon's first exami- nation, and that on the day preceding his second examination, I men- tioned 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 Committee, as follows: . You are a Clergyman I am. In what situation of life are you ? Oae 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. Clarke, who has been examined here this evening Yes. Where did Mrs. Clarke live at the time you applied for Mrs. Far- quhar's character? In Golden-lane. º Do you recollect the year in which Mrs. Farquhar came into your service It was in the begining of July, in the year 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. Clarke for the character of this servant? id. Can you recollect what name you represented to Mrs. Clarke, the servant stated to belong to her? Elizabeth Farquhar. - Are you certain that you asked Mrs. Clarke for the character of a servant who called herself Elizabeth Farquhar : Certainly. 518 MR. ELL1s's ExAMINATIon. Did you everknow of Mrs. Clarke calling upon Mrs. Farquhar, while she continued in your service? Yes, repeatedly. Did Mrs. Clarke come in a carriage or on foot to see Mrs. Farquhar? I rather think on foot, I never observed a carriage. Did she stay any time with her when she came there Sometimes half an hour, and 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 2. Her visits appeared to me to be very familiar, principally in the morning. * * Did you understand whether there was any relationship between Mrs. Clarke 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 2 I have lived in my pre- sent residence fourteen years. g Then during the whole time Mrs. Farquhar was living with you, your town residence was constantly where it is now 2 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 then 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. - Hadžyou any reason to know from her whether she had a mother living at the time 2 I know she had a mother living, because she left my service after she had been in my family a twelvemonth, for the space of three months, to nurse her mother, who was reported to be very ill. - “A - 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 whom did you learn that? From Elizabeth Farquhar herself. That she lived near Tavistock-place : Somewhere in that neigh- bourhood. - 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 she felt herself extremely ashamed, and much hurt that she had mentioned my name in the manner she had 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 surprize. * Mrs. FAve Ry’s ExAMINATION. 519 Delicacy to whom 2 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. HDid 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 2 At that time my family consisted of three children. Was your wife alive? Yes. She went with you ? Yes, she went with me. Were you ever present at any of the visits you described to have happened between Mrs. Clarke 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. Have you seen that Mrs. Clarke lately This evening in the lobby; but not to speak to her. That is the same Mrs. Clarke 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. In what situation in your family did Mrs. Farquhar live As nur- sery-maid. - Have you seen Mrs. Farquhar here 2 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 Committee as follows: 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 º 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 3, Always. Have you not been called by any other name 2 I took her name by Mrs. Clarke's permission; F.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. Clarke 2 Ever since she was married. How long is that It is twelve or thirteen years ago; I cannot exactly say. º Were you in Mrs. Clarke'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 fa- mily name when you were living in her service P Yes. 520 MRs. FAveny's ExAMINATIon. 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 an- swer those questions ; I did not come here on that account. [The Chairman directed the witness to answer the question.] How longis 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. Clarke's name; she told me I might if I pleased, and I did it. W 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 Fa' very, or out of delicacy to Mrs. Clarke's family More to Mrs. Clarke's family than myself. I think you just told me, that in Mrs. Clarke'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. Clarke, I told you my name was Favery. Was it not to disguise from the family of Mrs. Clarke 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 cause to disguise myself in any point whatever. Where does your father live In his grave. Where did he live In Scotland. What name did he go by ? Favery. º ºur mother married since your father died ? My mother IS (163 (1. How long is it since she is dead Some years ago. How many years ago? I cannot recollect such questions as that put to me. . i. 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 you 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 time 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 me to come to her child, which was ill, Miss Mary Ann; I went up to Hampstead to her; I said to Mr. Ellis that I wished to go away. He said for what reason 2 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. Clarke again, and staid with her some time, and then went back to Mr Ellis's. * * t . . . . * 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 Tayistock place at that time. Mas. FAVERY's ExAMINATIon. 521 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. Clarke and her children, and no one else ; and if she was here she would re- present the same. e ‘º 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. 1 * Where did Mrs. Clarke live at that time 2 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. Clarke in Tavistock-place? I lived with her mother, and she lived there too some time after that. Are you any relation of Mrs. Clarke'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. Clarke's No, I am not a rela- tion 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 anybody that you were a relation of Mrs. Clarke'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. Clarke, to be sure ; I know what you want to bring forward, and I will bring it for- ward 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; he 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. Clarke 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. º: she had not any money to give me, and she said if I Çould get anything 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. Clarke permitted you to take the name of Farquhar * No, before that she permitted Ine I as- sure you. * * 522 , Mrs. FAveny's ExAMINATION. Then you went by the name of Farquhar before you married ? Yes, I did. * I - How long did you live with your husband 2 Four months; no longer. Did you never represent to your husband that you were related to Mrs. Clarke 2 No, I never did. - That you are positive of Yes, I never did, indeed, do that, be- cause 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 10t. of her in my life; I had only 10l. of her all the time she lived with his Royal Highness in that house. Did Mrs. Clarke never pay you more than 10l. for all your services? No: once she gave me 5l. but never more than 15l. altogether during the time she lived with his Royal Highness. t But before the time she lived with his Royal Highness? Yes, then I have been paid very well, but 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 2 I cannot answer you that question, but I am not the present Mrs. Far- quhar'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 tell 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 father. Nor your mother; I do not know that I knew my mother. Which died first 2 I believe my father died first, as far as I have heard; I cannot say to it. * z Did you know your mother I did not know my mother. })id your father marry again? I cannot answer to that question; I do not know. - *. w 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. 4 But you will not state that you were not the daughter of Mrs. Far- quhar'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 an- Swer 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 had not heard so : No, I have not been told so. Have you not seen it in the paper? Indeed I have not seen the paper to-day, nor yesterday neither. * Did you happen to know that Mr. Ellis was summoned as a witness?' Yes. ...-- ºr Mºns. FAVERY's ExAMINATIon. 523 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 he 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. Clarke told you so? Yes, I had no motive whatever for dis- guising Mr. Ellis, but only his family. Had you told Mrs. Clarke you had represented Mr. Ellis to be a car- penter? I told her last night. Not till last night? Yes. - - Are you quite sure you did not tell Mrs. Clarke 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 had no mo- tive whatever for it, but to screen Mr. Ellis. 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? 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 suffi- cient 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 how often Mrs. Clarke called upon you while you were living with Mr. Ellisº 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 2 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. Clarke 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 horise in Ormond-street. o you recollect Mrs. Clafke'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. Had you any character given you when you went to live with Mr. Ellis Yes, ſhad. - By whom was that character given 2 Mrs. Clarke or her sister; I da not º which gave it. dº 524 Mr. &REEN wood's ex AMINATIon. f Under what name was that character given? In the name of Farquhar. * 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 repre- sented 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 fabri. cation of your own . 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. s Do you now recollect in what street be 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 FiOW. How long in truth did you live with Mr. Ellis; H believe, as near as I can say, two years; I lived with him twice. During the time you lived with Mr. Ellis, did be change his resi- efence? No, never. # You are quite sure of that? Yes, I am quite sure of that, because I found him where I left him. g 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 Hamp- stead 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. You have stated, that you did not wish Mr. Ellis to know where you were going 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 ſ suppose Mr. Ellis had any reason to suppose I should do any thing with his children, or any thing that would hurt them. - 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 acquaintance; hardly two; I keep no company, I hardly see any one. . * , * * T i [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: 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 copy of a letter written to Mrs. Clarke, after the Duke had separated from her. * z a * MR, GREEN wood's ExAMINATION. 525 Written by whom By the Duke of York. Did you take this copy from the original letter so sent? I did. You 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 yogir 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 inquiries 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 re- cede. An interview between us must be a painful task to both, and can be of no possible advantage to you;-H there- fore must decline it.” “May, 1806.” “Copy of a note supposed to have been written by the D—” Do you recollect the date of that letter? Indeed I do not. You have stated that it was after the separation, how long after- wards? Immediately. Is that docket, at the back of it, your hand-writing? No, it is not. Was this letter written at the period of the separation, to announce the separation, or subsequent? It was upon the separation, imme- diately after; I believe, his Royal Highness never saw her after- wards. Had he been in the habit of seeing her up to the time when this let- ter was written? I really do not know that, I rather think that within three or four days he had seen her. 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. Clarke since she left the House, being shewn to the witness] Do you believe that to be the Duke of York'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. t [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 be the Duke of York's hand-writing 2 I believe it is, [Another letter being shewn to the witness]. Do you believe that to be the Duke of York’s hand-writing? I.think that is the same hand- Writing. Doșoa know General Clavering's hand-writing? No, I do not. 596 MR. TAYLoſt's ExAMINATIow. - [The following letters were read:] “Without being informed to what amount you may wish for assist- ance, it is impossible for ime to say how far it is in my power to be of use to you.” - - “Friday Morning. Addressed: “Aſrs. 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 cir- cumstances, I must decline it. Addressed: - ** 1ſrs. Clarke, “ No. 18, Gloucester-place, “Portman-square.” 3r * October 21, 1806. “It is totally out of my power to be able to give you the assistance which you seem to expect.” . . . Oct. 24, 1806. S E. A 24 * - ar 806 Addressed: * Mrs. Clarke, Southampton. 1 ſ 4 “I º 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 House, to give it up again. - Addressed: “Mrs. Clarke, * No 18, Gloucester-place, Portman-square.” (To Mr. Greenwood.) Were you in the frequent habit of copying his Royal Highness's letters? No. . . Did his Royal Highness, give you any particular reason, for wishing you to copy this letter? I think I was with the Duke of York 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. CHARLESTAYLOR, Esq. a Member of the House, attendinginhis place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Do you believe that to be General Clavering's hand-writing? Yes, I do. --- Are you acquainted with his hand-writing? Yes, Ham, Did you ever see General Clavering write? How could I possibly assert I knew his writing, if I had not. = . [The letter was read, dated the 8th of February, 1808.] M. R. Low TEN’s ExAMINATION. 527 “Limmer's Hotel, Conduit-street, 8th, Feb. 6 P. M. “My dear Mrs. C 5 “I have just heard that you had it in contemplation to subpoena 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 be 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 though not existing, all the arguments in the universe would not persdade them to the contrary. “With great regard, - “Truly your’s, “ H. M. CLAVERING.” “In haste, 6 P. M. “Mrs. Clarke, - “Westbourn-place, Sloane-street.” THOMAS LOWTEN, Esq, was called in, and examined by the Com- mittee, as follows: 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 applica- tion to me upon that subject was from his Royal Highness the Duke of York in the month of October 1805, in consequence of a letter which had been written to him. I had the honour to see his Royal Highness, 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. Clarke had made use of his Royal Highness the Duke of York'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 Duke of York’s name to raise money. It appeared to me that in consequence of the protection she had from the Duke of York, 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. Clarke was concerned, that, in your opinion, injured in any degree the character of his Royal Highness the Duke of York? 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. Clarke'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 Duke of York'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 Duke of York'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. e Do you not recollect Mr. Adam stating to you, that he considered 523 M. R. flow TEN's ExAMINATIon. the conduct of Mrs. Clarke had been very incorrectin pecuniary trans- actions, in the use of the Duke of York's name? I do not recollect it. Do you recollect stating upon paper the result of your investigation of the inquiries to his Royal Highness the Duke of York? In the beginning of the month of May, 1806, having acquired as much evi- dence as appeared to me to be necessary for the purpose of satisfying the Duke of York on the subjects on which I was employed, those se- veral 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 his Royal Highness the Duke of York. When you had finished the examination, did you communicate the result of it with the proofs to his Royal Highness the Duke of York? I put them into a train, and they went to his Royal Highness. . I did not deliver them myself; 1 knew from his Royal Highness that he had them. To whom did you deliver them to be conveyed to his Royal High- ness? As to the hand, whether 1 delivered them myself, or any clerk, or any servant, I cannot tell. 4. t 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 his Royal Highness? I have got in my pocket the thing that I communicated to his Royal Highness; I counmunicated all such things as appeared to me to be necessary and proper. - Are you sure that the result, and the documents upon which that result was founded, were communicated to his Royal Highness? I be- lieve they were. Do you recollect, that with those papers there were any documents to prove, that any money was raised in the Duke of York's name, by Mrs. Clarke? I think there were not, but the paper will speak for itself. Po you know the Reverend William Williams? I know very little of him ; I remember 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 IHouse, for seven or eight years. You did not see the Reverend William Williams lately, before he was examined at this House? I saw him about seven o’clock that evening. Was that previous to his examination before the Committee It Wąś. 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 in- duced to think very indifferently of him, as to his character and sanity, seven or eight 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. #R. Howten's ExAMINATION. 529 Do you recollect sending any person to Mr. Nicholls, at Hampstead, Some days ago? I do. w Who was that person? It was Mr. Thomas Wright, who lives upon Haverstock Hill, near IIampstead. . . 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 he 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. . r - Why did you wish to find out where he lived? I had received inti- mation by a letter, that Mr. Nicholls could give material evidence as to the matter of inquiry before this honourable Höuse. . * - What description of evidence f . It was respecting Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Dowler living at his house in the years 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. ‘. In the representation you madé, of the result of the inquiries into the conduct of Mrs. Clarke, was any part of it that she had raised money under the real or fictitious patronage of military promotion? It did not occur to me in my inquiry, that any such transaction had taken place; it was not part of my inquiry; I never believed one word upon that subject. ! Have you had any interview with General Clavering during the course of this inquiry On the day that General 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 state as nearly as I can; General Clavering when he came to me said, that he had seen the statement made by Mrs. Clarke, in which his name had been men- tioned; that he could contradict that statement very materially; he gave me his account of the contradiction, of which I made a memo- randum in writing; after that, to my surprize, when I came down here, General Clavering came to where I was, at Alice's coffee-holise, 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 anything to communicate to the Attorney General he would write it in his own IlāIT162. ! * * * Did you advise General Clavering to write a letter to the Attorney General, or any other member of this House 2 I did not advise him in any other way than I have just now stated. + • * What advice did you give to General Clavering? 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 .# himself to be examined; but that if he could give any contradiction to Mrs. Clarke's evidence, I'thought it would be material he should be examined. (. p . . . . Did you advise him to offer himself to be examined, if his evidence could materially contradict Mrs. Clarke's? I did not advise him to offer himself voluntarily to be examined, - 536 Mit. Lowten's ExAMINATION. : Did you giye him any advice, as the result of your conversation with him? I really thought General Clavering competent to advise himself upon the subject; I did not give him any adviće further than common conversation, to say, if you will be 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 state- ment to make that would contradict Mrs. Clarke's statement; and I think he said, that he had seen Colonel Gordon, and that he had de- sired him to call upon me. • - wº- A- Did you understand that he came to you, in consequence of the de- sire of Colonel Gordon? I believe partly from the desire of Colonel Gordon, and partly from a wish of his own, to contradict the state- ment made by Mrs. Clarke; 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 you suppose he was about to offer him- self as a voluntary witness before this Committee: When he left me in the Temple I did not suppose or expect any such a thing; when he quitted me at Alice's coffee-house I did expect it. - Did you put any questions to him to know what any evidence he could communicate to this Committee might be? I did; I asked Ge- neral Clavering several questions as to his knowledge of Mrs. Clarke; how long he had known 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. Clarke any money for promotion, or for raising a regiment to be procured through her influence with the Duke of York? 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 you? Certainly not. . Did you question him generally with regard to his communication and intercourse and acquaintance with Mrs. Clarke? I did; and it appeared to me, from the paper which he produced, that Mrs. Clarke was making, use of him for the purpose of getting some person pro- Imoted from one regiment to another; and it appeared that a letter dated in the Temple, and apparently signed by a Mr. Sumner, con- tained a recommendation of that person so wished to be promoted, and who, he stated to me, Mrs. Clarke had represented as a relation of an honourable member of this House, and which letter he was to transmit to the Duke of York, in order to obtain that promotion. .-- Did you ask him whether he had maintained any correspondence with Mrs. Clarke 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 justmentioned. • 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 promotion, or matters connected therewith? He did not say any thing to me upon that question, further than I have stated to the Committee, - MR. Lowten’s exAMINAT to N. 531 fºid he inform you that he had shewn a letter, addressed to the At- torney General, to any other person before he shewed it to you? I do not recollect that he did; there 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 you sure that he omitted it in consequenceof 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. - - In the conversation that you have stated to have passed between General Clavering and you, did the words “If you will be examined you had better send a letter;” pass at Alice's coffee-house, or in the previous interview with General Clavering? I said, if you will be ex- tºº, you had better send a letter; that was at Alice's coffee- OUISé. - * $ , i. Did you advise General Clavering to call upon Mr. Ogilvie, or any other persons, touching this inquiry respecting Mrs. Clarke? General Clavering mentioned the name of Mr. Ogilvie to me, as being the per- son who first introduced him to Mrs. Clarke, and said he could get this information from Mr. Ogilvie; and it is possible I might say, then you had better see Mr. Ogilvie. * - Did General 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 posses- sion 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 or any 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. Nicholls's wife was present; I returned all the letters as I received them from him. , Did you know of any sums of money paid by his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke 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 General 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. - Did you recommend General Clavering to send in that examination; was it inclosed in the letter, or how was it sent It was given, I be. lieve, to General Clavering open, without being inclosed in any letter. Was it in your hand-writing or General Clavering's In mine. Was it inclosed in the same cover as General Clavering's letter Certainly not. . . . 2 M 2 532 MR. wilkinson's ExAMINATION. What do you mean by saying that it was sent in with the letter? I believe I gave it to General Clavering in the coffee-house. Who were present when you turned over those letters of Mr. Ni- cholls's Mr. Nicholls, Mrs. Nicholls, and Mr. Wright. Nobody else? Nobody else. - - - Have you any, and what reason to believe that Mrs. Clarke ever raised any money on the credit of his Royal Highness the Duke of York I do not know that Mrs. Clarke ever raised any money on the credit of the Duke of York; 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. Clarke had ever raised any money upon the credit of the Duke of York? 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. 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 in Middlesex 2 I recollect per- fectly 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 be tried it was withdrawn. - State how you received that letter with the subpoena inclosed. I can- not positively recollect; I rather believe Mr. Adam communicated it to me; or what other gentleman who had communication with the Duke of York did so, I really do not know. Look at the signature of that letter, and merely read the name at the bottom of it. The name appearing at the bottom of this letter is Henry Turner. e Are you acquainted with him Just as I am acquainted with many º persons in town; I do not know that ever I spoke to him in my 1162. Do you know what he is? I believe a pawnbroker, in Prinees’-street, Leicester-fields. Do you know the hand-writing I do not. . How do you know that it is his hand-writing 2 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 R. Henry Turner who signed that letter I do not. During the connection between the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke, did you ever know that Mrs. Clarke raised money upon the credit of the Duke of York’s name : I do not. [The witness was directed to withdraw. JOHN WILKINSON, Esq. was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows: In what capacity do you live with Mr. Lowten ? I do not live with Włr. Lowten. Miss. TAYLoR's ExAMINATION. 533 In what capacity are you ever employed by Mr. Lowten ? I am very frequently employed by Mr. Lowten in the transaction 6f various busi- nesses that arise in his office. - - - - Do you recollect being employed by Mr. Lowten in the year 1805, to make any inquiries relating to Mrs. Clarke I was. -- In the course of such enquiries, have you any proof that you can give to this House, of any money transactions in which Mrs. Clarke made use of the Duke of York's name 2 I really do not know what this House would consider as proof; it came to my knowledge in the month of May, that the Duke of York had received notice that he was to be subpoenaed in an action brought against Mrs. Clarke for money due to a man of the name of Turner; Mr. Turner's attorney, Mr. Bachelor, called upon me, and informed me he was going to serve the Duke of York with a subpoena, 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. Clarke. - Do you know of any instance in which Mrs. Clarke made use of the Duke of York'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 the Committee, as follows: - In your former examination, have you not said that you were ve ºte with Mrs. Clarke, and frequently visited at Gloucester-place? ©S. g - When the Duke of York 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 2 Yes, quite so. Do you recollect, at any time, when you were present, any conver- sation taking place between Mrs. Clarke and his Royal Highness the Duke of § relative to military promotions Nothing, except that time about Colonel French. Recollect, whether at that conversation relative to Colonel French, you were perfectly sure there was nobody present but Mrs. Clarke, yourself, and his Royal Highness the Duke of York? Yes, I am very certain of it. - Are you sure that the words that were used by Mrs. Clarke, on the occasion of the Duke of York's referring to her upon the conduct of Colonel 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 conversatian with Mrs. Clarke, relative to the observation of the Duke of York upon Colonel 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 Duke of York mentioning Colonel French's name in my presence. - º - Did any thing else pass upon that occasion I immediately recol, lected the circumstance, and told her. 534 Miss TAYLoR's ExAMINATIon. Tid Mrs. Clarke 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 Duke of York made that observation relative to Colo- nel French's levy, besides what you have already given in evidence # No, nothing sº that subject. “ ºf . . . . Do you recollect at any time, Mrs. Clarke's stating in your presence to the Duke of York, any wish in favour of any application for military promotián: Never. -- - - - - - Do you recollect at any time, Mrs. Clarke applying to the Duke of York in your presence for money No. Did any conversation at any time take place in your hearing between his Röyal Highness the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke, with respect to the pecuniary difficulties under which she laboured 2 No, never. Do you recoflect that Mrs. Clarke ever stated to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, that Colonel 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 you have ceased being acquainted with Mrs. Hovenden More than two years. Can you assign any reason for not being acquainted with Mrs. Hoven- den at present? I did not return the last visit she made mé, 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 num- ber. * Do you recollect how long she lived in South Moulton-street? I never knew. - How logg 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. . . - - ſs Mrs. Hovenden a widow or a married woman She was a married woman, she is now a widow. - + - Do you know where she lives now 2 No, not at all. • -” I think you said that till three weeks ago, you had not mentioned the expression réspecting Colonel 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. Clarke? Yes, it was. - How long ago is it since you heard the expression respecting Colo- nel French I do not say it was during Mrs. Clarke's residence in Gloucester-place. t 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. Çannot you recollect at all what part of the year it was in 2 No., or what year it was in 2 No. - – You have totally forgotten how long ago it was, or what part of the year it was in 2 Yes, I have quite forgotten it. .. - - Was there any circumstance at the time passing which induced you Miss TAYLon’s ExAMINATION. 535, to take particular notice, or to bear in your recollection the expression?. The chief circumstance was, that I never saw Colonel French, though I had heard his name, which made me curious when I heard his name, respecting him. - o other circumstance but the one you have mentioned 2 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. Clarke, 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. Clarke three weeks ago upon the occasion of this conversation respecting Colonel French: No, nothing. * Sºme expression or circumstance that passed three weeks ago with Mrs. Clarke? No, I do not recollect any. t Is your memory so defective as to have forgotten all that passed in the conversation three weeks ago with Mrs. Clarke 2 That is very pos- sible, for it did not interest me at all. Where was it that Mrs. Clarke brought to your recollection, or en- quired about Colonel French At her . in Westbourne-place. Was it at that time proposed to bring the subject forward in an in- quiry I do not know about that. * Was any body present when this passed between Mrs. Clarke and you? I believe not. r Have you forgotten that too ! Yes. * Capnot you now recollect any one fact or circumstance that passed three weeks ago with Mrs. Clarke, Qr even who was present I do not think any body was present, and I do not recollect any fact or circum- 8tance. t • , How came Mrs. Clarke to be making any inquiry about this? I did not ask her that. r Do you mean to state you do not know upon what occasion the con- versation between Mrs. Clarke and yourself arose 2 [The witness was directed to withdraw." : [The witness was again called in, and the question was proposed.T I suppose something relating to this business; I did not think of it at the time. - Did not Mrs. Clarke inform you at the time why she was making this inquiry 2 I do not recollect that she did. - Will you positively say that she did not No, I will not, because I am not sure. Had any body been in your presence with Mrs. Clarke prior to the inquiry, asking questions upon the same subject 2 No, I believe not. Cannot you remember that? I cannot remember it, if it was the C2S62. s Cannot you remember, whether three weeks ago anybody had, in your presence, when enquiring of Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military pro- a- 536 Miss TAYLOR's ExAMINATION." motions by the Duke of York, 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. - , Toes not your father go by the name of Chance ; He never told rae that hé did. * [The witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. W. Smith objected 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 General agreed that it was not very mate- rial 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 2. 4 Mr. Whitbread said, it was competent for the learned gentleman to call evidence to contradict the witness; but he would maintain that any temporary change in her fa- ther's name, arising from embárrassment or other circum- stances, should not affect the witness's credit. The ques- tions pressed upon her on this and her former examination appeared to be very severe. . After some further discussion between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Bathurst, the witness was again called in. - Did your father ever go by the name of Chance? He never told me that he did. r 4 * * - !o you mean to state that you never heard any body call him by the name of Chance? No, I do not think that I ever did. Häve you a doubt about it? None, I believe. Then do you mean to state, that he always passed by the name of Taylor? To the best of m knowledge. - ecollect 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 undérstand 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 Öf Chance No, never. * * * * * - + cº" know Mrs. Favery? As far as she was a servant of Mrs. 3rkë. * - ...How long have you known her Nearly as long as I have known How long is that? Some eight, or nine years, I suppose. Miss TAYLor’s £xAMINA'ſſièN. 53% Did Mrs. Favery, all the time you have known her, ; by the name of Favery, or by any other, and what name t . When first I knew Mrs: Clarke, she went by the name of Martha, but I did not know her Sūrū8. Illê. y” you mean that Mrs. Favery went by the name of Martha: 6S. - ... ,-4 i *r Did you never hear Mrs. Făvery 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 Mrs. Ellis : I called upon her once; not as a visitor. . . Whom did you inquire for at Mr. Ellis's? It was Mrs. Clarke's sister went with me; I was not the inquirer. Did you not hear Mrs. Clarke'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 Farquharf Never to my knowledge. - - You have known her nině 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. Ellisº Yes, she had lived with Mrs. Clarke previous to that. You had known her when she lived with Mrs. Clarke, previous to her living with Mr. Ellis. Yes. r .* 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 Fayery, after she quitted Mrs Clarke, and went to live with Mr. Ellist 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. Do 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, I never saw him. . * Do you recollect your father's father ? No, he was dead many years before I was born. o What was his name? I do not know what his name was; I never talked to any body about him. Might not your father, from distress, to avoid his creditors, have taken the name of Chance, or any other name, without your know- ledge Then how should I know it? 1ave §. had a niece of Mrs. Hovenden's under your care at any time? Yes, more than two years ago; she staid with me only a few weeks on a visit. • ' 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. 538 M.R. SMITH's ExAMINAT.1on. Do you not know that your mother has been in execution for debt My mother has nothing to do with the present subject. . - . . . . [The chairman informed the witness she must answer * * the question.] — ºr 3 - Do you not 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 opi. . . . . . .3 t. nion, she must answer the question.] . . . . Do you know that your mother has been in custody for debt? Yes; How long?. Nearly two years. . . - . . . . [The withess was directed to withdraw. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explaincó 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 suppose that she was not the respectable person she was represented. It now. appeared that her father and mother were not married. Mr. W. Smith put it to the House how far the credit of the witness was to be 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 her- self, by acknowledging that she was illegitimate. Mr. Whitbread concurred with the right honourable Gentleman, 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. Barham regretted. that these last questions were put; they had cast a doubt upon the character of the wit- ness, which was enough to extinguish her means of sub-. sistence. --- . . . * , - Mr. DEDERICK SMITH was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:.. . . . . What are you? A brazier and tinman. - - Do you kilow Miss Mary Ann Taylor, of China-row, Chelsea?, eS ~ * • , . t How long have you known her? I cannot exactly say, but I think about fifteen years; I am not certain exactly to the time. S., Do you know her mother Yes, I do. * How long may you have known her mother About the same M : time. Y 1 : , ; 2 - - - , , ºf # * * * * * * * * * * * MR. SMITH's ExAMINATIon. ... 539. Do you know her father? Yes, I do. * , a - 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. 3. * -- . . . : Did he ever do any business for you in that profession? Yes; he has. . . º - Did you ever make a purchase of land of him 2 Yes, I did. . In what name:did he convey it? . In the name of Chance. . Did he evertell you that he had a wife His wife was Mrs. Taylor; she passed as his wife. ' 2 - . . . . . . Did he eyer tell you that he had another wife? No, he never. told me so. - . . . . Did you ever apply for him at the Stock Exchange under the name of Taylor Yes, I have. : * . . . .. Coûld you find him by that name? No. - º what name did you find him? ... The name of Thomas lall/CAE. . . . ~ 3. * * & r 2 . How long has he ceased to be a broker? To the best of my know- leº years; but I will not be certain. - id 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. & . . . . . . . º Did he go by the name of Chance at that time? No, he went by the name of Taylor. * * ºr • 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 came you to apprehend that the name of a man was Taylor, whom you knew by the name of Chance 2 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 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 aylor. $ }. 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 might 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. j -- * -º Tn what neighbourhood did the party, of whom you speak, live, when you knew him by the name of Taylor? He lived in Norman- 540. GENERAL Notton's ExAMINAT to N. street, and he lived at Bayswater, and all that time I knew him, but By no other flame than that of Thomas Taylor; not my family, never any * - - of them knew him by any other name. g To the best of your knowledge and belief, was the party universally known; in ań that neighbourhood, by the name of Taylor, and no other name 2 Yes, he was. : - . . . Do you recollect Mrs. Taylor, and Miss Mary Ann Taylor, calling at your house one day with a bill, orah instrument of that kind, to get cash föf it? They called at thy hôuse, and Mrs. Taylor wanted to borrow some money of me; she said she had a paper to give me as a security, which she w8üídnót trustwith anybbdy else. - . . Did you state to them that Mr. Chance was coming to your house on that day?' I'did. . . . . . . . * * - Did they know him to be the person that you knew as Mr. Taylor * Yes. . . . . . . . . . - . ' - Did Mary Aññ"Taylor make any observation, upon your stating that Mr. Chance was coming 2. She laughed, and said to the mother, we wińsay we oftly paid Mr. Suith a mornig visit. `` a What did Mrs. and Miss Taylor, or either of them, say, or do, in consequeñéé of yºur telling them Mr. Chance would be there that morning?...Miss Taylor said to the mother, we will tell my father, I think, fºil not be positive, if he comes, that we only paid Mr. Smith 'a morning visit; they stopped a bit, and then they went away. - Are you quite sure that when you told Mrs. Taylor and her daughter this person was coming, you made use of the name of 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. Have you any means of knowing, that Miss Märy Ann Taylor knew her father by the name of Chañce; and if you have, what are those means ? I have no means of knowing that she did. [The witness was directed to withdraw. The evidence was now closed, with respect to the parti- cular charges. ... - " - Mr. Yorke then rose to ask the general officers present, whether the army had not been much improved in disci. iłitehnd condition, during the time that the Duke of York as'at the head of it, and whether the system of promo- tions in the service was not much better than it had been before. General The Honourable CHAPPLE NORTON, attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows:. . Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when his Royal Highness took the command of it, in regard particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions of the army were carried on 3 I believe, in former days, those officers who had great weight of intes rest, might have got promoted very rapidly, much sooner perhaps than was right or proper; his Royal Highness made, in my opinion, very sa- łutary regulations to prevent that. I could, if it was not trespassing too &ENERAL NonTon’s ExAMINATION. 5£i much upon the time of the Committee, speak very fully to what I be- lieve, 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 know- ledge, 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 con- duct of his Royal Highness, with respect to the army in general, I can speak to at large. That he has done more service to the army than all Öhis predecessors the Commanders in Chief; and I will statein what man- ner: in the first place, and what is very material, I recollect very well that his Royal Highness, 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 conver- sation I had with a lieutenant-colonel.of one of the best regiments in his Majesty's service, the late Lord Cornwallis's, Colonel York. I am very sensible of the very scanty pittance the soldier had to subsist on in this country, and 1 endeavoured to do what I could to assist in the measure; and Colonel 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 regi- ment so returning is to make known to his men, that any soldier w wishes to remain behind upon that station is at liberty so to do ; the men of the 33d regiment informed Colonel 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 Royal Highness 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 regi- ment 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 quarter-master of the Cold-stream, 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 his Royal Highness was very much the means of doing it), the Yor hospital was instituted, so that the men have not been left in that dis- tressed situation since the American war. In your opinion, have the condition and discipline of the army, upon the whole, declined or improved, since his Royal Highness 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 his Royal Highness came to the head of it. - Referring to the time when his Royal Highness took the command of the army, and the latter part of Lord Amherst's time, has the state of the army improved since his Royal Highness 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. 542 secret ARY AT war's exAMINATſon. The Right Honourable General FITZPATRICK, attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows: Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when his Royal Highness took the command of it, in regard, particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions in the army were carried on f I am persuaded that there is no officer of long standing in the service, can recollect the state of the army previous to his Royal Highness's taking the command, who will not be ready to testify the very great improvement which the army has derived, in every respect from his Royal Highness's management of it: I do not presume to give this opi- nion 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, attending in 3r his place, was examined as follows: Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when his Royal Highness took the command of it, in regard, particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions in the army were carried on 2 I can only say, that I concur entirely in every syllable, which was de- livered by my right honourable friend over against me (General Fitz- patrick) 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 ap- pointment, 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 entirely 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 in- stances of officers who attained their rank of major, I believe of lieute- nant-colonel, in the space of one or two years. His Royal Highness, soon after he assumed the command, established a regulation, in con- sequence 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 Royal Highness has been commander-in-chief? In expressing my con- currence with what had fallen from my right honourable friend, I have answered that question. I certainly conceive that the 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 five 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 siR-A. wer. Lesley’s ExAMINATion. 543 facility as that of placing a company; when those'five 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 faci- lity; I therefore conceive, without going further, that 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 mili- tary glory is owing. . . * The Right Honourable Sir ARTHUR WELLESLEY, K. B. attend- ing in his place, was examined, as follows: Do you recollect the state in which the army was, when his Royal Highness took the command of it, in regard, particularly, to the mode in which the promotions and commissions in the army were carried on 2 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 his Royal Highness has had the command of the army, the regulations framed . him for managing the promotion of the army, have been strictly ad- hered to, and that the mode in which the promotion is conducted has given general satisfaction. I must also state that, besides my know- ledge as a general officer in the army, of the mode in which the promo- tions of the army are conducted, I have some knowledge of it from my official situation; and having had frequently to apply to his Royal Highness for promotion for different officers, in consequence of appli- cations which have been made to me, I have never found, in any one in- stance, that his Royal Highness 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 his Royal High- ness, which I frequently do for ensigneies, I have found his Royal High- ness invariably ready to attend to my applications; and I also know that many persons have got commissions from his Royal Highness, by ap- plying direct to him, without coming through me. In respect of the state of the army, I can say, from my own knowledge, as having been a lieutenant-colonel in the army when his Royal Highness was appointed to command it, and having a very intimate knowledge of it since, that it is materially improved in every respect; that the discipline of the sol- diers is improved; that, owing to the establishments formed under the directions of his Royal Highness, the officers are improved in know- ledge; that the staff 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 of ficers 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 ºved since his Royal Highness was appointed commander-in- chief. # $44 general, gnosyºnos's Examisarrow. Do you consider the improvement you have specified, to be owing to the personal †: and personal exertions, of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief?, The improvements to which I Haye adverted, have been owing to the regulations of his Royal High- ness, and to his personal superintendance, and personal exertions, over the general officers, and others, who were to see those regulations car- ried 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 his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief. 2’ ( 545 ) PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATE ON THE FOREGOING I N Q U I R Y INTO THE CONDUCT OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK, Thursday, February 23. The House having gone through the whole of the evi- dence, the Speaker rose and stated, that since he had come down, he had received a letter, the contents of which related to the inquiry now pending before the House re- specting the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and he wished to know whether it was the pleasure of the House that he should read it. [A general ecclama- tion of Read! read! read I. The right honourable gentle- man then announced that the letter came from his Royal Highness the Duke of York, was signed “Frederick,” addressed to the Speaker, and dated Horse Guards, Feb. 23, 1809. The contents were as follow : COPY. “SIR, ** Horse-Guards, Feb. 23, 1809. “I have waited with the greatest anxiety, until the Committee, appointed by the ifouse of Commons to in: quire into my conduct, as Commanderin Chief of his Ma- jesty’s Army, had closed its examinations; and I now hope, that it will not be deemed improper to address this letter, through you, to the House of Commons. “I observe with the deepest concern, that, in the course of this inquiry, my name has been coupled with transac- tions the most criminal and disgraceful; and I must ever regret and lament, that a connection should have existed, which has thus exposed my character to animadversion. “With respect to any º offences connected with §46 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO the discharge of my official duties, I do, in the most solemn manner, upon my honour, as a prince, distinctly assert my innocence ; not only by denying all corrupt participation in any of the infamous transactions which have appeared in evidence at the bar of the House of Commons, or any connivance at their existence, but also the slightest knowledge or suspicion that they existed at all. “My consciousness of innocence leads me confidently to hope, that the House of Commons will not, upon such evidence as they have heard, adopt any proceedings pre- judicial to my honour and character; but if, upon such testimony as has been adduced against me, the House of Commons can think my innocence questionable, I claim of their justice, that I shall not be condemned without trial, nor be deprived of the benefit and protection which is afforded to every British subject by those sanctions un- der which alone evidence is received in the ordinary ad- ministration of the law. * “I am, sir, your’s, “FREDERick. “The Speaker of the House of Commons.” The Spcaker then said, that though it was usual on such occasions to order the letter to lie on the table for the perusal of the members, yet as gentlemen on each side of him were anxious for the perusal; and as it was desirable to give the individual members of the House, as speedily as possible, possession of the contents of the letter, he sug- gested the idea taking the letter from the table now, in order to have it copied as speedily as possible upon the votes and journals. Mr. Bankes said, that as this appeared to him to be an extraordinary proceeding, he must appeal to the know- ledge and recollection of the Speaker, as to former prece- dents, in order to direct the House in what was proper to be done. The Speaker said, that the constant usage of the House, to the best of his recollection, had been, that all letters re- ceived by the Speaker, and which he should deem proper to be communicated to the House, in the first instance were laid on the table, in order afterwards, at a convenient opportunity, to be copied into the votes and journals. In all ordinary cases this had been done. Letters had been THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 547 received by the Speaker, oven on an occasion not remote, upon the subject, of charges pending before the House ; and this was the uniform custom, even without putting any question. But where a letter on a subject of so much more than ordinaryimportance was addressed to him for communi- cation to the House, and when gentlemen to his right and left were anxious to peruse it, he felt it his duty to suggest the propriety of immediately ordering it, in the first in- § t stance, to be copied on the votes and journals, that no de- lay might occur in placing it in the possession of every member of the House. The House concurred in the suggestion, and it was adopted accordingly. Friday, February 24, 1809. Mr. Whitbread said, he rose for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to an act which in his opinion more deeply affected the privileges of the House than any thing that had ever occurred since he had the honour of a seat in it. The act he alluded to, was the letter written by his Royal Highness the Duke of York, addressed to that House, and conveyed to it through the medium of the Speaker. The Speaker had certainly done his duty, as he always did with the greatest propriety and correctness on every occasion, by informing the House of the method usually pursued in cases of letters addressed to the House being communicated through him, and the result was, that the paper was ordered to lie on the table. If he (Mr. Whitbread) did not then object to it, a few minutes reflection enabled him to ascertain to his own satisfaction, that the true mode of proceeding would have been to move that the debate be adjourned. It appeared to him that this letter struck at the privileges of the House, by stat- ing, that it had examined evidence which it ought not to have done. His Royal Highness was as competent to have written to the House in the first instance, that it ought not to institute and carry on any inquiry on such evidence as would be produced before it. If it was the in- tention of any one of those who had advised his Royal Highness to write this letter, hereafter, to make any mo- tion on the subject, the House would then be enabled to form a judgment what line of conduct ought to be adopted respecting it. Till he received some answer on that head, he should content himselfsº repeating, that he deemed 2 2 548 PROC EEDINGS RELATIVE TO i. letter to be a gross violation of the privileges of the House. - - - The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, he did not know how, according to the rules of the House, he could take notice of what the honourable gentleman had said, as he had sat down without making any motion. He himself thought as highly as any one of the privileges of that House ; and it did not appear to him, that anything in the letter in question could be said to be an attack on, or an infringement of them. If the honourable gentleman had made any motion, he should have been able to have drawn a conclusion on what he meant. All he could now collect was, that there was something contained in the let- ter, which seemed to protest against the justice of the pro- ceedings of the House upon this head, on the ground that the evidence examined before it was not under those particular sanctions which the law required in other cases. So far from this being the fact, all he understood by the letter was no more than this, that his Royal Highness, supposing himself to be attacked in such a manner as to make it necessary to go into an inquiry, in order that the whole should be elicited in the most open mode, and find- ing that the evidence was closed, intended to lay before the House an allegation of his innocence ; and if the House should, after that allegation, be inclined to doubt his innocence, he states, that he hoped the House will not enter upon any proceeding which may have the effect of condemning him before he can have a trial, in which he will have the advantage of evidence under all the sanction and solemnity of the law. He was certain that his Royal Highness bad not the smallest intention to attack the pri- vileges of the House; and how the letter could be con- ceived an attack on them, he (Mr. Perceval) could not conceive. That it was not wholly unprecedented, he contended was apparent from what the Speaker had stated on the preceding night. If any farther information could be obtained by means of a Committee searching for pre- eedents, he should be extremely glad of it. The honour- able gentleman wanted to know whether he (Mr. Perce- val), or any one of his right honourable friends, intended to move any thing on the subject. For his own part, he had no such intention, nor had he heard or understood that any one else had. The letter was now become a do- cument on the table, and like any other paper or petition THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 549 which was ordered to lie there, might be referred to by every member of the House ; and every individual who might refer to it, might make what remarks on it he pleased, or adopt any proceeding relative to it which he thought necessary. º . . . ; Lord H. Petty thought the question of such extra- ordinary importance as to require the particular attention of the House, being, in his opinion, a direct attack on its privileges. He had not understood his honourable friend to object to the letter, in as far as it contained an allega- tion of innocence, but in going beyond that allegation. It was subject to the obvious meaning or opinion, that no declaration could be come to by that House on the evidence laid before it, but such as would carry it out of the province of the House; and when the word “con- demned” was considered, it was to be inferred that the House ought not to determine on the evidence laid before it, which was the only evidence that it could receive. He therefore thought, with his honourable friend, that the House had, by the vote of last night, permitted a let- ter to be put on the table which was an attack on their privileges. Mr. Tierney wished to know, if, when the report was brought up on Wednesday se’nnight, the right honoura- ble gentleman intended to come forward with any specific proceedings on it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he did not con- ceive he had any thing to do with the business, in the way the right honourable gentleman had mentioned. He con- ceived it to be in the hands of the honourable gentleman who brought forward the accusation, and he, did not think it would be proper for him to interfere in it, as he naturally supposed the honourable gentleman, whom he did not then see in his place, would bring forward’somo proceeding or other on it. . . . . . . . Lord Folkestone said, he did not rise to object to any thing which had been said by the last speaker, but thought he had reason to complain of the right honourable gen- tleman below him (Mr. Tierney), as his question seemed to insinuate that his honourable friend had abandoned the business, and he wished the ‘right honourable gentleman opposite to him to take it up. . His honourable friend had, however, expressed his readiness to go on with the matter even on the day that had been first appointed, 550 PROC EEDINGS HELATIVE TO “though he (Lord Folkestone) thought it too early a one. The right hon, gentleman might, therefore, rest satis- fied that on Wednesday se’nnight the matter would be taken up by his honourable friend, who had left the House, not supposing any thing would be said on the subject that night, - Mr. Tierney disclaimed any in ention of even a wish to take the business out of the hands of the honourable gen- tleman who brought forward the accusation, and had only asked the question to satisfy himself, whether on that night any proceeding was to take place on bring- ing up the report. Tuesday, February 28, 1809. Lord Folkestone, pursuant to notice, rose to move that the House be called over on Wednesday the 8th of March. The question to come before the House that day was of the utmost importance, and therefore he conceived that the fullest possible attendance of members was necessary. TVWith that view, and with that only it was, that he should now move for a call of the House on that day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sºld, that he should not have thought it necessary to make such a motion, when he considered the man:her in which the House had been attended during the whºle of the time when the im- portant subject alluded o by the noble lord was under in- vestigation; and therefore he had no doubt of a full at- tendance upon the day appointed for taking that most im- portant subject again into consideration. The question, as the noble lord had justly observed, was one of the ut- most importance, and it was his own wish that in all its parts it should meet the most grave and solemn considera- tion before the fullest irossible attendance of members. He therefore abstained from any resistance to the motion, feeling, as he did, that however unnecessary he might conceive it to be, yet any opposition to it on his part would be subject to animadversions not of the mºst liberal nature. But in giving his assent to the motion, he trusted that the question of that day would not be further delayed. The motion might have the effect of securing the attend- ance of all members in town, or within a short distance, But it could not be expected that in so short a notice as eight or ten days, any thing like an effectual call of the House could be had. But it was not because the call THE COM ºf ANDER IN CHIEF, 551. could not operate to its fullest extent that it was not there- fore to be adopted. Lord Folkestone assured the right honourable gentleman, that he had no intention of further postponing the busi- ness, neither was any such intention entertained by his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle). Mr. Bragge Bathurst thought the call of the House equally unnecessary and improper. He should think it quite impossible that in so short a period as eight days, it would have any effect in bringing gentlemen from the re- motest corners of the united kingdom. It would be merely a call in name, and not in effect. From the full attendance of members during the whole of the inquiry, there could be no doubt of a fulfattendance on the night of discussion ; and although a tolerable opinion of a sub- ject might be formed on written evidence, yet perhaps it was going too far to call on members coming from a dis- tance, who would not have time to examine and consider the printed evidence, after their arrival in town, in order to form their opinions to decide upon so soleman a subject perhaps the day after. Mr. Charles Adam approved of the motion for a call of the House, and thought, that although it could not be ex- pected to procure the attendance of members from Scot- Hand and Ireland, yet if it only obtained that of half a dozen additional members, upon such an occasion, even that would be of some importance. General Gascoigne also thought the call could not be effectual. It appeared to him that to attempt enforcing this call at so short a notice, would be an abuse of the power of the House, and tend to defeat its authority on fu- fure occasions. Members at a distance would suppose it a serious call, and no doubt expect that they would be al- lowed a subsequent day, to offer their excuses; so that the object of the present call would be defeated. Lord. Folkestone said he felt the call could not be so ef. fective as was desirable, upon so short a notice; and was himself very sorry it had not occurred to him to move for it at an earlier day. He hoped, however, the House, in justice to its authority, would enforce the call for the 8th of March ; for however it might be afterwards disposed to excuse those members who could shew reasonable cause for their non-attendance then, he could hardly suppose that some question would not arise out of the proceedings 552 ProceedING's RELATIyE To *_ of that day of the utmost moment, which would, at an early subsequent day, call for solemn décision, and conse- quently render necessary the fullest possible attendance of members, r ºr Mr. Bankes opposed the motion. He thought that a call of the House, on so short a notice, was unprecedent- ed. It was something so preposterous, that when he heard of the noble lord’s avowed intention, he thought it quite impossible that he could be serious. " The attendance of the House already upon this subject had been remarkably full; they had divided more than a majority of the whole House, and he did not think that at the present season, and at so short a notice, there was any chance of a further attendance. Besides, he would ask, was it a desirable thing that members who had never heard a word of the evidence in this case, should be called on to decide upon the question, who perhaps would not arrive till the day before, and could not have time to read or consider the written evidence : There were many members who did not wish to interfere on this question. Was it desirable to bring such men from the remotest corners of Ireland or Scotland 2 And, besides, though the House had autho- rity to enforce their attendance at a call on that day, it had no authority afterwards to prevent their going out again, or to force them to vote. He was decidedly op- posed to the call, and should take the sense of the House upon it. - - F . .” | Sir John Newport said, that the honourable member who had all of a sudden shewn so much tenderness to- wards the members from Ireland, and reluctance to incon- venience them, had asserted that a call at so short a notice was unprecedented. He would beg leave, however, to refer him to the journals, so recently as the 11th of last February, where there was an order that the House be called over on the following day: " " ' * * - Mr. Bankes answered, that this was in the case of a bal- lot for an election committee, where the call was pending de die in diem. . . . . . . . . : Lord Folkestone instanced another case on the journals during the discussion of the slave trade in 1791, where there was a call of the House at eight days. , - . . The question was now put on Lord Folkestone's mo- tion, when the House divided; \, , , = * Ayes 102—Noes 15–Majority for the call 87. THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 553 . Mr. Wynne stated, that in consequence of what passed in the House on Friday last, he thought the subject which had been then alluded to was of a nature that required that parliament should express its opinion upon it. He rather wished that the business should have been taken up by some man of greater experience. He, however, felt so strongly convinced of the necessity of some resolution, that he should, without losing any time, give notice, that, it was his intention to move a resolution, “that it was consistent with the duty and privileges of that House, to come to a determination on evidence examined at their bar, without submitting the case to any other tribunal.” Although this question had no necessary bearing upon the subject which was to be discussed next week, yet as it might have a collateral and indirect bearing, he wished to defer moving that resolution, until the House should come to a decision on the question. He hoped the great importance of the subject would excuse him to the House, for giving this notice in a more detailed form than was usual. The Speaker asked the honourable member what day he chose the the notice to stand for. s Mr. Wynne replied for Monday se’nnight. Friday, March 3, 1809. Mr. C. W. Wynne rose to bring forward his promised motion upon the subject of Brigadier-general Clavering's testimony before the Committee of the House for inves- tigating the conduct of his Royal Highness the Com- mander-in chief. He said he felt it necessary to explain the cause of the delay that had intervened since he first intimated his intention. The impression made on his mind by the testimony of General Clavering on the second night of his examination was, that the House ought not to sepa- rate without coming to some resolution upon the subject. He was induced, however, not to urge the matter further on that night; but when he since compared the answers of General Clavering with the letters produced in his own hand-writing, and which he never attempted to deny, he thought the matter ought not to be further delayed. Be- sides, he thought there would be something of cruelty in keeping such a mattér any longer suspended over the head of a man of General Clavering's honourable rank. It had been suggested to him still to defer this motion, as other 554 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To. gentlemen might, have similar charges to bring against other witnesses who had given testimony before the Com- mittee, and the offenders might then all be committed to Newgate together. But he thought it better to allow each case to stand upon its own merits. The present case he must consider as standing totally detached and distinct from any other. In the first place, the nature of General Clavering's appearance before the Committee was different from that of every other witness. He came as a volum- teer to offer his evidence; he was not called for ; nobody sent for him ; there was no necessity for his attendance ; it was of his own seeking, and by his own solicitation. In the prevarication of his evidence, therefore, he had not the same excuse to plead with a person called to the bar involuntarily, forced to answer against his will, and for whose prevarication, under the impression of embarrass- ment, apprehension, and natural anxiety for self-defence, there would be at least some colour or excuse. But when a witness volunteers his testimony, and coming forward unasked, prevaricates in his testimony, his conduct strongly implies a previous and deliberate intention to impose on the House. It was impossible for any man who would recur to the four last questions put by the Committee to General Clavering on the 10th of February, and compare his answers with them, to suppose he could misunderstand their meaning, as his answers were prompt, direct, and positive. He was asked, “Do you of your own knowledge know that Mrs. Clarke has used her in- fluence with the Commander-in-chief with regard to pro- motions º' His answer was, “I do not.” He was then asked, “Do you know any person who asked her to use that influence " His answer was, I am not acquainted with any person who has ; I have heard it reported.” The next question was, “Am I then to understand you ihat you know of none º’’ His answer was, “None, to my certain knowledge.” He was again called on for a direct answer—and he answered, “I do not know any.” Questions more clear, or answers more exact and decisive, could not be given. But, in the explanation given by General Clavering to the Committee afterwards, upon the 20th of February, he declares, that those answers on the former night were given under a misapprehension of the question; and that he conceived personal applications to Mrs. Clarke were only meant, and epistolary correspond, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 555 ence totally excluded from the object of those questions. But he did not attempt any explanation whatever of the letter which he acknowledged to have written to Mrs. Clarke, asking her to use her influence with the Duke of York, to procure military promotion for himself; nor of the letter written by the Duke to Mrs. Clarke, at the end of three days, from which it appears, that the object of her applcation in his favour could not be attained. It appeared also, from his own testimony, that three different applications had been made by him to Mrs. Clarke, press- ing her to use her influence in his favour ; and yet, in his first examination he appeared to be wholly ignorant of any such influence attempted by her, or solicited by any per- son. Let any man compare the testimony given by General Clavering on the 10th with his evidence on the 20th, and what must be the obvious deduction ? In the former, he denies having had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of obtaining promotion, or that he knows of any person imaking such application to her; and by the latter it appears, that he had many such conversations. In the Duke of York's letter of the 24th of August, (dated by mistake on the 24th September, though shewn by the post-mark to have been written on the former day), he desires her to tell the General that his application is founded in error; and in a letter from the General him- self to Mrs. Clarke, written on the 28th, only four days afterwards, he promises to be in London on the 4th Sep- tember, and invites her to meet him at the Prince of Wales's Coffee-house. On the 5th September he writes again to Mrs. Clarke, to say that the Duke did not un- derstand him. In 1803, he is appointed an inspecting- colonel, and in 1804, a brigadier-general. His appoint- ment takes place on the 5th of September ; on the 11th he writes to thank her for her endeavours to serve him, He writes to her also to say he understands there are some new regiments to be raised, and requests her to inquire and inform him of the truth : and when he comes forward on the 20th, to correct the mistakes he has made on his first examination, and is asked whether he had not some recol- lection on the former night of those conversations and cor- respondence, he answers that the things happened five years ago, and it was quite impossible he could remember conversations of so trivial a nature! Was it possible, then, that those conyersations and letters which passed, 556 PRoce EDINGs RELATIVE To and in the course of which it appeared he offered her 1000l. for procuring him an appointment, could be so very trivial in their nature as totally to escape his recol- lection in five years He was then asked the reason for the answer he gave on a former night respecting his know- ledge of any person applying to Mrs. Clarke to use her influence; and he says he considers himself to be ex- cluded from the question. If a man is asked such ques- tions upon transactions in which he himself is immediately concerned, could it be believed he did not understand them He was willing to inake every reasonable allow- ance for General Clavering, but under such circumstances as these no excuse could be admissible. If any member of that House could possibly think, after reading the evi- dence, that General Clavering either did not recollect the circumstances, or that he answered under a misunder- standing of the questions, that member of course would not vote for the motion: yet, how that was possible, after the evidence to the contrary under his own hand, he was at a loss to conceive: but the General, after hearing every where the conversation his first testimony excited, after seeing the evidence published in all the newspa- pers, never came forward to correct his testimony until after a lapse of ten days, when he again solicits to be heard, contradicts his former testimony, and again pre- varicates worse than before. His first testimony might have passed without notice; for it was not until his se- cond voluntary appearance that it became impossible to suffer him to escape. He did not till then avow the let- ters which afford the direct proofs of his former misstate- ments. Upon these grounds it became necessary for the House to separate the General's case from those of any other witnesses who may have appeared to incur the charge of prevarication. If from a man of General Cla- vering's education, character, rank, and honourable sta- tion, the House could not extract the whole truth, from whom could they expect it If such a person was suf- fered with impunity to impose on the House of Commons by wilful prevarication, falsehood, or concealment of the truth, they never after could expect fair testimony from witnesses of inferior condition, who would think, as they were not giving evidence upon oath, that although false- hood might in some degree injure their characters, yet it might serve their purpose, and the House of Commons THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 557 would not punish them. If this case were passed over, not only the dignity and character of the House would be forfeited, but one of its most valuable privileges, that of inquiring into every branch of the public service, rendered ineffectual. The honourable member concluded by mov- ing a resolution, “That Brigadier-general Clavering, in his evidence before the Committee of that House, on the 10th and 20th of February, had been guilty of pre- varication.” - Sir Matthew Ridley said, that he did not rise to justify General Clavering, who certainly did appear to be guilty of some contradictions in his testimony. He was sure, however, that General was always himself impressed with the opinion that he had given no answer that was contrary to the truth. The business had been the subject of con- versation of a club to which they both belonged ; and when General Clavering understood that his conduct had been a subject of general reprehension, he begged him to request of the House that he might be called to explain his former testimony. So fully was General Clavering impressed with the idea that his answers had been correct, that he said at the club to his Grace the Duke of Argyle, “I think it very extraordinary that I have been examined by all the acuteness and ability of the House, and yet no- body thought of putting me a question relative to myself.” Now, when a gentleman of General Clavering's birth, rank, and character, did certainly state what was not con- sonant to the fact, he could not bring his mind to believe that it was a premeditated—falsehood. He thought Gene- ral Clavering should throw himself, in a manner, upon the mercy of the House; and he hoped they would make some allowances for a man whose education was military, and who had been in the army since the age of 14, for some incorrectness in his testimony, when he was exa- mined before the combined wisdom and talent of Eng- land. He had only to mention that the Duke of Argyle would be glad to be examined as to the conversation he had mentioned ; and Earl Moira would wish to bear tes- timony to the general character and honour of General Clavering. - • * Vº The Chancellor of the Exchequer regretted that he had not been in the House yesterday at the time the honour- able gentleman gave notice that he would bring forward the present motion, as he should have endeavoured to 553 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO have persuaded him to postpone it until the discussion respecting the Duke of York was over. He had upposed that the sense of the House had been expressed, that it was better not to select the case of a single witness until the main discussion was over, and he thought that it was out of compliance to that feeling that the honourable gen- tleman had originally desisted from pressing his motion on the day it was first mentioned. It was for this reason that the notice had originally been fixed for that day, when it was supposed that the main question would have been decided sooner; but as the discussion of the main ques- tion was postponed, he thcught that this question should be postponed also. ... The House expressed a similar opinion very decidedly with respect to another witness, Mr. Donovan. It was not by any means that they in- tended to pass it over, but that they thought there would appear something of partiality in selecting one witness for punishment, whichever way the bearing of his testimony might incline. He would agree with the hon. gentleman, that whenever the House should go into the consideration of the question, their decision must not be founded on the comparative demerits of different witnesses, but upon the particular case brought before them. He would agree with him, that the House might punish not only the witness who prevaricated, but the witness who spoke falsely at their bar, and who was flatly contradicted either by himself or others. He would even go farther than the honourable gentleman, and say he could easily conceive a case, where even the positive demerit of one witness in his testimony might be somewhat less than that of another ; and yet if he was in that rank or station from which truth ought rather to be expected, he might be more deserving the punishment of the House than an individual of inferior education and situation. He wished, on the present oc- casion, to avoid all discussion of the particular case, be- cause he hoped the honourable gentleman would be per- suaded to postpone it till after the discussion on the Duke of York. He must say, however, that the case was by no means as clear as that of Captain Sandon, who prevari- cated so grossly, that hardly any two of his answers agreed. He could not think that the evidence of General Clavering was so immaterial that it might be struck out of the minutes. On the contrary, he thought part of his evidence bore on one side the case, and part on the other. THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. $59 He agreed perfectly with the honourable gentleman, that the House should feel its dignity concerned in punishing those who had prevaricated, or those who had been guilty of impudent falsehoods. He by no means wished to be understood as desiring to throw a shield over the guilty, but he wished to avoid the appearance of making any partial selection of what witnesses were most deserv- ing of punishment, as the circumstances might make an improper impression on the public mind. He declared that for his own part he had not studied the case suffici- ently to be prepared to discuss it this night; from the other reasons however which he had suggested, he should hope that the honourable gentleman might be persuaded to postpone his motion. Mr. Wilberforce differed from his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), although he was sure that they both agreed in one common object, to have the main question decided as fairly as possible. He thought this case ought to be decided on its own me- rits, and not left at all to be considered in common with other cases. He would entirely disapprove of his dis- posing the question by any sort of compromise, or sayin * If you will spare this witness, we will spare that other.” General Clavering's case ought to be determined by his own veracity, and not by the demerits of others. If his evidence should be at all material in the main point, it would then appear as if he had been proceeded against, or pººl, from the bearing of his testimony. He there. ore thought his case should now be determined on its own merits. Mr. C. Smith could not see what inconvenience could arise from determining on the case of General Clavering. After Captain Huxley Sandon had been committed to Newgate for prevarication, he was brought up again and examined. The House should not only hold the scales of justice even, but they should appear to the world to do so. General Clavering was a witness, who voluntarily came into court for the express purpose of invalidating the tes- timony of another witness. It therefore behoved him more particularly to come into court with clean hands, Mr. Whitbread thought, that it would be the best way to adjourn the present debate until some day subsequent to the main discussion. He could not see that the case of Captain Sandon was a much stronger case than that of Ge- 560 PRoceedINGs RELATIVE To neral Clavering. It was impossible to contradict the General on the first day that he was examined, and he probably then thought that there was no document in ex- istence by which he could be contradicted. If his letters had been destroyed at Hampstead, and the Duke of York's letters had not been produced, his evidence would have been unimpeachable, and the House would have been completely imposed on by it. If his letters could have been produced on the same night that he was first exa- mined, the House could not have a moment's hesitation on the course to be taken. If General Clavering was now to be punished, his testimony, like that of Captain San- don, would still remain on the minutes, and receive what attention it was worth, whichever way it bore. Certainly no decision of the House about his punishment could add to, or take away from, the credit of his testimony. He concluded by recommending that the debate should be adjourned, which it was, till Tuesday se’nnight. Monday, March 6, 1809. Lord Folkestone moved for a copy of the letter of ser- vice, appointing Brigadier-general French to the station he fills in the staff at Jamaica, with the date of his depar- ture thither, as nearly as the same can be ascertained. Also copies of all correspondence that may have passed be- tween that officer and the war-office, or the office of the Commander in Chief, on the subject of the period of his departure. Ordered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to move for the printing of another paper, small certainly in size, but great in importance, and which, though ordered to be printed with the other papers adduced in evidence in the course of the inquiry respecting the Commander-in-chief, did not appear amongst the printed papers. It was the cover of a letter with the Dover post mark, but more pro- perly from Essex, and which Mr. Sandon in his evidence stated to have contained the letter to Mrs. Clarke, respect- ing Major Tonyn's appointment. The omission of it from the printed papers had excited some conversation out of doors; and as he conceived that omission was merely the effect of mistake, he now moved that the paper be printed. Mr. Whitbread wished that the paper itself should be laid on the table, and that also all the other original let- ters taken on the minutes, might be within the reach of THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 56] membérs, as it might be necessary to refer to them identi- cally in the course of this discussion. The Speaker said, the omission of printing the par- ticular paper alluded to, had been the mere effect of ac- cident, and he should give direction to have the omission rectified. . . Wednesday, March 8, 1809. Lord Folkstone gave notice, that after the close of the debate upon the report of the Committee of the whole House to which it was referred to consider of the conduct of his royal highness the Duke of York, it was his inten- tion to move, that the said report be taken into considé- ration on Monday se’nnight. - Lord Folkstone then moved the order of the day, for calling over the House, to be read ; and, on the order being read, that the House be called over to-morrow, On this question being put, Mr. Beresford asked, whether it was the intention of the noble lord to keep this call-over the House until his mo- tion should be disposed of, or whether it was to be in force to-morrow, Lord Folkstone replied, that it was his intention to continue the call of the House, until the very important question then before the House should be finally deter- mined. . The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked, that when the House had adopted the first call, upon the suggestion of the noble lord, it was with a view to secure as effectual an attendance of members as possible, on the very im- portant discussion which was then in contemplation. Upon the same principle, he was persuaded that the House would not do its duty, unless it agreed to the motion of the noble lord. The object of the noble lord most certainly was to procure a full and effectual atten- dance, upon the most important business that could occupy the attention of parliament. The effect of the call would not be to bring all the members of that House within its operation, because unquestionably those whose duties elsewhere rendered their attendance in that House impracticable, or inconvenient to the public service, could not be expected to yield obedience to it. . . But if the House should not adopt the notion of the noble lord, the effect of its rejection would be, ''', the House would lose the 2 { 562 F Roc BEDTNGs RELATrve Tes s * benefit of that effectual attendance, which was so desira- ble, and so necessary, upon questions of such serious moment. He therefore hoped, though gentlemen might have other duties of local or public interest to perform, that yet the House would continue to enforce a full atten- dance of its members, until the important business then pending should be finally closed. It would be for the House, during the progress of this business, upon any case being made out, to exercise its own judgment in dispensing with the attendance of any individual mem- ber; but in concurring in the motion of the noble lord, he wished it to be understood, that the House was acting upon the principle of carrying its own views into effect, and not influenced by any consideration of the judicial decisions of any persons out of that House, as to what might be the consequences of its proceedings. It was not to be endured that any idea should go forth, as if that House, in the regulation of its conduct, or the choice of its mode of proceeding, was to be governed by any threats from without, as to what might be the conse- quence of any course it should think proper to adopt. (Hear, hear !)—It was the sole judge of its own proceed- ings, and not to, be swayed nor intimidated from the free exercise of its constitutional functions by the judicial assertions of any persons whatever.—(Hear, hear !)— He would not say more upon that subject on this occa- sion, because if he did, he must, perhaps, be led to the adoption of some more practical notice of that to which he was alluding. (Hear, hear !) But if the House was placed in the situation of representatives of the people, he must add, that it would but ill discharge the obligation due to its constituents, if it did not perform its duty upon every occasion, without minding what might be the judg- ment passed in such a manner upon its conduct. Thus much he had thought it necessary to say upon this sub- ject; but to come to the particular object of his rising, he hoped that his honourable friend would alter his determi- nation, and that it should not be thought, that the general ground of attending the assizes, except where special cases should be made out, was applicable, as a claim to be exempted from attendance in that House. At the same time he was ready to admit, that to keep a call of the House over the heads of the members without any object, would be highly inconvenient; but, as the object of the noble frtE COMMANEER IN CHIEF. 563 lord's motion was to secure a full and adequate atten- dance this day and to-morrow, and during whatever time this important subject should be under discussion, he trusted that the House would be sensible of the propriety of adopting it. Mr. Curwen expressed his most hearty concurrence in what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman ; but he must add, that if the House was not to be influ- enced in the discharge of its duty by any threats which originated out of doors, neither was it to be intimidated by any menaces denounced within its walls. [A general cry of Hear, hear!] It was not to be swayed in the ex- ercise of its functions, by any threat from an individual high in the confidence of the crown. Never had a subject of higher importance occupied the attention of parlia- ment; and, consequently, it had never been more neces- sary, that a full attendance should be procured at the discussion. The House was then ordered to be called over to- In Orrow. The order of the day, for the further consideration of the report of the committee of the whole House, upon the conduct of his royal highness the Duke of York, having been read R. Mr. Wardle rose, and declared, that he was fully aware of the difficulty of the situation in which he was placed, and should therefore not trouble the House with many words, before he proceeded to the examination of the evi- dence that had been taken at its bar, and to the comments which it would be necessary for him to make upon those arts of that evidence to which he would have to refer. e had studiously, on all occasions throughout the pro- gress of this investigation, avoided any thing that could lead to personality or irritation. Such at least had been his intention; and if he had done otherwise, it was from inadvertence, and he would, he trusted, meet the indul- gence of the House. However he might have been hurt that motives not very warrantable had been attributed to him for his conduct in this business, he had not suffered such feeling to influence him in the progress of it. Though he did think that in the early part of the business he had been treated more harshly than he ought, he had suffered that to pass away without producing any change in his original determination. º; having said this, he must 2 O 2 §6% PROCE EDI Nº. 5 REI, A&T IV. F. To return his thanks to the House for the favour with which he had been attended to during the whole of this investi- gation. To his majesty's ministers his acknowledgments were peculiarly due, for the attention which they had paid to his feelings, when he first commenced this busi- ness, and for the manner in which they had conducted themselves towards him throughout. He was thankful to them, that, during the whole progress of the investiga- tion, they had taken no advantage of his little experience in the knowledge of the business of that House. At a very early stage of the business, he had the good fortune to have the assistance of an honourable and worthy baronet (Sir Francis Burdett), to whom he felt what he owed of grati- tude. To his noble friend also (Lord Folkestone) he was findebted for every assistance during the whole course of this arduous business; and he was persuaded the country would feel equally indebted to him, for his upright and patriotic contluct on this important occasion. At the moment of danger, when public odium was held out as likely to fall upon the accuser, his noble friend stood for- ward, and not only ably assisted in the inquiry into abuses, but placed himself jointly with him (Mr. Wardle), in a situation to answer for the consequences. There was nothing for which he rejoiced so much, as at the manney in which his royal highness the Duke of York had been defended. That he should have been defended by his ma- jesty's ministers, and the law officers of the crown, was a source of satisfaction to him ; because it would convince the public, that nothing had been left undone in the de- fence, which could have been done to render it effectual. There was onc consideration, which he trusted that Iſouse would not be insensible to, namely, that whatever might be due to the superior rank of his Royal Highness, they should, as representatives of the people, always bear in mind that it was their duty to maintain their rights as ser- wants of the public. This he was persuaded the result of this inquiry would evince and justify. On the strength, therefore, and the weight, and force and justice of the case, he would rely for that result, as he had hitherto relied throughout the whole of the business ; and without detaining the House any longer with preliminary observa- tiºn, he should proceed to offer what he had to say upon the parts of the evidence to which he proposed to call the attention of the House. The first case he had to refer to THE com MANDER IN-6H.I.E.F. 565 * was that of Lieutenant-colonel Knight, the evidence re- -specting which he should shortly run over. . . . .- “ Br: Thynne stated, that he was authorised by Mr. * Robert Knight to tell Mrs. Clarke, that she should re- “ ceive 200l. if she would use her influence to expedite “the exchange between Lieutenant-colonel Knight and “Lieutenant-colonel Brooke. Mr. Robert Knight de- “clared, that he had authorised Dr. Thynne to offer to “ Mrs. Clarke 200l. if she would use her influence to ex- “ pedite that exchange. Mrs. Clarke has stated, that “Dr. Thynne made the application to her to effect the “exchange between Lieutenant-colonel Knight and Lieu- “tenant-colonel Brooke ; that he gave her the names of “both on a slip of paper, neither of whom she knew ; “ that she gave the two slips of paper to his Royal High- “ness; that when the exchange was effected, she sent the “gazette, with a note, to Dr. Thynne, informing him that ** she was going out of town in a day or two, and that the ** 200l. would be very convenient : and that she received “ the 2001, after she had sent the gazette to Dr. Thynne. “Mr. Robert Knight had also stated, that he had been “ three times to the gazette-office after the application “ before he received the gazette which had been sent by *** Dr. Thynne, when he received it from Mrs. Clarke. * “ In this the testimony of Mrs. Clarke corroborates the “testimony of Dr. Thynne and Mr. Knight. But Mrs. “Clarke further stated, that when she shewed the slip to “the Duke, he had said, that one of the parties was a bad ** subject.” e' & From the foregoing testimony of Dr. Thynne, Mr. Robert Knight, and Mrs. Clarke, it must be admitted, that a sum of 200l. had been offered to Mrs. Clarke to use her influence to expedite the exchange ; and also that the sum of 200l. had been paid to her, under the impression. that she had used her influence for that purposé. The next point to be ascertained was, whether she had exerted that influence, and whether, thc Duke of York was a party to the business. Mrs. Clarkc stated that she had applied to his Royal Highness, and ‘had given him the slip of paper she received from Dr. Thynne, with the names of the parties, adding, at the same time, that they would make her a compliment. Surely there could not be a stronger corroboration than this of what had been given in eyidence by Dr. Thynne and Mr. Knight. Now he must $66 #RocBEDINGS rºl,ATIVE ro say, that in this evidence it was not necessary for the pay- ties to have been so minute, unless they had a strong in- pression upon their minds as to the transactions upon which they were giving testimony; because in proportion to the minuteness in which they detailed the circum- stances was the danger of contradiction. A general as- sertion was much less liable to contradiction, and conse- quently the minuteness of the evidence was a proof of its correctness. Mrs. Clarke farther stated, that when she recommended the application of the parties for the ex- change to the Commander-in-chief, he had stated that he knew the parties well. It also appeared from the docu- ments upon the table, that the parties had been sometime endeavouring to effect the exchange before the application had been made to Mrs. Clarke. It had also been stated by Mrs. Clarke, that when she mentioned the matter to the Duke, he observed that one of the parties “ was a bad subject.” Now, it appeared that Colonel Brooke had been only four months in the cayalry, and had been seven years upon half-pay, and it was natural that the Commander-in-chief should not think it right that a person should be placed in a situation to command a ſºlº regiment, unless he was acquainted with the cavalry service. Mrs. Clarke had also further stated, that she gave the 200l. to the Duke when she received it ; that she was then going out of town ; and that the Duke was the next day going to Wey. mouth, being the 31st of July. This statement was strongly corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Knight, who stated that he had sent the 200l., upon receiving the azette containing the exchange of his brother ; and that #. must have been on the 31st July. Mrs. Clarke had also stated that she got one of the netes changed by one of the Duke's servants. Pierson, who had been butler at Gloucester-place, confirmed that statement upon his second examination, wherein he said that he had on that day taken the note to get changed ; and his testimony in this was supported by that of Mrs. Bridgman, who proved the offer of the nóte at her house for change, though it was at Stephens's hotel in Bond-street that the note had actually been changed. He had no hesitation to admit that Pier- son appeared to give his evidence from a confused recol- lection, but he had no doubt that he answered to the best of his judgment. But when this statement of Mrs. Clarke as to the giving the note, and that of Mrs. Bridgman as to trie CoMMANDER IN CHIEF. 567 the offer of it for change, were considered, there was good reason to pay attention to the fact. The next point to be considered was, the statement of Mrs. Clarke, that only three days intervened between the application and the ex- change appearing in the gazette. But, upon this point, she was certain only as to the time of the year; she thought it was no more than three days, but could not be certain. Dr. Thynne, however, and Mr. Knight, had positively stated, that the interval was a fortnight or three weeks. Mr. Knight had been three times to the gazette-office in that interval. Nothing could be stronger than this. Neither Mrs. Clarke, Dr. Thynne, nor Mr. Knight, could have any motive for making an untrue statement. There could be no doubt, therefore, that Mrs. Clarke had made the application to the Commander-in-chief; that the ex- change which had before met with delays, had been expedited in consequence; that she received the 200l. for this dispatch, the 200l. being her object, and the dispatch that of the parties; and that therefore her influence must have procured the dispatch, as, unless it had, they would not have paid her the money. The next point to be considered, was the variance be- tween Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Knight as to the injunctions to secrecy. Mr. Knight stated that she had desired him to conceal the transaction from the Duke of York. If she had made this injunction, it would be to tell him that she had swindled him out of 2001. If she had used her influence, the Duke of York must have known it; and that she had used her influence with his Royal Highness was proved by the evidence of Mr. Corri and Captain Sandon. It was also obvious, from the letter of the i)uke of York to Mrs. Clarke, respecting General Clavering, that the Duke wished to be kept in the back ground. In that letter, the Duke says, “ Clavering is mistaken; there are no new battalions to be raised, and you had better teli him so ; and that you are sure it would be of no use to apply.” Was it not evident from this that the Duke wished his name to be kept secret; and after such a letter, could any gentleman suppose Mrs. Clarke in her senses if she did not wish to keep the transaction secret. He be- lieved it would not be necessary for him to advert further to the evidence. He should next proceed to examine the written documents on the table, which he was convinced # t 568 - PRoceedINGs RELATIVE To would as strongly bear out the case, as the minutes of the evidence on which he had commented. The first of the written documents to which he should refer, was the statement sent in from the office of Messrs. Cox and Greenwood, relative to Colonel Brooke's ser: vices. Upon that statement there appeared, in pencil, marks, C. L. cannot be acceded to ; his Royal Highness does not approve of the exchange proposed.” This state- ment was dated on the 1st of July; but in a short time after, that is, on the 23d of July, another pencilled mark was made on the statement: “July 23, 1805 : his Royal Highness does not approve of this exchange.” Colonel Gordon in his evidence stated, that the words “not acceded to” meant nothing more than not acceded to till the irecessary inquiries should be made; and that if the paper was to be gonsidered, he should probably have said so ; and if fur- ther inquiries should be necessary, might note “to be considered, or probably cannot be acceded to. Such a con- struction of language might be intelligible at the horse- guards, but the House would understand the words as they were understood all over the kingdom. The first pencilled note had first not acceded to ; and then his Royal Highness does not approve; but would his Royal Highness approve or disapprove of any application till the necessary inquiries had been made. In common life, the answer not acceded to, would be considered a direct refusal. The next point was, that the exchange was said to have been acceded to in consequence of the inquiry; and on the ground that Lieutenant-colonel Brooke's services could not but be favourably received. But these services had been precisely the same when the exchange was not ac- ceded to, and when it was said that the services could not be favourably considered. These services were, that Co- lonel Brooke had been twelve years in the army; four months of which he had been a cornet of dragoons, and seven years upon half pay. Colonel Gordon had stated, that the exchange had been stopped, in consequence of £olonel Brooke being on the half pay, in order to make inquiry into his services. Yet Colonel Gordon could not recollect any particular information that was the conse- quence of that inquiry, nor any individual from whom such information had been derived. When it was recal: iected what admirable testimony Colonel Gordon had * * * t > THE Coy MANDER IN chief. 569 given on other points, and the correctness with which he had detailed the minutiae of the business of his office, it would appear rather extraordinary that when an exchange had been effected, as he had stated, upon inquiries made by him in his official capacity, he could not recollect one word of the result of these inquiries, nor the person from whom the information had been received. The command of a regiment required considerable military experience; and to be fit to command a regiment, an officer should have more than usual qualifications, and a competent ac- quaintance with the cavalry service. By a regulation of his Royal Highness, for which he deserved great credit, no officer can become a field-officer upon less than six years' service, in order that no officer should be placed in a situation in which he might have to command a regiment, unless he was perfectly acquainted with his duty. The regulation was essential to the discipline of the army. But it was material to observe, that if the seven years, during which this officer had been on the half pay, were deducted from the twelve, the whole of his services, there would remain but five; and to select an officer of five years’ actual service, only four months of which he had served in the cavalry, for the command of a regiment of cavalry, was an infringement of the excellent regulation of the Commander-in-chief. Colonel Gordon had fur- ther asserted, that the result of the inquiry had been to shew, that Colonel Brooke was worthy of the situation. That he did not deny. It was nothing to the question. The papers on the table shewed, that upon no principle ought Colonel Gordon to have recommended an officer, with only such qualifications, to the Duke of York, for the situation. He only adverted to this circumstance to shew its bearing upon the case, as it went to shew that the ex- change must have been effected through the influence of Mrs. Clarke. It appeared to him fully, clearly, and strongly, to corroborate that fact; and when the whole of the case should be considered, he thought it impossible that any gentleman in the House could be of any other opinion. That was his impression, and he did not think it necessary to trespass further upon the time of the House respecting that case, but should proceed directly to his other statements. " - The next case to which he had to call the attention of the House, was that of Captain Maling. In this case he f 570 PRoceedi N68 RELATIVE to - was convinced his majesty's service was as much inte- rested as in any other. It had been stated in evidence, by Colonel Gordon, that, when he had been appointed to his company without purchase, there had been several sub- alterns in the army senior to him, who were anxious to get promotion by purchase; and several other subalterns, senior to him, who were desirous of promotion. All that Colonel Gordon had stated as the qualification of that gentleman for promotion was, that he was unexceptionable and assiduous. It was upon military services alone that claims for promotion ought to be founded; and an officer, who had not been ever out of England, nor could plead length of services, ought not to have been preferred to those who had served as ensigns and lieutenants on all stations, and in every climate. Now it appeared in the progress of the inquiry into that case, that there had been another Mr. Maling in the office of the Commander. in-chief, who had been promoted without any service, and with no recommendation; that several others in the same office had not. That gentleman was brother to Captain Maling, respecting whom he had instituted the inquiry. Colonel Gordon had stated that he had recommended that this gentleman should be placed upon half pay ; but he had already been placed upon full pay over many officers who had served in all climates. He understood that there was an act, which prohibited any officer from being placed upon half pay without having previously joined his regi- ment. If this act had not been repealed, to place this gentleman upon the half pay would be an illegal proceed- ing. He agreed that the Commander-in-chief ought to have the power to reward merit; but then that power should be defined. If it were not, it would be found that such a #. enjoyed without any limit, would be productive of & Oţi SęS, Upon this head he would beg leave to call the attention of the House to the case of Colonel Gordon hi-uself, in order to shew the length to which the power of the Com- mander-in-chief might be carried. Colonel Gordon had stated his services to the House, and he was ready to ad- m t that for them the country owed to Colonel Gordon an adequate reward; but he was not prepared to go the length of saying that such reward should extend to the grant of a regiment to him, over the heads of a long list of major- . generals and colonels, and above one hundred and fifty § *HE cow MANDER in chief. 571 lieutenant-colonels, who were senior to him, many of whom were distinguished for the most eminent military services. It would therefore appear upon reflection, that in an office where such a transaction could take place, the Commander-in-chief was vested with a power without limit, which no commander-in-chief ought to possess. . . The next case with which he had to trouble the House, and it was one of considerable importance, was Colonel French's levy. The witness, Captain Huxley Sandon, had stated, that he had been interested with Colonel French in obtaining that levy; that five hundred guineas had been paid to Mrs. Clarke on account of it; that she was to have had two thousand pounds if the levy succeeded:— and that he called upon Mrs. Clarke respecting the levy, but that no money was advanced till the letters of service had been issued. Mr. Corri, the agent of Mrs. Clarke, stated, that he had two hundred guineas for introducing Colonel French to Mrs. Clarke ; he also told Sandon that Mrs. Clarke said that she could recommend only proper persons, who could apply through the war-office; and that Mrs. Clarke had desired him to destroy all the papers. Mr. Dowler had stated that he had seen Colonel French and Captain Sandon with Mrs. Clarke at Gloucester-place, and seen them pay her five hundred guineas. Mr. 8. the agent for the levy, and who was connected with Colo- nel French in it, had stated, that he always understood that the levy had been obtained through Mrs. Clarke : that the five hundred guineas had been paid to her; and that an advance of five thousand pounds was to be made to the Duke of York, by way of loan, if the arrears due by government should be paid. Miss Taylor had stated that she had heard the Duke of York say at Gloucester- lace, that he was worried to death by the applications of Colonel French, and that he would cut up him and his levy too if he did not behave well to Mrs. Clarke. Now, it would appear from the evidence of all these witnesses, that Mrs. Clarke had received a considerable sum for using her influence to obtain this levy, This point was fully established. The next point to be inquired into was, whether she possessed that influence, and whether she had used it for a pecuniary consideration with the knowledge of the Duke of York : Mr. Grant stated, that she had applied : Mr. Dowler, that he was present when she received five hundred guineas for it : Captain Sandon, that he had been 572 PRöCEEDIYN Gs RELA Tivº Fo 'fifty times to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject', 'and Mrs. ' Clarke, that the Duke of York had said, that he was teazed to death by the applications of Colonel. French, He wished the House to consider that this traffic had been going on for several months; and would ask whether it was not clear that she had influence, and had used it "Unless the levy had been obtained through Mrs. Clarke, it would never have been obtained, and the money she received for it, amounted to seventeen hundred pounds, paid in small sums of one and two liundred pounds, with the exception of the five hundred guineas. He would beg the attention of the House to the following passage of a letter from Mrs, Clarke to Captain Sandon : ... “I gave the papers to his Royal Highness; he read “ them while with me ; said he still thought men high ; “but that an answer would be left at his office as in the “ way of business.” . . ; ! . • This letter shewed, that Mrs. Clarke had been entrusted by Captain Sandon with particular papers ; that the Duke had demurred to terms, and that she had told Captain Sandon where the answer was to be received. Mrs. Clarke seemed to have been as fully aware as even Colonel Gor- don himself, or any other person, of official regularity. Nothing could be a stronger proof than this, of her desir- ing Captain Sandon to go for his answer to an office, where if she stated any thing untrue, it would be discovered that she had influence with the Commander-in-chief. The next letter to which he would beg the attention of the House, had this passage in it: - “I hope you will attend the Duke to-day, as Clinton “ leaves him on Thursday; and he has all the writings for “you in hand; he will not leave this office till six. I “shall be glad of one hundred guineas, if possible, this ** week.” . . - This letter shewed that Mrs. Clarke had knowledge of what was passing in the Commander-in-chief's office; otherwise how should she have known what was to become of Colonel-Clinton ; and from whom could she have such information but the Commander-in-chief himself? The next letter says: * • N. “I am told an answer is left for Colonel French at the “office, and that he has now dropped three guineas per ** man.” * Fh this letter, Mrs. Clarke states, that she is told the an- *HE commANDER IN CHIEF: 573 . swer is left at the office, and that an alteration of three guineas per man had taken place; and from whom could she have had the information on either point, but from the Commander-in-chief? The next letter stated, “ you are “ to have the bounty that Pitt gives to the line, so that “every thing goes on well. I told him that F should see “you at Vauxhall on Monday.” Another letter stated, “The Duke told me this morning that you must get on “faster with your men : he has written to town for that “ purpose. You had better send me the exact number of “all you have sent, and I will shew it him.” In this letter Mrs. Clarke calls for official documents, in order that she Inight lay them before the Commander-in-chief. Another letter informed Captain Sandon, “ That Mrs. Clarke “ thought it better for him not to come to her box that ‘‘ evening, as Greenwood goes with both Dukes this even- “ing, and of course will watch where your eyes will direct “ now and then : and should he see and know Captain “Sandon, may make some remark by saying or talking of “ the levy business, and it may be hurtful to his and “ Mrs. Clarke's future interest.” Mrs. Clarke had stated, that she looked upon Mr. Greenwood as her enemy with the Duke, and that if he saw her in public with Captain Sandon, he would think that she was interested in the levy. Another letter was to this effect, “He will do “$ it: so let the proposals be sent in when he gets to town, ** which will be as soon as you get this, or one thousand “ at first. The Duke of Cambridge has abready four “ thousand. You have not any occasion to be very par- “ ticular as to their being protestants, for I don't think “ it of any consequence to him. I think you had better “, attend him on Tuesday to ask his opinion of the papers “sent in on Saturday, as I told him I had seen the pro- “ posals, which you intended to alter and leave that “evening. Pray when you go, put on a nice pair of “boots, and let it be about half-past three.” w It was rather peculiar, that amongst the documents upon the table, he could not find any one applying to a German levy. ,'. He could, however, prove that Colonel French had sent parties to Germany, and, as it would ap- pear by Mrs. Clarke's authority, alone, in which she seemed to act as Commander-in-chief herself. This fact he could establish by idetter from Mrs. Clarke herself; in which he stated, “ The Duke is angry with you, you 574 *go ºf INGS REt, ATIt g fö “ promised three hundred Germans. Captain Sandon,” says he, “ is a pretty fellow.” . This letter shewed, that the Duke had agreed to the project; and how could Mrs. Clarke have known any thing of the promise; if she had not heard it from the Duke. From all the documents, it appeared evident that Mrs. Clarke not only possessed the influence, but exercised it. The next point to be consi- dered was, whether it was known to the Commander-in- chief, that she received money for the exercise of that influence. Upon this point, he contended that it was im- possible that the Commander-in-chief could have been ignorant of it. This fact was also to be ascertained from the extraordinary expenditure at Gloucester-place, and the inadequate allowance from the Commander-in-chief. The evidence upon this point was most conclusive. Captain Sandon had said that the money was paid pre- vious to the granting the letter of service. It appeared, however, that Mr. Grant, the agent to the levy, had been informed by Colonel French and Captain Sandon, that five hundred pounds was to be paid in the first instance, and Mr. Dowler's evidence was, that he actually saw that sum paid. There was also evidence that about the time she had received this money, a service of plate was bought for her from Mr. Birkett, the silversmith ; and that towards the payment of it, she had given the precise sum of five hundred pounds. It appeared, that the Duke must have been aware of her paying this sum to Birkett, from the circumstance of his having given his own notes for the payment of the remainder of what was due. When it was recollected in what particular mode the payment of the remainder was to be made, in bills at a long date, it would appear that the Commander-in-chief had a partial pecuniary accommodation, in consequence of the undue exercise of the powers of his command. It was also in évidence, that Colonel French had proposed to accom- modate his Royal Highness with a loan of five thousand }; the consideration for which was to be his Royal ighness's czerting his influence to have the accounts of Colonel French passed, which he (the Colonel) declared to be perfectly correct. Mrs. Clarke had given evidence respecting this loan, and therefore it was evident that there had been communications about it between the Duke of York and her, as well as between the Duke and Colonel French. His Royal Highness must be cognizant of this THE COMMANDER in CHIEF, 57; transaction, as he was the party principally interested, and who was to give the security. It, therefore, was clearly established, that he had endeavoured to derive a pecuniary advantage to himself from Colonel French, who was at the head of this levy. He should next say a word or two about official papers, which appeared to be much relied on upon the or her side. After the thing was settled with Mrs. Clarke, there was, to be sure, a regular official application made by Colonel French at the War-office. The application was acceded to, and the letter of service granted on the 30th of April 1804. The terms upon which this letter of service was granted were, that 5000 men were to be raised in thirteen months, with a power to discontinue the levy, if 4000 men were not raised in nine months; and yet, notwith: standing the terms of the letter of service, after the levy had been entirely unsuccessful, it appeared a most fa- vourite corps; and, in the general regulation about sub- sistence, Colonel French was informed, that his corps was to be an exception. On the 7th of March 1805, when it had been mine months in operation, so far from producing the 4000 men that were spoken of in the official letter of service, it had not raised 2000 men; and yet, instead of it being discontinued, according to the power reserved in the letter of service, farther indulgences were granted to it, and the bounty was then raised. On the 15th of January 1805, Colonel French, instead of expressing any disappointment at the failure of the levy, wrote a letter to the Duke of York, complaining most severely of the con- duct of Brigadier-general Taylor, in obstructing his levy in obstructing the levy in Ireland, and shewing every pos- sible hôstility to it. Colonel Gordon, upon this letter, im- mediately wrote over to Mr. Kirkman, complaining of the conduct of General Taylor, the deputy inspector general. Mr. Kirkman, in his answer, vindicated the conduct of General Taylor, and inclosed a detailed account which was given by that General, which was worthy the most serious attention of the House. After stating a number of direct and serious charges against the levy and the officers employed in it, it is directly stated that it had been managed in such a manner that every man. that was raised cost the country 1501. ; that the bounty amounted to little more than two guineas a man from Colonel French, as almost all that were raised were made 576. Pftoceedings RELAfit E. Tö. serjeants or corporals; that as soon as the harvest was reaped, no more exertion was to be expected in getting men ; that, in fact, there was no chance of getting more, as Colonel French only gave eleven guineas bounty for privates, whereas sixteen was the common bounty given by others. At the time that Colonel French ventured to write such a letter to the Commander in Chief; he must have known, that by the letter of service there was a power of completely discontinuing the levy, as, instead of producing the 4000 men that he had undertaken to get by that time, he had not got even 200. It would naturally be asked, how could the influence of Mrs. Clarke, or of any human being, have prevailed upon the Duke of York in favour of this levy, after he had received this long and official detail of their vile and abominable transactions mentioned in that report 2 People might well ask, how could the Duke of York, knowing as he must have known, after reading this report, what abominable acts were done under this letter of service, have avoided putting an im- mediate stop to it? By what influence was he induced to let a system go on, which was in direct opposition to the very terms of the letter of service The levy was, however, allowed to go on after this statement had been received; and all the effect that it had was, to cause a gentle hint to be given to Colonel French, that he must endeavour to get more men. As to the representations of General Taylor and Mr. Kirkman, they were only noticed by a letter in a very different tone from Colonel Gordon. This letter was dated the 20th of February, 1805, and stated, “ that a premature judgment had been formed on the probable success of Colonel French’s levy, and that the terms of his letter of service were not allowed him.” When he heard that an officer who made a faithful report of the transactions under his inspection, received instead of thanks, something which rather resembled a reprimand, he could not avoid saying, O! that such things as this should have so long existed in this country ( Although it had been gently hinted to Colonel French and to Cap- tain Sandon, that unless more men were procured, the levy must be discontinued on the 1st of April ; yet, in point of fact, there appeared no intention of discontinuing it at all, until General Whitclocke wrote a letter to Colo- nel Gordon on the subject, dated 14th of April, 1805. This letter mentioned “the few men, who were got under 'THE commANDER IN CHIEF. 577 the levy, being but 219 in 12 months; the disgraceful conduct of the non-commissioned officers, and the expence incurred by it. It therefore recommended the discon- tinuance of the levy, which was so burdensome and so unproductive.” In this letter of General Whitelocke's was inclosed a letter from Colonel Robinson, the inspector- general of the recruiting service, in London, who made a formal complaint against the whole of the temporary ser- jeants of Colonel French’s levy, whose conduct was in every respect so infamous and disgraceful, that he could not too strongly urge their being discharged, or at least sent out of the London district. In addition to a variety of crimes and irregularities, they were actively employed in crimping for other corps, and particularly for the ad- ditional force. The impositions transacted upon the pub- lic by them were such as to call loudly for redress; and he thought the severest punishment which could be in- flicted upon them was, that they should be deprived of their pay and emoluments as 'serjeants. Although the remonstrances from Ireland; respecting the abominable transactions carried on there by this levy, did not succeed in getting it discontinued; “yet; after this letter from Ge- neral Whitelocke, inclosing so strong a complaint from the inspector of recruits in Tondon, it became necessary to stop a levy which was evidently doing a great deal of mischief, but which got no men. In putting a stop, however, to this levy, very mild and gentle language was used by the Duke of York: ' Instead of expressing his strong displeasure at the way it was conducted, he only mentioned that it was not by any means so productive as might have been expected. Could any man on earth believe that this extraordinary mildness to a body who had so grossly misconducted themselves could be owing to any thing else but that this body of men was supposed to be under the especial protection of the Duke's mistress: He would ask, was there a man in the country, or at'least, was there a soldier who had served, that could suppose that such länguage was proper, when such shameful, such disgraceful transactions had come to the knowledge of the Commander in Chief? No; this levy ought to have been dismissed with that disgrace which their conduct deserved. Who would have supposed, that after the Commander in Chief had ordered the levy to be discontinued, those men would have continued to write to him again upon the sub- Q * 578 g PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO ject : Nevertheless, in four or five days after, they did write, and propose other modifications of the letter of Ser- vice; they seemed to think that they had a right to apply for any thing. This letter received a very mild answer from Colonel Gordon, merely informing them “that his Royal Highness could not give any farther encourage- ment to the prosecution of a levy which had turned out so unproductive to the service.” Considering these docu- ments, he could not have a doubt in his mind but that the Duke of York gave encouragement to this levy, at a time that he knew it to be unproductive of any advantage to the country, and in the highest degree burthensome and oppressive. The levy, however, was patronized by his mistress; it put money in her pocket, although it ap- peared, on a calculation, that for every guinea which Mrs Clarke gained by it, the country lost eighty guineas. A more destructive system than this was certainly never permitted to exist. If, after the evidence which had been given on this part of the case, any member of the House could say that the Duke of York was not convicted of being directly a party to this transaction, he could not conceive that there was any evidence upon earth which could convince such a person. He should next make a few observations on Major Tonyn. It was not denied that he did offer 500l. for the purpose of obtaining his promotion; that being impatient at some delay, and relying upon his own interest, he af- terwards wished to withdraw the 500l. he had deposited ; that it was a considerable object to Mrs. Clarke, that he should not withdraw his deposit; and that Captain San- don at length prevailed upon Mr. Tonyn not to withdraw it, by representing to him, and shewing him a note from his Royal Highness to confirm this representation, that unless the money were paid, his promotion would not go on. Mrs. Clarke accordingly received the 500l. upon this transaction. The letters of Mrs. Clarke to Captain Sandon (which she desired him to burn) proved, incontes- tibly, that she must have had many conversations with the Commander in Chief upon this business. In one of her letters she says, “ The Duke tells me that it will be at least three weeks before the thing can be done, as he has at present a great deal to do.” It appeared, that about that time, as she had stated, there were reviews which occupied his time. In another letter to Captain THE COMM ANDER IN CHIEF. 579 Sandon, she says, “The Duke has not seen General To- nyn for six months, and knows nothing of his son. He means to call at the office to-morrow, and stop the pro- motion. He assured me, that it was through my appli- cation alone, that he had put him down for a regiment, where he would have a better chance, as Majors Aslet and Bligh had just left it.” The official documents, however, about Captain Tonyn, were perfectly regular at the war office. Mrs. Clarke seemed to be as fully aware of the necessity for this sort of regularity as Colonel Gordon was ; and, in all the instances where she interfered, directed that regular application should be made at the war office. Mrs. Clarke, when asked about this note of the Duke of York, which was at first alledged to be a forgery, declared that she had no recollection at all of such a note, although when it was put into her hands, she was certain that it was the hand-writing of his Royal Highness. The note was directed to George Farquhar, Esq. and it was at first very strongly inferred that she must have forged that note. Now if she was to set about to forge a note for that #. what was the occasion for directing it to George arquhar, which was the private address settled between themselves, but which was known to nobody else? Would it not have been much better to have directed it at once to Mrs. Clarke, than to put such a direction upon it as made it necessary to send any other notes with it to prove that it was in that way the Duke usually wrote to her. If it had been directed at once to Mrs. Clarke, it would have made a more inmediate impression on Captain Tonyn's mind. It must be recollected also that Captain Sandon had shewn a disposition most hostile to Mrs. Clarke. Why did he never state this note as likely to have been forged by Mrs. Clarke 2 He believed, indeed, that the question about the forgery was quite at an end, and that it must be now confessed that the note was in the hand-writing of the Duke of York. Taking this for granted, he would ask, how was it possible, or by what arguments could Mrs. Clarke have induced his Royal Highness to write such a note, except for the very reasons that she stated in her evidence; that she had told the Duke, that if the pro- motion was gazetted too speedily, she should lose 500l. 2 He therefore could not have a doubt upon his mind that Major Tonym received his promotion through the influ- ence of Mrs. Clarke with !", Commander-in-chief, and C) 2 580 PROCE EDINGS REſ, ATIVE TO that he perfectly knew that she was to receive a sum of money for using that influence. - The next case was that of Major Shaw. It appeared in evidence that application had been made to Mrs. Clarke to get him a staff appointment. She got him this appoint- ment in consideration of a certain sum stipulated; and when Mrs. Clarke complained to him of the whole sum not being paid, Major Shaw was almost immediately put on half-pay. The evidence in this case was corroborated by Mr. Charles Shaw, who acknowledged that he had, by the directions of Major Shaw, advanced her at one time a sum of 300l. in the way of a loan. It was a loan, how- ever, of somewhat of an extraordinary nature, for no se- curity was required, nor any acknowledgment of the mo- ney so advanced. It must be recollected that Major Shaw had long before applied for promotion or exchange; and that General Sir Harry Burrard and Colonel Clinton had warmly interested themselves in his favour, and yet their strong recommendation could not produce even the liberty of exchanging. He then wrote a letter to Colonel Gordon, stating, that having lost all hopes of exchange or promotion, and his health being in a very bad state, he requested that his leave of absence should be extended to some months longer. The answer which Colonel Gordon sent to this letter was, that it was his Royal Highness’s pleasure that Major Shaw should join his regiment by the earliest opportunity. It would be therefore seen that the warnest recommendations of Sir Harry Burrard and Colonel Clinton could not, for years together, get the slightest favour for Major Shaw. When he was advised, however, to apply to Mrs. Clarke, and to offer her money, his prospects changed almost immediately. He then got the appointment of deputy barrack-master-general at the Cape of Good Hope, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. When it was considered that an officer who had such high military recommendations, had been applying for years without being able to obtain the slightest boon, but that as soon as he applied to Mrs. Clarke, he got a much higher promotion than ever he expected, namely, a lucrative ap- pointment joined to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, could any man doubt that this was obtained through the influ- ence of Mrs. Clarke, on account of the pecuniary considera- tion offered to her ? Or could any man doubt, but that the reason the Duke of York preferred her recommenda- THE CO M M A N DER IN CHIEF. 58] tion to that of Sir Harry Burrard and Colonel Clinton was, that he knew she received money in consideration of the appointment. When the House was considering the possibility and probability of Mrs. Clarke having gained this appointment, he begged they would bear in mind those parts of the letters of his Royal Highness which re- lated to General Clavering and Đr. O’Meara, and which proved that the Duke did interfere for others at the recom- mendation of Mrs. Clarke, not only in military appoint- ments, but even in church preferments. In the case of Major Shaw, that officer never doubted but that it was to Mrs. Clarke he owed his promotion, and appeared to con- sider, that it was to her only that it was to be attributed that he had been put on the half pay ; at least, he con- sidered that she was the only person who could have in- fluence to get him restored to full pay. In his letter to Mrs. Clarke, “ he hoped she would pardon his intrusion, in consideration of the serious injury of which he had to complain. He stated, that his being reduced to half pay, was quite contrary to the custom of the army, and instanced the cases of Lieutenant-Colonels Carey, Wesey, and Brind- ley, who had held similar employments to that which he had been appointed to. He believed he had been the only officer who had been so treated, and it would grieve him more to have the injury come from such hands; he hoped the period might arrive, that would...shew that he was not undeserving of her favour. Independent of the present mortification, he felt that his prospects in the active line of his profession were utterly blasted. He begged leave to offer to remit her 300l. annually of his appointments; and he hoped that neither he nor his family would owe their misfortunes to so fair a hand.” º The case of Mr. Dowler also appeared to him to be a very strong one. Mr. Dowler, as well as Mrs. Clarke, agreed that his appointment in the commissariat had been obtained in consequence of a sum of money paid to Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Dowler positively denied that he had made any application in any other quarter, and he was com- pletely corroborated in this assertion by the secretaries of the treasury not being able to find a trace of any recom- mendation by which he obtained the appointment. Mrs. Clarke had said that she learnt from the Duke of York that it was through Mr. Long that the business was set- tled, and that the reason it was not done sooner was, that 582 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO from some particular reasons it was necessary that Cap- tain Manby, of the 10th dragoons, should obtain the first appointment of that nature. Mrs. Clarke, in this state- ment, was completely corroborated by Mr. Long, for al- though that gentleman remembered nothing about Mr. T}owler, yet he did remember this conversation about Captain Manby. Now how was it possible that Mrs. Clarke could repeat the conversation between the Duke of York and Mr. Long, unless the Duke had communi- cated it to her 2 The next case that he should mention was, that of Sa- muel Carter, the footboy of Mrs. Clarke, who, through her influence, obtained a commission. It had been proved by two witnesses, in addition to the testimony of Mrs. Clarke, that this Samuel Carter, during the twelve months that he lived with Mrs. Clarke, had waited at table, stood behind her carriage, dined with her servants, and was altogether in the condition of a servant. It was true also that there appeared on the books a recommen- dation of him from Lieutenant Sutton, in the year 1801, but it did not appear that from that time till the year 1804, when he obtained his appointment, there had been no memorial, no fresh application, nor any thing which could allow a doubt that he got the commission solely through the influence of Mrs. Clarke. On the case of Major Turner, he should only observe, that this gallant officer, who had seen a great deal of ser- vice, was impeded in his desire to sell out, by a letter ad- dressed to the Duke of York, from a female, who signed herself Lucy Sinclair Sutherland. The charge against him was only unkindness to a lady of her acquaintance, and she said, that General Cartwright knew all about it. His leave of resigning was not only stopped till General Cartwright was applied to, and had given his answer, “that Major Turner was a gallant officer, and a most gentlemanly man, and that he knew nothing against him, but that he had got into a scrape with a woman of mode- rate repute;” but even after this answer there was a fur- ther delay until more inquiries were made upon the sub- ject, and that it was most evident that the accusation was false. Colonel Gordon had said, that equal attention would have been paid to an anonymous letter. This letter, however, was worse than an anonymous letter. It came from Such a source as ought not to be listened to for a moment. | THE CoMMANDER IN CHIEF. 583 The charge made against Major Turner was such a one as ought not to have been listened to. A brave and me- ritorious officer had been teazed and harassed in conse- quence of a letter from a woman, who publicly avowed herself to be the Duke of York’s mistress. ºb. had chosen to make himself a party in this unjust attack upon the character of Major Turner; and in this instance had proved that he was swayed by female influence in the dis- charge of his military }. In the case of Robert Kennet, he should only observe, that a considerable loan was attempted to be negotiated through this man for his Royal Highness, and that Kennet was recommended for a situation of trust by the Duke, al- though it was afterwards found impossible to give it to him on account of his bad character. Having now touched upon all the cases which had been in evidence, he should conclude by moving an address, which contained his sentiments upon the course the House. had now to pursue. He felt, that to the utmost of his power, and to the best of his judgment, he had discharged the duty which he had undertaken to perform. The coun- try would now be able to decide upon the charges he had brought against the Commander-in-chief; and to that decision, as far as it related to him, he should most wil- lingly submit. The House should also recollect, that their conduct would be judged by the country at large. Hav- ing made these observations, he concluded by moving an address to the following effect: “That an humble address, be presented to his majesty, humbly stating, that informa- tion had been communicated to them, and that evidence had been examined to prove, that various corrupt prac- tices and abuses had for a long time existed in the different departments of the military administration; and that the evidence which had been given had been entered on the records of Parliament ; that his majesty's faithful Com- mons had most carefully examined the evidence not only of the witnesses produced at their bar, but also of the written and official documents: and that it was with the utmost concern and astonishment that they felt them- selves obliged to state, that the result of their diligent and laborious inquiry was such as to satisfy them, that the existence of those corrupt practices, to a very great ex- tent, was fully established ; that they were restrained by motives of personal respect and attachment from lay- 584 PRoceedINGs. RELATIVE ro ing before his majesty a detailed account of those corrup- , tions and abuses, which could not fail to produce the greatest grief and indignation in his royal breast : that without entering into such detail, they must humbly re- present to his majesty, that if ever the opinion should prevail in the army, that promotion was to be obtained in any other way except by merit and services, such an opinion must tend materially to wound the feelings, and abate the zeal of the army, and to do it essential injury : that it was the opinion of his majesty's faithful Commons, that such abuses could not have existed to such an extent for so long a time, without the knowledge of the Com- mander-in-chief; but if, contrary to all probability, it should be presumed, that the Commander-in-chief was ignorant of these transactions, which prevailed to such an extent, and for so long a time, that presumption would not warrant the conclusion, that it was consistent with prudence that the command of the army should remain any longer in his hands. His majesty's faithful Commons, therefore, begged leave humbly to submit to his majesty, that the Duke of York ought to be deprived of the com- mand of the army.” Lord Folkestone seconded the motion. Mr. Burton, after apologising for obtruding himself so early, through the apprehension of being too much ex- hausted at a later hour, proceeded to this effect. “The habits of my life during the last thirty years having en- . gaged me pretty much in the investigation of criminal causes, I have thought it a duty to bestow my best atten- tion upon this important case; and I have done so, the rather, because few persons are unconnected as myself with the Commander-in-chief now under accusation. I never had the honour of exchanging a word with him ; and it so happens that I have not in the army any relation, any friend, or even any intimate acquaintance, nor any one for whom I have ever received, or can expect to receive a single favour. With his accuser I have had the honour of some acquaintance about twenty years, and had fre- quent occasion to admire the military talents and valour which he diplayed under the intrepid commander of a regiment that distinguished itself not a little during the unhappy rebellion in Ireland. I had also listened, perhaps, too much, to the current reports concerning the object of this inquiry. I certainly therefore sat down to ºf HE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 585 the consideration of it without any bias upon my mind in favour of the accused : but divesting myself of every pre- judice, I determined to pursue the strict line of duty by considering the case of the Duke of York as calmly and temperately as I would that of one of the meanest sub- jects in the court where I have the honour to hold a seat. Now, sir, if I can possibly hope to be of any use in the present deliberation it will be by stating the course I have taken towards forming an opinion and to bring my mind to its final conclusion. In the first place, therefore, I attended the examinations at the bar so much as to ac- quire as good an idea as was in my power of the manner in which all the witnesses delivered their testimony. In the next place I had read to me the whole of the evidence from the first word to the last, and much of it more than twice, in order to compare and reconsider what was most material. In such a mass of evidence, so mixed and so con- founded, the next step was to clear away all extraneous matter, so as to leave the real subject of investigation open to the view. And in order to this, I had first to ob- serve what was not submitted to our consideration, and to what it was limited. Now, sir, one thing which forms no object of our deliberation in the way of crime or pu- nishment is a circumstance which none of us can contem- plate without the deepest regret : I mean the breach of the marriage vow, I trust it will not be suspected that I am an advocate for the sin of adultery, or that I have any desire to excuse or extenuate it ; but this is no tribunal for the trial and punishment of that sin against the law of God; so that, how much soever we may lament, we must be cautious not to confound it with the proper subject of our deliberation, an offence against the laws of the land. This is to be sought in the report of the Committee: and we must recollect the limits of its inquiry. It was not directed to inquire into the general conduct of his Royal Highness with respect to recommendations to places not being under the influence of a Commander-in- chief, but was confined to his official acts respecting com- missions, exchanges, and promotions in the army. Con- sequently another thing to be laid out of the present con- sideration is all that concerns, mere recommendations to offices or emoluments not in the army, nor within the Duke's patronage, otherwise than as they may tend to throw any light upon the question before us. 586 PRoceedINGs RELATIve to Having thus laid aside these extraneous matters, my next step was to separate and throw aside so much of the evidence as is mere hearsay, or of such other descrip- tion as ought not to be received on any judicial proceeding. As there is much of this, if I should be asked why I neg- lected to object to it when it was offered at the bar 2 My answer is this ; the House, or the Committee whenever it is sitting, as the grand inquest of the nation, has to pursue two objects, one to examine and record proper evidence pro- duced before it ; the other, to exert all due means of dis- covering and acquiring proper evidence. And this lat- ter cannot be executed without asking questions of hear- say, and such others as may lead to the procurement of proper witnesses. It must therefore always remain a sub- sequent task to separate the chaff from the grain, and to strike out so much of the testimony as ought not to be received : I do not mean according to technical rules, but according to sound principles of justice. The next endeavour was to disencumber the case from the testimony of such of the witnesses as, however com- petent or admissible they may be, are nevertheless en- titled to no belief. An investigation this of some labour, the persons examined at the bar being no fewer in num- ber than 78. Of all witnesses it is required that they should speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; but of none is it more peculiarly expected than of such as ap- pear in the light of accomplices; and it may not be use- less that I should here state what I take to be an undeni- able rule respecting persons of that description. It is, that no man should ever be convicted of any of the higher crimes upon the testimony of accomplices, unless they shew themselves worthy of credit by consistency with themselves, and unless they are confirmed by other evi- dence not simply in their history of the offence, but par- ticularly in that link of it which connects the offence with the person accused ; for, without this indispensable ingredient, no man could be safe. Wherever an offence has been committed, the accomplice must necessarily know the whole transaction. If therefore he be desirous to accuse an innocent man, he would have nothing to do but to tell his tale accoording to the truth, except in the substitution of the innocent person for the guilty, and his end might be accomplished. Mutato nomine de THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 587 te fabula narratur. Suppose, for instance, a murder or burglary perpetrated by two or three, one of whom is ad- mitted king's evidence, and either to screen a friend or to revenge himself against an enemy, he accuses an in- nocent person in the stead of one of his guilty compa- nions, he has only to relate the crime just as it was com- mitted, and in all probability he will be confirmed in many of the circumstances. The time, the place, the number, the noises, the stolen goods, and so forth, are likely to be confirmed because they correspond with the truth : but if it were to be inferred from hence that he spoke the truth also in naming the partner in his guilt, without evidence to corroborate that particular point of his testimony, many an innocent man must lose his life, unless he had the good fortune to be able to prove an alibi. Once take away the cautionary rule and the danger would be end- less. I do not scruple therefore to assert, and I do it in the presence of many of my brethren, whom I challenge to contradict me, that every judge would advise a jury to lay the evidence of an accomplice entirely out of the case, and acquit the prisoner, if that evidence, however confirmed in the general circumstances, be not also cor- roborated by some unimpeached evidence to bring the offence home to the person of the prisoner. * But it is not the evidence of accomplices alone without confirmation which ought to be disregarded : other wit- nesses, who are falsified in material points to which their attention has been directed, are wholly undeserving of all credit, and their testimony ought equally to be set aside. The next endeavour, therefore, was to separate those of this description. I will not go through all their names, a few will be sufficient. Sandon and Donovan, the first of whom is suffering for his prevarication, need scarcely be called to the recollection of the House—nor can Mrs. Favery easily be forgotten, who not only contradicted her- self in various particulars within her own knowledge, but was contradicted by other unimpeachable witnesses. Among other falsehoods, remember what she said as to Mr. Ellis, with whom she had lived upwards of two years. That he was a carpenter in the city, who had a lodging in one street and a shop in another. That she did not know the name of either, nor could find her way to them. That the family were nearly all dead. That he was per- petually going about to screen himself from his creditors; 588 PRoceedINGS RELATIVE. To one time to Brighton, at another to Ramsgate, and another to Margate. All this she afterwards acknowledged to be a fabrication of her own. You find him to be a respect- able clergyman ; one of the masters of Merchant Taylor's school ; living in a settled abode; in circumstances un- embarrassed ; and never having once gone either to Mar- gate or to Ramsgate, but only to Brighton for the health of his children, as she well knew, and not for the purpose of screening himself from creditors. Be it also remem- bered, that in contradiction to her, as well as to Mrs. Clarke, it was proved by Mr. Ellis that Favery was visited by Mrs. Clarke, not once or twice only, but often and that the manner in which they treated each other, was that of persons living on terms of the most intimate familiarity. Every one must so well recollect the way in which Mrs. Favery contradicted herself, and was contradicted by others, and I think in no less than ten material circum- stances, that I should be ashamed to enter into a further recital of them. Such is her evidence that I will venture to say any judge would think he did a common prisoner an unpardonable injury if he stated it as worthy the con- sideration of a jury; so far at least as to affect him ; pro- bably indeed he would strike his pen through it. - Among the foremost of false witnesses stands also Mrs. Clarke, the accomplice. In her testimony is to be found an absolute tissue of falsehood. I have reckoned up my- self as many as twenty-eight positive assertions, in some of which she is contradicted by herself, in almost all by other unimpeached witnesses. I will not pretend to enu- merate all of them from memory, nor can it be necessary, but it will be remembered that when she was asked, whe- ther she ever represented herself as a widow her reply was, “never but in joke, ‘except once to Mr. Sutton at a court martial.” That assertion was clearly a direct falsehood. She gained credit with Mr. Few by talking of her late husband. To Mr. Nicholls she said her hus- band had been dead about three years. She was asked, whether she ever represented herself as Mrs. Dowler to which she positively replied in the negative. But it is proved that to some persons she was known in the cha- racter of Mrs. Dowler, and no other. She was so re- ceived into Mr. Read's hotel; he knew her only by that name, and heard her called by it. By that name the waiter had introduced her, she had answered to that name, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 589 and was not affronted at being called by it. . The porter had carried wine to her in Bedford-place, directed to Mrs. Dowler, which she had received without objection : and there was another instance of wine being sent to her by that name in Westbourne-place, nor at either, was it de- nied that Mrs. Dowler lived there. But above all, it can- not be forgotten that she made Mr. Nicholls believe that she was married to Mr. Dowler whilst she was, lodging at his house at Hampstead, and where Mr. Dowler ac- tually cohabited with her, but that it was to be kept a se- cret, as the Duke of York would send him abroad if it came to his ears. . I am desirous, however, to avoid tiring the House with repeating instances that must be fresh in their memory. I have only to assert that I have in my pocket a list of twenty-eight, which any gentleman is wel- come to inspect; and the witnesses contradicting her are twenty in number, thirteen of them, of unimpeached characters; in several particulars she is contradicted by two, and in some by so many as four, if not more... Tes- timony such as this, like that of Mrs. Favery, I am bold to assert would not be deemed credible against the meanest of his majesty's subjects in any court within the realm of England. Certain I am that, sitting judicially, I should have thought it my bounden duty, to declare to a jury, that so far as concerned the person accused, this testimony ought to be laid entirely out of the case. . Having thus then disencumbered the case of extraneous matter, not within the proper limits of our inquiry, of ir- relevant, of hearsay, and of false evidence, the next step was to apply the scanty remains, for most scanty and in- sufficient will they presently be found, to the several charges. In doing this, it will not be my endeavour to enter into a minute detail of the evidence; that I must leave to others of stronger memory, and who enjoy that blessing of which I am bereft, contenting myself with a few observations upon the more prominent features. - It is undeniable that abuses had existed. Mrs. Clarke and her accomplices have confessedly been guilty, up to the present time, of many foul practices; but how are any of them to be imputed to the Duke of York 2 That is the uestion. The first charge was that of Colonel Knight's erchange. Now it cannot be forgotten that this appears to have taken place according to the regular course of official business. 590 PROC EEDINGS RELATIVE To Upon Lieutenant-colonel Knight's original application, it was signified to him that permission would be granted whenever a proper substitute could be found. Lieutenant- colonel Brooke being afterwards proposed, it appeared that this gentleman had been seven years upon half-pay. An inquiry into his fitness was consequently necessary, and this gave, occasion to some delay; but no sooner had the result proved favourable, than the Commander-in-chief recommended the exchange, and it was fully compleated with all practicable expedition, in the regular course. All this was proved by the Duke's secretary, Colonel Gordon, a gentleman of the highest honour and integrity, and his memory, his exactness, his method, and regularity, and his readiness in the production of official papers were cer- tainly such as seemed to excite general admiration. The charge however is, that 200l. had been given as a bribe to Mrs. Clarke, with the Duke's knowledge, to accelerate the exchange. That the bribe was given cannot be doubted; for it is proved by Mr. Knight who gave it, the brother of the Colonel: but where is the evidence to fix the slightest knowledge or suspicion on the Commander-in-chief beyond the mere assertion of Mrs. Clarke 2 It was indeed asserted by her, that he procured the bank note itself to be changed for her on the night of his setting out for Weymouth, by one of his own servants. This attempt was made through the intervention of that famous witness Mrs. Favery. Lu- dowick, the only servant of the Duke, who ever attended at Mrs. Clarke's, never got change for that noſe, or any other : nor ever saw at her house any transaction of the kind, except once a small note he believes of about 10l., delivered by Mrs. Favery to a servant girl to get changed, and that was in a morning. This attempt prov- ing abortive, the next experiment was through Pierson, her own butler : but he, when first called, had no recollec- tion of any similar transaction, but merely of some notc, the amount unknown, given by Favery to Ludowick to get changed, about eight o'clock in a morning, some days before the going to Weymouth. A mistake altogether: and if not so, entirely inapplicable to the note in question, and inconsistent with Mrs. Clarke's story. However, on his second examination, after an interview with Mr. War- dle, his recollection was refreshed, his former loss of memory was attributed to a convenient head-ache, and he then remembered that not Ludowick but he himself was THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 59 | the person who changed the note; not with the wine-mer- chant, as had been said by Mrs. Clarke, but with the con- fectioner, and that he presently delivered the change to his mistress, who immediately put it into the hands of his Royal Highness. But whether it was 100l. or any other sum, he left in uncertainty, nor is there any thing to prove (Mrs. Clarke's word always excepted) that the note so changed was either the whole or any part of what had been received from Mr. Knight, much less that the Duke knew it to be so. Did she not receive notes from the Duke of York personally as well as under cover by the hands of Ludowick 2 Why should it not be presumed to be one of these, when there is not a tittle of evidence against it 2 What is there to particularize this as the note received from Mr. Knight? Was there even so much as a wink, or a nod, or a significant gesture to indicate that it was so 2 No ; no one whatever except Mrs. Clarke has fixed upon the Duke the slightest knowledge of any corrupt bargain. As to the exchange being in fact accelerated through the influence of Mrs. Clarke, the impossibility of it is proved out of her own mouth, for though it be true that that med- dling physician, Dr. Thynne, cannot precisely fix the time of his first application to Mrs. Clarke ; yet Mr. War- dle tells you that she, after considering it coolly in her chamber, positively ascertained it to be on the 25th of July : now you have only to look at the official documents, and Colonel Gordon's evidence, by which you will see that it received the Duke's approbation on the 23d, went to Weymouth on the 24th, had the king's fiat on the 25th, and returning too late for Saturday's Gazette, was gazetted on the 30th : so that the very first application to her was on the same day with the king's assent, and two days after the Duke had finally agreed to it. In short it is manifest that the end was accomplished two days prior to the very first application to her. Here then is a charge not only repugnant to the truth, but even refuted out of the mouth of Mrs. Clarke herself. Here too I should not omit another striking instance of her false assertions. Mr. Knight assures you of her express desire to have the matter kept a secret, lest it should come to the Duke's cars. This she has denied again and again, but it is proved again and again. She would have it believed that her desire was to keep it a secret from the public, not from the Duke. The question, therefore, being more than once repeated to Mr. 592 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO Knight, he as often emphatically affirms that the public was never named, but that the Duke was ; and that the reason she assigned was that his knowledge of it would prove fatal to her interest. Similar requests of secrecy on her part are likewise proved at other times by other wit- Il CSSCS. - I will not, therefore, occupy the attention of the House any longer with this subject, but come to another, that of Captain Maling which failed so entirely, that it had very nearly escaped my recollection. In this case I can recognize no corruption whatever. The charge is, an undue appointment with a view to favour a person with whom it is insinuated that the Duke was corruptly con- nected. It is that during the time of Captain Maling's holding the several commissions of ensign, lieutenant, and captain, he was nothing more than a clerk in Mr. Greenwood's office, where he might still be seen at his desk, possessed of no military merit, and without ever having joined his regiment. It will be enough to remind the House, that being selected at first as a promising young man by the commander of his regiment, his merits were such as not barely to recommend him to his subsequent promotions, but also to the favour of a dis- tinguished officer, General Frazer, who more than once solicited leave to take him as his aid-de-camp: and so far was he from continuing at the desk, that he has been constantly with his regiment and generally abroad. It has been endeavoured, however, to supply this entire failure of proof by an inquiry, whether at the time of Captain Maling's promotion there was not in the army a very considerable number of meritorious officers, senior to him. But let me ask the honourable member, than whom I believe there is no man more anxious for the welfare of the army, whether he means that the powers of promotion should be vested in the House of Commons instead of the Crown : At no one period and by no de- scription of persons, even by the most strenuous assertors of liberty, has this prerogative been denied. It is need- less to state the partialities, and I must say the corrup- tion, that might be expected to follow from urtisting that power to the deliberations of this House. Nor in truth would this fall materially short of taking at once from the crown the command of the army. Upon this topic I cannot easily forget a memorable expression of the great TIIE COMIMANDER IN CHIEF. 593 Lord Chatham. “ It would be,” he said, “to pluck the master feather from the eagle's wing.” In truth such an attack upon the prerogative would be ruinous and in- troductive of the partiality and corruption intended to be suppressed. - The next case was Colonel French’s levy; the charge being, that it was originally allowed and afterwards con- tinued to the detriment of the service, entirely through the influence of Mrs. Clarke, purchased by a large bribe to her with the Duke's knowledge. In this case there is perhaps, at the first view, something more of the semi- blance of proof than in any other: but the history of the transaction is sufficient to show that nothing reasonably could be objected to it in pointeeither of propriety or regularity. It was not the first time that officer had been employed in a similar service, and from his former ex- ertions it was fairly presumable that they might be re- peaſed with utility. His proposal was not accepted till after it had been fully scrutinized, and modified, con- siderably to his prejudice, in the usual course, by the proper officer, a gentleman by no means favourably in- clined to that mode of recruiting: and the subsequent alterations respecting the bounty were merely the neces- sary consequence of increased bounties given to the line. But it is urged that the Duke's knowledge of the presents made to Mrs. Clarke is in this case proved by Miss Taylor. But who is Miss Taylor How little credit is due to her testimony; and what are the few loose ex- pressions which she professes to remember 2 Surely the evidence of Mrs. Clarke's constant companion ought to be received with great caution. The solitary instance which she recollects upon any military subject, or any other, is to this effect : that the Duke of York once com- plained that French worried him continually about the levy, and turning to Mrs. Clarke, she thinks he said, “How does he behave to you, Darling " To which she answered, “Middling, not very well;" and the Duke re- plied, “Master French must mind what he is about, or I shall cut up him and his levy too.” Now, Sir, is it not a rule of ordinary justice, that if words are equally capable of two constructions, that sense shall be put upon them which is consistent with innocence. Indeed the opposite appears to meQ" overstrained and unna- 2 - 594 $f OCEEbi NGS RELATIVE To tural construction. To my understanding, the question obviously means, “does he worry you as he does me?” and to that question the answer may be true; whereas, in the imputed sense it is obviously otherwise, for he had already behaved more handsomely than she had any fight to expect. So much for the interpretation of vague words, which the witness only thinks she remembers. But let the House reflect upon the connection which is represented to have subsisted between Miss Taylor and the other parties. If she really was the bosom friend and frequent companion of Mrs. Clarke, and she was dis- tinguished by the Duke's fondness and familiarity; and if it is equally true, as Mrs. Clarke declares, that her corrupt practices were all communicated to his Royal Highness; let me ask, whether it is to be credited that this paltry evidence of Miss Taylor would be confined to a single ambiguous phrase, or whether she would not have been able to satisfy the House by confirming Mrs. Clarke in a thousand instances But it is further said, and with some plausibility, that though the grant of the levy might be regular and blameless, yet that it was con- tinued longer than it ought after it had failed, and after complaints against it had been transmitted from Ireland. But between the time of those complaints and Colonel French's final discharge, there elapsed only about two months, an inconsiderable time for further trial, and let ime appeal to the recollection of the House whether this was not a period that absolutely required every possible exertion to raise men for general service. The army of reserve and additional force acts were in full operation, and these two bills had greatly enervated the powers of recruiting. I may likewise appeal to gentlemen con- versant in East India affairs, whether there was not then wanting a large supply for the East Indies; which can only be made by recruits for unlimited service. So that every effort for that purpose, not absolutely hopeless, was worth the trial: yet after the short experiment of two months the Duke did discontinue the levy, though it was very injurious to Mrs. Clarke's expectations; because, ac- cording to the evidence of some, she had still to expect more than 600l., and according to others, who speak of a guinea a man, more than 3000! : whilst it might also be Yuinous to Colonel French, and provoke him to bring the T II E COMMANDER IN CHIIEF. 595 whole matter before the public. Let me then ask whe- ther this is consistent with any idea that the Duke of York could be acquainted with the corrupt bargain. The next case which presents itself is that of Tonyn's majority, in which it is certain that 2007, was paid to Mrs. Clarke: but it remains to connect that transaction with the Commander-in-chief. Yet after all the endea- vours to do so, it seems to me impossible. It is most evident that the promotion was obtained through the early recommendation of General Tonyn, his father, an old and deserving officer. It is as usual, I believe, as it is just and proper, to attend to similar recommendations. Due attention was paid to it in the present instance, and Captain Tonyn was consequently noted for promotion : but it did not in fact take place till an augmentation in the army gave occasion to a general and numerous ad- vancement, when the Duke of York directed Colonel Gordon to make out a list of officers who had been pre- viously noted for promotion. This list was accordingly prepared without favour or partiality to the number of about two hundred ; all gazetted together; among whom were no fewer than fifty-three for majorities, in- cluding the name of Captain Tonyn. Nor was he to be found the last on that list, there being as many as thirteen below him, some of them his juniors by one year, some by two, and one even by three. He himself indeed so thoroughly believed that he was duped by Mrs. Clarke, and considered her interference so nugatory, that he de- sired to have his deposit returned to him. And this brings me to the mysterious note, which is liable on many ac- counts to so much doubt, that in a case of life, liberty, or character, no judge would act so perilous a part as to advise condemnation upon such evidence. Supposing it conceded that the note is genuine, let me beg of gentle- men to read it, and see how it can be made with any cer- tainty to refer to any corrupt agreement. “I have just received your note, and Tonyn's business shall remain as it is. God bless you.” Why, Sir, is it necessary or pro- bable that this should refer to any corrupt agreement? Would the writer have been so absurd as to commit to paper that which would be evidence to his own condem- nation ? and could it be possible that Mrs. Clarke, with all her desire to impute guilt to his Royal Highness, would 2 (Q 2 596 * ROC EEI) I N G, S RELAT IV. L TO not have recollected it, or her own note to which it was an answer On the contrary, she had no remembrance even of the note itself. This alone may be considered as power- ful evidence that it bore no reference to the present ques- tion. It undoubtedly may, and probably does, refer to something else of a different nature, and perfectly inno- cent. And when I say it may, allow me again to remind the House, that in words capable of various constructions, justice and humanity both require that an innocent one should be preferred. But there is another circumstance that luckily attends this note, which comes out of the possession of Captain Sandon ; it is accompanied by his account of it, and, if the least credit can be due to any thing derived from this nest of false witnesses, this ac- count of his is an irrefragable proof that the note could not relate to the business in question. It will not be for- gotten that the note was produced in an envelope bearing the Dover post-mark. What says the witness 2 That he received it so wrapped up from the hands of Mrs. Clarke herself for the purpose of satisfying Captain Tonyn that it was of the Duke's hand-writing. Now only compare the date of this envelope (for the note is without date) with the date of the Gazette, and you will find that the note could not have been delivered till five days after his actual ap- pointment, and consequently far too late to answer its in- tended purpose; namely, to excite Captain Tonyn's appre- hensions that his appointment would be either frustrated or retarded. Thus, then, out of the mouth of one of these associates against the Commander-in-chief, have you a plain refutation of one of their own charges : nor is there any other evidence to support it. The next object of inquiry relates to Major Shaw ; and I believe gentlemen of the army will agree that it was not necessary for him to apply to Mrs. Clarke. Refer to the correspondence between General Burrard and Colonel Gor- don. Scarcely a month passed without a letter from the General, asking some favour for his brother officer; and nothing can be clearer than that this was finally granted in compliance with the intercessions, I may say, the im- portunities, of General Burrard. But it so happened that, instead of the appointment originally solicited, the office obtained was that of deputy barrack-master-general at the Cape of Good Hope: and here it is that the accusa- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 597 tion is changed. It is not now that this office was con- ferred from any corrupt motive; but that this gentleman, only because he had not paid to Mrs. Clarke as much as he had promised, was reduced to half pay, when in the regular line of his service he was entitled to his full pay. Yet you have only to refer to Colonel Gordon's evidence to see that this complaint is utterly groundless. It will there be found that a very few officers holding similar ap- pointments on the staff were continued on full pay; and that was in cases in which their regiments were stationed in the same places, which allowed them, the opportunity of executing their staff appointments without neglecting their regimental duty; but these were exceptions to the general rule, as appeared by a very considerable list of particular instances. It was moreover upon the express condition of being reduced to half pay that Major Shaw accepted the office of barrack-master; for it is stated in General Burrard's letter, that he had explained the con- dition to the Major, and that upon those terms he was willing to accept it. From the whole of this transaction, it is evident that Major Shaw was another dupe to the ar. tifices of Mrs. Clarke. That Major Shaw's relation so believed is plain from his testimony; and well he might, for if you read Major Shaw's letter of remonstrance to Mrs. Clarke, you will find him complaining that he was made a singular instance of reduction to half pay, stating particular instances to the contrary, and that the custom of the army was in his favour; to which he adds, “as you mentioned.” From whence it may fairly be conjec- tured that she, for the purpose of extorting money, had been persuading him that other persons in his situation had been put upon full pay, that it was his right, and that he might be restored to it. In all this was he mani- festly deluded. This same letter also furnishes another observation. In it he promises, that in case he should succeed in what he solicits, he would remit to her from the Cape 300l. a year. Now if it were true that the Duke of York was the partaker in any of these foul transactions, or that he connived at them, how easy would it have been for him to find some pretence for making an exception in Major Shaw's favour, or for complying with his other re- quest, when it was to secure Mrs. Clarke so large an an- nuity. Consider also the extreme absurdity of a Suppoa 508 p R O CEEDINGS R ELATIVE TO sition that the Commander-in-chief should be weak enough to reduce Major Shaw to half pay, coutrary to the rule ºf the servicc, by way of punishment for not paying the whole of his promised bribe, when by so doing he could not fail to exasperate that gentleman, and hazard his re- senting it by exposing such baseness to the public eye. In my view of every part of this charge, whatever corrupt motives may have existed in others, no man alive was a greater stranger to them than the Co emand r-in-chief. The only remaining charge is that of Samuel Carter : and I confess it to have been my hope that the honour- able member weuld have yielded upºn this point to the entreaties even cf Mrs. Clarke. If he had, he would not have been endeavouring to prop a falling case by adduc- ing an instance highly honourable in my mind to the Duke of York, and one that I should think could not be ressed into the service by any person of sentiment or }. Was the condition of this unfortunate orphan that of a mere outcast of society 2 Or was he not the real or adopted son of a meriorious officer who had lost a limb in his majesty's service When and by whom was he first recommended ? Was is by Mrs. Clarke, or through any other corrupt influence 2 No, Sir ; it was by the same gal- lant officer, Captain Sutton of the artillery, and in the year 1801; long before the connexion between Mrs. Clarke and the Duke of York. The application was not only made, but he was actually then noted for considera- tion on a proper opportunity. It is urged, however, that the commission must have been given in consequence of Mrs. Clarke's subsequent recommendation. Why so : Why should a promise once made require to be followed up by another recommendation ? Why is it not enough that the party himself, who certainly had the opportunity, might avail himself of it to remind his Royal Highness of his original promise 2 But his servitude is objected. It is true that, being a boy, he went once or twice behind the carriage when the footman was out of the way; but whether by night or by day is not ascertained. He also assisted the servants in some of the menial occupations. If this was permitted by Mrs. Clarke, I cannot commend her; but how does it appear that any thing of this sort was known to the Duke of York, who was not likely to see him, except waiting at dinner, where no servant in THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 599 livery made his appearance : and we know that pages and others of superior rank wait upon princes of the blood, and I believe that some claim it even as a privilege. He wore no livery, he received no wages, and what was his principal occupation ? It was going to school. It was proved in truth that, prior to this, Captain Sutton had himself bestowed much pains on his education; and let me appeal to his letters on the table, whether he appears to have been bred up as a servant, or whether they do not bear the genuine marks of a person educated to higher hopes and expectations : When the Duke saw the appear- ance of this youth, that he wanted neither education nor merit, and was worthy his protection, why was he not to be placed in the army 2 And I am not afraid to ask gen- tlemen of that honourable profession, whether many a one of less apparent worth has not been received into the ser- vice, and has not afterwards ranked among its greatest, ornaments : God forbid that this House should so far for- get its duty as to censure the appointment of such a person to a commission in the army, or that it should carry an address to the throne against the Duke of York for an act proceeding from the piirest motives, the dictates of hu- manity. * - . I beg pardon for having been longer than I intended upon these charges : but to dismiss them, and to pass by cases which do not seem to lie within the proper limits of our inquiry, I resort now to a few observations arising out of the probabilities of the case in general. . . Notwithstanding the want of a scintilla of evidence against the Duke of York, yet it is presumed that he was conusant of the corrupt proceedings, because by such alone Mrs. Clarke could have been enabled to carry on her expensive establishment. But surely it must be well known to many that persons of high birth, and not in the habits of comparing income with expenditure, find it mºst difficult to render the one conformable to the other, or indeed to form any judgment upon these matters. It hap- pens in fact that I remember to have been told near forty years ago, by one of the preceptors of the Duke of York and his royal brother, that though they were quick at learning, though it was easy to teach them Latin, or Greek, or arithmetic, they could not teach them the value of money. So impossible is it to inculoate this knowledge without the daily and ordinary means of practical expe. º 600 PRoc BEDINGs RELATIve to f rience. Besides this, undoubtedly very large sums were supplied by the Duke of York; upwards of 5000l. in notes ; and in payments to tradesmen for wine, furniture, and a variety of articles, to the amount in the whole of between 16 and 17,000l. and all within the space of little more than two years. Consider likewise the extent of Mrs. Clarke's debts. If you once suppose the existence of the conspiracy, and that the Duke was a party to it, how is it probable that there should have been any dis- tress for money, when there was a mill for making it con- stantly at work : There were then in the army as many as 10, or 11,000 officers. Numerous changes were going on every day in the year; and such is always the eagerness for promotion, that there never could exist a deficiency of persons ready to give ample premiums above the re- gulated price. Where then would have been the difficul- ty, through the management of such a woman as Mrs. Clarke, with her subordinate agents, to gratify her vanity and extravagance to the utmost, and to relieve her from the pressure of her pecuniary embarrassments : Another presumption in favour of the Duke fairly arises out of the manner in which he entered into the in- vestigation of Mrs. Clarke's conduct. For this purpose he employed Mr. Lowten, a gentleman of well known character for professional abilities: and though the result of his inquiry seems to have related only to credit which Mrs. Clarke had obtained from tradesmen by an impro- per use of the Duke's name, yet can it be supposed that if the Duke was really conscious of any foul practices which might naturally come to light in the course of this investigation, he would not have stifled the inquiry at the outset, rather than commit it to a person of so much acuteness and assiduity, and expose himself thereby to immediate detection. Above all, if so conscious, would he have ventured to discard Mrs. Clarke, to withdraw her annuity, to irritate her to the utmost, and to set all her threats at defiance 2 It is another, and an obvious ground of presumption, that if the Commander-in-chief had been any way dis- posed to corrupt practices, he would himself have been surrounded by corrupt agents: but had he not, on the con- trary, fenced himself round as it were against the acts of . designing men by such characters as General Brownrigg, / THE COMMAN DER IN CH1.E.F. 501 £olonel Lorraine, and the rest of his staff, too well known to need enumeration ? Let gentlemen reflect upon the high honour and integrity of Colonel Gordon, and the intimate confidence reposed in him by his Royal Highness, and let me entreat them to remark the particular time when this gentleman, the avowed enemy of army-brokers, was ap- pointed his secretary, and chosen, I may say, to be his bosom friend and the observer of all his actions. It was in the middle of the vear 1804, shortly after the very pe- riod at which the Duke is charged with having com- menced his nefarious traffic. Let me ask then whether this is reconcilcable to any principle of human conduct? And whether if the Duke's views had been dishonourable, or had required concealment, he would ever have selected such an adviser, or would, particularly at that moment, have placed this upright and watchful guard so near his erson 2 - - I fear that I have omitted several points, but my en- deavour has been to investigate this case without favour or affection, exactly as I would have done that of the meanest individual brought before me in my own court. It may perhaps be imputed to me that I have some wish to conciliate the favour of the crown : against such im- putations I can only say that if gentlemen will consider my years, and my peculiar circumstances, I believe they will find very few who have so little to hope, and so little, to fear on this side of the grave. It is indeed beyond it that I have been looking. It is to that tribunal before which we must all account for our actions here ; and with that awful scene in contemplation, I am prepared to pro- nounce my sincere opinion, that there is no ground for any of the charges. Allow me to add a very few words upon the address which has been just moved. It appears to me to be cruel and unjust, and inconsistent with the dignity of parlia- ment. The address states (if I caught it correctly) that many corrupt practices have been proved, but without ascribing to the Duke of York, positively and with cer- tainty, any participation in these practices, or any know- ledge of them; yet the deduction it seems to draw is, that he ought to be removed from his office : and still the House seems to decide nothing, but rather to leave it to the consideration of his majesty. Now it appears to me 602 proceed INGs RELATIve to to be cruel and unjust, forasmuch as it leaves the person accused in needless suspense ; and, besides being unsup- ported by the evidence, it does not even profess to ascer- tain the nature, or the degree of guilt imputable to him ; nor if a majority should agree to the address, how many may do so for one reason, and how many for another, quite different, and nearly the reverse. In my mind it is also inconsistent with the dignity of parliament, because it throws upon his majesty the hard task of deciding for himself what ought to be done, instead of pursuing the inquiry to its proper determination : and it thereby ac- knowledges that this House is either unable or unwilling to fulfil one of its most important duties. Disapproving, however, of this address as much as I do; I am by no means inclined to assert that the immoral connexion, which has led to so many "unhappy consequences, ought to pass wholly unnoticed : on the contrary, the occasion seems to require some expression of regret that the Com- mander-in-chief should have deviated so widely from those habits of domestic virtue, of which his royal parent has furnished, to the blessing of this country, so bright an ex- ample. * - Mr. Curwen moved that the question might be read, which being done, he said it appeared that it was sug- gested the Duke of York was privy to the transactions. He then proceeded to observe, that the honourable and learned gentleman who had just sat down, had thought it necessary, both at the beginning and conclusion of his ar- gument, to make professions of the purity of his motives. For his own part, he should make no professions of the kind, but leave his conduct to answer for itself. This question was, in his opinion, one of the highest import- ance that had ever been submitted to the consideration of the House. In speaking of and investigating the cha- racters of the ministers of the day, every gentleman found it an easy matter to form his opinion, and to express his sentiments; but in the question now before them it was very different, and required them to be much more expli- cit in their reasons. In the present case, it did not seem to him to be necessary to prove that the money went di- rectly into the pockets of his Royal Highness. It was sufficient that he was at all privy to the transactions which gave occasion to this corruption. Hf he would be so imprudent as to commit himself to the guidance or incites THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 605 ments of such persons as those with whom he had been connected, he must expect his conduct would, by all im- partial and independent minds, be judged of accordingly; and in forming his (Mr. Curwen's) opinion on this case, he was by no means bound to stand up for the purity of Mrs. Clarke, but to take her evidence as it stood, contiect- ed with and corroborated by other testimony, over which she could have no kind of influence or control. He owned he was astonished at the arguments of the honourable and learned gentleman, who was a judge, and who had pro- fessed to deliver them as if sitting on the bench of justice in the court where he presided. He (Mr. Curweg) be- lieved there was not a man in that House who did not sincerely, from his heart, wish most devoutly, from the commencement of this business to the present moment, that the Duke of York might be cleared even of a shadow of suspicion. The honourable and learned gentleman had in the course of his speech paid a compliment to the can- dour and fairness with which the honourable gentleman who brought forward the charges had throughout the whole business conducted himself. He thought no com- pliment was ever better merited than that which the learn- ed gentleman had so justly bestowed; and he was sure that not only that House but the whole country would allow he had undertaken a most arduous task, which he had executed with the greatest coolness, candour, and ability, in which he had done himself the highest honour. With respect to the question then before the House, the first thing he would wish to call their attention to was Colonel French's levy. He could not conceive that any thing could, in the nature of things, be stronger than Colo- nel Taylor's letter on that subject; and, after he had stated that each man would cost government 150l. to con- tinue it for three-months more was a line of conduct which was very unbecoming a commander-in-chief, and shewed there must have been some overweening interest by which he was guided. What was the case of the note which had so strangely in his mind been called a mysterious note 2 Colonel Gordon, when called upon, had evinced to every member in the House, who attended to him, that he gave his evidence on that paper as he would have given his heart's blood. General Brownrigg seemed to be equally affected. In short, from the whole evidence on that pa- per, he could not but say, that in his conscience he sin- 604 PROCEED ING's RELATIy E. To cerely believed that note to be in the hand-writing of the Duke of York, and that it went to put a stop to the progress of Major Tonyn's promotion at the time he was desirous to withdraw his money. If he understood the purport of that note, the Committee should not have proceeded as if they were trying a person at the Old Bailey, and deter- mined not to travel out of the record, but should have fairly and fully investigated every circumstance which could by possibility have elicited the truth. He thought the correspondence of General Clavering proved that his case was one to which his Royal Highness was privy ; for the whole was couched in such a style as to convince his mind, from the haste which was expressed for thc answers to General Clavering's letters, that it was a sub- ject which had been repeatedly urged, and was by no means one of common conversation. The next case was that of Colonel Shaw, which to him appeared to carry a strong evidence of a corrupt bargain. The honourable and learned gentleman had said, there was an offer of a certain sum of money; why did they not take it The reason was evident, viz. because they had ceased to pay that sum, and from that circumstance arose the putting him on half pay. The honourable and learned gentleman had said the princes did not know the value of money. He believed so—if they had, they would not have suffer- ed any person to go on expending money, when there. was nothing to pay withal; but this utter contempt for the value of money, and being also, as the learned gen- tleman observed, averse to accounts, was no great argu- ment in favour or recommendation of a Commander-in chief. The learned gentleman had said, how could there be a want of money—was there not a mill for money 2 No, it was only a wind-mill, which could not go but on particular occasions, when certain circumstances favoured them with a breeze to set it going. When he looked at this question gravely, he found that though it was a pain- ful and a dreadful sentence the House had to pass, it was absolutely necessary. No party spirit should ever influ- ence him; but he felt, in the most impressive manner, that the character of the country was its defence, and that the House were the guardians and protectors of that character. What ought to be the conduct of that House on the present occasion ? It should shew the country that when a matter of such high importance was brought bes THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 605 fore it, the highest subject in the country would be treated with the same measure of justice as the lowest subject would be ; that the scales would be held with an equal hand; and that those who were found guilty of corrupt practices should be punished, be their rank what it might. The country looked for it, and the House should shew they did not look in vain. It had been said, there were conspiracies of Jacobins. He believed there were no Ja- cobins; but where it was evident that abuses and corrup- tions existed to a very great degree, no wonder the people of the country should be dissatisfied. They were obliged to submit to great privations ; yet he believed if such moderate reforms were agreed to be made as to give them hopes that the affairs of the country would be properly administered in future, the country would be quiet and contented. The honourable and learned, gentleman had spoken with great feeling on the situation of Samuel Car- ter, as being recommended by a meritorious officer. He thought, however, the case of Carter was one of those which tended materially to disgust the army, and to weaken the zeal and spirit of all ranks in that profession. These are not times, continued he, to shut our eyes against cor- ruption—its effects were most highly injurious, and it be- hoved us to meet them boldly and endeavour to over- throw them. He, for one, was convinced of the necessity of this, and should therefore give his cordial assent to the motion which had just been made by the honourable gen- tleman. The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, he wished to have offered himself to the attention of the House as soon as the honourable gentleman had concluded his motion, had he not observed his honourable and learned friend rise to offer his sentiments on the subject; and he felt that, from his character, his talents, and his years, he was en- titled to the previous attention of the House; and he was very glad he had so given way, as otherwise the fatigue and other inconveniencies attendant on, a further delay of hearing him, might have prevented the House from re- ceiving the benefit of one of the most able, important, and interesting speeches which had ever been delivered in it. He wished, however, as early as possible, to bring the House to what was the real ground of the question before them. The House would recollect, that when the charges were brought forward against the Duke of York by the ‘506 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO honourable gentleman, he stated that he would undertake to prove that his Royal Highness had been guilty of di- rect and base corruption. On that ground the House had agreed to the inquiry, and on that ground it was the duty of the House to pronounce the judgment directly on that charge of Guilty, or Not Guilty; it was absolutely ne- cessary they should not fight shy on the subject. The honourable gentleman who spoke last had stated, that if there were corruptions, they should not shut their eyes against them. He agreed to this : it was the duty of the House to hunt them out wherever they were to be found, and consign them to the infamy they merited. It was hard to say, that because his Royal Highness had received intimation that French's levy would cost the country 150l. a man, and had continued it for three months afterwards, that he had therefore been influenced by corrupt motives —he, who had for sixteen years served the country at the head of the army, who had improved its discipline, and made it what it then was. It was extremely hard and un- fair that the House should, by agreeing to the proposed motion, address his majesty, to remove him from the situa- tion he then held, without first coming to a resolution of guilty, or not guilty, of the offence with which he had been charged. He begged the House to recollect who it was they would endeavour to turn out, almost the first subject in the kingdom, and he hoped they would pause, before they committed an act that would disgrace the House of Commons. He was sorry to observe, that the generous, open, candid, and manly feelings of the honourable gentle- man who brought forward the charges, had been led away, so as to be prevailed on by the advice of cooler heads than his, and persons who meant more than he did, to frit- ter them down in the way that had been done by the mo- tion of that night. He could not be supposed desirous of going out of his way to compliment the honourable gen- tleman; but as the present motion was so very different from what he had given reason to suppose he would bring forward, in consequence of the direct charges he had made, he felt it to be his duty to propose to the House, to say directly and distinctly, whether the Duke of York had been guilty of the corruption or connivance of which he had been accused, and for that purpose would tender an amendment or resolution, on which the House might determine that question. His first impression cer- THE CO M M A N DER IN CHIEF. 607 tainly was, that it was a mischievous encouragement to hold out that there were grounds of a charge of corrup- tion, merely because it appeared as the accusation of pamphlets. It was, however, humiliating to suppose, that the Duke of York would, for the sake of such con- siderations as had been mentioned, conspire against the public, and that for the support of an expensive and adul- terous intercourse. He never could believe it, and was convinced the royal personage alluded to was as clear as he was. He could not, however, consent to the present mode. If the charge could really be substantiated, the proper mode would be to carry up their accusation to the bar of the House of Lords at once, and proceed to an im- peachment. It would be severe indeed, to cast upon his majesty a task which the Commons themselves would not undertake to perform. There were, he thought, two courses for the House to pursue; first, to see whether the charges were proved; and then to inquire what mode they ought to adopt in consequence. The one question was a judicial, the other a discretionary, one. Now, as to the grand point of guilt, this could only be ascertained from the evidence: if Mrs. Clarke was believed, there could be no doubt upon the subject; it was proved with every aggravation, even that of original sin; for she had deposed that her intentions were never once pointed at corruption, until the Duke told her she had greater in- fluence than the queen, and that if she was clever she would never ask him for money. This circumstance he wished the House to keep in view, particularly as Mrs. Clarke had herself lost sight of it. She had confessed that she asked the Duke for money after this, although she, according to her first account, had commissions at her disposal. Now what degree of credibility could possibly be attached to her; She was in the first place an accom- plice, and therefore her testimony required corroboration: he could not help saying, that, considering her charac- ter, story, and total conduct, he never saw a witness to whose veracity he would not be more inclined to “lean. Here he could not help noticing an expression which fell from a noble lord on the late examination, and which im- plied that she was a most respectable witness—it was a surprize. s - lord Folkestone rose to order. He hoped, when his 608 PROCEEDINGS RELATIYE TO expressions were alluded to at all, they would be correctly uoted. The Chancellor of the Erchequer agreed in this opi- nion, and had no possible wish to misrepresent, but he certainly understood the noble lord to have called Mrs. Clarke a most creditable witness. Now how this could be asserted after all she had told of her life and character; after confessing she had used the Duke’s name; after own- ing she called Mr. Maltby as her Duke of Portland, and passed him off as the real Duke to others, he was at a loss to discover, and never could accede to. He was the more firm in his opinion when he considered that taking ad- vantage of the Duke's passions, she had duped and deceived him, and picked up little trifling circumstances, connected with his military situation, which she was af- terwards to use as much to his hurt as she could. Her own story condemned her; for surely it was not probable that if, as she said, the Duke had so much intrusted her, and put himself so completely in her power, he would aſ- terwards causelessly dismiss her, and, even on her threat, cancel her annuity. If he was guilty, no doubt he would have conciliated her; and his absolutely braving her as he had done, was a very strong presumption of his inno- cence. She was an accomplice, then, confessing her own disgrace; she was inconsistent, or at least strange, in her story; and she came forth avowedly for the purpose of re- venge. He lamented the opportunity which had been given her by withholding the annuity; but he fully ap- proved of the course which had been pursued subsequently to the threat. This course, which the Duke knew would lead to an exposure of very delicate private scenes, he, however unpleasant, took, rather than descend from his dignity, and compromise his character. Let her whole course even of examination be viewed. When questioned on material points, she invariably turned off from the sub- ject, and never failed to introduce new matter by the sal- lies of her wit, and elude the interrogation. This he could say was her plan with him (a laugh); when hard pressed, however, her memory immediately failed her. The House had indeed been particularly lenient to her—it had forgot her vice in her pleasantry—her infamy in her wit. The remembrance of this, however, should make it more cau- tious now, when on the grave question of her veracity. The very circumstances she had disclosed condemned her, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 609 or at least shewed that she took the advantage of the Duke's weakness, to extort trifles which she laid up to in- jure him hereafter. Who was there that might not have been at some period of his life liable to such weakness, to such confidence in such a woman And would any one consider justice had been rendered to him, had he been condemned on the trifles which he might have disclosed to her in the moment of undisguised and thoughtless confidence 2 This weakness he did not mean to pal- liate; but if he had been attended to when he wanted, on a former occasion, to make the offence a crime, it would not, perhaps, have been so lamentably common as the bills this session from the House of Lords had shewn it. The right honourable gentleman next proceeded to notice the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, which had been in its leading points contradicted by, as he thought, more creditable witnesses. It was from light and trivial circumstances of contradic'ion that the evi- dence of a witness was to be appreciated. The right honourable gentleman adverted to Mrs. Clarke's passing under the name of Dowler; and asked if, after the mid- night-plot between Mr. Dowler and her, in which their testimony was squared together, the House could consent to whip a dog upon such evidence, much more could they coilsign to infamy a personage of his Royal Highness's rank and station ? If the cases were looked at without that mi-chievous infusion, the testimony of Mrs. Clarke (and without that, the right honourable gentleman con- tended they must be looked at), there was not a single circumstance to support the charge of corruption against his Royal Highness. The right hon. gentleman thought it upon the whole a miracle, that among the numerous commissions and proa motions that were given and made, during Mrs Clarke's connection with his Royal Highness, amounting, at 4:100 a year, to 10,000, there were so few in which the informa- tion she must necessarily have been able to pick up about them could be construed into her influence upon them, and that those few were capable of so ready an explana- tion. That of Major Tonyn was the only one which could not be quite satisfactorily explained, owing to the note which had been brought forward ; but the right honourable gentleman trusted he should show that there was falsehood somewhere oºls in that case, although 610 Tº ROCEE?) INGS # EY. AT ( V (, Tó it could not be defected. If there was no one case but this, and even this was incapable of proving guilt, though it might not exactly demonstrate innocence, the conclu- sion to which the House must come, would be the same as that of any other court of justice upon the same evidence. The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to go through the cases separately, and commenced with the exchange of Colonels frooke and Knight. In this affair, he disbelieved Mrs. Clarke's application to the Duke. She knew there was a negotiation pending, and she asks 200l. to be paid her if it succeeded ; upon this success she takes the money, but this success was not the conse- quence of her interference, for it was proved by documen- tal evidence, that Colonel Gordon was satisfied that this cxchange was a proper thing to go on, and as such he re- ported it to the Duke. The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to trace the history of the 200l. of which Mrs. Clarke said the Duke knew, and got it changed ; and to expose the contradiction of Pierson, the butler, who was called to prove the circumstance of this change- ment. Every particle of Mrs. Clarke’s story on this sub- ject the right honourable gentleman contended was not only not proved, but disproved, and contained pregnant evidence of her false invention to calumniate the character of the Duke of York. The right honourable gentleman then went into the case of Colonel French's levy; and here he impeached the testimony of Miss Taylor. Putting out of the question her contradictions respecting the name under which her father had passed, she had been for many years a friend of Mrs. Clarke, and this intimacy alone was against her. She came before the Committee, too, as having imposed upon the public by keeping a boarding school for the education of young ladics in morals, to which the daugh- ters of any member in the House might unwarily have been sent. The evidence of Miss Taylor, supposing her previous character to have been ever so good, was too much like that of a conspiring witness. She came with a few point-blank facts and speeches, and there she stopped. She recollected what happened four years ago, but was totally at a loss to remember what happened four weeks ago. She had got one story by heart, and was afraid to tell any thing else, lest she might contradict other testi- mony, which it was her wish to confirm. The right THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 611 honourable gentleman than urged the improbability of the Duke’s placing himself in the power of Miss Taylor, or using such language as had been attributed to him in the presence of a third person; and, after all, perhaps the words might have been the result of peevishness and im- patience of Colonel French’s importunity; and the Duke asks Mrs. Clarke, if Colonel French was as troublesome to her. The word “middling” could not easily allude to any money transactions, for Mrs. Clarke had got a great deal more than she was entitled to by the levy, and was anxious to feed it. She had pocketed 1300l. and was that “ middling * Mrs. Clarke meant, “ Colonel French may teaze you, but he behaves very tolerably to me.” Upon this, and other considerations of this case, the right honourable gentleman could not be brought to believe that the Duke of York participated in any part of the profits of the levy, and was wholly free from corruption on this head. The next part of the evidence to which he would advert was the note produced by Sandon, and sup- posed to have been written by the Duke of York, for the purpose of being shewn to Major Tonyn, and which had excited so much anxiety. Much evidence had been adduced to warrant a belief, on the one hand, that the note had been written by his Royal Highness; and on the other, there was much ground for inducing the House to pause at least, before they concluded that the note was really written by the Duke of York. That it bore strong resemblance to the hand-writing of his Royal Highness, was certainly proved ; but if the motives were considered which might induce Mrs. Clarke to con- trive any stratagem in her power for ºuieting the appre- hensions of those from whom she was in the habit of ob- taining money, under colour of exerting her influence, there could be no great difficulty for a woman, herself proved to be so expert at imitating the Duke's hand- writing, and possessed of so many of his Royal Highness’s letters, in which there were so many similar words found, to fabricate so short a note. If the House believed there was any such thing as forgery, here were the very circum- stances under which it was the most likely to be commif- ted ; and, therefore, notwithstanding the great similitude between this note, dubious as it was, and the known hand-writing of his Rºy ºnes, the House would 612 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To . ; exert a becoming discretion in not yielding too easily its credit to the identity of the hand-writing as that of the Duke of York, without a more minute attention to colla- teral circumstances, although he was ready to allow the balance of evidence was rather in favour of such identity. But what was the testimony of Mrs. Clarke herself on this point? Why, her memory was quite a blank, as to the existence of any such note. She had not the slightest re- collection of ever having received it; and still less of hav- ing given it to Mr. Sandon, whom she believed to be a person very capable of fabricating such a note. It was, in ct, no part of her case; and the only evidence respect- ing the identity of this note, or the meaning it was in- tended to express, was Sandon’s own. Without his con- struction, the note meant nothing. The House, if they chose to credit such a construction, might go further; they might let loose their imagination, and invent conjec- tures to fit-in and dove-tail with any part of the criminal charge against his Royal Highness. But he begged to remind them that to decide on such ground would not be a decision by evidence, but conjecture. (Hear! hear !) This note, too, was contained in an envelope addressed to George Farquhar. But if this note had been given to him by Mrs. Clarke, it would have been addressed to her- self. Supposing, however, the note to have been written by the Duke himself, what then Was any thing more likely than that, without the most distant suspicion, on his part, of any sinister intention, he might have been in- duced by the address of Mrs. Clarke to write such a note, for the mere purpose of ridding her for a short time of the importunity of her friend, by quieting his apprehen- sions for the present. . At least if conjecture was to stand in the place of evidence, on one side, it was as fair to as- sume it on the other: and he had as much right to assume this conclusion from the note, as those who would accuse his Royal Highness had to invent for it a criminal con- struction. Here the right honourable gentleman declared himself, at so late an hour, exhausted ; although he had not done to the cause he advocated half the justice he wished—(a general exclamation of adjourn; adjourn.) He would not however shrink from his duty, but proceed, if the House were disposed to hear him. (Adjourn; ad- journ; from all sides.) He was still ready to accede to THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 633 the wishes of the House by deferring what he wished fur- ther to say, until a future opportunity. But before he sat down, he asked leave to submit to the House shortly his view of the case, in the shape of the resolutions he meant to propose, in place of those offered in the motion, and which were in substance, as follow : “That certain charges having been brought forward, imputing to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, acts of criminal misconduct and corrupt connivance at abuses, in his capacity as Commander-in-chief, the House felt it a duty to refer such charges to the inquiry of a Commit- tee of the whole House, to examine evidence thereon, and report the same. * “That it was the opinion of the House, upon the fullest consideratiºn of all the evidence reported to them by the said Committee, that there was no just ground to charge his Royal Highness with personal corruption or criminal conniyance at such abuses, in his capacity of Commander- in-chief.” If the House should agree with him in these resolutions, he should then propose an address to his majesty, in- cluding these resolutions, instead of the address request- ing his majesty-fo remove his Royal Highness from his office as Commander-in-chief, for his eminent services to his country, and the important regulations and high state of discipline attained by the army under the auspices of his Royal Highness; for he believed in his conscience, that if his Royal Highness were removed from his com- mand, there would not be found in the country a man of adequate abilities to discharge its important duties. The -address he proposed should state to his majesty, that in consequence of such charges being made against the Duke of York, his faithful Commons had felt it their duty to in- quire, in the most solemn manner, into the truth or false- Hood thereof, and that after the fullest inquiry, his faith- ful Commons had come to those resolutions, which they beg leave to lay at the foot of the throne, to relieve his majesty's mind from the anxiety and solicitude unavoid- ably exeited for the honour and character of a son so dear to his majesty in the high capacity of Commander- in-chief of his majesty’s armies. His faithful Commons, sensible of the many and important regulations instituted under the auspices of his Royal Highness, to prevent 614 PROCEEDINGS RELATI W E TO abuses in the army, could not but extremely regret that a connexion should ever have existed under which such transactions should have taken place, as to expose his Royal Highness's name to be coupled with acts so highly dishonourable and criminal; and professing their hope that after the strong regret already expressed by his Royal Highness, his conduct would, in future, be guided by the bright example of those eminent virtues which have uni- formly distinguished his majesty's life, and has justly en- deared his majesty to all his subjects.-Adjourned. Thursday, March 3, 1809. The order of the day was read for resuming the ad- journed debate upon the conduct of the Commander-in- chief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer apologized to the House for the length at which he found it necessary to trespass on their attention. Having in the former part of his speech, dismissed the cases of Knight and Brooke, Sandon and Tonyn, he recollected nothing more which he felt it necessary to add on those heads ; and the next to which he should proceed was that of Colonel French and his levy. That gentleman was now filling a situation in ihe West Indies, to which he was appointed three years subsequent to the cessation of the levy; but this appoint- ment did not appertain to any thing connected with it ; and as to his appointment to the inspecting colonclship of a district after the levy was at an end, it was only placing Colonel French in a similar situation to that which he held previously to his being employed on the recruiting service; and therefore the manner in which his Royal Highness had made an end of that levy, was of itself strong evidence of the falsehood of those insinuations of corrupt concurrence, so maliciously urged against him on that head. If those imputations had the least foundation in truth, would not his Royal Highness have been anxious to make Colonel French some amends for the sudden discon- tinuance of a service so lucrative to him, though so enor- mously expensive to the public, by giving him some other situation equally profitable : This, however, was by no means the case. It appeared that an inquiry had taken place, in consequence of a complaint from General Taylor, THE COMMAN DER IN CHIEF. 615 that the recruiting service for the levy was not produc- tive in any proportion to its expence. This complaint originated in Colonel French himself; who states that his success is interrupted by other recruiting officers for dif- ferent regiments. Ireland is then proposed as a field where success was more probable. The original aid agreed on in the letters of service, was forty-five recruiting serjeants, and ten commissioned officers. Colonel French proposes an increase of these to sixty-three serjeants, which he is allowed, on condition that within a given time it shall ap- pear that their progress in recruiting was more rapid. This trial, however, also failed ; for, on the 2d February 1805, aletter was addressed, by order of his Royal Highness, from General Whitelocke to Colonel French, complaining of the very little progress made in recruiting for the levy, and adding, that unless the increase was very considerable by the ensuing 1st of April, his Royal Highness would feel the necessity of recommending to his majesty the dis- continuance of the levy as unproductive. On the 14th of April following, another letter from General White- locke is addressed to Colonel French, complaining again, not only of the unproductiveness of the recruiting service for the levy as compared with its expence, but of the dis- graceful conduct of the non-commissioned officers employed therein, as represented by the inspecting field-officer of the London district; and stating, that he had submitted to his Royal Highness the propriety of discontinuing a levy so burthensome and unproductive ; and accordingly it appears by a letter from the Commander-in-chief to the Secretary at War, that an end is put to the levy alto- gether, for the reasons previously stated : but the ho- nourable gentleman, in that part of his speech last night which refers to this subject, glances slightly over the fact, but omits to state the strong motives on which it was founded. Indeed from the whole tenor of his Royal High- ness's conduct respecting this levy, from its origin to its dissolution, was there a single title of evidence to prove any concurrence upon his part with any thing of a clan- destine and sinister nature that night have been going on between Mrs. Clarke and Colonel French or Captain San- don 2 The next point to which he would advert was, the case of Colonel Shaw, to which he conceived it extremely material that the House should attend ; as in that case 616 PROCEE}}INGS RELATIVE TO would appear as much falsehood, as in any other part of the imputations brought forward. He begged leave to refer gentlemen to the evidence of Mrs. Clarke as to Colo- nel Shaw, in which it would appear from her answers, that the Colonel had applied to her to procure for him an appointment, through the medium of his Royal Highness the Duke of York; namely, that of a lieutenant-colonel ; for which, though she could not immediately recollect the sum he promised her for the reward of her success, she yet believed it to be 1000ſ. That, in consequence, she acquainted the Commander-in-chief with the offer, and applied for the appointment. That Colonel Shaw wished to be colonel of the Manx corps in the Isle of Man, where his father had been deputy governor. That she applied for this, but did not succeed, because there were stronger claims in another quarter. That she afterwards applied, on his behalf, for the situation he now holds, barrack- master-general at the Cape of Good Hope, for which she received 500/. of which she recollected to have had 300!, from Colonel Shaw, and 200l. more brought by some man whom she understood to be a clerk of Coutts's, but had a great mind to send it back, thinking it would be made public. But that, not being satisfied with this 500l. she made a complaint to the Commander-in-chief, in conse- quence of which his Royal Highness said he had told her all along she had a very bad man to deal with ; that she ought to have been more careful; and that he would put him on half-pay. She was asked if she knew he was put on half-pay in consequence; and her answer was, that he sent her several letters complaining, but she did not trouble herself much with reading them. One of the letters she gave in that night, she believed ; but she thought him already too well off for his conduct to her. Now it appears from the document to which she refers, and which was a letter not sealed, not in envelope, and only addressed to Mrs. Clarke, at the bottom of the sheet, that he promises her, instead of the 500l. an annuity of three hundred pounds a year out of the profits of his place. Was it to be supposed, then, that Mrs. Clarke, when offer d an annſtity of 300l. per annum, had any cause to complain of Colonel Shaw, who, according to her OWIl statement, was in arrear to her only to the amount of 500'l. 2 It was obvious from all the circumstances of the case, that, as Mrs. Clarke had no power to accomplish the object of THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 617 Colonel Shaw, which was inconsistent with the practice of the army, she affected only to make light of an offer which must have been an object to one in her situation. Now would any person believe a word of the testimony of this woman, as to her obtaining, through her influence upon the Commander-in-chief, the office of barrack- master at the Cape for Colonel Shaw, on her having pre- viously applied for his promotion, or communicated to his Royal Highness the offers made to her on that account, if he would but advert to the correspondence of Colonel Shaw himself, in which he acknowledges with the most heart- felt gratitude the attainment of his appointment through Sir Harry Burrard, from an old friendship to his father; and the letter of Sir Harry Burrard immediately previous, where he expressly refers to a letter of Major Shaw himself, most thankfully accepting the appointment of barrack- master at the Cape, upon the express condition of being put on half-pay. The next case to which he would advert was that of Dowler, the whole circumstances of which stood on the single evidence of Mrs. Clarke. Several sums were said to have been paid by this man to Mrs. Clarke : but it was apparent, in the course of evidence, that he and she had been in the habit of passing notes and raising money fer each other, and therefore that those sums were not paid to her for any appointment obtained for him. Besides, the House had the evidence of one of its own members (Alder- man Coombe), that the appointment was obtained through the interest of Sir Brook Watson, and not through the in- terest of Mrs. Clarke, who, it was evidenf, must have in- vented the story for the purpose of establishing guilt against his Royal Highness. While he thus vindicated the character of the Commander-in-chief against the im- putation of a wilful and corrupt conniv ince at such trans- actions, he hoped the House would never join in the con- demnation of his Royal Highness's conduct, upon the evidence of a woman so frequently, so palpably, and so respectably contradicted, He was aware of the clidea- vours, every where insidiously exerted to poison the public mind against his Royal Highness, and to excite against him public prejudice and public odium. Even the publication of the examinations which took place in that House, er parte, and from day to day, in diurnal and other periodical publications and pamphlets, accompanied 1618 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO by the most insidious and inflammatory comments, would of themselves be sufficient cause to induce any court of justice to suspend the trial of the humblest individual for the most petty criminal charge, until the prejudices thus excited should have time to subside : He hoped, therefore, the House of Commons would not decide by clamour, prejudice, and misrepresentation, but by a fair and im- partial examination of evidence on both sides. The next case that occurred was that of Mr. Elderton, for whom Mrs. Clarke states herself to have obtained a paymastership; and a letter from this person to the Com- mander-in-chief is produced, cs pressing thanks to his Royal Highness for obtaining for the writer leave of absence from General Abercrombie; but it remained to be asked, whether or not that letter might not be another instance of Mrs. Clarke's artifice. It is found where it ought not to be found. It has no superscription, nor seal, nor envelope,and is merely addressed to his Royal Highness at the foot of the page. It is found amongst her papers, and never appeared to have been delivered ; and therefore only appeared as the result of one of her stratagems which she was extremely desirous to conceal from his Royal Highness. The next case was of Major Turner, which seemed to make a considerable impression on the mind of the honourable gentleman who brought forward those charges. The particulars relating to this gentleman’s resignation would be found in the mi- nutes. After this gentleman’s letter to his Royal Highness, desiring permission to resign, it happens about the same time, that a letter is addressed to his Royal Highness from a Mrs. Sutherland, requesting that the major may not be permitted to resign, as he has treated a lady with unkind- ºness, who wishes to know where he may be found for a period of six months to come, but apprehends if he is permitted to retire, he will abscond and conceal himself. But the honourable gentleman was pleased to say, in refer- ‘ence to Mrs. Sutherland, that she was a person of that description, on whose testimony no reliance was to be placed . Yet this honourable gentleman, who professed to think that no reliance was to be placed upon the testi- mony of a woman of Mrs. Sutherland's description, seems to feel no qualms, no reluctance, at rising in his place in that House, and bringing forward a series of criminatin charges to blacken the character and blast the fame of the T H E COMMAN DER IN CHIEF. 619 second son of his Sovereign, upon the evidence of such a woman as Mrs. Clarke 1 to pledge himself, on such testi- mony, to bring home to his Royal Highness charges of the blackest die. If the honourable gentleman had read the whole of the letter he would have found that General Cartwright, after he had stated his ignorance of the transaction in the first instance, promised to make inquiry concerning it, and to report the result of such inquiry. Accordingly, upon re- ference to Major Mundy, the result was found favourable to Major Turner ; and it appeared by a letter from Major Turner himself, dated the 23d of September, that it was signified to him by Major Mundy that his resignation had been accepted of. So that the first application having been made on the 5th of September, the letter of General Cartwright forwarded on the 14th, and the notification of the resignation being accepted communicated on the 23d, it appeared that within three weeks after the application was first made, the business had been effected. The next case to which he should refer, was one which had been handled by his learned friend behind him (Mr. Burton) last night, in a manner so congenial to his feelings, that he should find it necessary but barely to allude to it. The case was that of Samuel Carter ; and on this he might be permitted to say, that if Samuel Carter had no other recommendation than that of Mrs. Clarke, a person cir- cumstanced as he was, would not have been an unfit object of attention, upon every principle of humane and considerate feeling. If any thing could redeem Mrs. Clarke from the infamy that belonged to her, it was the manner in which she had behaved to that poor young man. When asked by the honourable members whether she knew Carter, she replied, yes; but she had hoped that Colonel Wardle would not have mentioned him. That person had been, in the year 1801, recommended by Captain Sutton to the Commander-in-chief, as the orphan son of a soldier. He had been recommended as such, and it was no matter whether he had been the son of Cap- tain Sutton, as it had been stated, or not. It had also been proved by a witness, not interested in the case, that he had received an education suited to the situation to which he had been advanced. The recommendation had taken place in the year 1800, when a reduction of the army took place, and nothing had been done upon it till 620 PRoceep INGs RELArive to the year 1804. It had been stated, that he lived a year with Mrs. Clarke as a footboy previous to his being ap- pointed to the commission, a circumstance which rendered him a disgrace to his profession. Even admitting the statement of his having been a footboy to be correct, as his commission was given to him in March, 1804, and the establishment at Gloucester-place commenced in that year, he could at most have been but three months there. The Commander-in-chief, amongst the various applications to which he had to attend, might have forgotten the recom- mendation of Captain Sutton; and finding a person, so recommended, in 1804, in a degrading situation, might have taken him from such a situation ; and what was there in such conduct to disgust the army 2 If a man be . punished for his vices, let him not be condemned for his virtues. (Hear ! hear!) When every circumstance of the case should be considered, he was certain that the ap- pointment would be set down as a merit, and not a ground of blame to the Commander-in-chief. The letters he had sent, so expressive of his liberal gratitude, shewed that Samuel Carter would be a credit, and not a disgrace to the army. He was now serving abroad, and placed on the staff by the act of his commanding officer for his merit, without any interference with the Commander-in-chief. He hoped, therefore, that no feeling would be excited that might be ruinous to the prospects of this young man, and regretted that any impression had been made upon the subject. & The next case he had to notice, which he admitted to be an important one, related to the letter respecting General Clavering. The letter did not appear to have been written with the same caution as if it was expected to be commented upon ; but still there was nothing in it to shew that the Duke was acquainted with any offer of a pecuni- ary nature to Mrs. Clarke. On the contrary, it was in evidence from General Clavering, that what he applied for, upon the condition of a pecuniary consideration, did not take place; and whatever might be thought of a man's testimony in other respects, it would be considered good against himself. Besides, the letter from the Duke of ork was dated the 24th of August, from Sandwich, and the letter from General Clavering to Mrs. Clarke, to which that was supposed to be an answer, was dated Bishop's Waltham, September 5, and must have been an THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 621 answer to a letter from Mrs. Clarke, written on receipt of that from the Duke, which she made the ground of writing to General Clavering. Besides, the proposal of General Clavering was to raise a regiment out of the disembodied militia; and the reply of Mrs. Clarke, that the Duke did not understand his proposal, was only an invention of her’s, to shew General Clavering that she communicated with his Royal Highness upon the subject of his proposal. There was nothing, therefore, in the whole of the case, to prove that the Duke of York had been corruptly influ. enced on that occasion. With respect to the other ex- pression in the Duke's letter concerning Dr. O’Meara, that was not a question of a military nature: and how a person such as Dr. O’Meara came recommended to his Royal Highness through such a one as Mrs. Clarke, was a sub- ject as much to be lamented as any other. That gentle- man was recommended by the Archbishop of Tuam ; and it was somewhat strange that he had not immediately rejected the offer of an introduction through Mrs. Clarke. He came next to make a few observations upon the let- ters which had been found in Captain Sandon’s bureau. By the letter from Mrs. Clarke to Captain Sandon, in which she desired him not to come to her box at the Opera, as Greenwood was to come with the two Dukes that evening, it appeared how extremely anxious she was that her connection with that gentleman should be kept in the back ground. By the letter in which she enjoined Captain Sandon not in future even to breathe her name, she shewed her extreme anxiety to avoid every thing that could bring their names together; and it could be for no other reason than lest her practices should be discovered. In the letter respecting Speddings, in which she asks, “what can Speddings mean by asking on Thursday, through General Tonyn, for leave to go upon half pay ?” she stated a falsehood, as appeared by the evidence of Colonel Gordon, who had heard nothing of the matter, and was proved by the production of the Gazette, in which that officer's promotion appeared. And here he begged to remark upon a passage in another letter, in which she stated to Captain Sandon, that the Duke was angry with him for not having procured the 300 foreigners ; pro- mised ; that there was no document to be found, nd trace to be discovered, of any authority for raising a foreign levy; and he was sure the House would not think, from 622 PRoceen INGS REf,ATIVE To this letter, that Mrs. Clarke had the power to grant let- ters of service. The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to shew, by a reference to various parts of the evidence in the Minutes, that Mrs. Clarke had really no influence with the Commander-in-chief, and that all her impositions had arisen from the artful manner in which she contrived to make her dupes believe that she had such influence. * It remained for him to make a few remarks upon the question respecting the payment for the service of plate, and the case of the expenditure of the establishment at Gloucester-place, and the amount of the supplies ad- vanced for that purpose, by his Royal IIighness. Upon the first point it appeared, that the demand of Birkett for that plate was 1,631., though it appeared that for other articles furnished subsequently, the whole amounted on the 15th June to 1881. Of this sum 500l. had been paid by Mrs. Clarke, and the remainder by drafts and bills payable by the Duke of York. The payment of 500l. reduced the whole sum to nearly the amount of the de- mand for the plate. The payments made by the Duke of York amounted to 13211, being only 41 l. less than the de- mand for the plate. There was no evidence that the Duke knew any thing of the payment of the 500l. made by Mrs. Clarke; and even if he had known of that payment, it was in evidence, that the Duke of York had advanced to Mrs. Clarke 500l. for plate and linen, so that he could easily be aware of her having cash to that amount. Be- sides, Mrs. Clarke had stated that she had not been in- volved in debt till she went to Gloucester-place, and the Duke might consequently think that she could with ease produce such a surn. Having said thus much as to the payment for the plate, it now only remained for him to make a few observations upon the expenditure at Glouces- ter-place. On a former night, he had been authorized to make a statement to the House upon that subject; but whether that statement should be deemed correct or not, facts had since come out on the cross-examination, which proved the advance of a sum by his Royal Highness, nearly, if not equal, to the sum he had stated. By the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, it appeared that the Duke had paid for the house and the furniture; and a great part of the wine had been supplied by him. The statement purported that above 5000l. had been advanced by his Royal High- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 623. mess, together with several other sums which were not capable of distinct proof. By the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, it appeared that sums nearly to that amount, had been furnished to her by his Royal Highness. Besides the an- nual allowance of 1000l. Mrs. Clarke admitted herself, that she received sometimes small bills to the amount of two or three hundred pounds at a time. Besides these, the sale of her house produced the sum of 4,401. which not only was sufficient to cover her debts, but, with the other sums advanced to her, to carry the supply for the expenditure at Gloucester-place to the amount contained in his statement. Besides all this, the Duke had given bills to the amount of 400l. to pay off other bills which had been applied to the purpose of obtaining Mrs. Clarke's jewels from pawn. This sum was not directly advanced for the expenditure of the establishment; though it was in effect, because the diamonds must be presumed to have been originally pawned for that purpose. The inference to be drawn from all this was, that his Royal Highness could not have had any suspicion that any part of the ex- pences had been supplied from corrupt sources. Though he appeared to be inattentive to money concerns, and to the care of accounts, it was manifest that in no instance had his Royal Highness been backward to supply the de- mands of Mrs. Clarke. He could not close his observa- tions upon this part of the evidence, without remarking upon the very extraordinary manner in which Mrs. Fa- very had been brought to the bar of that House. The right honourable gentleman then pointedly remarked upon the manifest contradictions in that person’s testimony, and her connection with Mrs. Clarke ; and observed, that this was a feature in her case, which would serve to shew them. what sort of people they had to deal with, and the wit- nesses did not appear at the bar independently, but com- ing forward in a conspiracy, and prepared all to be in the same story, which had in his judgment been fortunately, and as it were miraculously, disproved. He would not here refer to those circumstances which were favourable to the Commander-in-chief, which his learned friend had last night made such advantage of. He should not appeal to the descriptions of persons which his Royal Highness had about him, nor infer from that circumstance that if he had the plans imputed to him in * contemplation, he would not have surrounded himself 624 PROCEEDINGS #ELATIVE To with such characters; as none more distinguished or ho- nourable could have been selected from the army. It was unnecessary for him to mention General Calvert, whom every man who knew could appreciate, and whose cha- racter could best be estimated from the high considera- tion he enjoyed boh from the army and the public. Co- lonel Gordon had spoken his own testimony and his own character; and he was convinced himself that all the other persons employed about his Royal Highness would be found equally distinguished and honourable. He now had gone through the whole of the particulars of the case which it was obviously necessary to touch upon, and he trusted that it would appear perfectly clear, that such a case, under such circumstances, and upon such charges, required of the House to come to some de- cision, aye or no, upon the guilt or innocence of the illustrious object of these charges. After that determina- tion, it would be for the House to consider, whether it would not adopt the resolution which he would bave the honour to submit. In comparing his address with that of the honourable gentleman, he was sure that the House would not hesitate to give the preference to that he had to propose. Whatever might be the ultimate proceed- ing which the House should think proper to adopt, he was sure it would not demean itself by agreeing to the address moved by the honourable gentleman, which he was confident they must abandon. What, he would ask, was that address but an alternative put upon the Duke of York, is he, or is he not guilty of the charges It stated that abuses did exist, and then it became a question, whether his Royal Highness had become cognizant of them, The substantive measure proposed by that ad- dress was, the removal of his Royal Highness from the command of the army: in either alternative, that was the substantive measure to be accomplished. Ought not that House, on the contrary, to meet the question fairly and manfully If the honourable gentleman had so framed his statement, his speech, and his address, he would have been ready to meet him, and should not pro- pose to substitute any course for that recommended by the honourable gentleman. The address of the honour- able gentleman, whilst it would wound the paternal feel- ings of his majesty, by the imputing charges of corrup- tion, would take from parliament the power of declaring T H E CO WIMAND E R IN CHIEF. 62) upon the truth or falsehood of such charges. When the House should acquit itself of its duty on the subject of this address, as he was confident it would, he had every cxpectation that it would accede to the measure he had subsequently to propose, if it should appear that the guilt of corruption should not be made out. When the House should have executed this judicial duty upon judicial feelings and judicial grounds, it would then remain for the House to decide, not upon a judicial principle, but upon the grounds of general policy and expediency. In such a case he should decide upon political principles only. It was far from his wish to exclude principles of morality and religion from the consideration ; but in measuring justice to others, we ought to feel what we are ourselves. In the exercise of our moral feelings, we should not omit every humane consideration of our own frailties, and should extend that charifable in- dulgence to others, which we should claim for our- selves. [He trusted that the House would be guided by the evidence, and that it would not see in it any ground for the removal of the Commander-in-chief. It would be matter of regret that such a necessity should be found to exist, as if the present Comma'.der-in-chiof should be removed from the situation, it would not be easy to find one so well qualified to fill it. If there were any mem- bers in the House who thought his Royal Highness unfit to remain at the head of the army, they would vote for his removal; but if there were those, and he was con- ſident there were the great majority, who thought, that during fourteen years he had been at its head, the army had prospered in a degree never before cqualled: that he had made regulations most beneficial for the service, most useful for the comforts of the soldiers, most ad- vantageous ſo the officers, and best calculated to promote the good conduct and high discipline of the army, if he had manifested a paternal care for its interests, by pro- moting charitable institutions for its service, and en- couraging establishments for heightening the discipline and augmenting the professional knowledge of officers; if he had done all this, and there should be little pro- spect, that by any other arrangement, or any other mea- sures another Commander-in-chief could be found, in respect of whom there would be less of party spirit in his appointment, and more of real efficiency in the execu- 2 S 626 PROC EED ING S RET, ATIVE TO tion of the duties of the office; he trusted that all those who should entertain this opinion, would be convinced, that they, whatever censure they might think necessary, would not be of opinion that there was sufficient ground for the removal of his Royal Highness. He had here to observe, that though he might have been tedious in his statement, there must have been some omissions, which however, would be supplied by others in the course of the discussion. But before he sat down, he should ob- serve upon what had fallen from the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Wardle) towards the close of his speech yesterday. That honourable gentleman had stated, that the country had decided already upon the case of the Commander-in-chief; that the country would decide upon the conduct of that House. If it was meant by that, that in the discharge of their public duties it was desirable for that House, and that they ought to be anxi- ous to carry public opinion along with them, he would not hesitate to assent to it. But if he was to understand that the country had come to a pre-conceived opinion upon the case, founded upon the garbled extracts of the proceedings which had been, with a mischievous indus- try, published and circulated throughout the country, and that it was meant that the House was bound to at- tend to an opinion so formed, he must loudly protest against such doctrine. In their legislative capacity, they were to hope and expect that their measures would meet the approbation of those who were to be governed by their acts. But he trusted, however that might be, that they would do their duty homestly and uprightly ; and there could be no doubt but that the enlightened under- standing of the country would do justice to their con- duct; and their constituents would not withdraw their confidence, if their representatives should not previously degrade themselves. If this were not the feeling of the House, it would desert its duty. It would be better to be governed by a wild democracy at once, without a House of Commons, the representative of the democracy. He had the firmest hope, that the House of Commons, in deciding upon this case, would put out of its view every impression, but what arose from the real state of the case, and that gentlemen would not bring to the de- cision of this important question any bias which they might have received from publications out of doors, THE CO M M A N DE R. I. N CHIEF, 627 That that House would do its duty, he had no doubt, and he was no less confident, that it would establish by its vote the innocence of the Duke of York, as far as any criminal charge could apply. He had as anxious a desire as any gentleman to carry with him the public opinion of the country, and it was not to arrogate any thing, either to himself or to his station, to state, that he had as strong an interest in public opinion as any gentleman. He had seen, in the progress of this business, that two alternatives of extreme difficulty to decide a choice were presented to the House. The first question was, whether the in- quiry should be referred to a committee of the whole House, or to a select committee. Nothing that occurred in its progress made him regret the course that had been adopted. If his Royal Highness should be acquitted, as he was confident he would, it would be more satisfactory to that illustrious personage, more satisfactory to the House and to the country, than if he should have been acquitted after an inquiry of a less public nature. An inquiry of a less public nature would undoubtedly have had its advantages; but then the advantage of a public acquittal was more than equivalent to any that could have resulted from a less public inquiry. When the House had once taken its course, it was compelled to be consistent with itself; and to have excluded any par- ticular evidence would have been attended with more in- convenience than could have resulted from having the inquiry secret. Throughout the whole course of the business he had uniformly recommended rather to go beyond the line of the inquiry than to restrict it. #. had felt as anxious upon the question as if it had been his own brother whose conduct was in question; he had, however, done his duty, and whether he should be be- lieved or not, he could with truth assert, that during the whole proceedings the entire tenor of his conduct had been the same as if the merest stranger was the party con- cerned. What the interests of public justice and the principles of public policy demanded, the House would determine. But he would tell the honourable gentleman that his constituents were as popular as any in the king- dom; and he was persuaded, that if his conduct was explained to them, he should not lose any part of the con- fidence which they had hitherto shewn hitn. Having said thus much, he returned thanks for the attention of the 2 S 2 628 PROCEEDINGS REE, ATIVE TO House, and moved, as an amendment, that all of the ori- ginal motion, aſter the first word, “that,” should be left out, and that his resolutions should be substituted. On the question being put upon the amendment, Mr. Bathurst thought he could not concur in the ori- ginal address, nor in the amendment of his right ho- Inourable friend, but still thought with his right honour- able friend, that in a judicial view, it was absolutely ne- cessary for that House to come to some decision upon the leading question respecting the corruption. He thought the original address highly objectionable from the alter- native it included ; and he could not agree to the course proposed by his right honourable friend, because it would be mugatory to vote an address to his majesty without some object; without any thing to communicate to his majesty, or any thing to apply for. To present an ad- dress of that description was neither advisable nor con- stitutional. He had every dutiful regard for the connec- tion between his Majesty and his Royal Highness; but, in a parliamentary sense, he could not accede to the ad- dress, unless it was to communicate some proceedings had in that House. If his majesty had been informed of what was passing in that House, he would by the same means be informed of the result of the charges brought forward in either House of Parliament, if no further pro- ceeding should be had upon them. He had a similar objection to the other address, because of the alternative ; for, if it were proposed for consideration whether the guilt of corruption existed, aye or no, though it might not be believed that his Royal Highness had any know- ledge of the transaction, yet there might be, perhaps, a majority in that House, who might think that he ought not to be continued in the command of the army. This was only arguing upon supposition. Then he thought the first resolution of his right honourable friend unneces. sary. Besides, the two resolutions went to state the opi- inion of the House as to the conduct of his Royal High- ness. He was ready to acquit him of any corrupt prac- tices; because nothing was proved in evidence before them to fix the Duke of York as a party to such cor- ruption. It would be more manly for the House to come to a direct and positive opinion as to those charges. He thought the House ought also to come to some expression N THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 629 of its opinion upon other topics connected with the Com- mander-in-chief's office. He did not then speak of idle rumours, but of facts gravely stated in that House. In his opinion, the latter of the two resolutions of his ho- mourable friend, if not the whole of his address, was ex- tremely unsatisfactory. It was painful to him to state his opinion upon this subject, coupled as it was with the consideration of the personal connection of his Royal Highness with his majesty; but he had a respectful at- tachment to the public character of his Royal Highness, and was sensible of his duty to his Sovereign; yet, how- ever painful it was to him, he could not omit to state his views on the subject. The second resolution, after cha- racterising the immorality, held out expectation of future correctness, which seemed to have reference to the per- sonal communication from his Royal Highness to that House. The resolution, he was afraid, had too much arisen out of that communication; for it seemed to state, that the House had a confidence, that in future no such persons as hitherto would find their way into the con- fidence of his Royal Highness, and that the conduct of his Royal Highness would hereafter resemble the excm- plary conduct of our illustrious Sovereign. But the charges aimed at higher game, which, if the resolutions should be agreed to, might escape. The House was bound not to put out of its view any part of the case which had been brought within its knowledge. The question divided itself into two parts: corruption of some sort there appeared to exist. That might be either direct corruption, or an undue influence operating corruptly upon the conduct of the office. He was convinced that it was impossible that the stigma of corruption could at- tach to the Commander-in-chief, but ought they not also to see whether corruption belonged to the persons through whom the influence was exercised ? If that should not be done, would not the inquiry, instead of being a warning to such persons, be a temptation to the commission of similar or worse practices 2 or would the army be less annoyed at their existence 2 It was a substantive charge that scandalous mal-practices had taken place, and it was the duty of the House to decide, whether or not, by the evidence, this charge was made out. There was, un- questionably, enough in the case to call upon the House 630 PROCEED INGS RELATIVE TO to exercise this duty. His right honourable friend had applied his resolutions and arguments to the most ob- noxious part of the charge ; but there were several things in the evidence of Mrs. Clarke which required that the House should come to some decision. He could not help observing that there was something very extraordinary in the expression in the letter of his Royal Highness: “Tell Clavering that there are no new regiments to be appoint- ed, and therefore you are sure that there is no use in ap- plying for him.” This appeared to him a decided proof that Clavering had applied to her to get him one of these new regiments; that the Duke knew of this application, and desired her to answer, that as there were no new re- giments to be raised, there would be no use in her ap- plying for him. It appeared to him, that in this in- stance the Duke allowed a very improper interference with respect to military promotion. It must be highly disadvantageous to the interests of the service, that per- sons in such a high situation as General Clavering should conceive that Mrs. Clarke was the proper channel through which they should apply for promotion in the line of their profession. He would also consider, that if it had been proved that his Royal Highness used his influence to get situations in other departments of the state for per- sons recommended by Mrs. Clarke, from corrupt views, such conduct would be nearly as censurable as if he had improperly disposed of the places which were in his own department. As for the letters which Dr. O'Meara might have from the Archbishop of Tuan, or other persons in Freland, it certainly was not those letters which intro- duced him to the Duke of York. The introduction which he did receive was one which would rather be supposed to contaminate him as a clergyman, bearing his letter of introduction from Mirs. Clarke. As to the letter which had been at first supposed a forgery, he must observe, that it would be the most extraordinary supposition on earth to imagine that Mrs. Clarke contrived to get another seal engraved to resemble exactly the Duke's seal, and that she should do it for no earthly purpose that was aileged, except giving credit to this particular letter. He be- lieved, however, that there was no use in following that argument further, as it was pretty well established that this note was genuine. The letter respecting Major Tonyn did certainly relate altogether to military pro- THE COMM A N DE IR IN CHIEF. 631 motions, and shewed that the Duke did permit Mrs. Clarke to use an improper interference on those subjects. With respect to Miss Taylor, who corroborated the evi- dence of Mrs. Clarke as to Colonel French's levy, it ap- peared that even when trying her credit in every possible manner, the evidence was in favour of it.—(11ear, hear !) As to Samuel Carter, it had been stated by General Roch- fort, that he had always considered him as the illegi- timate son of Lieutenant Sutton. Even if that was the case, he would ask, was it quite fair that the recommen- dation of him afterwards should be as the orphan child of an officer who died in the service 2 Ife co: ceived that all those transactions were prejudicial to the public ser. vice to a certain extent. He thought that the interference of ºf rs. Clarke in military matters was a thing so pre- judicial to the public service, and so improper in itself, that the House should give a distinct opinion upon it. IIe therefore should now point out what appeared to him the proper course for the House to pursue; and if no other member moved any thing of that sort, he should feel it his duty to do it. He thought the House should not only express its opinion about the connection itself, but that they should consider the extreme danger which this Sountry might be hereafter exposed to, if the same per- sonage should, at a future time, permit the same sort of influence to have as much weight upon him as it ap- peared to have had in those transactions. He was ready to allow that there was no department in the state where there appeared to be more diligent and able persons employed than in the department of which his Royal Highness was the head. He concluded by suggesting a resolution to this effect, “ that the iſ ouse had observed with the deepest regret, that in consequence of a connection most immoral and unbecoming, a per- nicious and corrupt influence had been used with respect to military promotions, and such as gave a colour to the various reports respecting the knowledge of the Corn- mander-in-chief to these transactions. [Mr. Bathurst's speech appeared to make a consider- able impression on the House, but from the part of the House in which the honourable member spoke (his back being turned to the gallery) and from the low tone in which he spoke, it was in possible to collect his sentiments with accuracy. J 632 PR O CEEDINGS REI, ATIVE TO Mr. Whitbread said, he was happy that the right ho- nourable gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had risen before him, as his speech was so judicious, and many of his observa- tions so convincing and irrefragable, that he believed no man would attempt to deny the force of them—but for this circumstance, he should have wished to have fol- lowed the right honourable gentleman on the other side of the House (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He really thought that that right honourable gentleman had on this occasion surpassed himself; and it would appear most evi- dent that if the Duke of York should finally receive any censure from that House, it would not be for want of having a most able and eloquent advocate. He was dis. posed not only to give credit to the right honourable gen- tleman for great ability in the conduct of the defence of his Royal Highness, but he was also disposed to give him credit for being actuated by motives perfectly conscien- tious. He could not, however, avoid saying, that in one of the best speeches which he had ever heard from any living member, there were, however, some passages which he regretted. There were some expressions directed against the honourable mover, and his friends who were supposed to have advised him, that although he felt himself called to reply to, he should so far chastise his feelings as to an- swer without any asperity, and to be aware of any thing that might be in any degree offensive. The right honourable gentleman began and ended his speech by an attack on his honourable friend (Colonel Wardle). In the conclusion of the eloquent speech he had this day delivered, he com- mented severely on the expression of his honourable friend, “ that the country would decide upon the charges, and upon him, and that they would also decide upon the con- duct of that House.” For his part, he could see nothing unconstitutional in the expression of his honourable friend, or in the appeal in the sense he meant it. He certainly did not mean to imply, that the House was to be inti- midated in the exercise of its functions : but he did think that it was proper in his honourable friend to call the at- tention of the House, in the most pointed manner, to the importance of the duties they were to perform, and to tell them that the eyes of their country, and he might have said the eyes of Europe, were upon them. It appeared to him, that this language was perfectly constitutional and proper; and it appeared most extraordinary that the ob- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 633 jection should come from the quarter it did, when it was understood that the first act of that right honourable gen- tleman's administration was what he called an appeal from the sense of parliament to the sense of the people—(Hear, hear !) It did not then appear to that right honourable gentleman to be unconstitutional to speak of the sense of the country as a thing distinct from the sense of that House. It was a strange thing to hear the right honourable gentleman complain that the public mind had been led astray by garbled misrepresentations of the evidence, and libels circulated with the most industrious malignity. Although from the diligent attention he had paid to the business in this House, he had not had much time to read those public papers which had been alluded to, he was very ready to believe there had been misrepresentations on both sides. It should be recollected, however, that pub- licity was what the friends of his Royal Highness wished for ; that in consequence of this mode of investigating the charges, the evidence necessarily went forward to the pub- lic, and it was impossible to prevent, the evidence being accompanied with comments. He believed, however, that it would be allowed that the misrepresentation of the evi- dence, and the improprieties of the comments, were at least as gross on one side as the other. (Hear, hear 1) The right honourable gentleman seemed to hold it over the House in terrorem, that if the Duke were removed from the command of the army, no one could be found ſit to be entrusted with it. This threat, however, gave him no alarm; for, so far from thinking that it was absolutely necessary to have a personage of that illustrious birth at the head of the army, he considered that, caeteris paribus, it would be better to have a person less illustrious by birth in that situation. However gentlemen might sometimes say in that House “let us deal with the Duke of York as with any other individual,” it was perfectly well under- stood, that it was utterly impossible to treat the Duke of York in the same manner as an individual of less illus- trious birth, would be treated. Would it be said, that if such a mass of evidence had come out respecting the con- duct of any private individual in that situation, that he could be permitted any longer to retain the command of the army? (Hear, hear!) If it was most notorious that any individual not of the royal family would be displaced from his command on such things appearing against him, it 634 PROCEED INGS RELATIVE To was absolute nonsense to say, “let us deal with the Duke of York as with any other individual in the empire placed in the same situation.” He did not mean to condemn the Duke merely on the score of immorality; for what man would be justified in condemning a public man for any private immorality which was only between himself and his own conscience : All men might be conscious of suf- ficient deviation from strict morality in themselves not to be very severe in attacking the deviations from morality in others. (Hear, hear!) It was not of private immorality that he complained, but merely of that sort of immorality which affected the state, and the department over which he presided. Such immorality, however, if it had appear- ed in evidence publicly against any other Commander-in- chief, would have removed him from his command. An honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Burton) had said, that when he began to enter into the consideration of the case, if he had any bias on his mind, it was rather against his Royal Highness. For his part, he really did not feel at first any prejudice in favour of the accusation ; but he at the same time felt great admiration of the honesty, the courage, the abilities, and the firmness of his honourable friend (Colonel Wardle). The right honourable gentle- man (the Chancellor of the Exchequeſſ) had, in condemn- ing the address moved by his honourable friend, said that He was certain it did not emanate from his own mind, but that he had submitted it to the consideration of men of cooler heads by whom he was influenced. Now if this ex- pression was to be taken literally, it would rather appear as a compliment to those cooler heads which were alluded to; and it would appear that if there was any thing of in. temperance in the mind of his honourable friend, he could not have done any thing better than to have submitted his proposition to the judgment of men of cooler heads. If the expression, however, was not intended to convey that meaning ; if, on the contrary, it was meant to be insi- nuáted that his honotirable friend had lent himself to designing men, and had become their instrument, and if the allusion was to any of his friends in that House, then he was sure that the charge was utterly false and groundless. He really did not know who had drawn up the address moved by his honourable friend; but when, at an earlier state of the business, it had been insinuated that he was the person who advised the charges, he did not THE COMMAN DER IN CHIEF, 635 think that a proper time to disclaim it. At that time his honourable friend (Colonel Wardle) seemed to be in a very delicate and embarrassing situation. It was at the mo- ment when one of the charges was supposed to have ut- terly failed, and when he, as well as many other members, were really of opinion that the accusation would come to nothing. At such a time he did not think it was proper to appear as if he either disclaimed his honourable friend, or was ashamed of conversing with him (if he had so con- versed) about these charges. . He thought, however, that this was the proper opportunity for stating, that he really had no connection with the accusation, and gave no ad- vice to have it brought forward. He had known Colonel Wardle in early life, but for the last twenty years he had known no more of him than that within the last two years he dined once in his company. His honourable friend never mentioned the subject of the accusation to him more than once before he brought it forward, and the conver- sation was in consequence of an accidental meeting in the street. The advice that he gave, or rather the opinion which he expressed to his honourable friend, was, that it was incredible to him that his Royal Highness could have been connected with such transactions ; that the evidence which he relied on would probably fail him ; and that he would then feel himself placed in a most painful situation. This opinion he had expressel, from his not having any idea in his mind at that time that the charges could be substantiated. When he however saw that his honourable friend was firmly resolved to bring forward the charges, then he promised him that he would attend in his place, and listen to the charges with the utmost attention. This promise he had kept. He had S attended throughout the whole of the business, and never spoke more than twice during the progress of it, and those times he only spoke for the purpose of equal justice and fair play between the parties. Without meaning to impute to the honourable gentlemen opposite any in- tention to bear down his honourable friend, yet there were occasions in the early stages of this business, which made it necessary for those who knew the honourable genileman, and thought highly of him, to express that opinion, and to give him some support. It had been said by some, that his honourable friend flinched from proposing any decided resolution, but if he had offered 636 PRocBEDINGs RELATIve To ſt a more direct proposition, then he would have been complained of for not using a language sufficiently tem- perate. At present it was his most decided opinion, that it was absolutely impossible that the Duke of York should not have known of those corrupt transactions. If that was also the opinion of his honourable friend, was it possible for him to put a more moderate or tem- perate proposition to the House, than that which he had done 2 If there were many gentlemen in the House who could noi believe the Duke was cognizant of the corrupt consideration which Mrs. Clarke had received, but still were convinced that he had permitted her to exercise an interference which was prejudicial to the interest of the army, and in every respect improper, those gentlemen, without condemning his Royal Highness, might still con- scientiously vote that he ought no longer to be continued at the head of the army. An honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Burton) had said, that such evidence would not be received in courts of justice. If, however, that honourable and learned gentleman (who was a judge) charged juries in that manner, the greatest crimes would often pass unpunished. Murders would generally escape detection, if such sort of evidence as has been produced in this case was declared inadmissible in a court of justice. It was known such evidence was received in cases of life and death, and that many had suffered death on slighter proof. The hºnourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Bur- ton) had described himself as being very near the grave: any other gentleman in the House might be äs near the grave as that honourable gentleman, and therefore, the solemnity of those kind of appeals went for nothing. If the mind was not thoroughly impressed with the idea, there was no pomp of language which could give any weight to such an appeal. The right honourable and the honourable gentleman on the other side of the House first laboured to disqualify the witnesses in mass, and se- condly, to disqualify by classes, and by their connections. If, however, evidence of this nature were not to be ad- mitted, where was evidence to be sought for to prove any indirect and corrupt practices : Was it in the office of the Commander-in-chief, and to Colonel Gordon, that application was to be made 2 No; if corruption is to be traced, it is necessary to examine some of those who T H E COMMANI).E.R. iN CHIEF, 637 º have been the instruments of this corruptien. . If the right honourable gentleman wished to disqualify as wit- nesses all females that were acquainted with Mrs. Clarke, what should be said of the testimony of the captains, gene- rals and others, who were also acquainted with Mrs. Clarke, and who sought that acquaintance from corrupt motives It was hard and unjust to deny all credibility to any female who should be unfortunate in one respect. Miseries and sufferings more than enough were felt by those unhappy females; and God knows, that if their story were fairly told, there were but few of them who had not most serious complaints to make of our sex— few of them who had not been originally deceived by falsehoods and perjury of the blackest kind from men. (Hear, Hear!) And yet men were their accusers, and loaded with every reproach those who might have passed their lives in happiness and honour, if they had not been betrayed by the falsehood of men. This reminded him of the story of the lion, that observing the many pictures in which lions were conquered by men, exclaimed, “Oh if lions could paint, the story would be different.” The same observation might ap- ply to many of those unfortunate females: if they were to tell their story, they might complain more of the falsehoods of men than we could do of them; and yet now it was agreed that the evidence of a woman should weigh for nothing, because she had lived in a state of adultery. Such a rule was never heard of in the courts of criminal justice or of common law. We heard every where, and particularly at the out-ports, of men con- demned to death, on the evidence of women of the most abandoned characters, as far as female chastity was con- cerned. It was known, that in our superior courts of law, upon the evidence of a woman, whom from motives of de- licacy he should not name, (it was generally supposed, that he alluded to Mrs. Carey) a will had been proved, by which a considerable property had been determined. It had been said that Mrs. Clarke had been actuated by the most de- liberate and determined vengeance. When the word ven- geance was mentioned, it was natural to think a little about provocation, and in this respect, he must perfectly agree with the sentiment that the right honourable gentle- man (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) appeared to 678 PRoceed INGs RELATI've To entertain, that his Royal Highness, with respect to his pecuniary transactions and arrangements with Mrs. Clarke, had conducted himself in a way which was by no means creditable to him (Hear; Hear!). The separation was said to have been in consequence of impropriety in Mrs. Clarke's conduct, and the annuity was to be given as long as her conduct should be correct; and yet those who were best informed upon the subject (alluding to Mr. Adam) could not point out to the House a single instance of this impropriety or incorrectness which produced the sepa. ration, or which was to account for the promised annuit not being paid. The claim, which it was said that Mrs. Clarke made, was merely a solicitation that she should be paid what she had been promised ; and the threat, as it was called, was mentioning to Mr. Adam in a letter, that if she had no other resource and was driven to it, she would publish the Duke's letters. It did appear to him, that the usage Mrs. Clarke had received, was such, that it was almost impossible for her to avoid mentioning it to her friends; and they would naturally ask her if she had any letters of his Royal Highness. The story would ne- cessarily get abroad, and somebody would either offer her money for the letters, or else suggest to her that she could get one or two thousand pounds from a bookseller for publishing them. It was impossible that she should not have been told, or that she should not conceive, that if she chose to publish those letters, she would get some money for them from booksellers. It was therefore very natural for her to mention to Mr. Adam, that if she was left no other resource, she must publish those letters. As for this deliberate plan of vengeance, which she was sup- posed to have been long meditating, it certainly did not appear, that when she was at Hampstead, and destroyed, and gave to be destroyed, an immiense number of import- ant letters, that she could be meditating vengeance. If she had been planning any scheme of vengeance at that time, she would have kept all those letters. As to the general character of Mrs. Clarke's testimony, she certain- ly did shew dexterity, vivacity, levity, effrontery, and even impudence; but he could not agree with the right honºurable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that her dexterity was or could be such as to get rid of all the important questions which were put to her. She was examined for many hours, until she had nearly fainted, THE C6 M M ANDER IN CHIEF. 839 t by the right honourable gentleman, who had himself been the late Attorney General, and also by the prescint Attor- ney General. There was also a corps of reserve of the Solicitor General and other lawyers, to try all - their powers of cross-examination. As to the levity of her man- ner of answering, great indulgence was due to a woman who found most of the members well disposed to latigh at all her sallies, if she was encouraged by that conduct to carry that mode of answering to an improper pitch. But what was really produced by the cross-examination of so many able and experienced lawyers ? It only produced a number of stories, and exposed a number of names that would never have otherwise come to light, and in all of these it had been found impossible to contradict her exa- mination by so many able and experienced lawyers in any essential point. On the first examination of Mrs. Clarke, she mentioned nothing about those letters of the Dukc of York, and did not shew the least intention of producing them. She was in a manner compelled to produce them, by General Clavering choosing to come down to the House for the purpose of impeaching her testimony. The evi- ‘dence of General Clavering would have borne down Mrs. Clarke, if she had not produced the letter of the Duke, mentioning the name of Clavering, and proving that he did apply to her about military promotion. Afterwards by accident the letters of Clavering, which were discovered at Hampstead, completely overturned the testimony of General Clavering, as left him as black as Erebus. It was equally necessary for her to produce the second letter. She had been asked, in the course of the cross-examina- tion, whether she had been ever applied to for promotions in the church ; and she mentioned in answer that Dr. O’Meara, who wanted to be made a bishop, had applied to her. This answer occasioned universal laughter in the IHouse. No one believed for a moment a story that seemed so absurd and preposterous. Gentlemen seemed astonish- ed at the audacity of the witness in inventing (as they supposed) such improbable falsehoods. It then became necessary to shew that she had told the truth ; and the Duke's letter about Dr. O’Meara was also produced. There did not appear any thing of deliberate vengeance in this conduct of Mrs. Clarke. She exposed no letters but what were absolutely necessary to support her testi- timony; and if she had mentioned a number of names 640 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO and circumstances not immediately bearing upon the ques- tion for which she was called as a witness, it was because those answers were extorted from her in the cross-examin- ation. He really thought that the Attorney-General had not bettered his case at all by his long cross-examination of Mrs. Clarke. He would not go into an examination of the other letters. What, he would ask, could send Dr. O'Meara to Mrs. Clarke, but the supposition that she pos- sessed all the influence over the Duke of York that was generally attributed to her Would any man have believ- ed such a circumstance, if this letter had not been pro- duced 2 What could have sent the Protestant hierarchy of Ireland, bearing a recommendation from the archbishop of Tuam, but the persuasion that she could effect all that her agents asserted : A learned gentleman stated, that he had a list of twenty-eight instances in which Mrs. Clarke's testimony was contradicted. One of these related to her declaration that she had never represented herself as a widow. By whom was her evidence impeached 2 Why, by Mr. Nicholls; in his opinion, a most impeachable evi- dence himself; for it must be in the recollection of the House, that this most worthy evidence came into posses- sion of a number of most important documents, for such they turned out to be, belonging to Mrs. Clarke, and that he, dishonestly, or at least illegally, withheld them. They might be papers affecting her life, and yet he would not suffer her to peruse them. The right honourable member had spoken much of Mrs. Clarke's dexterity; but what dexterity could have enabled her to produce such incon- trovertible proof offill she had stated respecting General Cla- vering's application to her 2 Did she know, at the time she first mentioned him at the bar, that this letter was in existence 2 Dexterity one ounce of nature was worth 5000 weight of dexterity. . He had often seen rude nature bring an evidence through, but he never saw that effected by what was called dexteriſy. . Of this nature Mrs. Clarke disclosed a genuine and fine trait. When Cla- vering's letter was produced to her at the bar, a smile of joy beamed upon her countenance. She saw with a glance that every thing she asserted respecting this man was confirmed, and that in one point at least her truth was unquestionable. But it was said that she re- resented herself as Dowler's wife, and that he acqui- esced in the imposture. Good God I was she on this THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 641 account to be deprived of all pretensions to veracity ? Let them recollect their youthful days. Let them lay their hands on their hearts, and say, whether they have not sometimes inade a wife of some one that was no wife at all. Nicholls was the chief evidence to this fact, and yet upon a pinching question being put to him; what kind of cxhibition did he make 2 He was asked whº her he ever sued Dowler for the debt contracted by Mrs. Clarke. What was his answer Never. This shewed that no imposition had been practised on him, and that if even Mrs. Clarke represented herself as the wife of Dow- Her, that he did not believe her assertion. As to ihe other witnesses that were produced in corroboration of Nicholls's evidence, Reid, the master of the hotel, the waiter, and the porter, and the incidents of carrying the wine to this and that place, they made for nothing. They did not prove that Mrs. Clarke ever really represented herself as the wife of Mr. Dowler. If, instead of being such a case as it was, this were a case affecting life and death, so help him God it would not affect him. Another evidence was brought to support that of the four evidences he men- tioned. It was that of Mr. Few, the auctioneer. Now what did he prove : Why nothing more than this ; that in a conversation with her, she talked of her late husband— that he perceived one morning a cocked hat in her window, and that he was told by the maid that his mistress was a gay widow, and that she had been at the masquerade the night before. And was such a flimsy circumstance as this to shake the whole evidence she had given at the bar of that House? It also appeared that on a court-martial she had been described as a widow, but there was no proof that she was ever examined to this point. This was the only case upon which the learned and respectable mem- ber made any observations ; the remaining twenty-seven continiied unfold. He lamented extremely that the learned member (Mr. Burton) had not an opportunity of seeing the persons who gave their evidence at the bar. If that advantage were within his reach, he was persuaded their testimony would have made a different impression on him. Much depended on the manner of giving their testimo y, and on the persons by whom the questions were put. It would frequently happen that evidences might be pro- voked to say many things that were highly improper. This he would admit Mrs. * had often done, but er 2 º 642 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO veracity was not to be wholly shaken on that account. This observation applied especially to the testimony of Mr. Stower, who had been brought forward to prove that Mrs. Clarke's husband was a stone-mason. The right honourable gentleman, in the course of his admirable speech, had touched on many cases, in most of which Mrs. Clarke was triumphantly set up by other evidences, and in none more than in that of General Clavering. But it was said that her evidence was contradicted by Mr. R. Knight. He had the honour of being long acquainted With this gentleman, and entertained a great respect for him ; but he could not help thinking that in some in- stances he had been led into an over-statement.of the case. When Dr. Thynne was asked whether he understood from Mrs. Clarke that he was to keep the transaction a secret from the Duke of York; he replied, that “ that was a matter of surmise.” Mr. R. Knight stated that Mrs. Clarke told him she would expose the Duke of York: but was there any evidence to shew that she meant by this threat that she intended to expose him at the bar of that House; or was it not rather such an exposure as that threatened in her letter to his honourable friend (Mr. Adam) : That this was the impression at the time upon Mr. Knight’s mind was evident from this ; that according to his own statement, he requested, “if she was going to publish her memoirs, he hoped she would spare his bro- ther.” Mr. Knight had stated, that she requested of him that the business should be kept secret from the Duke of York, and every one must believe him. He had no doubt that she did make some stipulation of this kind with that gentleman. But was it to be inferred from this, that the Duke of York knew nothing about it : But if, as the right honourable gentleman said, the mill was going every day, is not this a precaution she would naturally have recourse to. If she said, the eyes of Gordon were upon the Duke of York, and the eyes of Greenwood upon her, was it not natural, that she should take every possible recaution; that it should not come round to the Duke of York through a third person; particularly after the in- junction he gave her, to take care what hands she got into ? With respect to her connection with Dowler, and to her passing the night with him, was it surprising that she should deny it? Whatever the right honourable gentle- man may think of women of her unfortunate class in THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 643 society, they were not always wholly void of sentiment and delicacy. But was this reservation of her’s a most j stifiable one, he would contend, to shake an evidence, which was otherwise unimpeachable It was there she was said to have hatched the conspiracy with Dowler to overthrow the Duke of York. The occasion, he would admit, was favourable for doing it; but the presumption was, from the whole tenor of the evidence, that she had formed no such plan. He had weighed every step she had taken, and where her evidence was unsupported, he did not believe her; but the presumption was excessively strong when it appeared that such influênce had been used. h He would examine a little into the grounds of this pre- sumption. Mrs. Clarke, it appeared, was acquainted with the Duke of York previous to the year 1804. At that time she had no expensive establishment. It was not until the expensive establishment began in Gloucester- place that any trace of an application on her part respect- ing military appointments appeared. He would not assert that this circumstance was conclusive; that it proved that the Duke of York was acquainted with the means to which she was under the necessity of recurring to support that establishment ; but he could not help con- sidering it as a most extraordinary coincidence, and one which lent great weight to the presumption; for though Gordon had his eyes on the Duke of York, and those of Greenwood were on Mrs. Clarke, still the business might go forward. People might apply to Mrs. Clarke, and these applications might be submitted by her at a conve- nient opportunity to his Royal Highness. It was also possible that the business might have gone on in the regu- lar way, that her recommendations may not have been attended to, and that the Duke, with a perfect conscious- ness that her interference had no effect, might, on his return from the Horse-Guards, to please her, to flatter her vanity, say, this was done through your influence. But it was said, it was miraculous, that in ten thousand in- stances of promotion only these few should have occurred, in which there was a deviation "from the fair and honour. able course. Was it not, he would ask, more miraculous, that the son of a king, possessing immense patronage, scattering benefits around him, able, as it appeared, to secure the adherence of a *g in that House, should be 644 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO called upon to answer for his conduct? Was it not sur. prizing that his honourable friend should have the courage to stand up as his accuser in that House, to bring forward. these scintillae of evidence, as they at first appeared against him : When an unhappy creature was brought up for trial in the criminal courts, it was a common excuse to say, “This is my first offence, I was never convicted be- fore ;” but this was not admitted as an excuse. A learned gentleman has expressed his astonishment; that the Duke of York should have so committed himself. He was equally astonished ; but there was the damning proof that he had so committed himself. It was not in evidence that he was particularly acquainted with the two thousand five hundred pounds Mrs. Clarke appears to have received, but the House must agree that he had a general knowledge of the corruption. Notwithstanding the advantages that this inquiry must produce to the country, he could not help feeling for the Duke of York. It was to be regretted that he had not adhered to his agreement with Mrs. Clarke; that he did not pay her the annuity which he pro- mised when he discarded her. Why, for a paltry five hundred pounds, suffer such ietters, such trash as had been read in evidence, to be brought forward 2 Why not purchase these follies by the punctual discharge of the engagement to which he was pledged Why allow a volume of nonsensical letters to be sent into the world, which he must wish, for all the world to get back again : The right honourable gentleman seemed to place great reliance on the statement which he had delivered in respect- ing the expences of the establishment at Gloucester-place. But what did this amount to ? The account was confirmed by Mrs. Clarke, and her statement agreed with that fur- mished by the Duke to within five hundred pounds; a small fraction, as she would state it. It was said that the Duke was careless about money, and to prove this, a learned gen- tleman related an anecdote that he heard from the pre- ceptors of the two royal brothers forty years ago. They said that they ſound it impossible to instil into the minds of the young princes proper ideas of the value of money. This was a subject on which it was not very surprising, that, even with the assistance of the Archbishop § York and others, they should not imbibe very accurate notions. But, however averse the Duke of York might have been in his infancy to the acquisition of this species of knowledge, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 645 it was of imperious necessity that he should have since ob- tained it. }. was at the head of a great establishment, through which, though not a great deal, some money must pass. But when his Royal Highness saw, from day to day, the most sumptuous and expensive dinners served- when he saw those elegant carriages drawn forth, in which he sometimes condescended to ride—when he viewed the profusións that prevailed in every part of the establishment in Gloucester-place—and when he considered that he only contributed so much to the support of this luxury and extravagance, it was impossible that he must not have known that they were supported from other channels than those which flowed from him. It was indeed said that Mrs. Clarke had frequently received sums which she applied to take her diamonds, those dearest objects of fe- male vanity, out of pawn. It was very probable she did. Where such boundless profusion and inconsiderate extra- vagance prevailed, it was natural that considerable distress should follow. But for what purposes were those trinkets É. ? Were they not to support the establishment? ad the applications of Mrs. Clarke to the Duke of York been made in favour of persons who were mostly known to her, the practice would admit of some excuse. For exam- ple, “Do give a commission to Thomson ; he is my bro- ther.” It is quite natural that she should do so; the appli- cation would be perfectly excusable. “Well, well, don’t teaze me, it shall be done; but let the application be made in the regular way.” There would have been nothing im- proper even in this. ... Any man, in the Duke of York's situation, could hardly have refused acceding to such a request. But what would the House say when they found an Irish clergyman step forward 2 What should have been the answer of the Duke of York, when he received an applica- tion in favour of such a man 2 Should it not have been, “If this man, this Dr. O’Meara, is an acquaintance of your’s, he is not fit to be a member of the church ; he is a disgrace to his sacred profession; I will not interfere for him.” But there was something in the nature of the pro- mise that was made, to further his view of gratifying his. ambition of “preaching before royalty;” that must induce a suspicion that something was given for the introduction. The same arguments would apply to the case of French and Sandon, Elderton and Clavering. The applications in all these instânces were first made to Mrs. Clarke. - 646 P R O C EED INGS REI, ATIVE TO With respect to the case of Samuel Carter, he regretted that his honourable friend had brought it forward. It turned out that he proved a most meritorious officer. He should exceedingly lament—it would grieve him to the very heart, if any scandal should attach to this youth, in consequence of the manner in which he obtained his com- mission. For himself, he was not one of those who could boast of a long line of ancestry ; and these were not times in which the privileges of birth were to super ede the | claims of merit and talent wherever they were to be found. It was one of the proud advantages of our happy form of government, that the road to eminence and honours was open to every one. The House was not ignorant that Buonaparte had made generals and statesmen out of the humblest materials. If the Duke of York had discovered any rare merit in Mr. Carter, while he was standing behind his chair, or handing his mistress out of her carriage, there was not, he was persuaded, a manly mind in the country which would not rejoice that he had elevated him to that honourable profession, of which, by all ac- Čounts, he was likely to prove a distinguished ornament. He hoped that this would be the sentiments of the officers with whom he was now serving, and that no gallant man among them would feel himself (as it was in the course of this inquiry suggested by an honourable member on the other side of the House) disgraced by having such an associate joined with him. (Loud cries of No, no, from all parts of the House.) He would now advert to the case of the exchange be- tween Colonels Knight and Brooke, in which so much was demonstrated, that he could not bring himself to sup- pose, that a doubt could remain on any mind, respecting the corrupt nature of the transaction. It was completely proved that Mr. Robert Knight, a person not unac- quainted with the ways of the world, had paid two hun- dred pounds to Mrs. Clarke on account of his brother. There was no doubt of the money having been paid, and that it was paid in consideration of the influence employed by Mrs. Clarke to effect the desired exchange. This was confirmed by the evidence of Doctor Thynne, a most respectable man; and who, from the nature of his pro- fession, which obliged him to go about from family to family, was as likely to hear as much tittle-tattle as any- body. He was of opinion that this exchange was brought * THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 647 about by the influence of Mrs. Clarke. Mr. Knight, indeed, gave an opposite opinion, and yet he was deluded into a belief that she procured it. The memorandum of Colonel Gordon, “ not acceded to,” was to him unintel- ligible. It appeared to mean that some obstruction had been thrown in the way of the exchange. It was, how- ever, interpreted otherwise; and he would acquiesce in the construction put upon it by that officer, than whom there could not be a more clear, consistent, or honourable witness. There was another evidence of which the right honourable gentleman had fallen foul; he meant Pierson. This man had not, to be sure, any brains to knock out, but the right honourable gentleman endeavoured to extinguish his light. Dr. Thynne had proved that he gave the names of Knight and Brooke to Mrs. Clarke, on a slip of paper; and it was in the evidence of Mrs. Clarke that she delivered this identical slip of paper to the Duke of York. The payment of the two hundred pounds was also proved. Next comes Pierson, and he proves that a note, he could not recollect whether a note for a hundred pounds or two hundred pounds, is given to him to get changed. It ap- pears afterwards, that the memory of Pierson was not quite clear as to the value of the note; but this was not material. It is, however, made the foundation of a charge against him, of being concerned in the conspiracy. The very circumstance of his not being positive as to the amount of the note, is sufficient to acquit, him of the imputation. Pierson, though extremely stupid, was not quite so stu- pid, if Mrs. Clarke desired him to say it was a fifty pound note, not to say so. A greater degree of recollection was required from this man than from the Duke of York, or Mrs. Clarke. He excused himself for the lapse in his memory, by saying that he was sometimes subject to a head-ache, which impaired that faculty. For his own part, he was simpleton enough to believe him. He was unfortunate enough to suffer from a similar indisposition, and he found that his memory was not then so good as at other times. But whatever might be thought of Pierson's evidence, there was nothing in it to bear out the charge of a conspiracy; that was completely blown up. He was, if the right hon. gentleman pleased, a stupid witness, but he was no conspirator. The structure built on this founda- tion was false. The right honourable gentleman endea- voured to prove a conspiracy where there was none. 648 - PRoceedINss RELATIVE ro The ficxt case he had to consider was that of Major Tonyn. It appeared from evidence that a sum of five hun- dred pounds was deposited in the bands of Mr. Gilpin, an army-clothier in the Strand, a most respectable man, and one whom he knew very well. This was done in conse- quence of the application of Sandon, who was now expi- ating his offences in Newgate, to Donovan. This was to be the price of Mrs. Clarke's influence—of that influence which was supposed not to exist—of that influence, the existence of which Sandon had the effrontery to say he doubted, though he had paid Mrs. Clarke eight hundred pou; ds in consideration ºf it, after his friend French went to Ireland. He well knew that when he paid this eight hundred pounds that there was to be a quid pro quo. Mrs. Clarke's patronage was the quid. He would now say a few words respecting the note about Tonyn, which in his conscience he considered as affording indisputable evi- dence of the Duke of York acceding to some wish which Mrs. Clarke had communicated to him respecting Tonyn. If this note was swelled into an importance, which neither now nor at any other time he considered as due to it, it arose from the extreme agitation, the extraordinary cir- cumstances, and the something like theatrical effect with which it was brought forward He had been one of the depositaries of that secret, and he thought that the note was as dead as Homer. The Duke of York solemnly pro- tested that it was a forgery; and when in consequence the confession of Sandon, it was proved to be alive and was brought forward, he confessed that he did view it with the utmost astonishment. He looked at it again and again and again. He collated and compared it with the letters of the Duke, and the result of his operation left not the smallest doubt upon his mind that it was written by the Duke. But when Colonel Gordon gave his evidence at the bar respecting it, he was convinced. This conviction: was strengthened by the evidence of General Hope, who said he thought there was a shade of difference; and it was rendered as firm, as a rock, by the testimony of his honour- able friend (Mr. Adam), who said that he could perceive no difference. And what were the means by which it was endeavoured to shake this evidence : Why they brought forward Mr. Town, and a parcel of such trash as he had never before heard in his life. It was impossible to con- clude but that Sandon received the note from Mrs. Clarke, The colºry:AN per IN CHIEF, 649 and that she had no hand or interest whatever in forging it. Had the honourable gentleman any doubt of its genu- ineness? If he had, he must say, that he was not to be convinced by one from the dead. For himself, he had not the smallest doubt of its genuineness; he was as firmly persuaded, as that he stood on the floor, that it was writ- ten by the Duke of York, and that it was the answer to some application respecting Tonyn. The witnesses called from the bank and post-office to disprove it, verified it beyond a possibility of doubt; even Mr. Bliss, who had shewn himself the most dubious, con- fessed that he had no doubt till he had seen the hand- writing of Mrs. Clarke; but that was, in his opinion, so little founded, that he thought the note es' ablished in the elearest manner. And what did it preve? No less than Ma- jor Tonyn's business was suspended, and for a time stopped in its progress. The right honourable gentleman had said, it dove-tailed no where, but nice as he might be in that particular, it was impossible to cast it out of the case, or expunge it from the evidence in which it made so very prominent a figure. The right honourable gentleman had said that Mrs. Clarke had influence over, his Royal Highness—he might well say so; this note had incon- testibly proved it; and yet the right honourable gentle- . man had triumphantly asked, was it given for favour or . corruption.” He (Mr. Whitbread) could not say what others thought of it; but for his own part, he should that night prove by his vote what opinion he had formed of it. The next witness that had been attacked was Miss Taylor. The right honourable gentleman had begun by driving away at her (a laugh); and, after a long examina- tion, Dederick Smith was brought to prove that Miss Taylor was unworthy of credit. Upon what ground did he attempt to do this? Because he had known Miss Tay- for’s father by the name of Chance. Where had he known him by that name : Why at the Stock-exchange. Who did he ask for when he went to inquire for him there For Mr. Taylor. Ridiculous! it was known that persons assumed names in their transactions there, which they did not use any where else, such as Hazard, Goodluck, &c.; but when they retired to their retreats in the country, they were never known there by those assumed names. Smith had allowed he had for several years known this young lady's father by the name of Tay- 650 P-Roc EEDINGS RELATIVE TO lor; but because he had, from some particular fancy; been called Chance, at the Stock-exchange, this was deemed sufficient to work such an extraordinary wonder, as to affect his daughter's evidence, and render it unworthy of belief. It was a most absurd pretence; and all things considered, in the conduct of Dederick Smith, he was the evidence that ought to be discredited. Then Miss Taylor was not deserving of credit, because she had kept company with Mrs. Clarke. —Excellent and just conclusion 1 What! is no person deserving credit who has kept company with Mrs. Clarke 2 Are all those; who have been under her roof, to be deemed unworthy of belief? Did the right honourable gentleman recollect, who had been in the habit of visiting there, and of par- taking the various hospitalities of her roof? Did he re- collect that the Commander-in-chief had been there; and frequently in company with this same Miss Taylor * Did he recollect that Dr. O’Meara had been there—that his own witness General Clavering had been there—that Baroness Nollekens had been there—and would he pre- tend to say that their several evidences had been rendered vitiated and unworthy of belief on that account 2 He thought the honourable gentleman must have greatly for- gotten himself, when he assigned this as a reason for dis- crediting the evidence of Miss Taylor. He (Mr. Whit- bread) had paid particular attention to Miss Taylor's con- duct when she appeared at the bar, and in his opinion her evidence appeared to be truly innocent and irreproach- able. But it seemed Miss Taylor had received the kind-. ness of Mrs. Clarke—humane and charitable conclusion I Had not Samuel Carter received the bounty of Mrs. Clarke 2 Had not Captain Sutton, who was an excellent officer, but who happened to be unfortunate in his circum- stances—had not Captain Sutton eked out the evening of his life under the charitable assistance of Mrs. Clarke : and would the right honourable gentleman venture to say; that if Samuel Carter, of whom he had so lately spoken in such favourable terms, as that he was likely to be a credit to the profession of a soldier, would he venture to say that his evidence should not be deemed worthy of belief? or that if Captain Sutton had, before his death, been called as a witness, he should not have been deemed worthy of belief, because those persons had severally accepted the humane and charitable assistance of Mrs. Clarke : But the cow MANDER IN chief, 651 Miss Taylor, it seemed, had kept a boarding-school, and she might draw them in to send their daughters to her, which would be a heinous offence. Ingenious argument! The honourable gentleman's humanity, he had no doubt, would prompt him to subscribe liberally towards raising a Magdalen or an Asylum, for those unfortunate young females, who had already lost their virtue ; but it seemed as if he would make no allowance towards assisting a young virtuous woman in earning her livelihood by keep- i"g a boarding-school, because she had sometimes visited Mrs. Clarke, to whom she was related by marriage. An- other reason for not believing Miss Taylor was, that she had told a conversation of the Duke of York’s, which passed four years ago, with a considerable degree of ac- curacy ; and the right honourable gentleman had found fault with Mrs. Clarke, and deemed her unworthy of credit, because she did not remember a note which passed four years ago. He censured one as undeserving credit, because she could remember so well, and the other equally, because she could not remember at the same distance of time. . . The right honourable gentleman had brought himself into this dilemma. Now he (Mr. Whitbread) would not go into it at all, for he could very fairly and rationally believe, that one person may easily recollect a particular conversation which passed at a given time, and that the other might not have the slightest remembrance of a similar circumstance, though no longer a period of time had intervened. Mrs. Clarke had observed, that she had been examined by a crown lawyer, but if she heard his arguments, he thought she would have been de- sirous of choosing her lawyer from the other side of the House. The next case to which he would advert was that of French's levy; and from the whole complexion of the evidence on that head, he was convinced the Duke of York knew that Mrs. Clarke was concerned in it. He begged the House would call to mind, that this levy was against the opinion of all the general officers. Gene- ral Hewitt most decidedly set his face against it; observe what Lord Cathcart said of it; and nothing could be more decisive of its character than what Colonel Taylor had written about it: and yet, notwithstanding all this opposition—notwithstanding it was well known that French himself was much disliked, and very much out 652 proceedINGs RELATIVE To of favour at the Horse Guards, Mrs. Clarke actually pro- cured the letter of service, for which she received 500l. of French, who had left Sandon to pay her 800l. more, which he did afterwards. The whole levy was to have been for 5000 men, and was to have been raised in six months at 13 guineas a man, but at the end of that period they had only raised I46, at the enormous rate of 150l. a man; and then, by way of what the right honourable gentleman called economy, he was allowed to make a trial of a few months more. This was a most profitable job to these men, and remonstrances were made on it. An honourable friend of his (Mr. Elliott), had made a mo- tion for the papers relative to French's levy, which pa- pers were afterwards laid on the table, and are now there; and this stir it was which occasioned General White- locke to write to French to bring over the levy; and when they did come over, they were guilty not only of atroci- ties, but Colonel Robinson had accused them of crimes also. All these proofs with respect to French's levy, had come before the Committee, not from Mrs. Clarke's evi- dence alone, but from letters which she did not know were in existence. These letters were brought forward sud- denly, and shewn to Mrs. Clarke. What was her con- duct? She was, on coining to the bar, asked, “Do you know of any note written by the Duke of York, and given by you to Huxley Sandon —A. No. Q. Are you sure of it 2—A. Yes, very sure. Then comes the note. Q. Did you ever see this note before ?—A. Yes, it is his Royal Highness's writing, and therefore it must have been in my possession. Then came on the examination relative to counterfeiting or imitating of hand-writing, and though ihe questions were put with all the ingenuity and acutencss of the right honourable and learned gentle- man who conducted it, the behaviour of Mrs. Clarke, Her quick and ready answers, her whole conduct, and the expression of her eountenance carried a conviction to his mind that she was innocent of all that was imputed to her. All the letters were unknown to her. She knew nothing of Nicholls not having burnt them. She had had no communication with any of the persons. Ni- cholls was at Hampstead; French in Jamaica; Sandon just returned from Portugal; yet these letters were brought, and she was desired to prove them without THE COMMAN DER IN CHIEF. 653 being suffered to read them, which she did without the smallest hesitation, though he thought, at the time, it was a measure of severity bordering on injustice, and was af- terwards sorry he did not object to it. Miss Taylor's ex- pressions, too, were very strong in proof of the Duke's privity—“Master French must mind what he's about, or I'll cut up him and his levy too. How does he deal with you, Darling 2"—These were terms which were very likely to pass between them in such a conversation as that alluded to, and weighed very strongly with him. He was to be recollected, also, that Sandon said he had always told French he suspected Mrs. Clarke had not the interest’ she pretended to have ; yet he paid her himself, by French's orders, 500l. and afterwards 800l. ; and, by a strange and accidental coincidence, it happened that one of these letters mentioned the day when the 5091. was paid ; and it appeared by Mrs. Clarke's evidence, she had, without knowing any thing of this letter, mentioned the very day after as that on which she paid in 500l. to Birkett, the silversmith, in part payment for a service of plate which had been ordered, and for the remainder of which his. Royal Highness paid. Mrs. Clarke had said, she supposed Birkett's books would shew the exact day; but it seemed they did not, and Mr. Dockery could not, or would not remember any thing certain on the subject of the day on which it was paid. It seemed very odd that this gentleman should never have seen the Duke of York more than twice, as he said, when there appeared to be a long account of various articles, in settling which there must have been a variety of payments made by his Royal Highness, who had paid 1100l. for the plate alone, beside the 500l. paid by Mrs. Clarke on that account. The article of plate called forcibly to his mind the fate of nations, and shewed how nearly. that was associated with the fortune of individuals. This plate had been the pro- perty of the Duke de Berri, one of the unfortunate branches of the royal family of France, and had been brought by Birkett to Mrs. Clarke to shew to the Duke of York. When it was recollected in what a meridian blaze of splendour the Dukes de Berri had always shone in the magnificent court of France, in its prosperous days, it was a melancholy reflection to trace the household plate, with the arms of that iſlustrious branch of the royal family of the Bourbons, to the shop of Mr. Birkett, the pawn- º 6543. PRoceedings RELATIve to broker. It would almost seem to be a kind of splendid warning of the uncertainty and vicissiſude of human affairs, even in the highest sphere of life. It would seem to call forcibly to the recollection, how very suddenly the splendid and ancient monarchy of France was overthrown, not by systems or theories of philosophers, but by foul and base corruption. Trace the history of France from the luxurious days of the La Wallieres and Montespans, down to those of Pampadours and Barres, and you will see the destruction and overthrow of the monarchy, which drove the illustrious branches of the Bourbon family into foreign exile, originating in private vice, and finally com- pleted by the deceitful and unbounded extravagance of those entrusted with public confidence and official situ- ation. One cannot help thinking, said the honourable gentleman, that the circumstance of the Duke de Berri's plate having been disposed of in this way, and then-com- ing into the possession of the Duke of York, must have occasioned some sensations in the bosºm of his Royal Highness which could not fail to rouse his feelings for the fate of that unfortunate family, and which would cause him inwardly to ejaculate—“I thank God for the warning which this magnificent monument of the insta- bility of greatness holds up to my view, and I will use it as a beacon to guard me against the danger of those rocks on which others, once as great and powerful as I am now, have been so unexpectedly wrecked and ruined.” The next case he should notice was that of Mr. Dowler, and he should do it in a very few words. The right ho- mourable gentleman had said, that he had been cºnvicted of a falsehood by Mr. Alderman Coombe. This he (Mr. Whitbread) positively denied. Mr. Dowler, had never made the admission which the right honourable gentleman had assumed, and his honourable friend (Mr. Coombe), could prove that he had never done so. The fact was, when the right honourable gentleman got over Mr. Dow- ler as a witness, he supposed he had entirely done with him, and that his commissariat was gone for ever. The right honourable gentleman's friends had searched every where, and met with no information on the subject—no trace was to be found how he came by his appointment. A former secretary to the treasury was appealed to— the present secretary of the treasury had been called on, but they knew nothing about it. Even Brooke Watson THE COMMANDER IN GH1 ER, £55 had been called to among the dead, but his evidence was in favour of Mr. Dowler's account, for not a syllable ap- peared in any of his papers, which could give even a trace to his having been appointed through his means. Mr. Dowler had, however, been in the commissariat for several years: they could not unmake him. He had been sent to South America, he had been sent to Portugal, from both of which he had returned home, as it seemed almost providentially, for he was sent with dispatches, and that could scarcely be to conspire with Mrs. Clarke by giving his evidence; and though the two secretaries of the treasury could, after all their searches, find no clue by which to guide them in course, Mr. Dowler had him- self furnished them with one. He had told them of Mr. Vernon, from whom he had received his commission, who had congratulated him on his appointment to the commissariat, but Mr. Vernon had never been called on. If Mr. Dowler had been appointed by Brooke Watson, Mr. Vernon in all likelihood could ascertain it; and could he have done so, he would unquestionably have been pro- duced. Though Mr. Dowler had slept with Mrs. Clarke in St. Martin's-lane, the honourable and learned gentle- man could not do what Jupiter had done, call back a past day; they could not do away his commissariat, though they could charge him with passing his hours with that fair Delila in forming a conspiracy to impose on the House, by giving evidence that he purchased his appoint- ment from her. He (Mr. Whitbread) did firmly and solemnly believe that Mrs. Clarke had obtained for him that appointment: the thing was done; the money was paid ; and now this third detailed conspiracy was com- pletely broken up. . There was one more transaction on which he wished to make a few observations; it was that of Mr. Elderton. In this case Mrs. Clarke seemed to have acted in a very feeling way, and perhaps had done it gratuitously. And in looking at these transactious, he never meant to say or to insinuate that the Duke of York had put money in his pocket; he had always considered him as far superior to any such base or grovelling motives; he considered al- ways, that if he had done any such thing, it had been as a favour to his mistress. Mrs. Clarke had fairly and clearly shown how she had effected it. She mentioned it to his Royal Highness, who promised her it should be 656 PRoceepſ Ncs RELATIVE ro done, He told Mr. Greenwood-4 one Mr. Elderton will call on you for a paymastership”—verbum sat—it is done. Mr. Greenwood could do no other that let him have it; and he candidly told the House that Mr. Elder- ton had been appointed. His gratitude prompted him to write the letter of thanks, Mrs. Clarke never knew the Petter of Mr. Elderton was in existence—it came from Nicholls's magazine at Hampstead, and she imagined it had been burned, and had no idea that by his basely neg- lecting to do so, it would be produced on this occasion in aid and support of her evidence, which the right honour- able gentleman was so desirous to discredit and overturn. There was one more case, that of Kennet, but he would not trespass on the time of the House by dwelling on it. The right honourable gentleman had, both in the outset of this business and towards its conclusion, talked of con- spiracies. It might do very well at the beginning, but how at the conclusion' he could dwell upon conspiracies somewhat surprized him. After it had been shewn that the conspirators were all in different stories, how was it to be carried on 3 Mrs. Clarke fairly and candidly tells her story, and mentions Sandon, French, and Donovan, as the persons who first applied to her for the purpose of opening a traffic in promotions, exchanges, &c. When these gentlemen are called upon, instead of appearing to be in a conspiracy with Mrs. Clarke, they seemed to be in one against her. Mr. Donovan gave a most reluctant evi- dence, and was guilty, on the first day's examination, of the most barefaced prevarication. Mr. Huxley Sandon had done the same, and always said he thought Mrs. Clarke had not the interest she had boasted, though he had paid so handsomely at different periods to obtain it. The right honourable gentleman then came to wonders; but might not a number of conspirators combine against one She could not conspire with them, for Dowler was in Portugal; Sandon was in Spain; all of whom arrived, providentially as it were, to prove, in various ways, that there had been no conspiracy between them and Mrs; Clarke, nor between them and his honourable friend ; Śā. far from it, Sandon, by his intended conspiracy against them, and again.tthe ends of justice, had, in the hands of Pro- videnec, been the means of the production of those letters which had irrefragably proved the truth of Mrs. Clarke's testimony, and disclosed the whole of the facts of the THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 657 transactions of which his Royal Highness had been charg- ed with having a knowledge, at a moment when she could have no sort of controul over them, and, in truth, was ig- norant they were in existence. His honourable friend had been told, in the outset of this inquiry, that infamy must attach somewhere; and where has it fallen It was for the House to determine that question ; for his part, he was bold to say, that no infamy attached to his honour- able friend, from his conduct in the business; but, on the contrary, he thought that House and the whole country were highly indebted to his spirit and patriotism, for hav- ing brought forward those charges. A conspiracy had been talked of; who, he demanded, were the conspirators? The Jacobins—Yes, and in Gloucester-place did the Ge- nius of Jacobinism preside—there were his midnight re- vels held, and there sat the Duke of York himself as chair- man of the festive board. There was the nest in which he was nourished, and such was the situation from which his honourable friend had endeavoured to rescue him. The Genius of Jacobinism holds his habitation as much in the dwelling of the prince as of the peasant—as frequently in the palace as in the cottage; and it was from the palace, if they would live in safety, they must first expel him. “Who, then (said Mr. Whitbread) is the true Anti-Ja- cobin Not the report which goes forth, and defeats its end by its falsity—not the publication which plainly evinces its prejudice by its asperity. No ; my honourable friend is the true Anti-Jacobin ; he stands forward in the cause of royalty, because in the cause of truth, and be- comes the best defender of the state, because endeavour- ing to free it from corruption. Jacobinism “makes the food it feeds on;’ it hangs upon a prince's follies, that it may turn them into vices, and even aims its venom at this assembly, which will, I trust, by doing its duty, defeat the vile design.” The House would do a good office by the country—it would act nobly by the Duke himself; and he trusted, if, as in the scale of human probability he might, that illustrious personage should ever nount the throne of England, the people would see the consequences of their chastisement in his reform. He had dug a trench around himself, into which, unless cautious, he must fall. Why had he written such a letter to the House 2 “I speak not,” continued Mr. Whitbread, “ of its trenching upon our privileges; but yºu he reduce us to the as: 658 PROCE EDINGS RELATI W L T Oy melancholy situation of crediting the evidence we have heard, even against the honour of a prince—The honour of a prince l—Alas, we must all come to that fatal period, when death, which knows no distinction, will class the prince with the peasant! and yet let us even turn to that awful spectacle, and shall we not find the wretch, with a rope about his neck, protesting that innocence which he knows he is not possessed of Protestations, then, I never will heed—in this case I hear of them with horror!” It’ had been said, that public virtue was now conspicuous. He admitted, that the desire of gain did not now entice men from their duty as frequently as it had ; and why : because exposure had taught them caution; because the appointment of Salutary committees had unmasked, cor- ruption, and held peculation up to public view. The House had an instance, very lately, in which even its power could not shield a delinquent from condemnation. Did not the very books on the table produce a signal ex- ample to the House. Let it reform. Let it profit by its experience. He had heard of calumny and libel; aye, and prosecutions too. He wished such prosecutions to have an end, if their only crime was a belief in abuses which had here been proved. Let the House but do its duty, and the cause in which they originated was gone. He hoped, however, if such prosecutions were pursued, both sides of the question would be viewed, and such pro- ductions as the “ Plain Statement,” which would consti- tute the Duke of York a sort of “imperium in imperio,” not forgotten. But he turncé to this momentous question, before which Buonaparte and his victories were but flea- bites; he besought the House, in the name of every thing sacred, to do its duty. “The plague,” said he, “ is gone abroad——let us offer up the incense——let us stand between the dead and the living ere the disease spreads, and cor- ruption riots'mid the ruins of our constitution.” * The Attorney General said, that as the lion. gentleman had addressed some observations to him, he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations in his turn to that honourable gentleman. That honourable gentleman had said, that he would not for the world attempt to gain the vote of any man, unless from his conviction. But he well knew what authority he possessed in that House, and it seemed to be his own conviction which he endeavoured to impress upon the mirl of others. The present ques- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 659 tion divided itself into two, and upon a proper separation of these two distinct questions must rest the fate of the ad- dresses that have been moved. These questions were : 1st. Whether the corruptions complained of existed or not;—2dly. Whether the Duke of York, if they existed, was privy to them. The honourable gentleman observed that the Duke of York, in the eyes of justice, should not. be more considered than the lowest subject—granted ; but then let not the hon. gentleman deny to his Royal High- ness what is allowed to the meanest subject. Let him assert his innocence; and let it not be brought against him as an additional charge, that he declared the charges alledged against him are wholly unfounded. Let the mat- ter be examined without prejudice or partiality. But the hon. gentleman seems ready to stand forth the champion of Mrs. Clarke's veracity, which he tells us we have made ineffectual attempts to discredit. Mrs. Clarke is the god- dess of his idolatry, and he will not allow the sacredness of her character to be violated. But how does the matter stand 2 Is not her evidence impeached by that of Mr. Nicholls of Hampstead Did not Mrs. Clarké deny ever having passed herself for a widow ; or ever having repre- sented herself as wife of Mr. Dowler. Yet it has been proved by Mr. Nicholls, that Mrs. Clarke has passed her- self for a widow, and afterwards for the wife of Mr. Dow- ler; and that when asked, why she endeavoured to con- ceal her marriage? her answer was, that if the Duke of York knew it, he would send Mr. Dowler out of the coun- try. But while the honourable gentleman was busy in de- fending one witness, he does not forget to abuse another. Mrs. Clarke had left some papers at Hampstead; in the hands of Mr. Nicholls. The present charges being noised abroad, Mrs. Clarke wishes to get back the papers, and sends to Mr. Nicholls to demand them. Mr. Nicholls re- fuses them, and for this refusal the honourable gentleman accuses him of having acted basely, dishonestly, and cor- ruptly. These were hard words ; and were Mr. Nicholls in that House, he would be entitled to retort them. But it is the object of the hon. gentleman to beat down Mr. Nicholls, and to uphold Mrs.'Clarke. But Mr. Nicholls may defend himself. He may say Mrs. Clarke is my debtor; and I am justified in retaining her papers until I am paid what she is justly indebted to me. . Büt it is not only Mr. Nicholls whom the honourable gentleman at- * 2 U 2 - 660 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO tacks, but those who brought him forward as a witness. Other witnesses, however, have deposed to the same effect. Is not Mrs. Clarke again contradicted when she denies that she passed at Reid's hotel for Mrs. Dowler? and here again is a material contradiction to be observed on the part of Mr. Dowler. Mr. Dowler says, he saw Mrs. Clarke on the Sunday after his arrival, and that he only found her address through the medium of the newspapers; yet Mrs. Clarke flew to him immediately on his arrival, and passed a night with him at the hotel he had already mentioned. This again was a material contradiction on the part of Mr. Dowler, who was anxious to make the House believe he was an unwilling witness. Mrs. Clarke's evidence is also contradicted by Mr. Knight, where he asserts, that Mrs. Clarke made it a point that all should be kept a secret from the Duke of York, and that she also threatened to bring forward the Duke's letters. Mrs. Clarke is also contradicted where she says, that she never knew Mrs. Favery under any other name than that of Favery; although it has been proved that she knew Mrs. Favery under the name of Farquhar, and had even recom- mended her as housekeeper to Mr. Ellis, under that name. Were not these contradictions, and contradictions of the most direct nature? Where then is the honourable gen- tleman's boasted success in beating out of the field all those who would attempt to discredit the evidence of Mrs. Clarke The transaction of the exchange between Brooke and Knight, only proves that Kuight was deluded by Thynne, and that Thynne was deluted by Mrs. Clarke. It may be true that the 200l. was paid; but nothing roves that it was paid to the knowledge of the Duke of ork; yet this is the case upon which the greatest stress is laid. The learned gentleman then proceeded through the examination of the other cases; where he again con- victed Mrs. Clarke of contradiction, and exposed the arts which she put in practice to gain money, by inducing a belief that she had great influence over the Duke, which in no one instance can it be proved that his Royal High- ness was ever acquainted with any of her stratagems, much less that he had ever participated in the fruits of her in positions. Wiewing the charges in that light, and thoroughly convinced of the innocence of the Duke of York, he felt himself bound to vote for the amendment of his right honourable friend. THE COMMANDER IN chrer. 661 Mr. Bankes, at that late hour, would only give notice of his intention to move an amendment of the original ad- dress, taking the substance of that address as far as he could coneur in it. He was glad, too, to take advantage of the few hours the delay would give him to correct his amendment, by the advice of his friends. He should at present merely state, that the effect of his amendment would be to say, that the House negatived the imputa- tion of corruption in his Royal Highness the Duke of York, or of participation in any part of the profits of the traffic which had been proved; but thought it unadvise- able, under all the present circumstancs, that his Royal Highness should any longer continue to hold the office of £ommander-in-chief. Friday, March 10, 1809, Mr. Bankes rose and said, he was confident the House would grant him its indulgence, while he took the liberty of stating what to him seemed the best mode of proceeding to be adopted on the present occasion. He should feel concerned, if through his means, any unnecessary pro- traction of the affair should take place. But when he considered the necessity of attending to the form in which their deliberations should with propriety be moulded, he must express the conviction of his mind, as to the neces- sity of laying before his majesty an uniform address. He had no objection to concurring with the resolutions of the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exche- quer) provided he agreed to the amendment which he would propose. In this discussion he was anxious for a full statement at once, in order that the House may be as- sured of what it was engaged in. There was nothing which he so much wished to obviate, as any intricacy in the matter. His sole object was to amend the amendment, and substantially to maintain the preliminary part of the resolutions. The propriety of discussion on the point of form, he stated to be proved by precedents, in the years 1759 and 1783, which the Speaker was so kind as to afford him. Founding therefore his motives on those precedents, it was his intention to bring the House to a division upon the amendment, while he should wish to preserve the pre- vious part of the original motion. In that House he was con- fident there was no individual who attended the pending inquiry with more reluctance than he did. It was impos- sible for him to conceal his apprehensions that the result of this inquiry would be of more detriment than service. :662 ... PROCEEDINGS, RELATIVE To But as the House had so far gone into the case, he trusted it would acquit itself with honour. In proposing the re- sult, of the opinion which he had formed, he felt assured that it would not disgrace him. As he entertained no wish for the same prolongation of debate as on the former nights, he should not add to the ample discussion which had already taken place on the general question. What had been done by the right hon. gentleman (the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer) was not only performed with dis- tinguished ability and creditable zeal, but with consider- able fairness. What he had said he believed to be from the genuine impression of his honourable mind; and he conceived that the whole House would concur with him when he asserted, that the speech of the right honourable gentleman was one of the ablest that was ever delivered by any member in it. (Hear! hear! hear !) It would occur to the mind of any honourable gentleman, that of all other kinds of investigation, the present should be one least incumbered by the confusion which would infallibly be the consequence of introducing into the House what he knew to be always to its disadvantage—a judicial form of inquiry. Great credit was due to the House for the means which it employed in the investigation, and he hoped that its decision would be attended with equal honour. He could not but express his surprize at the extraordinary grounds which some gentleman had ad- duced for the invalidation of evidence. Because some contradiction had been proved, did it follow that the whole mass of testimony was to be rejected Was it con- formable to common sense to deny, that there was truth in any because some parts were false? Would it not be more consonant with reason and justice to separate the truth from the falsehood, and act upon that separation in the conclusion which would be drawn 2 When a variety of facts were found to be substantiated, would any one say that they should not be taken into consideration ? Some points had been proved so strongly, as to be out of the reach of contradiction. These, he conceived, were points which fully established the connection of corrupt practices between her and the royal personage concerned. As to the attempt of invalidating Miss Taylor's testimony, he was convinced it was unsuccessful. Circumstances themselves bore internal evidence with them. Miss Tay- lor, stated what she knew, and he believed that her state- ment of a conversation between his Royal Highness and “THE COMMANDER IN CHI EF. 663 Mrs. Clarke tended strongly to involve the former in con- siderable suspicion. If she did not state more, which, from the degree of intimacy between Mrs. Clarke and her, it was contended she might, was that any reason why her veracity in what she disclosed should be questioned? The objections raised against the depositions of this witness he considered to be extremely weak. He would say of the note, which had been termed a mysterious one, that to him it appeared a thing, quite unintelligible. He consi- dered it to be a fabricated one, and sent by Mrs. Clarke to Tonyn as the Duke's, Tonyn being wholly unacquainted with the hand-writing of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. . He believed further, that Sandon was the bearer of that note. It was not perfectly clear to him, that the transaction was a secret to his Royal Highness. He had no reason, if he were obliged to say aye or no on the occa- sion, why he should not answer in the affirmative. Though it was not the object of the amendments which he would propose, to prove any personal corruption in the Duke of º yet it was impossible not to suspect its existence in a considerable degree. There were many melancholy con- firmations of it. The case of French's levy strongly roved the general intercourse which was so highly dis- creditable to the Commander-in-chief. The letter of Dr. O’Meara was another case. Why should that foolish and ambitions man apply to Mrs. Clarke, if he were not con- winced that she possessed the influence which was neces- sary to the accomplishment of his views 2 This case, he would say, entirely contradicted the line of demarcation established by the right honourable gentleman, on the sup- position that the Duke avoided all conversation with Mrs. Clarke on affairs of that nature. . It was absolutely impos- sible that such concerns should escape her knowledge, from the habit of unreserved communication with which he treated her. It would not be proper, he conceived, to propose any criminal proceedings. But it would be the part of justice to his Royal Highness, and the country in general, that the House should state its opinions on the subject to his majesty, as the father of his country, and an affectionate parent. He felt amazed that the constant application of Mrs. Clarke to the Duke did not create some doubts and suspicions in his royal mind. In the corre- spondence between her and Sandon, she spoke of a mu- tual jealousy entertained between her and Greenwood and sº 664 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE Tey Gordon; she wished that Sandon would burn all her lets ters; and expressed her fears, lest the cleverness of Green, wood’s clerks should detect the transactions in which she was concerned; yet, throughout, it seemed she had felt no apprehensions from being seen with Sandon. This proved that there was a reserve between the Commander- in-chief and Mrs. Clarke on the communications with Sandon. That House, the honourable member said, was not only the guardian of the country's liberties, but also the guardian of public morals. (Hear, hear.) Was it possible, from the evidence which had been unveiled to the House, to entertain any doubts of the public scans dal which had been given by the conduct of his Royal Highness? Were the present case dismissed without its merited comment, he should say there were just reas sons for inveighing against the morals of the country. He considered that the substantive part of the address to his majesty should be coupled with a suspicion that his Royal Highness must have had some knowledge of the corrupt practices which had existed. And he further felt that the House would only be discharging an im- perative duty in stating to his majesty their conviction that the present Commander-in-chief could not any longer remain a useful servant of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Such a proceeding would be rendered necessary, in order to do away the scandal which had arisen in the face of the public. At the same time it may be necessary to say, that the existcnce of such a connection as led to those events was sincerely lamented by the House. He would ask of any gentleman, whether it ought to be cone ceived that their proceedings should be the echo of a letter?—(Loud cries of hear; hear.)—If there were no other reasons to induce the House-to the adoption of such a line of conduct as he proposed it would be sufficient of itself. To follow any other line would look like humble obedience to the instructions of that letter which was re- ceived under such extraordinary circumstances. What he proposed to their consideration proceeded, he trusted from a pure and honest source.—In the proposition which he was about to submit to the House, he knew that he was by no means singular in opinion. He had found, in conversation, that his views of the subject were similar . to those of many of his friends. He concluded by moys ing an amendment to the following effect:- * THE comm ANDER IN chief, 665 * That an humble address be presented to his majesty, stating to his majesty, that information had been com- municated to the House, of various corrupt practices and abuses prevailing in the administration of the army, with respect to the disposal of commissions and appointments, into which the House had examined, and felt themselves obliged to acquaint his majesty, that the result of that inquiry was a conviction, that such corrupt practices and abuses had unquestionably existed. To assure his mas jesty of the high satisfaction which they experienced in finding no grounds to charge the Commander-in-chief with personal corruption, or criminal connivance, in those practices; but, at the same time to observe, that while the House were anxious to do justice to the ad. yantages which the army had derived from the super- intendance of his Royal Highness, and more particularly to the salutary regulations which he had introduced (some of which were directed against the very practices com- plained of), they were obliged to express their opinion to his majesty, that abuses could scarcely have existed to the extent to which they were proved to have existed, without exciting some suspicion in the mind of the Com- mander-in-chief. To submit to his majesty, that, if even that circumstance were left out of the consideration, their opinion was, that the command of the army could no longer with propriety or prudence remain in the hands of his, Royal Highness; the recent inquiry having un- yeiled a course of conduct tending to set the worst ex- ample; in the highest degree injurious to the cause of morals and religion; and which, if not discountenanced, most injure those sources of the tranquillity and hap- piness of the country.” - Mr. Yorke expressed his satisfaction, that among the members of the House there were so many, who, from their situation in the country as magistrates and grand jurors, were familiar with the rules of evidence, and . would feel the force of the observations which he thought it his duty to make.—Adverting to a remark from the honourable gentleman in whom this discussion originated, he declared his persuasion, that although that House was the virtual representative of the people, and Qught not to act without a' reference to popular feeling; yet that they would on no occasion sacrifice their judgment to popular glamour. There were two general questions to which he 666 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO should call the attention of the House; the first was, whether his Royal Highness was criminally implicated in the transactions that had been developed (on the decision of which question another would arise with respect to the further proceeding that it would be proper to adopt); or secondly, supposing his Royal Highness to be ac- quitted of any criminality, whether he was still liable to - censure for negligence, or on any other ground; and what proceedings it would be advisable for the House to pursue. Although he entirely differed in opinion from his right honourable friend who had just sat down, he was far from ascribing to him any purposed contrivance to render difficult the course which the House had to adopt. He could not, however, help being surprized to hear his right honourable friend say, that the course which he had advised was calculated to avoid intricacy. The direct reverse was the case. His right honourable friend, in the address which he had proposed, admitted in substance the first resolution of the right honourable gen- tleman near him, namely, that it was proper the House should come to a decision on the question ; but his right honourable friend could not, it seemed, agree to the second resolution of the right honourable gentleman, be- cause there was a sentence in the latter part of it to which he objected. Would not the most plain and obvious course have been for his right honourable friend, when that resolution was put, to propose to the House an amend- ment, comprising his view of the subject? Such a step would have been simple, and would have avoided all that confusion which must result from the change in the form of the question before the House: in the first instance, from an address to resolutions, and now from resolutions to an address. , Having made these preliminary observations, he would proceed to comment on the case before them. The facts were these: that his Royal Highness the Duke of York had most unfortunately met with an abandoned wo- man of the name of Clarke, with whom he continued con- nected for three years, during which period. Mrs. Clarke, with the assistance of agents of the vilestºcharacter, car- ried on to a certain extent a system of corruption with re- ference to promotions in the army and other, transactions. Of these facts, as proved by the evideºce, there could be no doubt. It remained to be proved, first, whether his Royal Highness had any criminal participation in these The comitan Ben in chief. . . . 667 *66currences; or, secondly, if not, whether he had been so negligent in his conduct as to deserve the severe cen- sure that it was proposed to inflict upon him. What was the nature of the evidence that had been adduced 2 The principal witness was Mrs. Clarke: and he confessed that he could give no credit to that part of her testimony which affected the Duke of York, unless when it was corroborated ‘by other evidence. There was one circumstance relating to , Mrs. Clarke, which had not been hitherto adverted to : it had gone to the public, that Mrs. Clarke was a married wo- man, who, having been debauched by the Duke of York, and seduced from the course of virtue, lived with him for some time, and that he then abandoned her. What was the fact It had been distinctly stated in evidence, that Mrs. Clarke was very intimately acquainted with Mr. 6)gilvie, an army agent, before she resided in Gloucester- place. She had been examined on Ogilvie’s commission of bankruptcy, and her answers shewed, that if she did not live with Mr. Ogilvie, he lived with her. Considering ... her subsequent conduct, he had not the least doubt that Mrs. Clarke came to the Duke of York, completely in- structed in all the mysteries of army brokerage. When Mrs. Clarke was asked, on herexamination, what could in- duce her to adopt this system of trafficking in military promotions, she replied, her distresses, occasioned by finding that her allowance was not sufficient to defray the expence. Let the House consider dates a little. It had been stated by Mrs. Clarke herself, that no proceeding of the sort to which he had alluded, took place until some months, he believed half a year, after she got to Glouccs- ter-place. The establishment at Gloucester-place com- menced about January 1804. Now it was to be observed, that the first proposal made by Colonel French to raise a levy was dated the 1st of February 1804. (He was fully satisfied that Mrs. Clarke was acquainted with Colonel French and Captain Sandon, during her connection with Mr. Ogilvie.) Colonel French’s proposals were accepted in April, 1804. It was impossible, therefore, that the state- ment made by Mrs Clarke, that her having meddled with military transactions was attributable to her distresses, could be true; for it was evident, that she must have been negotiating with Colonel French and Captain Sandon in February and March 1804, and it was not in the least * * i. - - 668 PRöcEEDINGS RELATIve ro credible that her distresses could have commenced at that early period. This appeared to him a complete contra. diction of one of the most material points of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, and to shake the superstructure which she had endeavoured to build on her falsehood. The only evi- dence by which Mrs. Clarke had been corroborated on this subject was by that of Miss Taylor. To Miss Taylor's evidence he could not attach any weight. She had made one statement which it was clear she must have known to be untrue. It respected Mrs. Favery. Miss Taylor allow, ed that she knew Mrs. Favery when the latter lived with Mr. Ellis, but she never recollected her going by the name of Farquhar. He put it to the common sense of the House whether she could possibly be ignorant of this circum, stance. When this circumstance was considered—when Miss Taylor's intimacy with Mrs. Clarke was considered, and when the defect of her memory on every other point was considered, he contended that no weight could attach to Miss Taylor's testimony. But be that as it might, he was persuaded that the conversation to which Miss Taylor. bore witness could not with justice be interpreted into any proof that his Royal Highness had a criminal knowledge of the transaction to which it related. It was probable that some conversation might have taken place; and it was probable, considering his Royal Highness's confidence in Mrs. Clake, and considering that he was not aware that she came out of the bands of an army broker, that that con- versation might have a reference to military subjects. The probability, however, was, that the utmost that took place might be a complaint on the part of the Duke of York against Colonel French and his levy; and if the House could refer to dates they would find, that just about that time (April 1805), his Royal Highness was going to ut an end to it. On some such remark he had little doubt that the other circumstances were ingrafted. He kncw that Mrs. Clarke was perfectly equal to the inven- tion of these circumstances, and he did not know that Miss Taylor was not equal to declare them when invented. As to the case of Major Tonyn, the only circumstance that connected his Royal Highness with it was the note. On the face of it, it was doubtful whether that note was written by the Duke of York or not, and it could not be admitted as evidence of his knowledge of the transaction to which it referred. No one could doubt, from the abandoned chas † ºf H+, COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 669 racter of Mrs. Clarke, that she would hesitate to forge a note for the purpose of forwarding her objects. It had been proved that she possessed great facility in the imita- tion of hand-writing. The character of her own hand- writing had some resemblance to that of his Royal High- ness the Duke of York. One of the witnesses, an indi- vidual conversant with hand-writing, had declared that on a second inspection he was by no means satisfied that the note in question was not a º: Mrs. Clarke had an interest in forging this note. It was to procure for her the speedy payment of 500l. But whether the note was forged or not, it was of such a vague description that it could not be received as evidence. It was without a date, and the name of Tonyn, a name by no means uncommon, might refer to some other individual of that name. In an inquiry, the tendency of which was to inflict such a severe punishment as that proposed, it was most essential that not any documentary evidence should be admitted, the authenticity of which was not completely established. Adverting to the case of Carter, he observed, that this subject had been so successfully handled by the right honourable gentleman near him, that he would say nothing upon it, except that the Duke of York had as high a feeling of what was due to the honour of an army as any man of the country; nor would he detain the House with any observations on Colonel Shaw's ap- pointment—a transaction in which it was impossible that any criminal connivance on the part of his Royal Highness could exist. On the case of Dowler also he should only refer to what had been said so ably by that right honourable gentleman. Mr. Dowler was evidently the favourite paramour of Mrs. Clarke, whom he had known for several years, and on whom, it appeared by his own evidence, he had expended considerable sums of money. Was it to be believed, that under such circum- stances Dowler could be required by Mrs. Clarke to pay her 1000l. for the exercise of her influence? He had no doubt but that this had been a scheme for the purpose of getting 1000l. out of old Mr. Dowler. As to the actual appointment, it was to him pretty clear, that Dowler had obtained it from Sir Brook Watson; and indeed he had himself declared that in his subsequent conversation with Alderman Combe. He would now proceed to make some observations on the general view of the whole case, and 670's PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To on the course of proceeding which, in his. opinion; ºthe, House ought to pursue.—The address proposed by the. honourable gentleman opposite contained no distinct opi- nion on the criminality or innocence of his Royal High- ness.--It insinuated every, thing, and asserted, nothing. But yet it concluded by requesting, his majesty to dismiss his Royal Highness from the command of the army. To such a proposition there were insurmountable objéctions. If his Royal Highness were thought by the House guilty. of that which was imputed to him, they ought to impeach; him. If on that impeachment his Royal Highness were: found guilty by his peers, of criminal participation, in eorrupt purposes, or of participation in those purposes; did any man think, that merely to remove;him from his command would be enough?, No; under such circum- stances, it would be the duty, of both Houses.of Parlia- ment to carry fo the foot of the throne a bill to exclude his Royal Highness from the succession. If itſ were. deemed proper, in a former period of our history, to dis-, cuss the propriety of excluding a prince from the suc-. cession, because he adhered to the religion of his fore- fathers, he would say, that if a prince in the present day. were convicted by his peers of transactions so base and criminal, as to tarnish the brilliancy, of the crown on the head of majesty, and sully the ermine on his robe, the proposition agitated in the time of Charles II. should now be carried into effect, and a bill, to exclude such a prince from the throne, ought to be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. But that his R. H. the Duke of York had been guilty of any such dereliction of duty he absolutely denied. There was not a tittle of evidence to support such a charge. There was not, one of the four cases al- leged to be improper appointments, in which it was not shewn that those appointments would have taken place had Mrs. Clarke abstained from any interference. The evidence of Colonel Gordon distinctly established this fact. Colonel Gordon declared, that he never recollected any wish to have been expressed by the Commander-in- chief to depart from the usual course of military pro- motion. The honourable gentleman opposite had laid great stress on the evil consequences of the correspond- "ence between the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke, on military matters; but the only solitary instance of such a communication, was to be found in the letter:to Mrs. \ THE COM MAN DER IN CHIEF. 67.1 Clarke, in which his Royal Highness mentioned General Clavering. He was therefore astonished to hearthé-ho- nourable gentlemen go on, and state that his Royal High- ‘ ness was in the habit of corresponding with Mrs. Clarke on military subjects. Mrs. Clarke had herself positively denied that there was any thing which related to military promotions in the other letters that she had received from his Royal Highness. On the whole he was convinced, that the evidence that had been brought forward on these cases was far from being such as to induce the House to accede to the proposition made to them, and the ten- dency of which would be to displace from the command of the army his Royal Highness the Duke of York; an event which he should extremely deplore, both with a view to the interests of the army, and with a view to the interests of the country, as connected with the army. The British army had never distinguished itself more than at those periods when the chief command of it was vested in a prince of the blood. He instanced the case of King William, who assumed the command of his own army, and the officers formed by whom, had so nobly distin- guished themselves in the glorious war of the succession. Another instance was, when the army was under the com- mand of the Duke of Cumberland, when it signalized itself at Minden and in other parts of Germany. In addition to these instances, he would say, without fear of contra- diction, that the army formed by his Royal Highness the Duke of York was not only the best this country pos- sessed, but that putting numbers out of the question, it was the finest army in Europe.' . At a time like the pre- sent, it would be to him a matter of deep regret, if any circumstance should render it necessary to place the chief command of that army in other hands. In better it could not be; and it was more than probable that the greatest inconveniencies and evils must be the result of any change. An honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread), had said, that his Royal Highness'was not a fit person for the chief command of the army, because among other things he was irresponsible (A cry of no, no). So he had understood the honourable gentleman. This at least, he knew, that such was the popular opinion. Nothing could be more groundless. The Duke of York was just as responsible as any other man. That he was so the present proceeding afforded sufficient proof. (Hear; 672 PRoceedings RELATIVE T6 hear!) For his part, he was convinced that the King (God bless him!) could not do better than have a son in the chief command of his army. It would be well, before coming to a decision on the subject before them, for the House to consider, that if they agree to the resolution proposed by the right honourable gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes), they would remove from the service of the state one of its most able and distinguished servants, merely because his mistress had been engaged in four transactions of which he had no knowledge. The right Honourable gentleman's amendment went to state, that it would be prudent in his Royal Highness to resign; but he would say that it was not prudent in the House of Commons to listen to a popular outcry—(Hear; hear!) They ought not to be moved by external circumstances, which naturally arose from what had fallen out in the course of the inquiry, and the cry of corruption being raised on points not under the cognizance of the House. The idea of thousands squandered on a woman of an in- famous description—thousands earned by the sweat of the people's brows, was a very natural topic for decla- mation and popular impression ; but was the House to adopt proceedings on such a clamour, and to say that his Royal Highness was guilty of corruption; because an outcry of this kind was raised, to determine that he was unfit to hold the chief command of the army Without such a popular clamour, no man in that House would have thought that this was a proper course. Let them then speak out manfully, and give their own opinions without bias; and as none could say that from this cla- mour they were induced to believe the Duke of York unfit for the command, never let them recommend a measure for his dismissal. He concluded by thanking the House for the attention with which they had listened to him during the time he was occupied in stating his opinion on this important question. On Mr. Yorke's sitting down, a number of members rose to deliver their sentiments, and a cry of several names, hear! hear! order! order prevailed for a considerable time. The Speaker having mentioned the gentleman who first caught his eye, - Mr. Leach continued, and stated, that he could not con- cur either with the original address or the amendment pro- posed by the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes), THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 673 He could not agree with them because they neither con- victed nor acquitted the Commander-in-chief of the cor- ruption with which he was charged, or of the knowledge of the existence of corrupt practices, and yet they ad- dressed to remove him from the chief command of the army. He would beg leave to take a short view of the question as it appeared to him, and to state to the House the material points which operated on his mind, to the complete exclusion of such a deduction as either, that the Duke of York had a corrupt participation or knowledge of those transactions. The Duke of York could not be convicted, but upon the testimony of Mrs. Clarke; a tes- timony which in his opinion could not for a moment be credited, where her interest was involved. He would shew first, that her evidence was contradicted by other and un- impeachable witnesses. 2dly, That she, in many in- stances, contradicted herself; and, 3dly, that her testi- mony was irreconcilable with truth and probability. In the first place, then, she was contradicted by Mr. R. Knight, who related a conversation that passed between Mrs. Clarke and him in September, only a few weeks be- fore he was called to the bar, and which, from its nature could not be supposed to escape the recollection of either the one or the other of the parties. This was a direct and palpable contradiction, as would be seen by reverting to the minutes of evidence. (Here the honourable gentle- man read part of the evidence of Mr. R. Knight and Mrs. Clarke ; see Vol. I. p. 165). The honourable gentle- man (Mr. Whitbread), whose brilliant speech had last night made such an impression on the House, seemed to think that there was no contradiction in this, because Mrs. Clarke had denied that she intended to expose the Duke of York in the way now done, which Mr. R. Knight un- derstood, and stated to the House to be a general asser- tion, that she would expose the Duke. He shewed that such was not the true bearing of the passages, and that the contradiction was positive and irreconcileable. They were also directly at issue on the point, whether Mrs. Clarke desired the transaction to be kept secret from the Duke of York or not. The next contradiction he had to notice was, that between Mrs. Clarke and the honourable gentleman who brought forward these charges. From a perusal of the evidence (which he read to the House) it appeared that Mrs. Clarke, in her examinº on the Wednesday, stated, 3 X & 674. proceepings REI, Ative to in the first instance, that she had seen Mr. Wardle on the preceding day (Tuesday), but immediately recollecting to what such an acknowledgment would expose her, on being asked, if she was sure of that? she directly replied, that she had not been at home all that day. In opposition to this, it was in the evidence of the honourable gentleman stated, that he saw her three times during that day—the first time in the morning, about eleven or twelve o'clock, when he rode out with her in her carriage—again, about three o'clock, when he staid with her about half an hour—and a third at night. Thus, on Wednesday, this witness posi- tively denied a fact, which fiad taken place beyond the possibility of being forgotten on the preceding day. The next contradiction appeared in her testimony contrasted with that of Mr. Ellis. Not only did she state that she never knew Mrs. Favery by any other name, but also that she never visited her at Mr. Ellis's ; whereas it was clear, from the testimony of that very respectable witness, that she not only recommended Favery to him as a servant, un- der the name of Farquhar, but that she visited her so frequently that he supposed they were nearly related to each other. From all these circumstances, he could not think that Mrs. Clarke was a witness to be believed on any point where her own interest was concerned. He had now to state where evidence was contradictory in itself, and in this he would not trouble the House with more than one point. In the case of Dowler she had denied that she had seen that person more than twice since his return from the continent, eoncealing from the committee that she had met and slept with him a night at Reid's hotel. It was said that she might naturally desire not to mention this; but it was necessary for her to deny having seen him at ałł, a matter intimately connected with the evidence, and caleulated to give his festimony a value which did not properly belong to it. The third part of her testimony on which he had to comment, was its utter improbability. She asserted that the Duke of York told her she had more influence than the Queen, and that if she was clever, she needed not to want for money. Was there a man in the country who could suppose the Duke of York so base as to utter a sentiment of this kind. It could not be the case, and no man pretending to the character of a gentle- man could have done it. If the Duke of York had.been so openly lost to every sense of shame, and so grossly cor- THE COMMAN per #N CHIEF. 675 rupt, instead of the four solitary cases they had now before them, their table would have groaned with examples of corruption. The next thing for the House to do, was to see if they could trace a motive in Mrs. Clarke, for her evidence against the Duke of York, and here it was that the conversation with Mr. Knight, and the letters to Mr. Adam, clearly demonstrated that she had threatened to expose the Duke openly to disgrace, to accomplish her own purposes, unless he complied with her demands. There were also some corroborations of the incredulity of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, the importance of which had justly been a mysterious note. This note appeared to him to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York; and he could easily account for the mistake in his Royal Highness’s mind, that coupling this note with the charge attached to it in Sandon's evidence, his Royal Highness at once woul deny ever having written it. But what did this note prove It might have been written with the most inno- cent intention; and, as no proof of corrupt motives in any other case was brought home to the Duke of York, it was but fair to consider this as written with no blameable de-> sign. With regard to the evidence of Miss Taylor, he believed that the whole of the conversation she stated her. self to have heard might be an invention; but at the same time he allowed that it was not improbable that such a con- versation might really pass. Miss Taylor was called for the sole purpose of fixing on his Royal Highness the Duke of York the knowledge of corrupt practices. He would not enter into her designs, but only inquire if there was enough to shew that she was so much influenced by Mrs. Clarke as to give a colouring to the testimony, which ren- “ dered it very different in meaning from what it really was. On this matter he begged leave to call the attention of the House to the evidence of this lady, who recollected so mi- nutely what had passed four years ago; but not what had passed on the same subject in a more material point of view within three weeks of her examination. In age 176 of this volume are the following questions and answers : “ Q. Are you sure these were the words?—A. These were the words, (the words used by the Duke of York in 1804.) “ Q. Did you at any time afterwards have any com- munication with Mrs. cº relative to the observation * 2 X 2 676 PRocf. EDINGs RELAT rve To of the Duke of York upon Colonel French's business?— A. Not till within these three weeks or a month. “ Q. What was the conversation you had at that time? —A. She asked me if I recollected the Duke of York's mentioning Colonel French's name in my presence. “Q. Did any thing else pass on that occasion 2-A. I immediately recollected the circumstance, and told her. ... “ Q. Did Mrs. Clarke make any reply to that obser- vation, and what?—A. H do not recollect what she said. “ Q. Do you at all recollect any further conversation that passed at the time when the Duke of York made that observation relative to Colonel French's levy, besides what you have already given in evidence?—No, nothing at all upon that subject. & Page 178.--* Q. Can you recollect what passed with Mrs. Clarke three weeks ago upon the occasion of this con- versation respecting Colonel French 2—A. No, nothing. “ Q. Not one expression or circumstance that passed three weeks ago with Mrs. Clarke 2—A. No, I do not re- collect any.” * Was it possible that Miss Taylor could have forgot every circumstance relating to a transaction, at that time become so interesting, while she remembered what passed four years before, when it was not at all recommended to notice by any particular cause : He could not help be- lieving, upon Miss Taylor's own testimony, that she was influenced by Mrs. Clarke to give a colour to expressions which did not belong to them, and which alone made them attach to his Royal Highness the Commander-in- chief. An honourable gentleman had kast night gone into many presumptions, which he contended bore upon the case. The first was, that the expenditure of the establish- ment at Gloucester-place greatly exceeded the sum al- lowed by his Royal Highness, and therefore he must have suspected that the overplus was gained by some other means in other quarters. But how stood the matter? The Duke of York had been in the habit of sending money drawn from his banker, to Mrs. Clarke, which, though it did not admit of legal proof, he stated to amount to 5500l. and that he also personally frequently gave her sums to a considerable amount, which he would take at 2000l. Be- sides this, the wine and household furniture were provided by his Royal Highness, at an expence of upwards of 16,000l. besides the 1000l. per annum regularly allowed. THE.com MANDER IN chief. 677 An establishment was supported, partly by money and partly by credit. This was proved by the evidence to be the case in the present instance, for the sale of the furni- ture (he believed, exclusive of the house) amounted to 4400l. which was allotted to the payment of debts incur- red during the time the establishment was going on, and with the 5500l. from the banker's, and the 2000l. in mo- ney, amounted to the sum of 12,400l. being 6000l. a year. from the Duke of York, for the support of the expendi- ture at Gloucester-place. The honourable gentleman had stated another, which he called a remarkable presumption, which was the coincidence between the time the ex- pensive establishment was formed, and the commencement of the corrupt practices. This inference was fair enough, had it been true, but the easier solution was to be found in this, that Mrs. Clarke could not commence these prac- tices, before her being established under the protection of the Commander-in-chief, which gave her the appearance of influence and power. She could not hold out her wiles till her living with his Royal Highness gave a colour to her pretensions. Another presumption was, that as she asked favours for strangers, and not for her friends, his ſtoyal Highness must have suspected that she was rewarded for her exertions. This point had been already so ably re- futed, that he would not trouble the House upon the sub- ject. But after all these presumptions were got rid of, they were told that the actions were such as to leave an impression against the Duke of York. In French's levy the corruption was evident; but did it follow that his Royal Highness the Duke of York knew of that corrup- tion ? Would not his affection for this woman account for any partiality towards those she recommended, with- out ascribing. it to corrupt motives? But he denied the fact itself; and from reading the evidence upon it, con- cluded that the Duke of York was perfectly unconscious of the existence of these practices. As for what had been said of every man in this levy costing 150l. it was founded in a calculation on false grounds; the whole or great part of the expence of the levy being incurréd at first, it might- as fairly be argued when the first man was enlisted, that he cost seven or eight thousand pounds. The issue of this. levy proved only that it had not answered the expecta- tions of the Commander-in-chief, and was ultimately dis-, advantageous to the country. But this was not the busi- 678 PRoceedings. RELATIVE To ness before the House, which was to inquire if the Com- mander-in-chief had been guided by undue influence, which did not appear in the case of French, who seemed curiously favoured by being employed in a transaction by which he lost 3800l. As for the exchange between Colo- nel Brooke and Knight, as the Duke of York was not con- nected with it, he would pass it over. The case of Carter seemed also to be disposed of by the House. There was no proof of the fact, and he did not believe that his Royal Highness knew that the Samuel Carter promoted by him, and recommended by Lieutenant Sutton, was the same i. whom he hº seen behind Mrs. Clarke's chair or er carriage. Mrs, Clarke appeared to have a wish to serve this person ; and it was therefore likely would conceal any thing calculated to defeat his promotion, and particularly such circumstances as these. Thus nothing was corrobo- rated that Mrs. Clarke had urged against the Duke of York, and he was ready to come to a vote whenever it might be put, directly negativing the charge of her mos tives, or of any knowledge of corrupt practices. But there was another point on which he had some hesitation in expressing his opinion. He could not see any grounds of parliamentary interference at all in this matter, or what right they had to vote addresses or resolutions on the subject. No man would say that they had such a right, upon an abstract, principle of one moral crime being committed. This was then the question of extent and quality ; and the extent was so small, that he could not think there was a fair ground for their inter- ference. He lamented, as every one must do, that such a connection had ever existed, and such an exposure taken place. But this was not a court of moral censure, but of judicial inquiry into the effect on the official conduct of the Commander-in-chief. He knew of no mode of bet- ter performing their duty as members of that House, than to examine the evidence carefully, and to pronounce a verdict according to their own judgments. If they were influenced by any opinion out of doors, they were depart- ing from their duty, and it was a libel to say that any general sense had been impressed upon the public mind in this great question. The public well knew that they had the case incorrectly before them. They well knew that much depended on the character of the witnesses—they well knew that much serious consideration was due before THE CoMMANDER IN CHIEF. 6.79 coming to a decision on this painful question, and he was persuaded that all that was just and rational was expected from the public mind, and that they would sanction what he had said. Lord Folkestone said he had wished to rise before, but was now glad an opportunity had been afforded him of following the hon. gentleman, who had just sat down, after putting the question on a fair footing. Before, how- £ver, he adverted to what had fallen from that honourable gentleman, he must offer a few remarks on several matters which had come from some of the honourable and right honourable gentlemen who had delivered their sentiments on this subject. There could be no doubt of the regula- rity of their proceedings; and in this respect he fully agreed with a right honourable gentleman on the floor. KMr. Bankes). With respect to the influence of publie opinion, he could not understand upon what ground the resolutions of his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle), or of the right honourable gentleman, could be supposed to be calculated to meet that opinion. He called on the House to meet these feelings with their own cool judgment, and would be the last man in the House te be carried away by the popular tide. Gentlemen would recollect that he had stood forward against the popular feeling, and ex- posed himself to public animosity on the occasion. An honourable gentleman had attacked his honourable friend as if he had been actuated in this charges by improper motives. He denied that such a charge was just, and was sorry to find any honourable gentleman going out of his way to hazard such an opinion. Surely if ever there was an instance, in which an individual was solely guided by pure patriotism, the most virtuous motives, and an anxious desire to overturn abuses, it was in the present. Gra. cious Heavens ! when it was acknowledged on all hands. that the Duke of York was guilty of corrupt connivance. (loud cries of no, no.)—of undue influence (Hear, hear, from several members on the opposition side.)—he must wonder at such an opinion coming from an honourable gentleman himself so much occupied and anxious in over- throwing abuses. If the House pursued the line now given them by his honourable friend, who he trusted it would always be remembered, had originally brought for- ward this question, they would do more towards saving the cºuntry, and defending it from foreign foes, than any 680 PRoce EDINGs REI, ATIVE To other in the empire. Another point he must notice in an honourable gentleman, who, at the end of the examination, had called on officers to give evidence as arguments in favour of the Duke of York. He neither admitted or de- nied the fact of his good military management, but whe- ther it was proved or not, it had nothing to do with the case. If they had intended to punish, the Duke of York, such evidence might avert it; but it had cer- tainly no concern with the merits of the case. Various objections, somewhat of a technical nature, had been urged against his honourable friend's address by the right honourable gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer); and it was said that he had made a charge of corruption, and flinched from bringing it to a decisive aye or no. He knew nothing of such a charge, (Hear, hear, hear !) and looked to the journals and records of the House for it in vain. There was no charge of corruption made, and those who asserted this travelled out of their journals, They would only find that a com- mittee had been appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Commander-in-chief; and if in their decision they talked of charges of corruption, it would be from that de- cision alone it could hereafter be known that such a charge had been made. The right honourable gentleman had also alluded to cooler heads, as having formed the address of his honourable friend. He had at all times disliked such insinuations, which were thrown out to injure where no tangible charges could be brought forward. He knew not who were meant by cooler heads, but this he knew, that it was his honourable friend’s motion, the moment he produced it to the House, and it was improper, he might say irregular, to apply to it any such hints as had been thrown out. He approved, and would vote for it; but if it did not go far enough, could not honourable gentlemen see the delicacy to the Duke of York and to his Majesty, which dictated the least harsh mode for his honourable friend's adoption. Why should he have hurt parental and honourable feelings, by stating matters as strongly as in his opinion they were proved to exist? If it did not go to the full extent of the proof, he supported it from motives of delicacy, and not from a want of evidence. With re- $pect to the charge, in his opinion, that the Commander- in-chief allowed his mistress to carry on a corrupt traffic, in which he corruptly participated, was completely made THE comMANDER IN cIIIEP. ($81 out. It was proved by Mrs. Clarke's evidence. In men- tioning this person he begged to state, that he overlooked and despised the imputations against himself, and was not conscious of any motives of the sort ascribed to him. The noble lord took a review of what was said by Mr. Burton on the head of the evidence of accomplices, and from a precedent in Leech's reports, and from the nature of the case contended, that no other description of wit- nesses could possibly speak certainly to such facts. The evidence of accomplices, he contended, though it ought to be received with caution, was not to be entirely over. looked, as he conceived the argument of the learned judge to be. If they excluded the testimony of accomplices, they excluded all testimony, cut off all proof, and the House could never be able to come to a decision. With respect to the testimony of Mrs. Clarke in particular, he mentioned that it was not liable to the accusation of being produced by revenge and hatred, as stated by several ho- nourable gentlemen. He agreed with his honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread) that it was a strange way of evincing malice, to burn all the documents and proofs of facts which could affect the party, and do service to the prosecutor; and yet Mrs. Clarke had done this, which might as probably account for there being only four cases now before the House. If she had kept all her papers, there might have been ten thousand, of which the docu- ments were now destroyed, and the memory passed away. In his opinion it was marvellous, not that there were so few cases, but that there were so many as five so fully made out. It had been stated over and over again, as offensive to his honourable friend, that he was not the principal in this, business, but brought forward by Mrs. Clarke, whose agent he was. This was stated from belief, not from knowledge, and the case was precisely the reverse. His honourable friend was not led by the blan- dishments of Mrs. Clarke, he had got clues to these trans- actions, which went a certain length, and he found out that he could not go any further without Mrs Clarke. It was not easy to lay hold of her (a laugh), and to get any thing out of her. He asserted that Mrs. Clarke came forward as his honourable friend's witness, and, as she said, unwillingly, which, from his heart he believed. His ho. nourable friend spoke to her first, and she did not come open mouthed. Being brought forward, what kind of a 632. *Roceep INGs RELATIVE Tó ~~ witness was she He appealed to the House that forget. fulness was not her fault; she brought out things una. wares, which were afterwards found to be truth from the production of letters, those supposed had been burnt by Mr. Nicholis, and others supposed to be destroyed by Sandon. When she first talked of Clavering and O'Meara, he and every one disbelieved her; but the matter was af. terwards proved—she forgets Tonyn's case, and states, that after reading the newspaper account of it, she knows no more than before. If she had conspired, would she have acted thus * No ; she would haye come forward. I said in my bed last night I recollected this case which { had forgot before. It was the same with regard to the note, which she stated she had forgot; but when she saw it, and that it was the hand-writing of the Duke of York, she said, “I have been wrong ; it must be so.” She had said in private to him, that she did not recollect giving Sandon that note, and she imagined he had stolen it from her. Looking at his conduct, he from his conscience be- Fieved him capable of doing so, that he did do so, and he as firmly believed that the note was in the hand-writing of the Duke. . It was unaccountable to consider it as a forgery, which boré in every point the stamp of truth—of- fice paper—the water-mark–1803—the feigned name—the “God bless you,” and the slur at bottom, which would have induced a person forging to have written it over again, rather than let that go, were all indubitable proofs of its authenticity. The evidence of General Brownrigge, Colonel Gordon, Mr. Adam, and General Hope, proved the same thing, with all their partiality (he did not mean improper) for the other side. The House had been dis- graced by the examination of other witnesses on this sub- ject, for who would take upon them to judge a cause merely from a scrap of writing, when they knew how many things operated to create a trifling difference, such as pens, ink, paper, temper of the body, and a hundred other reasons. The noble lord now went into the case of the exchange, and argued, that there was no contradiction between Mrs. Clarke and Mr. Knight. That it might be very natural for her, though she communicated these matters to the Duke herself, to wish them not to come to his ears from a third quarter, which would expose her to the charge of being incautious, and thus reconciled f their evidence, as to a desire expressed to have the THE COMMANDER IN CI11 EP. ' 383 . business kept secret. As for the second alleged contradic, tion, namely her threats to expose the Duke of Yorf, he also contended that as Mr. Knight was a very reluctant witness, and indignant at Mrs. Clarke, he might give a stronger interpretation to her language than it strictly bore him out in doing. If there was any thing at vari- ance in the testimony, it was but the shadow of a contra- diction. Another of the contradictions which had been attributed to Mrs. Clarke, related to the statements she had made in examinations concerning her husband. Mr. Stower had been called to prove that he knew Mr. Clarke to be a stone-mason ; but however the fact might be established, the contradiction in Mrs. Clarke's evidence was not of sufficient magnitude to shake the credit of her testimony. For his part, when he entered on one of the nights of her examination, and heard the attorney general asking if her husband had not been a stone-mason, and if he did not then live on an annuity of 50l. per annum, he actually imagined that Mr. Clarke had been a common working stone-mason, and worked in a yard. He did not know what to make of the questions put to her; but from them he did suppose Mrs. Clarke's husband to be of low original ; but on inquiry he found that he was of a very wealthy family, and that his connections were in the highest degree respectable. He could state to the House, that so far from being circumstanced as he had imagined, he had heard Mr. Clarke kept a coach and four, and lived in a style of corresponding magnificence. § The Chancellor of the Eachequer said, that as his lord- ship merely stated this on his own knowledge, it should not be listened to, as it could not be considered as evi- dence. r Dord Folkestone said, he did not state that it was evi. dence, but he wished to be allowed to state that fact to the House. He would, in addition to that, state another, namely, that a Mr. Munn, who was able to give some in- formation on the subject, had becn in the lobby of the House while the investigation was taking place, but had not been brought forward. From the situation in which it appeared Mrs. Clarke's husband had been, he wished it to be understood, that though he might be the proprictor of a stone-yard, yet as he was not actively engaged in the occupation of a stone-mason, Mrs. Clarke might not con- sider him as such, and think herself justified in saying he A. 684; PROCEED; NG8 RELATIVE To r was not one. With respect to her having represented herself as Mrs. Dowler, on which a strong charge had been grounded against her veracity, it had only been proved in evidence that she had been called by that name; but could the evidence given by the porter, and the circumstance of . her having been known by that name at a coffee-house, be considered as tending to prove that she had represented herself as Mrs. Dowler. Had she contracted any debts in that name; were any of her tradesmen's bills made out as for Mrs. Dowler, or had any sort of business been trans- acted by her as Mrs. Dowler 2 No. How then could the charge against her veracity, on account of her, having represented herself as Mrs. Dowler, be substantiated Another attempt had been made to disqualify her evidence on the ground of her having passed for a widow on soune occasion. A Mr. Few had been called to establish this circumstance. Few was evidently no friend to her, but after all, his evidence was not very satisfactory, The contradictions with which she had been charged in her statements, respecting Mrs. Favery and Mr. Ellis, he did not think militated very strongly against her testimony, as he had some reasons to think they were the result of mis- take. The contradiction in her first examination, relating to her having seen Mr. Wardle, which had been spoken so much of, did not appear to him to be a wilful falsehood. When asked if she had seen Mr. Wardle that day, she answered in the negative, though in another part of her evidence, she acknowledged she had seen him. But when it was considered, that at the time she made the con- tradictory assertion, she had undergone a long and em- barrassing examination; was so much exhausted that she. could scarcely stand ; and that though she had seen Mr. Wardle, it was but for a moment, the contradiction had not the appearance of a wilful falsehood. He appealed to the House if such a circumstance might not, in the state the witness's mind was supposed to be, in all probability be forgotten. For his own part he knew, that after taking a walk or a ride in the park, if interrogated as to who he had met with while out, he felt he should be in consider- able danger of falling into a similar contradiction. With respect to what the honourable gentleman had said, of the improbability of the Duke ever telling Mrs. Clarke, that if she was a clever woman she need never want for monºy, it might induce the House to consider the charge as im- 2.THE, COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 683 probable, but could not prove that it was without founda- tion. With respect to the case of Mr. Dowler, he dared to say the statement of his having paid 1000l. for his ap- pointment was, founded on fact. He certainly was ap- pointed, and it was probable, old Mr. Dowler would not have objected to give 1000l., to gain his son a situation worth 300l. per annum.—What had been stated by the honourable gentleman on this subject only went to prove that truth had been concealed, not that falsehoods had been fabricated.—The noble lord then entered into the case of Miss Taylor with great energy; she was not to be believed because she had been proved of illegitimate birth; she was not to be believed because she remembered the conversa- tion between the Duke and Mrs. Clarke on Colonel French’s levy, and could not remember what passed at a given time subsequent to that period; he then proceeded to show the probability of her remembering that conversation. But the truth of . Miss Taylor's testimony was to be much doubted, because she had been so circumstanced through misfortune, as to have received favours of Mrs. Clarke : she was not to be credited, not from any thing that could be alleged against her character, but because she had visited and been in some measure connected with Mrs. Clarke. Would this rule hold good in the higher orders of society The case of Miss Taylor was peculiarly dis- tressing ; the treatment this witness had received was un- precedentedly hard—(Hear, hear!)—Miss Taylor, a vir- tuous girl, had been wholly ruined through this investiga- tion. Her father was in distress, and her mother had been a considerable time in prison for debt; thus reduced, she had set up a school to support herself and her younger sister; she had twelve scholars, who, since this affair had become public, had been taken away; an execution had been put in her house; her goods had been sold ; she had been compelled to seek a refuge in the house of a friend, where she remained at present, unless the bailiffs had dis- covered her retreat. To such distress had Miss Taylor been brought, though her debts did not exceed 150l. He did not believe the honourable gentleman opposite meant to occasion this calamity ; but she might in some measure ascribe her present affliction to the unnecessary activity of another honourable member. After feelingly lamenting the distresses of Miss Taylor, he observed, he would say no more on the evidence she had given, as his honourable 685 thoceedings retarive to friend had commented on it much better than lie could do. But he could not help saying a greater degree of indul- gence should be shewn to a witness who appeared at the bar, as he conceived the sittiation to be most embarrassing. Much had been said in praise of the consistency of Colo- nel Gordon's testimony; though it was an unpleasant task to withdraw from any man that praise which had been awarded by others, yet he felt that his duty called impe- riously upon him to do so. There was an air of superi- ority marked his evidence, a something so dictatorial, that he could not join with those who spoke so highly of it; but what was of greater importance was, he saw pas- sages in it which appeared to him inconsistent. . He first appeared at the bar to give evidence on the exchange of Brooke and Knight; on that occasion he thought he had not been so explicit as he might have been, as he did not explain to the Committee that it had been in effect refused, as in his (Lord Folkestone's) opinion; it had ; for in answer to Knight's application for permission to exchange with Brooke, he was told his wish should be conſplied with, when a p?oper officer was found ; now this answer in his opinion could only be considered as a refusal. In the case of Captain Maling, Colonel Gordon had answered as if there had been but one of that name, and it appeared more reasonable to think that Colonel Gordon would have conceived the other Captain Maling was meant than the one it appeared he believed was the object of their inqui- ries. He had asserted that captains' commissions were never disposed of but to those who had seen service; but afterwards he admitted, that he believed Captain Maling had not seen any. He had stated, that a personal application to his Royal Highness would not expedite the promotion ? but afterwards he stated, that he did not mean to say the Duke of York might not forward it at all in the course of the negotiation in consequence of such application; but that, after the promotion was accom- plished, his Royal Highness had not power to prevent three days intervening prior to its being gazetted. He was sorry to hurt the feelings of an honourable and learned member (Mr. Adam), but he must say there appeared to him some contradictions in his cvidence. He had stated, that he knew of no money affairs relating to his Royal Highness, but those relating to the fund appropriated to the payment of his debts; yet it appeared, he was not igno- THE ÖOMMANDER in ČHIÉ?. 68? rant of the loan of 70,000l. which Kennett was to have furnished. That Mr. Lowten and Mr. Wilkinson were ealled to speak to some parts of his testimony, but their evidence had not corroborated it in the manner expected. He had stated that the Duke rarely said any thing on the subject of military promotions in his correspondence with Mrs. Clarke; he afterwards stated that where he said very rarely, he ought to have said never; and two pages after that, in the minutes, a further explanation appeared. When Colonel Gordon appeared at the bar, he was exa- mined in the most favourable manner; the examination of Mrs. Clarke was very different, she was not examined for five minutes only; many of her examinations had lasted three hours; she was called forward reluctantly to give her evi- dence ; she was interrogated on subjects which were disa- greeable to her; he did not blame them for thus examin- ing her, it was their duty so to do; but if they judged fairly from the comparison of evidence, if twenty-eight eontradictions could be found in the statements of Mrs. Clarke (he flattered himself he had explained some of them), he did not think it sufficient to authorise them to treat her evidence as unworthy of credit. He spoke the real sentiments of his heart. The twelve judges had stated, that an accomplice may be a competent witness, and honestly declared, though he was not under the influ- ence of Mrs. Clarke's blandishments, that, in his opinion, her evidence remained unshaken. In the face of the odium which might be cast upon him, regardless of the reproaches which might assail him, he declared, and he thought it his duty so to do, that he spoke as a judge, and as a judge he most solemnly believed the evidence of Mrs. Clarke deserved the fullest credit, and was worthy to be received in any tribunal whatever, and he thought it was beyond all doubt that the Duke was guilty of the grossest corruption. Mrs. Clarke's evidence had been arraigned with respect to the sums she had received from the Duke. She had been accused of forgetfulness, but he thought that the accounts she had given with respect to money, as they had been gained from her at different times, eame much nearer the authentic accounts than might have been expected. A person situated with respect to money affairs as she had been, in the habit of receiving and of squandering immense sums, might be supposed to forget; but her evidence on this head was such, that he 688 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE To thought no one could, with a shadow of justice, prefer such a charge against her. The noble lord then described the magnificence of Mrs. Clarke's establishment. He kept house at that time, and might be a bad manager, but he knew that he could not have done as she did with ten thousand pounds a year. And she, he proceeded, would be constrained to pay for almost every thing at a most extravagant rate, from her connection with the 5uke ; from her being under the necessity of having things on credit: so that, altogether, he would take upon himself to state, that the establishment could not be supported on less than 25 or 30,000l. per annum. The statements that had been made to prove, that as she had received to the amount of six thousand pounds a year, she could not be in such want, that it must naturally be inferred she was constrained to raise money by the sale of commissions, &c. was ridiculous. Such an income must be wholly in- adequate to answer the demands that would be made on her. At that time Kennett's negotiation was going for- ward. This was a grave and important charge, not merely supported by the evidence of a witness, but by documents the most authentic. The noble lord then entered into a detail of the case, and argued strongly that it tended to criminate his Royal Highness. Would any mah have entered into a negotiation of that nature, with- out knowing something of the character of the person with whom it was to be negotiated And when the cha- racter of Kennett was known to his Royal Highness, did it not afford the most convincing proofs that he was privy to the corruption ? The greatest corruption must have existed. Loving Mrs. Clarke as he did, when he found himself unable to satisfy her wishes (a laugh)—her wants—would any man believe, wrapt up in her as he was, that he could refuse her leave to raise a few hundreds by corrupt practices, in disposing of commissions and promotions in the army He then entered into the case of Tonyn, from which he thought the culpability of the Commander-in-chief more apparent. The noble lord then proceeded to state that his honourable friend had expressed great grafitude for the treatment he had met with while bringing this affair forward. For his part-he could not think he had been treated as he deserved. He then enumerated the difficulties his honourable friend had to encounter, notwithstanding which, he had manfully THE COMM ANDER IN CHIEF, 689 persevered in the discharge of his duty, even though obliged to proceed under a threat. The right honour- able gentleman opposite had not retracted that threat. Here the speaker observed, such personal allusions were not consistent with the usages of the House. J.ord Folkestone briefly replied, and proceeded to re- mark, that on every occasion the expression that infamy must attach somewhere, had been reiterated ; and that now the charges were proved, he would tell the right ho- nourable gentleman, that unless in the course of the debate "he took an opportunity of atoning for that expression, that infamy might be fairly imputed to him. He con- sidered that expression as having been thrown out to dis- courage his honourable friend from proceeding; the wit- nesses that appeared at the bar had been intimidated by various means, as much as if they had been put to the bar of the Old Bailey to be tried for their lives. He hoped the right honourable gentleman would prove by his vote, that he had now a right sense to whom the in- famy was attached. Another right honourable gentleman had talked of a conspiracy against the house of Bruns- wick. Was his honourable friend implicated in such a conspiracy The conduct of the latter gentleman had however been more manly than that of the former. An- other honourable member had said, that if his honourable friend had taken his advice, he would not have been situa- ted as he was, throwing the gauntlet at his honourable friend. He put it to the country if he was not entitled to their warmest gratitude. With respect to what had been said of the unfair statements made in the journals, he would answer, that there were ingenious men out of that House who would not judge of the merits of the case by the incorrect statements of newspapers, they would read the minutes of the House, and judge impartially of the whole. The noble lord concluded a speech of unusual eloquence, by calling on the House to vote with him for the original address. Mr. Yorke rose to explain, that he never had intended to insinuate the honourable gentleman who had brought forward the charges, was in any degree implicated in a £onspiracy. Jír. Adam could not suffer the House to separate with an idea that the evidence he had given was contradictory. !!e lamented that the noble º had not read the whole O 600 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To t of his evidence; he would have it taken from beginning to end, and if it could be proved that his testimony was not such as it was his duty to deliver, consistent in itself, and consistent with the character which he had ever sus- tained, he would expiate his guilt by submitting to any punishment that could be inflicted on him. He then ex- plained those passages to which Lord Folkestone had alluded, by reading his evidence as it appeared in the minutes of the House, to which he particularly called their aliention. Having justified himself, the learned gentleman proceeded to speak of the case under discussion, and laid down the law with respect to verbal evidence, as explained by Blackstone and Foster, and applied it to the evidence of Miss Taylor. Above all, it was material to shew that Miss Taylor had c n versations with Mrs. Clarke subse- quent to the commencement of the present inquiry. In- deed a due consideration of that evidence, in many parts of it, pretty plainty in licated the influence of these con- versations ; fºr Miss Taylor adhered more to some parti- cular words than she did to the circumstances with which they were connected ; yet it would appear as natural to re- collect the circumstance as well as the words. It was rather strange to observe what stress some gentlemen scem- ed disposed to tay on the evide ce of Miss Taylor, and how little they appeared to be affected by that of Colonel Gordon. Her’s indeed was a tale of woe, and he sincerely laumented the necessity that was felt of submitting her tes- timony to origid an examination ; but, where truth was to be elicited for the sake of justice, it was incumbent to do so, though in the c urse of the examination the charac- ter and the feelings of the witness should be deeply affect- ed by it. Besides, many of the other witnesses had con- tradicted the evidence of Miss Taylor, as far as it asserted th it she had been frequently in the company of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. The butler, and almost ali the servants had affirmed that they had never seen Miss Taylor in the company of his Royal Highness, a circum- stance which, if it had occurred, they could not well have omitted observing, as many of them had been constantly in attendance on his Royal Highness. The other parts of her evidence bore nearly the same character, and had nothing in it in any respect to corroborate the testimony of Mrs. Clarke. He could not therefore approve of the THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 691. & address moved by the right honourable and learned gen- tleman (Mr. Bathurst), which on no better ground than that of three or four charges thus feebly supported, went to deprive the country of the services of his Royal High- ness—services which had been long experienced, and which had so powerfully operated to secure the comforts and even the affections of the army. The learned gentle- man concluded with some anecdotes which attested the firmness with which the Duke of York resolved to break off his connection with Mrs. Clarke, the moment he found that his confidence had been abused in a manner to commit his honour and endanger the dignity of his cha- racter. * Lord Folkestone explained. Mr. William Smith rose, amidst a loud cry of adjourn- ment, and stated, that he was of opinion the right honour- able and learned gentleman (Mr. Adam) had acquitted himself with honour and credit. At the commencement of the investigation, he (Mr. Smith) had disclaimed, for himself, and his political friends, all knowledge of any of the charges. He felt happy he had done so, as his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle) was alone entitled to the whole of the praise; as he took upon himself the respon- sibility of bringing them forward, he was entitled to the popularity. He believed the most severe vote the House could come to, would be the most popular ; and as much as he would desire to study the wishes of his constituents, and hold the popular station he did amongst them, he would, by his vote this night, shew that he was not go- verned by popular feelings. He wished the House clearly to understand he had no intention to take up their time, but by shortly expressing his opinion upon this subject; not that he had any intention of entering into an examina- tion of all the cases which had been so fully detailed, and so ably explained by the right honourable gentleman op- posite (Mr. Perceval), and by his honourable and learned friend near him (Mr. Leach). Still he was disposed to glance at the evidence respecting the note in question ; and he must say, he had no doubt whatever of the ge- nuineness and authenticity of that note. He would men- tion two or three words on the subject, because no one who had preceded him in the discussion had made any si- milar comments upon that º To this part of the evi- 2 Y 9 692 PROCE EDINGS RELATIV. E. To dence he had given peculiar attention. There were amongst the number of papers presented to the House ten letters of the Duke, and forty-one of Mrs. Clarke. Now, it was remarkable, that nine out of the ten letters of his Royal Highness were written upon the same paper; paper of the same kind of texture and the same water-mark, and the note referred to was one of the nine ; whereas the tenth- was of paper of a different texture and water-mark; yet that tenth had not been disputed, nor even suspected by any one. At the same time, upon looking at the forty- one letters of Mrs. Clarke, they all appeared of different paper, and fabricated at different times; and yet not one of them similar to the paper of the nine notes of the Duke. of York. -Another observation be would apply to Carter, and after what he had heard, he had only to say, if he had met with such an instance in a novel or a romance, he would have felt pleasure in perusing the incident. He next adverted to what had been stated, respecting Mrs. Sutherland, on the opposite side of the House, as superior in respectability to Mrs. Clarke, which he was not dis- posed to admit; because he believed the only reason which produced Mrs. Clarke in the House of Commons, was her having been in that situation, which, if he was rightly informed, Mrs. Sutherland formerly enjoyed. He did think Miss Taylor, of whom he knew nothing, no more then he did of Mrs. Clarke, had been unjustly and cruelly used in that House, by their having gone further than propriety warranted, in examining her in such a way as to affect her character, and that was hard, if it. were true that her livelihood depended upon her charac- ter. He did not approve of the liberty many counsel took in courts of justice to cross examine, contrary to every sense of propriety and just feeling of a man, from which nothing could defend them, except the authority of a court of justice. He declared most unequivocally, that Ile left out of his sight the testimony of Mrs. Clarke, and founded his determination on other grounds. She was endowed with remarkable talents, but he witnessed with regret her disposition to use them for in proper purposes. Trom the letters which had been produced in this case, he considered Mrs. Clarke an accomplice in a kind of conspiracy against his Royal Highness; but still some just censure ought to be expressed towards the Duke of • THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 693 ‘York, for having had communication, and communica- tion on military affairs, with such people. He did not approve of the first address, because he did not think the T}uke had been guilty himself of any corruption or con- nivance ; yet he could not support the amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but was disposed to commend the one proposed by his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes). The evidence which is now before the House, is also before the country. It will be closely examined; nor would it be prudent to continue the Duke of York as Commander-in-chief under the impression it must pro- duce. He had also to object to the motion of the right honourable gentleman, as being in some measure an ccho of the letter which his Royal Highness had addressed to that House. Whether it infringed or not the privileges of the House, he should not now inquire ; but re-echoing it in such a manner was treating it as a message or speech of the king. It was giving it all that solemnity and weight which were due only to the most sacred acts of government. In a parliamentary point of view such a thing was indecent. With respect to those solemn and sacred acts of government to which he had alluded, it was an insult, and the country would not fail to treat it as the language of adulation—as the language of men who were afraid to comment with spirit and with dignity upon grave offences against morals and decorum. If that House could not ercot itself into a censor morum, who could As long as the foibles and frailties of the Duke of York remained private, he had nothing to do with them. But when coupled with place and power, they burst upon the public eye; they cannot go unobserved or uncensured. He fondly wished to see the first in virtue as the first in place, and he had the satisfaction of seeing it in the reigning monarch, to the purity of whose character, perhaps, it is owing, that, amidst the convulsions of the French revolu- tion, we have preserved our monarchy unshaken. There is no knowing to what dangers it might have then been exposed, if against the person of the monarch might have been brought such charges as are now exhibited against the Duke of York. The lesson we were bound to give on the present occasion, was one which should not be dic- tated by the heated passions of the moment, but one which would bear the examination, and deserve the sanction of posterity. The debate was then further postponed till Monday, to which day the House adjourned. 694, PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To Monday, March 13, 1809, The order of the day was moved for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the conduct of the Commander- in-chief; when the Speaker having stated the question before the House, The Secretary at War rose and said, that it had been made out, to the satisfaction of the majority of the House, that no reliance whatever was to be placed on the testi- mony of Mrs. Clarke. (No, no, no!—Hear, hear, hear!) The right honourable Secretary repeated, that in the ma- terial part of her testimony, as to her communication with his Royal Highness the Duke of York, her evidence was to be wholly laid out of the question. The right honour- able Secretary then proceeded to go through the several cases, and to argue, first, that if Mrs. Clarke had any in- fluence with the Duke of York, his Royal Highness did not know of it; and secondly, that she had no such in- fluence. He urged the importance which Mrs. Clarke always attached to the Gazette, never knowing of any promotion otherwise; and her ignorance of Major Tonyn's being actually a major, till several days after ; this was actually the case, as appeared by her let- ters before the House. In the case of Major Tonyn's pro- motion, the fact was, that when Mrs. Clarke pressed for it, it stopped, and when she ceased to press, it proceeded. The right honourable Secretary admitted the genuine- ness of the letter, which had been so much discussed ; but that was no ground of corruption in the Duke. As to the presumed notoriety of all the corruption which had been proved, so far from the Duke's being obliged to know it, the parties themselyes did not know the channel of their applications till a considerable time had elapsed; they did not know Mrs. Clarke was to make their applications. The House had placed itself behind the scenes; but no one had ever done it before. As to the establishment in Gloucester-place, which had been stated at 10,000l. a year, it was greatly exaggerated; and except in the arti- cle of horses, the right honourable gentleman thought it not an immoderate one. He concluded with a high euloe gium on the Duke's services to the army, for whose present high state it was solely indebted to his Royal Highness. - § ºf $ § HE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 695 Sir Francis Burdett said, that after the able and ample statement of evidence which the House had so often heard on this subject, it certainly could not be his intention to detain them by its further detail. All that was left for him to do was to draw his deductions, make his comments, and shew the effect which it had on his mind in forming his decision. It was a little extraordinary to observe the Ghancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-general, and, in fact, the whole legal phalanx of the House, whose con- stant and practical habit was accusation, now ranged, as if und voce, on the side of the accused. He could not but observe the wonderful bias which their minds seemed to have taken, the surprizing proneness to conviction, all on one side : Much had they displayed of professional acuteness, and many had been their animadversions on the conduct of his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle). One of them had represented him as putting out his little skiff upon a large and boisterous ocean. 'e had, how- ever, steered his voyage by the polar star of Truth, and there was little doubt it would have a happy period. (Hear, hear!) Another member had insinuated that in- famy must attach somewhere. After their long and anxious sitting, after their protracted debates, and their minute examination of evidence, he would ask could any infamy attach to his honourable friend ? ( Loud cries of no, ano.) Where, then, should it fall but on the head of him with whom the imputation had originated As to the speech and opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were so sophistical and uncandid—so full of mani- fest prejudice and bias, that they rather appeared the statement of an advocate than a judge, and even consider- ing them those of an advocate, were injudicious from the openness of their partiality. What when any man ven- tured to assert it as his impression that Mrs. Clarke had no influence over the Duke of York, was it not a mull epi- thet to say he had prejudged the cause, or was blinded in his judgment of it 2 There were some minds, it seemed, who could not, in the glare of sunshine, see the plainest objects, but whose vision was most accurate even in the darkness of midnight. Every trifle against Mrs. Clarke's veracity was instantly taken hold of, but her most seriously corroborated statements were utterly disregarded. But it was in vain to attempt an invalidation of her testimony. # y 696 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO “She came (said Sir Francis) to the bar of this House with the most hostile sentiments against her: she was exa- mined as to all the history of her life, its most minute transactions, from the cradle to the present moment; as she proceeded, the growing conviction of the House was sensibly apparent; and when she retired, there was not a being among us so sceptical as to doubt her truth, or imagine that any human ingenuity could have fabricated such a mass of circumstances, so well connected, and so borne out by documents.” (Hear, hear, hear!) Nothing but the simplicity of fact could have supported her amid such a trial—against all the lawyers, who, en- deavouring to entrap her, were themselves defeated, even his majesty's own Attorney-General was foiled. (A laugh.) What then was the dernier resort to which they were driven in their overthrow 2 Oh Mrs. Clarke was a genius— such talents, such surprizing ingenuity—there never was any thing like it in the world—she could do any thing, say they. But it was a vain subterfuge; she, with all her talents, could never have got up such a drama as had been presented to the House; he would as soon believe she could write Macbeth itself. Supposing her even wrong in those transactions where she was the only link, yet there were collateral circumstances—there were docu- ments—there were middle agents which could not be frit- tercd away. But the Duke could not be proved a party to the corruption. Undoubtedly it was not to be expected that the Duke was to receive money in the face of an au- dience—that he was to call witnesses to see the fact; but still the corrupt influence was apparent—the very waver- ing of his advocates in his defence might prove it. There, for instance, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out, as indeed the gentlemen of the long robe generally do, with he fairest premises; but instantly, as if he knew the fair position was not tenable, he draws the most for reign and inconclusive inference. Mrs. Clarke was not to be believed ; no, she was too great a genius for that. Nor was Miss Taylor to be believed, she had trumped up the whole story with Mrs. Clarke; and their ignorance of some circumstances was adduced as a proof of their falsity, which very ignorance was the strongest instance of their credibility ; for surely had the story been preconcerted between them, they would have taken good care that nge THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 697 thing material should have been omitted; but as that par- tial ignorance did not condemn them, so neither did it go to acquit the Duke of York: other considerations were not to be forgotten, as in charges from the bench, in cases even of life and death, circumstances, when strongly col- lateral, went to influence the verdict. Thus it is said, that the words repeated by Miss Taylor, “how does he use you, Darling,” do not go to prove a corrupt conniv- ance; admitted, and what is the obvious inference? Why, plainly, that the story was not fabricated between Mrs. Clarke and Miss Taylor, and that in telling the whole truth, they would not conceal either the weak points, or those which made against themselves. Thus it appeared then, that the defence of the right honourable gentleman went to support the accusation, all the ingenious hypo- theses fell to the ground, and in his hands “trifles light as air” were converted into “confirmations strong.” A member on the floor, who had taken part against the Duke, had even made a better defence for him when he acquitted him of the chief charge—a corrupt connivance. A learned judge too, who had spoken early in the debate, had gone completely to destroy the credit of Mrs. Clarke, and had asserted, without proof, however, that she had con- tradicted herself twenty-eight times. The learned judge had surely been biassed in listening to her evidence, by the recollection of the character under which she came to the bar. He had himself been so prejudiced, and it was not until he had observed her bearing up against all the acri- mony and harshness with which she had been treated, cheerfully and consistently, because supported by truth, that that prejudice gave way to irresistible conviction. He had listened, and he had been convinced, nor could he be persuaded now against that conviction, by the pro- duction of those who in trifling points had contradicted her. She had been consistent herself, and the advocates of the Duke ought to believe her as firmly against other witnesses, as they did those witnesses even against them- selves; witnesses who plainly at least did away what they had said at first. Why, for instance, should Miss Taylor be disbelieved because she did not know what her father had been called before she was born ? Yet such had been the argument of the Attorney-general. Indeed, from the great talents and extensive legal character of the Attor- ney-general, he had expected that the Duke would have 698 PROCE EDINGS It ELATIVE To had a much better defender. But it reminded him of an advice which the celebrated Mr. Dunning had once given to a person who consulted him: “Always, says he, in a bad cause, employ a bad counsel ; for if you employ a good one, he will certainly stumble, and flounder, and be interrupted; but if you employ a bad counsel, why he'll get through it some way or other, and certainly make a better hand of it than the good counsel.” Just so, the right honourable gentleman with all his learning could make no good of his bad cause. (A laugh.) By way of bringing the poor Duke off with flying colours, they have left him in the mud so fast, that all the jacobins in the land will never be able to pull him out of it. The right honourable gentleman was aware of this, and when at last he was weighed down by the irresistible evidence they had heard, he appealed to the feelings of the House, begging them, in pity's sake, to have some compassion on his client. The honourable member for Cambridgeshire, (Mr. Yorke) even could not go the whole length of the defence ; so he gave up one part of it to save the rest; his favourite topic was the forgery of the note, and this, too, against all shadow of proof; but oh, this did not sig- nify; Mrs. Clarke was a prodigy; she could do any thing she chose—A most miraculous woman and yet, what has she made of all this cleverness 2 Had she raised any money in the Duke's name 2 (Hear, hear !) Far from it. This vile woman, this harpy, as she was called, sought no money but for honest purposes; she made no purse, and when she acquired money, only used it in the payment of her tradesmen's bills. (Hear, hear !) Why should she then be thus calumniated No generous mind would surely be so prejudiced, on account of what she was, against what she is. Little could he expect it, however, from those who were full of the milk of human kindness to others, who did not deserve it more. But the probability of the Duke's coming to the throne was used as an argu- ment now against his condemnation. This he could by no means admit; he could not consider rank as an argu- ment against the punishment of injustice. . It was a little surprizing that those who disbelieved Mrs. Clarke, did not also remark on the part which all those who had come forward to discredit her had played ; not one who had tried to invalidate her testimony, but had done so to his own confusion; (Hear, hear !) not one of them that had THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 699 mot rather discredited themselves than her, to whom they had avowedly come to attach suspicion. Her method of answering on her cross-examination at once evinced her innocence; she gave answers which she must have known would have led to a further interrogation, and of course to a more full elucidation of the truth. Thus she made a statement which she told us Donovan was prepared to deny ; the fact proved so ; he did deny it, and his de- miaſ, like that of all the rest, ultimately tended to his own humiliation. He had remarked thus much upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, and he had done so, because he thought justice should be rendered equally to all. But setting her evidence even aside completely, he would ask the House, had they not circumstantial evidence so fully before them, that very little positive evidence was re- quired 2–(Hear, hear !) When he considered this, and considered also of what weight such evidence was con- sidered in the courts of law, he could not help wondering why he saw all the legal gentlemen in the House, (Hear, hear !) ranged on the side of the accused which this evi- dence went directly to criminate. The legal gentlemen, indeed, seemed to lose all their ability on the occasion ; but it was not to be wondered at, it seems—Mrs. Clarkc was a witch—an enchantress : such was their reason, but it was not the true one : the fact was, they were defeated by the proofs which stared them in the face—they were dis- armed of their stings. Truth to a lawyer was like a red rag to a viper, it extracted his venom. Such evidence nothing could withstand ; no, not even “the honour of a prince.” It was painful for him to make the declara- tion, but truth could not be subverted even by rank; even his own evidence went against him. Mr. Adam had stated that the Duke of York told him he never had spoken on military subjects to Mrs. Clarke ; and then he states, that when Mrs. Clarke spoke to the Duke on some military point, he desired her not to speak to him on it. What! was no person but Mrs. Clarke to be trammelled, and criticised, and disabled in her evidence 2 Look even at Colonel Gordon's : he had been called an able evidence; for his part, he was unable to comprehend what was meant by an able evidence ; he could not see what was required from an evidence except truth, and he could not see either how telling truth constituted ability. Even in 700 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To this able evidence, however, a flaw might be discovered, if scrutinized by the ingenuity which had inspected Mrs. Clarke's : thus Col. Gordon had stated what he had called an invariable custom, and in a little after it appeared this invariable custom had many exceptions. Was not this a glaring inconsistency 2 and yet this was the grand stalk- ing-horse which was put forward on every occasion. The more the evidence of Mrs. Clarke was sifted, and con- trasted with that of the other witnesses, the more perhaps those who were inclined to condemn her, would mitigate their severity. The gentlemen, however, who had so severely criticised her had entirely left Doctor O’Meara out of the question, because, he supposed, it was not a military point. But what a picture did this man exhibit! What a picture of profligacy He who had preached before the royal family against “ adultery, fornication, and all the other deadly sins !” (Hear, hear !) The ho- mourable baronet here made some brief comments on parts of the evidence, and dwelt particularly on the case of Captain Turner—“But,” said he, “how did the Duke of York behave to Mrs. Clarke; she for whom he expressed such fondness; and yet she whom he kicked from him as he would his shoe 2 Why, it makes one's blood run cold but to think of it ! to think of his trying to render infa- mous the woman for whom he had expressed such love . to think of the message which he had the hardihood to send her a message too which must have been true, because the Duke's partizans had it in their power to call the messenger (Taylor, the shoemaker), to the bar to deny it; and yet they did not. Why, what a pic- ture does this woman present to us, even when contrasted with the “honour of a prince 1” Alas, what a melancholy comparison 1 She demanding her annuity only to pay the debts she had contracted under his protection, and he refusing even that paltry pittance, because she could not produce his bond for it ! There (said Sir Francis), there is “the honour of a prince” for you ! (Loud cries of hear, hear !) He could not tell how the honour of a prince differed from that of a private gentleman, but he confessed, according to the specimen of the one which had here been held out, he never could compare them. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, these were incor- rupt times; according to his account of it, we had got into a kind of Paradise Regained, and indeed such a now THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 701 tion would not be wondered at in him, by any one who had seen how he had treated the evidence. . He, indeed, did not think times were now, so bad as those of our an- cestors, when a man dining with a minister would find 500l. under his plate, and wonder how it got there, while he pocketed it (a laugh); but there were other methods of corruption besides pecuniary ones. There were such things as places; corruption was a moral motive, an undue influence which made the mind swerve from duty and from justice. It was a circumstance much to be ad- verted to that the Duke of York sought a loan from Comrie, Mrs. Clarke's solicitor, because it shewed how they drew together in money concerns. But when re- marking on this loan, he was forcibly struck by the con- tinual pecuniary grasping which the Duke of York had evinced in every transaction which had come to light; he to whom the country had already given so liberal an income. This, coupled with other circum- stances, was enough to convince him : he would be con- vinced, even separating the documental from the oral testimony; but combining them, viewing the testimo- nies rushing from all quarters, he must be sceptical indeed did he even hesitate. There never was a more im- portant question than this, since the question excluding the Duke of York from the succession in the reign of Charles the Second. It was a question of justice; a ques- tion which came home to the breast of every man in Eng- land. The honour of a prince could not lead him from it; he must consider the honour of the king, the fountain of justice, whose streams should flow pure and unpolluted. What I will any man now say the Duke of York is a fit man to stand at the head of the British army 2 Surely none. (Hear, hear!) Could he, like the Roman Scipio, turn to his soldiers, telling them to follow him to the temple of the gods? Oh, no. He appears to the nation like the ghost of Banquo, disfigured by a thousand gashes. IIe would vote, then, in the cause of justice, and as his unprejudiced mind had dictated. He was not warped by the desire of popularity, and he could not help thinking the caution unnecessary which warned the House not to be too much led by popular opinion ; its decisions were very seldom unduly influenced by such a cause. The people of England were lovers of justice, and he would 702 proceedings Relative to support the cause, uninfluenced by any undue considers ation whatever. * - The Master of the Rolls observed, that he had hitherto refrained from offering himself to the House, because he was anxious to have the evidence considered by other honourable members before he mentioned the impression it made on his mind. Whatever gentlemen might state respecting an impartial decision on this question, it was impossible that any man sitting there as a judge should not have an opinion on the case. Many persons who took up the subject with extreme zeal on one side, would conceive themselves perfectly right, and maintain that they acted from conviction. This kind of conviction put him in mind of an expression of Dr. Johnson's, speak- ing of some gentleman who had very hastily and errone- ously, as he thought, come to a conclusion on a popular question, “Aye, says he, he is convinced, but then this conviction is not honestly come by.” This observation appeared to him to be very applicable to some of the argu- ments that he had heard from the other side of the House. Their conclusions or conviction were not founded on the evidence that was before the House. It was certainly desirable that this question should be decided on fair and equitable grounds. He trusted, therefore, that the House would come with a manly and erect mind to the decision; unbiassed by popular ferment, and unawed by power. There seemed to him to be two principles involved in the question before the House : first, whether they should come to any decision on the subject ; next, what that decision should be. The second would necessarily branch itself into a number of others, respecting the competence and credibility of evidence, and various other points. If the Duke should be found guilty of the charges brought against him, then the House was to determine whether they should send him to trial; if not, whether the amend- ment last proposed should be adopted (for that amend- ment, let it be recollected, went to absolve his Royal Highness of all personal corruption or corrupt participa- tion), and the House come to a resolution that it was not proper that he should continue longer at the head of the army. He could conceive a case of inquiry where the House might not be called upon to give an opinion ; but he could conceive none where they might be called upon THE COMMANDER: IN CHIEF. 703 to pronounce an ambiguous opinion. The amendment proposed appeared to him likely to involve them in a dilemma of this nature. He agreed with the honourable baronet in his ideas of corruption, which did not imply the mere personal receipt of money, exclusive of other considerations. It was not necessary, in order to substan- tiate these charges, to prove that the Duke had received money with his own hands. If it could be made appear that he connived at the receipt of it by Mrs. Clarke or any one else, the accusation was brought home to him. This was a question to be entirely decided by the credibi- Hity of evidence ; afid he doubted whether the result of any inquiry before that House ever turned upon such a point. It was impossible that the House, in its judicial capacity, could decide upon the character and interests, he would not say of the Duke of York, but of the mean- est man in the land, upon such evidence as they had heard at their bar. The evidence was deficient in that common sanction, which all ages, all countries, and all religions required It was not given with the solemnity and under the penalty of an oath. This formality was so neces- sary, that it was known from history that a Roman tribu- nal had refused to receive the evidence even of Cato, until he had taken the accustomed oaths. It would be for the House to decide, whether they would adopt a measure affecting the honour and interest of any subject, without such a sanction. He would in the mean time admit, that an examination not upon oath would be sufficient to justify the House to put a man upon his trial. . They have even gone the length of punishing persons upon such evidence, but it would not be pleasant to him to exercise his judicial functions upon the authority of such a precedent. He would now proceed to examine the evidence in the same way as if it had been given upon oath. [The honourable member here went into a long examination of the evi- dence, which he analized with his accustomed acuteness and ability.] Mrs. Clarke's evidence was directed wholly against the Duke of York, and that in the most positive manner. She asserted that his Royal Highness sanctioned every act she had done, and that he had not only sanctioned, but suggested and pointed ont the way in which it should be done ; that these, in fact, formed the ways and means by which the establishment she pos- scssed was supported. Now with respect to this evidence 704. PROCEEpiNGS RELATIVE for there were various opinions. A noble lord at the other side expressed his opinion that entire credit should be given to every thing she had said. He did not feel the same prepossession in favour of her evidence. He would admit that many parts of it might be true, but such evi- dence was always to be received with suspicion. In a court of law any judge would say, that such evidence was to be received with extreme caution. If it were other- wise, the character of any person might be at the mercy of any daring and worthless wretch, who might chuse to come forward and accuse him of a crime. Mrs. Clarke had a sufficient motive to bring the accusations that were the subject of their present deliberations against the Duke. Her object was to force him to a compromise. She was, on that account, not a perfectly credible witness. The only confirmative evidence was, that of Miss Taylor, and that only went to the corrupt dealing with regard to French's levy. With respect to this, he would not call upon the House to discredit Mrs. Clarke's testimony; the question was, whether Miss Taylor's memory was clear as to the fact. It was the evidence of a conversation respecting what might be supposed to have passed in a previous conversation or communication of some kind at which she was not present, or to which she was not privy. A confirmative evidence of this sort ought to be above all suspicion. In his opinion, the evidence of this lady did not come fairly to the fact. But suppose it did, what was its tendency Was it not that his Royal High- mess had avowed his inclination to put an end to French’s levy, from which Mrs. Clarke had already derived so many advantages, and from which she might expect to obtain many more. Did it not go to cut up her hopes by the roots : Mrs. Clarke had no reason to complain of French, at the time she is said to have told the Duke that he behaved “middling” to her. He had far exceeded the limits of his original stipulation with her. Exclusive of the first 500l. she had at this very time received 850l. more; and this at a period when French was a loser by the transaction, and when it was uncertain whether it would go forward. Mrs. Clarke's evidence was not, in his mind, sufficiently confirmed by other testimony, to justify the House in proceeding on it. There were only two cases to which the evidence of Mrs. Clarke could at all apply; and if any credit was to be given to the tes- The coxſy:ANDER IN CHIEF. 705 timony of Colonel Gordon, and the documents produced by him, her influence had no share whatever in effecting these promotions. None who believed these, could can- scientiously say that his Royal Highness was cognizant of Mrs. Clarke’s corruption. The House ought to be careful to distinguish between suspicion and certainty; for such was the frame of the human mind, that mere sus- picion often supplied the place, and formed the ground of belief. If the charges were fully made out, let them not acquit his Royal Highness; if they were not, let him be acquitted ; but let there be a decision one way or other. If a man were uncertain whether he should believe or not, it would not be right for him to proceed as if he did believe. He would not take up the time of the House in detailing the various inconsistencies in Mrs. Clarke's evidence ; but there was one so glaring, that he must allude to it: she stated, that she did not begin to traf. fic in the sale of commissions until some months after she came to reside in Gloucester-place, when she first felt herself embarrassed. Now it ap; eared by documen's from the War-office, that the application for French's levy was made on the 1st of February 1804; and she herself acknowledged that she had promised to support it before the proposal was sent in. If these practices were coupled with the object of relieving the Duke of York from the frequent drains which Mrs. Clarke was under the ne- cessity of making on him, they entirely failed. They did not relieve him from her demands, for it was in evi- dence that he had paid 1,309/. for her at once. His Royal Highness is represented as being extremely distressed during the time he lived with her ; as not being able, according to her accoutit, of giving her 100l. But if it were true that he had given Mrs. Clarke authority to open a wholesale warehouse for the disposal of coin- missions, why did she not turn that, privilege to ac- count 2 What became of all the majºrities and coin- panies she had to dispose of Why did she not derive from these the means of supporting her establishment, when the sale of a single ensigncy would be sufficient to render it unnecessary to apply to his Royal Highness 2 There was also another question. If the Duke of York gave her this authority, if he told her what recommen- dations were proper, and what were not, she should hever have met with the sº difficulty in carrying & *. 706 f ROCEF.DINGS RELATIVE TO these promotions into effect. It would be a gross absur- dity to suppose that he gave her in private this autho- rity, and that he afterwards, in his official character, set himself to oppose the exercise of it. With respect to the extent and efficacy of Mrs. Clarke's influence, it appeared that her recommendations experienced de- lays in the most favourable cases, and failures in many. French’s levy was full five months in agitation, and so long was Mrs. Clarke kept out of her 500l. It was the same in Tonyn's case ; for it was many weeks after the 500l. he had agreed to give for his majority was drawn out of the hands in which it was deposited. All this happened at a time that she represents the Duke being so embarrassed as not to be able to advance her so small a sum as 100l. It appeared indeed, that she was in a miscrable state of ignorance respecting promotions. This was particularly manifest in Tonyn's case, who, as stated by his right honourable friend the Secretary at War, was a major many days before she knew any thing about it ; even at the very time that she threatened that his promotion should be stopped. The charge respect- ing Shaw was, in the manner as it was represented by this woman, one particularly atrocious. She wished it to be understood that his Royal Highness had lent him- self to her revenge, and that he put Major Shaw on half pay, merely to §atisfy her. "Now how did the matter st and Why, that the two appointments were incompa- tible, unless, which was not the case, that the regiment to which he was attached, was quartered at the place where he was nominated barrack-master. It further ap- peared that her interference was of no use whatever in Spedding’s case. All her influence was incffectual to obtain him the accommodation for which he sent in a memorial. So that upon the whole it was evident that her applications failed oftener than they succeeded, and that it was by no means clear that even one of these successes was to be attributed to her. He lamented the immorality of the connection in which his Royal Highness had so indiscreetly engaged, and he agreed with his learned friend (Mr. Burton) that it merited the censure of the House. But he was not aware of any established law in this country (it was different, however, in others) which authorised the making this the ground of a criminal pro- ceeding. It was not an offence cognizable by the laws of THE COMMANDER in chier. 707 the land. If, indeed; it tended to offend public decorum, or was inconsistent with the situation filled by his Royal Highness or any other servant of the state, there the law had a right to lay hold of him. He would admit that the Duke of York was culpable to a certain, degree in not having stedfastly prohibited Mrs. Clarke ever to open her mouth, or communicate in any way to him on the subject of army or any other promotions. . But it was only in two instances that the House had before it un- doubted testimony that it had deen done ; namely, the cases of O'Meara and Clavering. The former did not re- ard military promotion ; and the latter did not succeed. These were not of that flagrant nature for which his Royal Highness was to be stigmatized by a vote of that House, and deprived of the command of the army. He had laid before the House the evidence as it existed, and made those comments upon it which he thought it justified. He was confident that the House would weigh all the cir- cumstances of the case maturely and conscientiou ly, and he was persuaded they would come to that decision which would satisfy the country. Sir Samuel Romilly, in rising to address the House, de- clared that it was not his intention to follow his right honourable friend into many of the observations which he had introduced into the speech he had just finished. The subject under consideration he saw in a different point of view, from every person of the profession to which he belonged, who had expressed his sentiments upon it. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him not to give a silent vote upon the question, but to state to the House the rea- sons which in his mind justified the vote he meant to give. He trusted the House would allow him not to go into all the cases or to comment upon the whole of the evidence, or even to endeavour to add much to the forcible observa- tions which had already been submitted to the House, an endeavour to which he felt himself unequal, but to point out those parts of the evidence which had most weight with him in deeiding his opinion. It was impos- sible for him, upon comparing these parts of the evidence —upon calling to mind the character, conduct, and de- meanour of the witnesses who had been examined at the bar in the, progress of this business—upon weighing all the circumstances both of their testimonies and their bear- ing upon the question º,investigation—upon such a 708 proceepings ReLATI've ro general view of the subject, it was impossible for him to assent to the proposition of his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). That'proposition went to call upon the House to vote, what in his con- science he could not assent to, namely, that there was no ground of charge against his Royal Highness the Duke of . York, on the score of corruption, or connivance at cor- ruption. But before he made any observations upon that proposition, or stated the reasons why he could not con- cur in it, he begged to say a few words upon the subject of the original address, which had been moved by the honourable member (Mr. Wardle) who had instituted the proceeding in that House. That address contained a prayer to his majesty that he would be graciously pleased to remove the Duke of York from the command of the army. To that an amendment had been moved by his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exche- quer), substituting two resolutions for the address, the first of which called upon the House to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the Duke of York, and the next resolution affirmed, that there was no ground of charge of corruption or connivance against his Royal Highness. To this amend- ment another amendment had since been moved, to leave out the whole of his right honourable friend's amendment, in order to substitute for it another address, having the same objects as the former one, though not proceeding upon the same grounds, but praying for the removal of the Duke of York from the command of the army. That was the state of the question, and upon all the consideration which he could give the subject, his opinion was, that the amendments ought to be negatived, and the original ad- dress adopted. As to the question whether they ought to address his Majesty to remove the Duke of York from his command, he should say that he could not conceive a case in which the House of Commons could address for the removal of a public servant from his situation, if not upon the cvidence which they had then before them. He was not able to collect from the speech of his right honourable and learned friend, who had just spoken, in what way he meant to vote upon the amendment of his right honourable friend; but from the tendency of his argument, he should apprehend that he meant to negative it. As the evidence had not been fortified by those sanctions which his Fearned friend deemed so necessary for a just decision, .THE CoMMANDER IN chie F. . 703 he supposed he would be inclined to a middle course, between the alternative of guilty or not guilty, and the resolution which went to acquit the Duke altoge- ther. For himself, he wished to state shortly the ground on which his vote was founded. The question then before the House, was not, whether his Royal Highness was or was not guilty. No such question had been submitted to their decision. No choice had been given to the House. The amendment of his right honourable friend #. the opportunity only of pronouncing that his Royal ighness was not guilty. Here it would be necessary for him to say a few words upon the preliminary question, whether the House was bound in this instance to de- cide whether his Royal Highness be guilty or not It had been said that, as they had entertained the charges, they were bound to decide upon the guilt or innocence of his Royal Highness, in order that posterity may know, when they should see the charges of the journals, whether his Royal Highness had been acquitted or not. But he must remind the House, that no charges had been formally preferred against his Royal Highness in writing. The honourable member with whom this investigation ori- ginated, had, in his opening speech, not brought forward charges, but stated facts; and, upon such facts being stated, as were highly disadvantageous to his Royal High- ness, the House had appointed a committee, not to con- sider specific charges, but to investigate the conduct of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief, as to the facts alleged. Upon this subject, the argument of the noble lord (Folkestone) under the gallery on a former night, was unanswerable. If charges there were, where was the record of them : It was no where to be found, and posterity would in vain look for a trace of their ex- istence, if the question were to rest where it then was. But it was argued that, as the facts had been stated to the House, they were bound in justice to his loyal Highness to decide upon them. ...Yet in the letter of his Royal Highness, so far from calling for a decision, he deprecates a decision, and desires that they may refer the matter to another tribunal, (Hear, hear, hear!) In that unfortu- nate letter, which proceeded from the very worst advice, that had ever yet been given to a person in the situation of his Royal Highness, there were several passages highly objectionable, to which he should not then more par- ; 3.. 710 . . . proceedings melative to . ticularly allude, but there was one part to which he was "anxious to direct the House, in confirmation of what he Thad just stated. The letter itself, he wished he had the power to expunge from the jºurnals of the House, and to blot out, from the memory of all its members.” (Hear, hear, hear!) The part to which he alluded was this:- “My consciousness of innocence leads me confidently to “hope that the House of Commons will not, upon such ‘‘ evidence as they have heard, adopt any proceedings pre- “judicial to my honour and character; but if, upon such “testimony as has been adduced against me, the House of * Commons can think my innocence questionable, I claim . ‘‘ of their justice, that I shall not be condemned without “trial, nor be deprived of the benefit and protection which is afforded to every British subject by those sanc- “tions, under which alone evidence is received in the “ordinary administration of the law.”—(Hear, hear, hear!) Did the honourable gentlemen mean to insinuate by their cheering that his Royal Highness deprecated that decision which they were called upon to make : A deci- sion must mean a determination or declaration of Guilty or Not Guilty. But the only alternative afforded to the House was the alternative of acquittal. If gentlemen meant by decision to determine whether or not his Royal THighness should be sent to trial, he should concur with them, though he must observe that it was a new meaning for deciding in a judicial House, to say we shall decide whether the case should go to another tribunal to decide, If they were to pursue the course pointed out in the letter, the first proposition for them to consider would be, whe- ther or not, upon all the evidence which they had before them, they could take upon themselves to say, that there was no ground of charge of corruption, or criminal connis vance, against his Royal Highness : He could not see why the words “criminal connivance,” had been intro. duced at all, unless it was with a view to the particular impressions which exist on the minds of some few members of that House. But the real question was, whether the House could say that there was no ground of charge against the Duke of York. It was a painful duty to de- clare his opinion; but, painful as it was, he could not but add, that he could not say there was no ground of charge, or that he disbelieved all the evidence which had been produced. He knew that strong objections had been THE CO M M ANDER IN CHIEF's 711 . urged against the credibility of the testimony; but he had considered it all diligently; he had endeavoured to take into view all. the arguments on both sides; and he was then prepared to state to the House the strongest points as they struck him upon the most attentive exami- nation of the evidence. He was ready to admit that Mrs. Clarke, the principal witness, had been influenced by resentment; that she came to the bar of that House still entertaining that resentment; that she had been contra- dicted by witnesses of credit, and contradicted by herself; and yet he would state some reasons why he thought her testimony to be, in the main, believed. He would also allow that her testimony was not to be credited, except when confirmed by other testimony, and, in order to shew how far that was the case, he should state the true esti- mate of Mrs. Clarke's testimony. An objection had been taken, and too much insisted on by his learned friend (Mr. Burton) on a former night, against her evidence, as that of an accomplice. But what was the true weight of an objection, founded upon the consideration of her hav- ing been an accomplice, or how had she been an acconi- plice It was alleged that she had influence with the Commander-in-chief; that she exercised this influence by recommending persons for military promotions; and that she was guilty of the immoral act of taking money for such exercise of her influence. “What was there in the immorality of such conduct that could go to render her testimony invalid in a case of the highest public import- ance, and concerning a person of the very highest rank in the state He for one believed that there were many men, who might incur a similar degree of immorality, and yet would suffer any extremity rather than bear false testi- mony. There was nothing in the act, however it was to be condemned, to vitiate the credibility of the evidence of the guilty party. Here he should beg the indulgence of the House, whilst he briefly stated the rule of evidence upon this head. The truth was, that the evidence of an accomplice would be received against a prisoner in a capi- tal case ; the evidence would be left to the jury to deter- mine upon the credit due to it, and the prisoner might be convicted. This was evidence, however, which ought seldom to be resorted to, and should always be left to a jury, with a strong direction and observation against its gredit. The case which had been quoted by the noble 712. PROCEEDINGs RELArive. To lord under the gallery on a former night was perfectly in point. In that case the parties had been convicted upon the single testimony of an accomplice. A similar case, reported in the same book, occurred the following year at the Old Bailey, in the case the King against Durham. A conviction took place upon the evidence of an accome plice, and upon reference to the twelve judges, the con- viction was confirmed as legal, The case in which the evidence of an accomplice ought and would have little or no weight, was, where he was an accomplice in a crime, a conviction for which would have rendered him an in- competent witness. (Hear, hear!) Now Mrs. Clarke was not under any such imputation, and consequently, though her evidence was not to be credited, unless con- firmed by other testimony, still she was neither an incom- petent witness, nor to be lightly discredited. As to the contradictions which had been so much dwelt upon, in the comparison of Mrs. Clarke's testimony with that of others, and with different parts of her own, with the exception of that respecting the 200l. Bank note, and one or two others, he thought they were all immaterial, not undoubtedly as to her credit, but as to the facts charged against the Duke of York. In courts of justice, where the opportunity of cross-examination gives the means of finding out and sifting all that a witness knows, and of making him contradict himself if he meant not to give honest testimony, he should contradict himself in circumstances not material, it would not set 15is evidence aside, though it would im- air his credit. But in such a case the witness calls God witness his statement, and stakes his salvation on his ves. racity. In the examination, however, before that House, the declaration was not made under the same circum- stances; nor was the immorality the same in a contradics tion at their bar, and a contradiction, upon oath. Mrs. Clarke, he was ready to admit, had given evidence which was exceptionable ; but he contended, that she had not shewn any disregard to truth or falsehood. Much had been said of her fascinations: but he must confess, that her first appearance at the bar had made an unfavourable impression upon him ; which, perhaps, might have arisen from his want of sensibility. Her manner in giving her evidence was not guarded, as it would if she came to give studied testimony. She gave her testimony with a levity and impropriety of conduct which shewed that she was THE COMMANDER IN C111EF. 713 not misrepresenting the truth. No doubt she had been encouraged in this course by the notice the House took of her j. by sometimes laughing at them, which she seemed to construe as approbation. But whilst the care- lessness of her manner shewed the sincerity of her evidence, the knowledge that if she prevaricated she would be sent to Newgate, a visitation of which she had been sometimes reminded, operated as a sanction to make her tell the truth. The difference was obvious between her manner of giving evidence to that of Messrs. Donovan and Sandon, who obviously meant to give such testimony as might be beneficial to their own interests. (Hear, hear !) He had made these general observations in order to shew that the objection to Mrs. Clarke's testimony, though consi- derable, were yet not of weight sufficient to destroy her testimony entirely. The evidence she had given was such as he had never either heard or read of in any judi- cial proceeding. She had come to their bar, supported only by the testimony of Miss Taylor, and stated cases which at first appeared incredible, not knowing of the existence of one set of documents which were afterwards produced, and confirmed her evidence, and not being al- lowed to inspect another set of documents which she knew to be in existence in the possession of Mr. Nicholls. She knew, however, that these documents would fall into the hands of Mr. Lowten, or Mr. Wilkinson, and conse- quently be produced, and this circuins ance had given her confidence in her truth, and the correctness of her com- munications. It had been said that the whole of her case had been produced at once; but the House must recollect, that there were some cases which she did not mention; that others had resulted out of the inspection of the papers, and one case had been produced by accident. However, the contents of all the documents, as well of those found in Sandon's bureau, of whose existence she was ignorant, as of those which she knew to be in the possession of Mr. Nicholls, corroborated her testimony. She had unques- tionably felt resentment again t the Duke of York, and came to the bar, knowing that she laboured under the disadvantage of being supposed to be influenced by it. There was not, however, any thing in the evidence to shew that this charge had been brought forward in conse- quence of that resentment. . . . t There were two points so irresistibly strong in the evi- 714. proceed INGs iteſ, AT1 ve to dence, as to render it impossible for him to say, that there was no ground of charge against the Duke of York. One. of these points was the evidence of Miss Taylor; the other was the note respecting Major Tonym. The evi- dence of Miss Taylor had been much objected to; but during the whole of the examination, he had not per- ceived any thing that could invalidate her testimony. The circumstance of her having had children intrusted to her care, was in favour of her credibility. At least, it was an evidence of her good conduct and general reputation, and amounted to a testimony of so many persons as confided their children to her care, in favour of her credibility. What had since happened, as stated by the noble lord (Folkestone) in the removal of these children, was an ad- ditional evidence to her credit, by shewing that she had been confided in. She had no interest in giving false tes- timony. He could not imagine what interest she could have to give false evidence against the Duke of York. Her connection by alliance with Mrs. Clarke was not strong enough to induce her to such conduct. What in- terest then could influence a young person at the bar to give such false testimony, except they were to imagine she had been bribed, and was a suborned witness : Would any court of justice say under such circumstances, that she was so hardened in guilt, and so steeled against remorse, as to conduct herself in such a manner and was it to be sup- osed that before the assembled representatives of the nation she had borne false testimony against the son of the king : It was really impossible that she could have been guilty of such enormity. If credit then was to be given to her testimony, the House would observe what would be the consequence, Miss Taylor had stated that she heard the Duke of York ask Mrs. Clarke, at the time he remarked that Colonel French was teazing him, “how does he behave to you, Darling " If the Commander-in-chief, meant by that question, as his learned friend had argued, to ask only whether Colonel French was teazing her as he did himself, why had he not directed her to shut her door against his applications 2 But why should the Duke of York have known at all that Colonel French saw Mrs. Clarke 2 (Hear, hear, hear!) Why ask her how does he behave to you ? Could any body suppose that that expression had any other but one meaning viz. Is he liberal to you ? Docs he supply you plentifully with money : In getting THE comm ANDER IN chief. 715 the money, Mrs. Clarke might very well tell the Duke of York she wanted it for the purpose of removing the diffi- culties of which she was in the habit of complaining to him. It had been said that Colonel French had given to Mrs. Clarke much more money than by agreement he was bound to do; but that was nothing to the question. The payment of the money, and the privity of the Duke to the transaction, as proved by Miss Taylor's evidence, were the principal considerations. As to the discredit affected to be thrown on Miss Taylor's testimony to this fact, in conse- . quence of the conversation having taken place four years ago, and the improbability of any distinct or perfect recol- lection, particularly of conversation, after such a lapse of time, he need only observe, that what passes in the pre- sence of superiors generally makes a deeper impression than what passes amongst equals, and that the nature of the conversation was such as to be tenaciously remem- bered. * The next point in the evidence to which he should refer, was that about the note respecting Major Tonyn, and a most important part it was. In his mind there could be no doubt that this note had been written by the Duke of York. If he were acting as a judge under the same sanc- tion of an oath as judges do, and to decide whether the life of a fellow-creature was to be sacrificed upon such evi- dence as that, he could not have the slightest hesitation in deciding. All the gentlemen well acquainted with the hand-writing of the Duke of York proved it to be his hand-writing, except, General Brownrigg, who, when pressed, said only that he did not believe it to be the Duke's hand-writing, but that he would not s. car that it was not. (Hear, hear, hear,!) If the Duke of York himself saw the no e, he was gure he would be as much surprized at the sight of it as †. Clarke had been, but would allow it to be his own hand-writing. All the gentlemen, too, who were experienced in the distinction of hands, and had been cxamined at the bar, concurred in the same testi- mony. But here he must beg of the House to reflect upon what it had done in calling upon such evidence to be examined at the bar. Never had evidence of this descrip- tion been countenanced in a court of justice. One instance, indeed, had been stated by the noble lord under the gal- lery, (Lord Folkestone) when such evidence had been in- troduced into a court of justice, but then it was for the 716 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO purpose of proving whether a particular paper was the hand-writing of a particular person, but never to prove that it was not. What, he would ask, would be the con- sequences of such a pernicious precedent? A man need now, if that principle were to be acted upon, only produce a different paper of his own hand-writing, to vacate an instrument of his own execution, by calling such witnesses to prove the difference of the hand-writing. What and how much more mischief might not the precedent do in criminal cases? He had, when the proposition was first made for calling these gentlemen to the bar, opposed it in limine, and he thcn repented that he had not taken the sense of the House upon i. question. If he had pressed his opposition to a division, he was confident that he should have had with him on the division all that nume- rous class of gentlemen in the House, who had had a pro- fessional education. If they were to believe that Miss Taylor and Mrs. Clarke had been engaged in a conspiracy, and that Mrs. Clarke could forge the Duke of York’s hand-writing, let them but recollect what means they would have possessed to accomplish their diabolical urposes. This note had been sent from the Horse uards, and Ludowick Orramin had said, that he was . frequently in the habit of carrying notes from that place to Mrs. Clarke. This note was not like the letter respect- ing General Clavering; it was a note upon business, and imported what had been done in consequence of a note to which it was the answer. “I received your note, and Tonyn's business shall remain as it is.” hat could be the meaning of this note, unless that the Duke had stop- ped the promotion of Tonyn in consequence of Mrs. Clarke's note: This circumstance was so strong that giving full weight to all the objections that had been urged, he could not vote that his Royal Highness had not been guilty of corruption, or connivance at corruption. The next question was, whether the House of Commons should vote an address to his majesty for the removal of his Royal Highness from his command, upon even a suspicion of what had been proved in evidence 2 If they were to go to an impeachment, that would be a tardy proceeding, and in the mean time the minister would re- main in his situation. The House had in the last instance respecting the first lord of the admiralty (Lord Melville) carried up resolutions to the throne, and procured his re- THE COMMANDER [M CHIEF, 71? moval, though not for any act done in his office as lord of the admiralty, but in an office which he had held many years before. He would admit, however, that the pro- ceedings against that noble person had been founded upon depositions taken upon oath before parliamentary com- missioners. But if the House could not proceed to address his majesty, for the removal of a public servant, against whom such proofs could be brought, without the power of examining witnesses upon oath—if their inquisitoriał #. in pursuance of which they had the authority to nquire into abuses in all the departments of the state, and used to appoint committees for that purpose, though that is now become a form, should thus be rendered nugatory, for want of power to examine witnesses upon oath, it was time to amend the law of parliament, and apply to the other House to agreee in passing an act to render the powers of the Commons efficient to their object. It had been said that the Duke of York was to be con- sidered as the meanest individual in the country; but had he been treated as the highest peer Suppose the case to have happened to any peer of the land, who might have been Commander-in-chief, and that the same facts had been proved against him, would not that House have ad- dressed that he should be removed from his cammand 2 A right honourable gentleman had said that we could not punish a prince of the blood, if not determined to alter the succession. Why that circumstance of the connection between the illustrious Sovereign on the throne and the object of this proceeding rendered it impossible for them to pursue the same course as in the case of any other sub- ject. He would be the last man to admit that that House should bend to public opinion without its walls. But high as their attachments were to the throne, he thought, that nothing should be dearer to them than to maintain the character of that House. If once the opinion should prevail that the House of Commons had heard of cor- ruptions existing in the state, and heard of it with indif- ference—if ever such an impression shoutd. go forth, and they should lose the confidence of the people—if they should on any occasion appear to be inattentive to the in- terests of their constituents, and the minds of the public should be alienated from parliament—if ever that fatal time should arrive, no man could tell the consequences. Never had he given a vote with inore reluctanee than he 713 Yºrtoceph ING's RET, ATI v E ro should that night; and it would afford him, the highest satisfaction, if he could conscientiously say that no grounds of charge existed against the Duke of York. His ho- nourable and learned friend (Mr. Burton) had attested the sincerity of his vote, by an affecting allusion to his in- firmities and age, and the consequent impossibility that his vote should be influenced by any considerations of in- terest, or any views of ambition. For his own part he could say, that, though he was not labouring under the same affliction with his honourable and learned friend, yet he looked forward both for himself and those connections to whom he was strongly and tenderly attached, for future prosperity, and whatever might be the result of the present question, he would ever have the heartfelt satisfaction to know, that he had no advantages to expect from the vote which he should give that night. [Sir Samuel Romilly concluded his speech amidst the loudest cheerings.] The Solicitor-General rose at about one o’clock. He conceived it his bounden duty to state to the House the reasons upon which his opinion was founded. . He con- sidered that the first question was, whether the House should decide upon the guilt or innocence of his Royal Highness; secondly, whether the Duke was guilty or not ; and next, whether an address ought to be presented to his majesty. It appeared to him, that the House should come to a distinct determination, respecting his guilt or innocence, and also as to the degree of guilt or innocence. He considered, that such an address as was proposed to be carried up to the throne, would have been an irreversible sentence of condemnation against his Royal Highness for moral and political guilt. The words of the address were vague and equivocal in the highest degree. He could not see, that in morality or in law there was any difference between connivance and participation in corruption. If the Duke had given commissions and military appoint- ments at the request of Mrs. Clarke, with a suspicion that she received money for her influence, he would have been as corrupt as if it was within his knowledge. He therefore saw very little difference between the two ad- dresses, and should infinitely prefer a distinct resolution, being proposed to the House. The voting for either of these addresses would be passing a judgment from which there would be. no appeal, which would be recorded for ever, which would attach infamy to the Duke, and be a THE COMMANīy ER IN CHIEF. 719 severer punishment than stabbing him to the heart. (Hear, hear !) If the charge of foul corruption was thus fixed upon him, how could he appear in the army, or hold up his head in society He thought that the address for re- moval would be too little if the Duke was guilty, and too much if he was innocent. He did not deny that the House would be justified in calling for removal in many cases, but in this case, what was to be considered were the direct charges of corruption. He then defended the letter of the Duke of York to the House, which he considered as per- fectly constitutional. He considered that no British sub- ject ought to be criminally punished either in life, limb, or character, without being furnished with the charge against him in writing, and without having becn heard in his defence, and condemned by his peers. He then went at some length into the examination of the evidence ; and the sole question appeared to him to be, whether the Duke was privy to those abuses committed by Mrs. Clarke 2 He thought there was not a tittle of evidence to shew that he knew of her receiving money. The reason that he had discredited Mrs. Clarke, was not merely from her character and her demeanour, but from her own account of herself. —She was an army-broker, and the trade of army-brokers was lying and cheating. (A laugh.)—With respect to the privity of the Duke, all the other witnesses had contra- dicted her. Neither Donovan, nor Sandon, nor Corri, or any other of her agents, believed that the Duke knew any thing about the money. Mr. R. Knight, also contradicted her. Mrs. Hovenden gave evidence, that Mrs. Clarke had talked to her of “working upon the Duke's good nature.” The documentary evidence did not appear to him to cor- roborate Mrs. Clarke with respect to what only was mate- rial, the privity of the Duke. He then commented on Mrs. Clarke's łº, to Donovau, which appeared to him to prove fully that Mrs. Clarke was not an unwilling witness as she had represented herself. This would also appear from her last letter to Mr. Adam, when she stated, “that if her request were not attended to, she would put the letters into the hands of gentlemen as obstinate, but more independent, than the Duke, and who, from pique, would do what he would not.” The learned gentleman than argued at great length on the improbability of an illustrious prince, of such high rank, associating with such miscreants as the witnesses. If he had entercd into so foul a plot, he would 720 PRoceepſ NGs iter. ATI've to have chosen some supple, bending, complying agent for his military secretary, and not such a man as Colonel Gordon, who had set himself against army-brokers. Very severe orders had been issued by his Royal Highness against army-brokers about this very time, and this was a pretty strong proof that he did not then connive at those foul practices which were transacted through the medium of army-brokers. Would he, in case his transactions were dishonourable, have chosen one of the most honourable men in the profession (Mr. Adam), to have instituted in- quiries about the conduct of Mrs. Clarke If the Duke had been conscious of privity in those corrupt practices, he would not have ventured to have set her at defiance. If the Dukeof York had not a high sense of the valueof honour and character, he would not have parted from Mrs. Clarke, when he found her character would not bear investigation; and it was not natural to suppose that a man who at one time had so high a sense of the value of character in a woman living under his protection, should at another time think so slightly of character as to run the risk of exposure, if he had not been conscious of his innocence. In answer to the observation of Mr. W. Smith, as to the great length and severity of cross-examination of wit- nesses, and particularly Miss Taylor, it was done from ne- cessity, to screw out the truth from persons who would otherwise have concealed it. Did not Sandon pertinaci- ously stick to a close story And had it not been that they were in possession of the secret about the note, it would have been impossible to have detected his falsehood, and it was by cross-examination chiefly they were enabled to effect it. Besides, the cross-examination of witnesses who were against Mrs. Clarke, was conducted with much more harshness, particularly Nicholls, who, at the especial in- stance of Mrs. Clarke, was asked whether he had not forged a will, and whether he was not parted from his wife on that account. But it seemed the cross-examination of some witnesses was decmed harsh, whilst one, still much more strict and more offensive to others, was not taken the smallest notice of. He then contended, that Miss Taylor was by no means so clear an evidence as she had been re- presented by Sir S. Romilly and others, for she had said that she never knew Mr. Clarke was in business, when it was proved he was a stone-mason ; and that she never knew her father went by any other name than Taylor, when it the com MANDER IN CHIEF. 721 was proved positively that he went constantly at the Stock- exchange by the name of Chance. He would not detain the House further than to say, that the House could not then be prepared to enter upon the question of the ad. dress, in either case, till they had first determined the question of guilty or not guilty of the corruption or con- nivance with which the Duke of York had been charged. Tuesday, March 14, 1809. Mr. Williams Wynne began by commenting on the state of the question, aſſº, that to call it the bounden duty of the House to take one course more than another, was ſo narrow the privileges of the House. The honourable member adverted to the case of the Duke of Lauderdale, in which the House thought it sufficient to address his Majesty, that the Duke might be removed from his Ma- jesty's councils; and to the old course of parliament, in which the simple misconduct of ministers was a cogni- zable matter. In the present instance, if corruption was not distinctly proved, yet there was evidently a degree of inattention which called for redress. In the present prac- tice of parliament, every distinct charge had been consi- dered as liable to a verdict of guilty or not guilty ; and the honourable member could conceive, that many gentle- men might believe that Samuel Carter's case was a single instance, and that no verdict could be entered upon that case, but a verdict of acquittal. But supposing there were fifty such cases, according to the present proceedings, there was no possibility of impeachment; for each was a separate charge. The case which pressed the heaviest on the Duke of York was one which could not be made the object of a charge, that of Kennet. If that case were admitted to its fullest extent, it would undoubtedly prove the charge of corruption in the Duke of York; for nobody could believe that the Duke would have interested himself merely because a letter was produced from one. individual, stating that he should be happy to serve an- other. Mr. Greenwood himself did no understand it in this light; and if this evidence was to remain unnoticed on the minutes, it would imply, that any one who wanted preferment, had nothing to do but to come in the shape of a loan to the Duke of York. Without trusting to the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, although the honourable mem- ber had not that sweeping gº of it which some gen- 792 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO tlemen had expressed, there remained to prove the charge of corruption in the Duke of York, the evidence of Miss Taylor, whose character had been admitted to be perfectly credible, in one of the ablest speeches that had been de- livered on that side of the House (the Speech of Sir S. Romilly ;) for it did not affect her credibility that her father was confined for debt, or that he was in distressed circumstances. . But, independently of the evidence of Mrs. Clarke and Miss #. and putting out of ques- tion the case of Colonel Shaw, and the exchange of Colo- nels Knight and Brooke, because they only rested upon Mrs. Clarke's testimony, it was proved that the Com- mander-in-chief had, in six instances, allowed Mrs. Clarke to interfere in the dispensation of his office—had allowed a woman to make º to him upon subjects of such high moment. The Duke had not said to Mrs. Clarke, “you had better tell your applicant that you are an im- proper channel;” but, “there is no º of apply- ing for what you ask.” Upon the evidence of the Duke's hand-writing, the honourable member referred to the practice of the right honourable gentleman (the Chancel- for of the Exehequer) when attorney-general, in the trial of Judge Johnson, where the evidence depended solely upon comparison of hands-writing, and where so many persons did not believe the imputed hand-writing gé- nuine. So many persons having been unable to say that this was not the hand-writing of the Duke of York, the honourable member thought that, putting Mrs. Clarke's evidence out of the question, in this instance she was allowed to interfere. The honourable member next ad- verted to the case of Samuel Carter. Of such promotion as his he had heard in a romance, but then it was gene- rally through some merit in the hero, and not solely through the influence of another. The honourable mem- ber first looked at the degraded situation of the boy behind the carriage of such a woman as Mrs. Clarke, and then saw him sitting down to table as an equal with the Duke of York, simply because he was connected with that wo- man. His letter, the honourable member said, did honour to both his gratitude and Mrs. Clarke's generosity, which it appeared had paid his outfits; but his commission con- stituted one of the heaviest charges against the Duke of York, because it proved that there was no check to the in- fluence of Mrs, Clarke. The natural feelings of the Duke's the GöMMANDER IN CHIEF. 723 thind one would suppose to have been, “I can use iny influence for the boy in any other way, but consider your situation and his : what will the army say, if they know this " Nothing but the greatest influence upon the uke's mind could have got over this. The honourable member next adverted to the evidence of Mr. Dowler, the credibility of which he defended, and thought his dea sire to conceal what passed at Reid's hotel pardonable. He thought too that Mr. Alderman Combe might, on horseback as he was, have been mistaken as to his con- versation with him. * What would be the effect, ſhe honourable gentleman asked, if the Duke remained in his situation ? If ever another woman should be in Mrs. Clarke's situation, she would think herself entitled to the same influence; and if ever this should be the case, the honourable member contended that she had better sell that influence than give it; for a deserving officer might be tempted to give her a sum of money, and have done with her; but he could not be very worthy of the situation, who was intimate enough with such a woman to obtain his promotion gratuitously. Upon the whole, the honourable member was of opi- nion, that there were sufficient grounds to address his Ma- jesty for the removal of the Duke of York; the cases of influence which had been proved were sufficient, and the general notoriety that by means so infamous promotion might be obtained, was a sufficient ground. There was but one way of proceeding, and that was the retirement of the Duke of York. The address originally proposed, the honourable member thought, stated more decidedly than was proved, the Duke's knowledge of the pecuniary ad- vantage which had been derived through Mrs. Clarke's influence; but there were so many grounds upon which the notoriety of that influence was apparent, that he should not hesitate to vote for the honourable member's (Mr. Bankes's) amendment. Mr. Croker rose, and at some length combated the ar. guments of Sir Francis Burdett, particularly as to the points of the incompetency of lawyers, whom he could not help considering as equal to decision even as any can- didate who had figured on the hustings either of Brentford or Covent-garden. The testimony of Mrs. Clarke, how- ever, he thought highly impeachable indeed. And here the honourable gentleman Prº to make comments on it in 3 724 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To support of his opinion. He went through a variety of cases, in which he particularly marked not only the places in which she had been contradicted by others, but where she had contradicted herself. For instance, she had said, that from one thousand a year, she could barely pay the wages of six men servants, and keep them in live- ries. Now he would even ask the noble lord himself (Lord Folkestone) economist as he had confessed himself to be, whether this was possible. He was really ashamed, and ought to apologize to the House when he attempted so to undervalue the testimony of Colonel Gordon, as to con- trast it with that of Mrs. Clarke. He could not, how- ever, help remarking the bias, the prejudice, the absolute taint which some of the members opposite seemed to have imbibed. He was absolutely shocked to hear her panegy- rized as an irreproachable witness—she, who in her at- tempts to prove the Duke of York the most contaminated of mankind, had only shewed herself to be the most flagi- tious of women l—she, a fiend-like creature, an harpy, the vilest of her sex, who deserved to have every ven- flºº poured on her as much as he was prepared to let it fall ! Here the honourable member acutely analyzed the dif- ferent evidences, chiefly with a view to invalidate that of Mrs. Clarke. He considered her testimony as carrying with it every thing combining malignity and falsehood, tending even to prove her traffic of places up to this day, when her influence over the Duke, according to her own account, must have ceased : and tending to shew that even when she represented that influence at the very highest, she was afraid to apply to him for a trifling leave of ab- sence for her own brother, and acknowledged she had sought it through the medium of Captain Sandon. Yes, even for Captain Thompson she would not ask the Duke of York for one fortnight's leave of absence, but begged of another to see if he could possibly obtain it through the adjutant-general's office. (Hear, hear!) From a view even of her evidence, he would acquit the Duke of all participation or corrupt connivance; but he was sorry indeed to say, he could not give him an unqua- lified acquittal; he could not give him such a triumphant vote as he would have wished, when he considered that he had deigned even to answer so vile and profligate a woman, with respect to the advancement of General Cla- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 725 wering ; he could not help considering such conduct as in Some degree culpable, though, at the same time he could never think this circumstance ought to weigh with him to pronounce an unqualified condemnation. . When he said this, he spoke with as fair an intention as any man in the ouse; he would preserve a proper consciousness of the im- portanceof character, and scorned to dishonour his life as he would do if influenced in the vote which he would give by any undue consideration. He hoped then, though he was a lawyer, the purity of his intentions would pass unques- tioned, as he was certainly very far from doubting the since- rity of those on the opposite side of the House who differed from him in opinion. When he said this, he with pain observed that the resolution of his right honourable friend did not go to attach suſicicnt blame to the ac- cused; but with respect to the resolution of the honour- able gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes) he should have little hesitation in his choice—he should certainly prefer the address of his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), because he wished to go boldly up to the throne, and pronounce his opinion, and shew that he dared to do so, and not basely compromise his feelings. If the Duke of York ought to be removed, surely the House would not be afraid to say so. (Hear, hear!) The middle way, however, which the honourable gentleman proposed, in his mind, was not fit for the House to adopt. He did not expect from the pompous opening of the ho- nourable gentleman; it was, indeed, “ Parturiunt montes et nascitur ridiculus mus,” “the mountains labour, and a mouse is born 1” What, after their long examination, and their daily and nightly discussions (for indeed they had blended day and night), were they at last to end by hesitation, or supposition, or doubt? Yet such was the mode which the honourable gentleman's amendment went to adopt. (Hear, hear!) What did this address do? Why, it merely went to shew what nobody wanted to know—that the King had the power of dismissing his Commander-in-chief. If, indeed, the question was, which would be preferred, the address of the honourable mover, or the amendment of the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes), he would vote for the address, because he thought it went straight forward, without any ambiguous alternative. The two gentlemen, however, professed a kind of agreement, and yet even in that they differed. 726 PºtočEEDINGS RELATI've fol What end was the House to expect to it? “Who shall decide when doctors disagree ?” He would vote for the resolutions, because they stood as a foundation whereon to build an address; and this should be the case where an address of congratulation and condolement was to be pre- sented—(a loud laugh.) Gentlemen might laugh, and he knew well with what suspicion every thing which came from one of his country was received, but here he would contend he was right; the address was one of congratu- lation that the Duke was not guilty of corruption, and of condolement, that any cause whatever should have given speciousness to such a charge—(Hear, hear !). He would vote for the resolutions also, because the House might give its opinion on them seriatim—they might know what road they were taking, and select a proper carriage; surely, it would be very preposterous for a party who had agreed to go to Greenwich by water, to take a coach for their. conveyance—(a laugh;) and yet such was the absurdity to which the amendment reduced members. It went to attach guilt, and yet could not tell why. The number of questions now before the House were simplified by the resolutions, and so perplexed and multifarious were thé questions, that he would not be surprized if they con- founded even the characteristic acuteness of the learned inember who filled the chair. The only question now was, whether they would vete for the resolutions or the address, and he would adopt the resolutions, if it was only to avoid confusion—if they were to die, he, like Ajar, would exclaim, “let us die in the light.” The adoption of the address, instead of the resolutions, would go to demolish all the land-marks by which their opinion was to be guided. Let the country look to their decision; he would not be ashamed or afraid that they should view his ; they should see in him ng, ambiguity, no campromise; and when he returned to his constituents, he should not shrink from their criticism on his parliame tary conduct. He would then vºte on each of the resolutions, one by one; first, was the Duke of York Čorrupt, or not : Next, did he connive, or not Next, 'should he be dismissed, or not. ( Hear, hear, hear !) . Thus the country would have a clear fist made out for them —the red and the black—the patriot and the courtier—liable to no obscu- rity, no misrepresentation. This was the plain and proper method, to stand in open sunshine before the couns ; THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 727 try, and not east a mist before the eyes of their con- stituents to delude them. * - * Sir F. Burdett thought it necessary to advert to part of the honourable member’s speech in which he stated, on the authority of Donovan's evidence, that Mrs. Clarke had made mention of his name as that of one of the persons disposed to purchase the papers she was in possession of relating to the Duke of York. He assured the House that no such proposal was ever made by him. - Mr. H. Martin was surprized to hear from the honour- able gentleman, that the evidence before the House was not of that nature to sanction the address. Parliament, he maintained, was not to be bound by the rules received in courts of law. Qh this, as well as on every such ocea- sion, he wished that they should adhere to the rules of their ancestors. How could the address or the amend- ment of the honourable gentleman below him be described as a sentence of condemnation. It was the high privilege of that House to take cognizance at all times of the con- duct of great public officers; and if any one doubted the fact, he would refer him to periods when the principles of the constitution were at least as well understood as they were at this day. This was the case upon the celebrated examination relating to the partition treaty, when docu- ments and evidence were heard at the bar, and the House woted an address to his Majesty to remove Lord Somers, and two other Lords from his presence and councils. The House did what was their duty in censuring public functionaries, who had disgraced themselves. They went further, and voted an impeachment. . [Hear, hear ! from the ministerial benches.]. A learned gentleman had stated, that they might as well stab the Duke of York to the heart, as pass a vote to remove his Royal Highness from the command of the army. But what was there to distinguish the case of the Duke from that of any other person convicted of similar misconduct Had Lord Somers no feelings upon that occasion? Was not that great man entitled to as much deference and indulgence as his Royal Highness He recognized no distinction between the Duke of York and any other subject whose conduct might fall under their investigation. It was not only the right but the bounden duty of the House to act as they had done. They were not to sacrifice their privileges out of respect for this or that person. But it was said, if the # Aº 728 PRoceep INGs RELATIVE to Duke of York be guilty, why not impeach him at once 2 Where the punishment was commensurable to the offence (though he could not consider it in this instance as a pu- nishment, but a precaution), he did not think it necessary to have recourse to the severer punishment. With respect to the inconsisteneies imputed to Mrs. Clarke, in her evidence, he could discover no greater improbabilities in her statement, respecting the Duke of York than what her letters proved. It was upon her testimony, corrobo- rated by that of two other persons, that induced him to give the vote he should. These two persons were Miss Taylor and Mr. Dowler. The evidence of the former was so unimpeachable, that he should not take up the time of the House in making any comments on it. The evidence of Dowler also appeared to him to be incontrovertible, It was objected to him that he had not spoke out fairly on the subject of his interviews with Mrs. Clarke; that he had concealed the fact of his having passed the night with her. But was the question ever asked him 2 and if it were not, was it to be expected that he would be so lost to all sense of decency, as to come to that bar and make a voluntary avowal that he came there reeking from the arms of a harlot But the case of this gentleman was one of the strongest which had been brought forward against the Duke of York. It afforded irrefragable proofs of the influence which Mrs. Clarke exercised over him. It proved that that influence not only extended to his parti- cular patronage, but that it was strong enough to send him foraging to other offices. A great deal had been said of a popular cry. It was strange that objections should be taken by gentlemen at this moment to an instrument of which they had lately made so dexterous, and he feared fatal, a use. The last popular cry originated within these walls. Did the persons who reasoned thus, mean to assert, that it was only under that roof that the voice of the peo le was to be heard, and that no attention was to be paid to any cry that wis raised out of doors 2 As to the charges of indistrious misrepresentation, a 'd popular de- lusion, he knew of none. They were controverted by the fact. It was only as the examination proceeded that cir- cumstances came out which turned the current of public opinion against the Duke. The evidence that was pro- duced was sufficient to support the charges brought for- ward by his honourable friend, and therefore he would vote for the address proposed by him, ** THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 729. Mr. Rose observed in answer to a learned member (Mr. Martin) that the precedent upon which he seemed to rely so much occurred in the reign of Chârles the Second. But what was the result of that proceeding? Why, after the Commons had voted that certain persons should be removed from his majesty's councils and presence, the Lords took up the subject, passed a quite contrary vote, and decided that they should not be removed. Looking to the usage of parliament and to the laws of the land, it ..would be seen that it was against both to punish any person before trial. In every case on their records previous to a motion of censure, there had always been some examina- tion takéh under the sanction of an oath. This was the practice in the case of Lord Somers, the Duke of Marl- borough, Lord Wharton, and in an instance which had lately occurred. The right honourable member explained the nature of recommendations to offices in the gift of the treasury. When the recommendation was political, it was entered in a book; when otherwise, it was not. It was within his own knowledge at the time Dowler was ap- pointed, there was a great want of proper persons to fill the deputy commissariats; and as no recommendation ap- peared in his favour, he concluded that he had been re- commended by the commissary-general. * Mr. Manners Sutton said that it was much to be re- gretted that the public mind should be so led astray as it was, with respect to the Duke of York. It was owing to the garbled manner in which the evidence heard at that bar, was sent forth, and to the inflammatory comments with which it was accompanied, that the Duke of York was generally believed to be guilty. He did not find fault with the popular clamour on this subject. At a time when the country called for extraordinary exertion, he was not sorry to see the people jealous of their own chº- racter, and#. of the honour and character of their princes. He trusted, therefore, that they would come to a positive decision on this subject, and not send the person accused forth with a stain on his reputation. To him ºf appeared that the Duke of York was not only not guilty, but there was strong evidence that they had all been impose.” on. The case of Shaw was the clue that led through the whole of the labyrinth of lies in which they appeared to be inextricably involved. This was among the number #39 pitoge Epings RELATrve ro of applications which Mrs. Clarke said she made to the Duke of York, and which were absolutely rejected by him: The evidence of Miss Taylor he considered as of no weight whatever. She did not venture to speak positively with respect to the conversation between the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke on the subject of French's levy. She only went the length, of saying, that she thought his Royal Highness made use.of such expressions, and this some years after that conversation was supposed to have taken place. This was not that kind of testimony upon which any conscientious man could say his Royal Highness was guilty of corruption. Would the Duke have voluntarily broke with a woman, in whose power he was so much, according to her account? If he did, he must be the most inconsiderate man alive, But the very circumstance of his exposing himself to her vengeance, shews that he was not conscious of having in any way committed himself. The Duke of York wishes to be put upon his trial. The second amendment was almost the same in substance as ... the address. Pi did not affirm any thing. He agreed with an honourable member on the opposite side, that it was advisable their judgment on this occasion should be free from political prejudices. But it was very possi- ble for these prejudices to exist as well on one side of the House as on the other. He could well suppose that men of a certain cast of mind might take wrong views of things; that they might conceive that the government was core rupt or negligent in the discharge of its duty. But this was an argument that might be easily retorted. He could easily conceive that in running the course of ambition, eandidates would sometimes be found who could not be very punctilious as to the means by which they reached the goal. He would think favourably of the motives of gentlemen on the opposite side, and he trusted that his would meet a construction equally charitable. He was convinced, that whatever the feelings of the country might be at present, they would ultimately acquiesce in the dee cision of parliament. ~ Sir Francis Burdett denied that he ever stated that Mrs. Clarke's evidence alone was sufficient to condemn any man ; but being corroborated by two other witnesses, i. not inconsistent in itself, it was sufficient to satisfy 1Iſle & THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 734 . Mr. Long entered into an explanation of Kennet's in- troduction to the Duke of York. It appeared that he was recommended by Sir H. Mann to Mr. Pitt. He had occasion to see the worthy baronet on the subject; and he nèver knew a more importunate claimant than he was in this man's favour. Hin Dowler's evidence, he contended, there was something which, if it did not amount to abso- lute prevarication, was certainly a most culpable conceals ment of the truth. When asked how often he had seen Mrs. Clarke atter his return from Portugal, he answered twice; once on that night, and once the preceding Sun- day, when having learnt her address from a newspaper, he waited on her to request that she might not be the oc- casion of his being brought as an evidence to the bar. Now it came out from Mrs. Clarke's evidence, that she- had passed the night with him on the Thursday preceding this very Sunday when he gave it to the House to under. stand, that he saw her for the first time. The honourable. member adverted to the evidence he gave before with respect to Dowler's appointment, and said that he had no. recollection of his Royal Highness ever making any ap- plication to him on the subject. He would decline any examination of the evidence respecting Samuel Carter, as that case seemed to be disclaimed by the friends of the honourable gentleman who brought forward the charges. He applauded the honourable manner in which a gentle- man on the opposite bench (Mr. Whitbread) had spoken on that subject. He trusted his manly sentiments would counteract the mischief that was likely to arise from bring- ing forward a subject calculated to sow dissension in the army, to weaken the tie between the officer and the sol- dier. He could not accede to the amendment last pro- posed. The effect of it would be to acquit the Duke of corruption or connivance, and yet to fix upon him a most degrading and dishonourable suspicion. He lamented the manner in which the press was misused on this occa- sion, for the purpose of prejudicing the country against the Duke of York. If the House acted upon a feeling so ex- cited, they would not act upon the principles of justice, He trusted they would submit to no influence, not arising from the honest conviction of their minds. Above, all, he thought it incumbent on thein to come-to a distinct resolution of guilty or not guilty. = * - *. 732 PROCEEDINGs RELATIVE To Mr. Coke observed, that there was no doubt upon his mind that the Duke of York had been guilty both of criminal connivance and corruption; and he was ready to meet the alternative of the honourable general opposite, and to say, that his Royal Highness was guilty of corrup- tion in the extreme. Many men had been convicted, and led to the gallows upon less conclusive evidence than that which appeared against his Royal Highness. He believed that the Duke of York, from the first to the last, had been aware of the corruption which had been proved to exist. The speech of his honourable friend (Mr. Whitbread), had in his opinion fully and clearly proved that point. For his own part, he was an enemy to corruption in every shape, and was convinced, that if the country was to be saved, it must be by meeting and overthrowing corruption that the salvation of the country was to be effected. He had listened with attention to the right honourable gentle- man who had just spoken, but was not convinced by any argument that had been used by him, Entertaining the opinion, therefore, which he did on the subject before the House, he could not assent to any proposition, which would have the effect of deciding that the Duke of York was not guilty of corruption, or connivance at cor- ruption. * * * Mr. Windham had abstained from delivering his sen- timents hitherto to the House, upon the very important subject then under its consideration, because he had been desirous of profiting by the opinions, the judgment, and the abilities of those whose authority was of most value in that House. He felt that it was desirable for him to col- lect, in the course of the discussion, the varying opinions of the different members upon this important, delicate, and difficult question, before he should venture to offer any view of his own upon it. If he ventured to state any opi- nion upon the subject, it was because of the crisis of the proceeding at which the House had arrived ; because of the mode of proceeding which was next proposed to be adopted; and because very erroneous opinions had been formed upon that mode of proceeding. But before he should enter into this consideration, it would first be ne- cessary to consider what was the actual state of the ques- tion. Statements had been made to that House, rather than charges, which imputed misconduct to the Com- THE C6 M M ANDER IN CHIBF, 733 mander-in-chief. An inquiry at the bar of the House had been the consequence, and fair modes of proceeding had subsequently been recommended. An address to his ma- jesty had been originally proposed, suggesting what mea- sure should be adopted ; then came the resolution of the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer), acquitting his Royal Highness altogether; the third course was that proposed by the right honourable gentleman upon the floor (Mr. Bathurst); and the last was the address of the honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes), containing an opinion respecting the conduct of the Com- mander-in-chief, and differing upon the whole from the original address. With either of these modes of proceed- ing he was ready to concur, thengh he could not assent to all, because, though he should not object to any one it would not follow that one mode may be preferable to all the others. It had been said, that according to the amend- ment of the right honourable gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in order to a correct judg- ment upon the case, they should come to a vote upon the corruption or connivance of the Duke of York, and then adopt some measure of redress; but not to involve the two Questions together. It was for the House to consider how far the documents laid down justified that course ; but he was confident that they would not deliver any opinion upon the subject, unless they should divide the question into the several heads which it contained. Upon a ques- tion of peace or war, it was not possible to decide, unless the various subordinate questions respecting treaties and other lesser considerations should be previously and dis- tinctly decided upon. But it might be said, that the daily practice of all deliberate assemblies was against this opinion. Yet in judicial proceedings this ought to be the practice. If the House were to be called upon to decide upon the question of corruption or connivance—if to agree to an address for the removal of the Commander-in-chief, why should it not go into the consideration of Sandon's case, of Colonél French's levy, and of all the other trans- actions upon which it was in the aggregate to decide? Thinking therefore differently upon this subject from his honourable friend (Mr. C. Wynne), who had spoken that night, that the Duke of York was not to be condemned, thinking also, that, as a judicial question there would be #34. pito CEEff Nés # ELATIVE ºró - an end of it, if that opinion should be entertained by the House; he could not, however, consider himself barred from giving his opinion upon the question upon any future: occasion. He was glad in that part of the case to give expression to his judgment. It was his intention to ob- serve only in a cursory manner upon the evidence upon which the case rested ; and here he must notice the ob- jections that had been made to various particular parts of that evidence; but it was not from any particular part, but from the whole, that the value of the evidence was to be estimated. As the diseases of the human frame, which surpassed medical skill to remove, were the “op- robria medicorum,” so these imperfections of evidence, which no human wisdom could prevent, were the “op- robria juris consultorum.” The learned judge opposite (Mr. Burton) had said, that the evidence of an accomplice was of no value, unless all the parts of it bore immedi- ately upon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. In this he could not take upon him to say, that the statement was not correct, though he was of opinion, that the evidence should not be in all cases partially considered. It had then been laid down as sound doctrine, that the evidence of an accomplice ought not to be received, unless corroborated by unimpeached testimony. Was it meant by this, that the evidence of such a witness was to be proved by other means ? Upon this head, his honourable friend did not appear to him to have been altogether correct, when he said that evidence was to be judged of by its internal cre- dibility. But the result of all the doctrine upon the sub- ject was, that though the testimony of an accomplice was impaired by that circumstance, his credibility would not be destroyed. His learned friend (Sir Samuel Romilly) had asserted, that persons had been condemned and suffer- ed upon such testimony, but these men had not been Com- manders-in-chief. The present case rested upon a cer- tain fraction of evidence; but an honourable member had said, that it was impossible to submit evidence to a gra- duation, as a thermometer, or to any exact rule. Though a person may not give testimony under the sanction of an oath, there was nearly the same reason to expect the truth, as if the testimony were given on oath; because a person, who would falsify in one case, would be likely not to tell the truth in the other. As to the imputation cast on the the commANDER IN CHIEF, . 735 evidence of Mrs. Clarke, that she was actuated by a win- dictive motive, she was in that respect to be judged of by her demeanour, and the inherent qualities of her manner and her testimony. Her evidence had been given with a levity and a flippancy, which he admitted to have been highly unbecoming. She appeared to have lost that, the loss. of which almost implied everything—she had lost the sense of shame. With the loss of shame; she must necessarily have lost a great part of her good qualities, though it did not necessarily follow that she should have lost all sense of virtue. The dexterity which she had displayed in giving her testimony was a dangerous quality. But he was afraid that the spirit of fibbing, which she had mani- fested, had spread widely, and was generally felt. But the carelessness with which slie had given her testimony was such as to make him receive her evidence with extreme distrust. Having thus stated what he had to object to the witness on one hand, he must agree with his learned friend (Sir S. Romilly), that though Mrs. Clarke was ca- pable of telling a story, yet her evidence was not wholly to be discredited. By the promptness and unpremedi- tated character of her testimony, she appeared to have given a true evidence—to have delivered it in a sort of running hand—to have paid it in bullion. . She left it completely open to investigation, and left the House to eonsider how far it was overcome by facts, and the opi- nion that was entertained of her character. And here it might be necessary to guard against the facility of her evidence assuming the air of truth, because she had only to walk fearlessly over her course, where she had only to detail conversations which had taken place between her and the Duke of York. She told alf she knew, and, there- fore, he contended, that in the whole of her evidence she was open to examination; and the inaccuracies of her testimony, instead of being circumstances to impeach her credit, went to confirm it. When she had hardly time to premeditate, there had arisen, as it were out of the grave, circumstances to corroborate her evidence. As to the contradiction between her testimony and that of Mr. Rnight, respecting the date of the transaction about the exchange, he was not surprized that such a difference should exist. Either party might be wrong, but without positive proof he could not admit that the statement of & *36. proceedings RELAfrve to Mrs. Clarke was less correct than that of the other, party. With respect to the contradiction as to an injunction to secrecy, Mrs. Clarke might as well be right as Mr. Knight, because the answer as stated by that gentleman might have been given rather to the inference than to the fact. She certainly could have no reason to wish that her influ- ence should be divulged. She had no occasion to feel it necessary that her interference should be known. Nihil me scire prodest, nisi me scire hoc sciat alter. As to the evidence of Miss Taylor, it was the opposite of that of Mrs. Clarke, Miss Taylor had a good charac- ter and gave bad evidence; Mrs. Clarke on the contrary, had a bad character and gave good evidence. It was not, However, to be supposed that Miss Taylor would have given up her school and her prospects in life, in order to give testimony in favour of Mrs. Clarke. She appeared, nevertheless, in the situation of a person influenced by Mrs. Clarke. The course, however, that had been pursued to invalidate her testimony, by examining into the circumstan- ces of her family and birth, he could not but condemn; and he could not consider her the less credible a witness, be- cause of any thing that could have been discovered in such an inquiry. As to the circumstance of the note re- specting Major Tonyn, he did not think that made any thing against the Duke of York. Another general topic which had been touched upon" was, that the Duke of York must have suspected the practices of Mrs. Clarke, knowing, as he did, the sums he allowed for the support of the establishment at Gloucester-place. . The Duke of York had been guilty, certainly, of a thing which could not be justified, in forming an immoral connection, which led to those consequences upon which the presumption. injurious to his character was founded. He did not know but this might be sufficient to call for his removal, as many were of opinion that as “Caesar's wife must not be even suspected,” so the administration of the different departments of the state should be above suspicion. He conceived that the address of his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) did convey the sentiments of those who only thought that some degree of suspicion attached to those transactions, in terms that were delicate, and which re- moved the sting of the address of the honourable mover (Mr. Wardle), which must undoubtely be most galling TIIE CöMMAR BEIt IN CHIEF. 737 to his majesty. If then, he was compelled to make an option between the first resolution of the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and the address of his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes), he should be obliged to preſer, the latter, although he could easily conceive that it would be possible so to modify the first resolution of the right honourable gentleman, as that he should think it preferable to the address. As to the sort of threats that had been held in terrorem over the House of the popular opinion upon this case, he would say, that there could be no corruption more degrading or viii. fying than for that House, after the pains they had taken in the examination of the evidence upon this subject, to allow themselves to be governed by the opinions of those who had not equal means of judging. If he had entertain- ed at first an opinion favourable to those charges, he would not have been backward in su pporting them. When Mr. Paull brought forward charges in that House which exposed him to quite as much obloquy as the ho- nourable mover of the present charges was exposed, he supported Mr. Paull, because he, thought the charges were well founded, and he should have equally slip- ported the present charges, if he had thought they had been well founded. Mrs. Clarke had stated, and the ho- nourable gentleman admitted that he (Mr. Wardle), had taken papers and letters from her by force. He did not know what was the degree of force, whether it was an affected struggle on her part, or a permitted rape of those letters (a laugh); but this he would say, that if the honourable member really did get possession of those letters precisely in the manner mentioned by Mrs. Clarke, there was not a single charge brought out against the Duke of York, which he would not rather be guilty of than of that action. (Hear, hear! from the ministeria? benches.) He did not consider that the case of Samuel Carter bore with any strength against the Duke. If he was a footboy, as he was called, it was better than if he had been a footman, for many who had in early life been of the lowest rank, were afterwards highly distinguished in the world. With time the mark wore out of their mouths (a laugh). He should, however, ask those who considered the treatment of Miss Ta lor as most cruel, because it was unnecessary, º not Samuel Carter beef, 3 738 •f RocłEISINGs REI, Afrve To - treated in a manner equally cruel; by being brought for- ward without the least necessity ? His low birth had been unnecessarily proclaimed to the world: he had been trodden down like a weed, and ruined, by his name hav- ing been broughtiºforward by the honourable mover, without the least appearance of necessity, and, as Mrs. Clarke stated; in direct contradiction to a positive pro- mise given, and merely by taking an advantage somewhat unfair of a confidential communication. He concluded by saying, that it was with great pain he felt himself bound to vote for the address of his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes), in preference to the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. . . . . . . . . . . . - Lord Castlereagh rose, amidst the cries of question, question. He thought it not a little extraordinary that the right honourable gentleman had taken grounds for his vote.so little consonant to the opinions which he'de- livered, id his speech. For his part, he conceived it much better to come to a distinct resolution, than to ap- roach his majesty in the first instance by an address. if however, he were to give an opinion between the two addresses, he should prefer the address of the honourable mover, as conveying a more direct resolution of the House. If the House really believed the Duke of York guilty of either knowing or suspecting that Mrs. Clarke received möney for those commissions, which he granted at her interference, he could not see how it was possible to avoid pronouncing him corrupt. If he had known that such sums of money went to the support of the estab- lishment in Gloucester-place, it would have been as cor- rupt as if he had put the money in his own pocket. His honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) had conceived that de- licacy, to the crown required rather that the address should be worded in the manner he had proposed, than in the manner which had been originally proposed by the honourable mover (Mr. Wardle). He viewed, however, this point of delicacy in a very different light. What must be the feelings of his majesty, if he should be in- formed that his son was still charged with corruption of the foulest kind, and that that son had not been heard in his defence? The noble lord then entered into a review of the evidence, and considered that Mrs. Clarke was evidently actuated by the most decided resentment and the most vindictive feelings. This appeared to him evi- *FI # CGM M ANDER IN CHIEF. 729 dent not only from the letters she wrote to Mr. Adam, but from the testimony of Colonel M*Mahon, with re- spect to the letter she had written to the Prince of Wales, and the conversations she had held with him. He was ready to admit, that he believed Mrs. Clarke had spoken a great deal of truth (Hear, hear!) and yet he would not believe her in that which rested almost entirely on her assertion, the knowledge and privity of the Duke to her transactions. She had narrated her own transactions with considerable accuracy, and in that narration, which was also confirmed by documents, and other evidence, he thought she was worthy of belief, because she had no interest in speaking falsely. But when she came to assert that the Duke knew of her corrupt transactions, he would not believe her, because that was a thing easy of inven- tion, which was incapable of direct contradiction, and to which she might well be supposed to be stimulated by her resentment. If she could have established the corruption of his Royal Highness in any one instance, he should then have believed she spoke the truth when she mentioned other instances. She had, however, proved no such thing, and no man's life or character would be safe if it depended on such testimony. It was very easy to con- ceive that a combination might have existed between Mrs. Clarke, Mrs. Favery (her half sister and house-keeper) Miss Taylor, her sister-in-law, and Mr. Dowler, her fa- vourite lover. It would be recollected that so far from being the unwilling witness she had represented herself, she had written letters to Donovan and to Captain Sandon, to induce them to join in her plan; and that, on the very day that Mr. Dowler arrived from Spain, she went to his hotel, and passed the night with him, for no other purpose that could be conceived (a loud and general laugh), but to extract from him what evidence he would be able to give, and to arrange their plans in concert. It appeared to him the most incredible thing on earth, that if the Duke had really been conscious of any corrupt practices, such as had been imputed to him, that he should part from this woman in the manner he did, without making an arrangement to induce her not to mention those transactions. It was in- credible that he should have preferred an investigation like the present, attended with so many painful exposures, to a compromise with this "gº", if he had not been per- 3 B 3 * 740 PROC EEDINGS RELATIVE Tö fectly conscious of innocence. As to the feeling of the army with respect to the Duke of York, he was convinced that no man ever enjoyed so completely their affections, and no man had ever done so much good to the British army. Under his administration every attention had been paid to the comforts of the soldier, and the character of the army had made rapid strides to perfection, and he should implore the House to consider rather the military charges against him, than the accusation of immorality. If even under the corrupt influence of Mrs. Clarke, he had never given any appointments that were not justified on strict military grounds, it must be supposed his future admi- nistration would be still more free from blame, now he had extricated himself from that influence and connection, and received a very severe lesson, from the evils it had occa- sioned, and the painful exposures which had been made. There was another point of view in which the subject was of the utmost importance. His Royal Highness stood very mcar in the succession to the throne. Ff he should now be branded as a man unſit to be trusted in the service of his country, the same reason should go to induce Parliament to excrcise their power in cutting off his succession; for how could a man, stained with infamy and corruption, command, or deserve the respect and affections of the peo- ple of this country : On that account he deprecated any condemnation by the House of Commons, but demanded, as he had undoubtedly the right to do, a trial by his peers, in case the Honse should think there was a sufficient case to put him on his trial. He objected then to both those addresses, as going to brand the Duke of York with in- famy, without allowing him the benefit of a trial by his peers, under the usual sanction of the witnesses being sworn. It appeared to him that no case had been made out, which would justify such a proceeding in the House, and therefore he should vote for the resolutions as moved by his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer). Mr. Calcraft said, he knew the dreadful abyss into which his Royal Highness the Duke of York must fall, if he met with the condemnation of that House. He cer- tainly felt for him very much ; he felt also the highest re- spect and duty towards the illustrious personage; but he could not forget that he had a paramount duty to fulfil to the House and the country ; and he would, however dis- THE CO M M A N E E R iſ N CHIEF. 74.1 agreeable it might be to him, endeavour to discharge that duty, so as to acquit himself to his own conscience and to the country. The House were now on the point of coming to a decision on a subject of the greatest magnitude and importance that had ever been submitted to their conside- ration, and they must decide on a fair, cool, and dispas- sionate view of the evidence, and give their verdict accord- ingly. The royal person who was the subject of the inquiry then before them had unquestionably had the advantage of all the most eminent legal abilities which that House contained within it, aided also by his majesty's ministers, who, whatever he might in other respects think of them, had certainly defended the Duke of York in so zealous and able a manner as reflected the greatest credit on their talents, and on their attention to the honour and character of the Commander-in-chief. He felt himself induced to speak on this subject to-night in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord who had just sat down as to the evidence of Mr. Dowler in particular. The noble lord had said it was on his part a conspiracy to aid and assist Mrs. Clarke in supporting the charges brought forward against his Royal Highness. He (Mr. Calcraft) confessed, he was astonished to hear the Iroble lord make such a charge. A conspiracy 1 it was impossible. Mr. Dowler was abroad in the service of his country, when the charges were first introduced, and did not of his own accord come back to England, but was actually sent home with dis- patches. It was, therefore, impossible he could conspire to aid charges, of the existence of which he was ignorant till his arrival in England. The honourable member then adverted to the note on Tonyn's business, which he deem- ed to be a damning proof against the Commander-in-chief. He was also of opinion that Miss Taylor's evidence was clear and decisive against the Duke of York, in the affair of French’s levy. At that late hour he would not waste the time of the House by entering into any detail of the evidence, which had been so fully dilated on by several of his honourable and learned friends. There were, never- theless, one or two points he would beg leave as briefly as ossible to touch upon. The noble lord had said the }. of York had never participated with Mrs. Clarke in any pecuniary transactions. He (Mr. Calcraft) was decidedly of opinion, that such participation had been proved. His Royal Highness had employed Mr. Comrie, 742 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO who was Mrs. Clarke's solicitor, to negotiate and raise a loan for him, and for that purpose had referred him to his own man of business. He had without reserve entrusted Mrs Clarke with the disclosure of his distresses, and there w is in his (Mr. Calcraft's) mind no doubt but she had as unreservedly informed him of her own. He next took notice of the Duke of York’s letter to the House, through the medium of the Speaker, in which his Royal Highness had shewn that he was very willing to accept their ac- quittance, but that he strongly deprecated their con- demnation. He thought that letter went in a great degree to question and deny the authority of the House, and as such entrench on their privileges He felt the strongest objections in his own mind to it when he first heard it read, and was sorry he had not then expressed the sentiments of his mind ; but seeing so many others of far greater parlia- mentary knowledge and experience than he possessed, pass by it without notice, he had been awed into silence, and so had assented to its being permitted to lie on the table. He would not wish to trespass on the time of the House, and should therefore conclude by saying, that he had endeavoured to make up his mind to vote in favour of the address of the honourable gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes); but he thought the circumstances against the Duke of York so strong, that he would rather choose to adopt some resolution that might be better and more closely adapted to meet the subject on which the House was to come to a decision. If no such resolution should be here- after proposed, he should prefer the original address pro- pro ed by the honourable gentleman behind him (Mr. Wardle). - Wednesday, March 15, 1809. Lord Milton rose and said, that upon this momentous subject he felt it his duty to form his opinion upon a mature consideration of the evidence, without attendi ig to the clamours without the House, or the misrepresenta- tions on the other side of it. He had not formed his opi- nion from the doctrines of members of legal habits who had spoken on this subject, still less from the doctrine of the learned judge (Mr. Burton), who spoke on the first night of the debate; a doctrine which bore on its face the absurdity, that because a , , itness had in some instances contradicted herself, therefore her whole evidence should THE COMMANDER: IN CHIEF. 7.43 be swept away. . If this principle were acted-up to, the testimony of almost every witness who had been brought to their bar would be impeachable. In examining evi- dence of the nature of that before the House, it was neces- sary to attend to slight circumstances, which often con- firmed the testimony of a witness even more than an apparent veracity throughout. ...From the evidence before the House, it must come to a resolution that the present Commander-in-chief cannot with safety retain his situar tion. . It was difficult to say, whether he was, guilty of personal corruption, although those who entirely believed the evidence on the table, must come even to that €on- clusion. The noble lord (Milton), however, did not carry his admiration of Mrs. Clarke's testimony quite so far as the noble lord (Folkestone) did; and he should not say, that every part of it was to be believed; for though there were minute circumstances which tended to confirm its general truth, yet there was an air of flippancy about her manner of speaking, which might well lay her open to suspicion. Upon this account, he should leave out of consideration all those parts of her evidence, re- lating to transactions, with the Duke of York, which had not been otherwise proved; but there were so many and such, various circumstances corroborated by unimpeach- able witnesses and undeniable documents, that if he did not entirely believe the evidence in question, he believed a great deal more of it than many persons who had spoken on this subject. The noble lord mentioned one instance in particular, in which the evidence of Mrs. Clarke was not only confirmed by Mr. Dowler, but by a right honourable member of that House (Mr. Long), He had heard of a nocturnal conspiracy. Would the authors of this charge go so far as to say that that right honourable gentleman was one of the conspirators? ...As to the charge of corruption in the Commander-in-chief, the only case in which there was direct proof of this, was that of Kennet. This was the strongest case; here was a man of infamous character, a bankrupt, proposing to the Duke of York, through the medium of Colonel Tay- lor, a loan to any extent, in the, event of his gaining a place by that means. The noble lord contrasted the conduct of the Duke of York on this occasion with that of the Duke of Portland, on a recent occasion. The one resents the infamous conduct of the applicant (Beasly), 744. PRGCEEBING8. RELATIVE to spurns the wretch who could think so meanly of him from his door, and gives up his name to the Bishop of London, his diocesan. The other refers to Mr. Green- wood and others, and suffers a negotiation, which the noble lord could call by no milder name than bribery, to go on from June till November. If this was not a direct proof of a corrupt mind in his Royal Highness, the noble lord knew not what further proof could be re- quired. ... But it might be said this case did not come within the order to the Committee; and certainly, upon this ground, it might be contended that no corruption in the Commander-in-chief had been proved. But in several cases, which are cognizable by the Committee, in the cases of French and Sandon, the noble lord thought himself entitled to carry along with him this evidence of a corrupt mind. There was no reasonable doubt, from the continuance of the levy of Colonel French, who ap- peared in no better light than that of a crimp for the army, beyond the time stipulated in his letter of service, and from other circumstances, that the levy was obtained through the influence of Mrs, Clarke; but having no direct proof of corruption in this case, the noble lord was obliged to make use of the case of Kennet, to prove that the Duke of York knew too well what corruption was oing forward. • * * * * ? The noble lord then said a few words on the second ad- dress which had been proposed (that of Mr. Bankes), and which he thought in substance the same as the first, al- though the second had his lordship's preference, as it appeared to him to be worded in a less offensive manner than the first, and because the first contained some ex- pressions to which he decidedly objected:-" Without any other than the obvious consequence, that if ever the opinion should prevail in the army, that promo- tion was to be obtained in any other way except by merit and services, such an opinion must tend mate- rially to wound the feelings, and abate the zeal of the army, and to do it essential injury.” These were ex- ressions that were particularly dangerous, inasmuch as hey tended to convert the army into a deliberative body. The noble lord regretted, that the House had not come into the proposition that the present inquiry should have been made by a parliamentary commission. The House would not then have heard of the “injustice of con- THE GOMMANDER IN CHIEF. 745 demning without trial,” nor would these public exami- nations have gone abroad, to the scandah of all the world; the evidence would then have been upon oath, and the House would not have been in the situation of not known ing what to believe, and what not to believe. Wot approving very much of either of the addresses which had been proposed, the noble lord did not intend to burthen the House with any new motion, but should content himself with expressing his own opinion, that neither the addresses nor resolution should be made, but that the whole evidence should simply be laid before the king. At the same time the noble lord had no diffi. culty in expressing that which he felt upon his mind, namely, that the Commander-in-chief must have had sus, picions of the transactions which had come out. The objection to this measure of the noble lord's would be, that it cast the whole responsibility upon the king; but if the House addressed the king, it would be the same, for the Duke's dismissal must go through the king. The noble lord's plan, he thought, the more delicate one, but as he could not flatter himself that he should find many to agree with him, he should abstain from putting it in any shape to the House, - In the consideration of the present question, the noble lord hoped the House would not be deterred either by threats from without doors, to make them do much, or by threats from within, to make them do little; but it was necessary to the well-being of the country, that some steps should be taken, if the House had formed that con- viction, to which alone they must have come, if neither fear nor favour, nor the consideration that he whom they judged was a prince, and a son of the king, had ins fluenced them. The noble lord had great objections generally to the royal family's holding offices of trust. To touch what was so near the throne looked like a kind of sacrilege. The House must not, however, on that account, be deferred from doing their duty. They must consider themselves as hot about to address the throne for the removal from office of the Duke of York, but of the Commander-in-chief. In this light only was he to be considered; if he were looked upon in any other, judgment must be warped. The noble lord could not agree with a doctrine which had been laid down, that ańother commander-in-chief, as excellent as the Duke 746. proceedſ NGs RELATIve to .* of York, could not be found. There was undoubtedly considerable advantage to be derived from the Com- mander-in-chief's being one of the royal family; but upon the whole, there were so many inconveniencies aris- ing from that circumstance, that he thought them much more than a counterbalance to that advantage. The excellence of the Duke's generalship was nothing to the present question; he might be a Duke of Marlbo- rough ;' but it would be recollected, that the Duke of Marlborough himself was removed from the command of the army, and there was no man who would not agree that the Duke of Marlborough was a much greater general than the Duke of York was, or was ever likely to become. It had been said that the Duke would reform ; the noble lord begged the House to recollect that the Duke was a man of five-and-forty ; and though the nóble lord be- lieved, that where a man possessed the rudiments of wis- dom, he would grow wiser as he grew older, he thought that where a man possessed only the rudiments of folly, he would do nothing but grow more foolish. The Duke of York had acted foolishly and wrongly; he had, though a married man, kept ong, two, three, and the noble, lord did not know how many more, mistresses; and now he was to reform all of a sudden; because the right honour- able gentleman told him he had sinned against the seventh commandment. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The noble lord hoped the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) would now tell the House where infamy was to fall ; if upon the accused, he did not know how the House would determine; if upon the accuser, he thought that no other person would agree with the right honourable gentleman. - - - * - The noble lord concluded with animadverting upon the Duke of York’s letter to the House, which had certainly placed them in an awkward predigament. He was accused, and told the House he was innocent, “ upon the honour of a prince,” an expression never heard of before. By this foolish letter, he had only brought down a second accusation upon his head—that of falsehood too. The noble lord knew not by what logic it could be otherwise reasoned : those who were convinced of the Duke's guilt of corruption, must now inevitably find him guilty of two things—corruption and falsehood too. - . . . Lord Stanley said, the House in its considcration of the * THE comm ANDER IN CHIEF. 747. present question were not bound by legal opinions, nor by the rules of legal evidence ; but had a rational right to give the conviction of their minds. The noble lord hoped he came to this question with a mind as free from bias, as that of the learned judge (Mr. Burton), or of any member in the House. If his lordship's mind had any bias, it was, from the many personal obligations he had received from his Royal Highness, rather in his favour than against him. But yet sifted as the evidence before him had been, and in his lordship's opinion rather too finely, he felt it im- possible to say the Duke of York was innocent. Upon the charge of personal corruption, and the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, the noble lord agreed with the last speaker. But the evidence of Miss Taylor, the noble lord-defended, and thought very strong. From the numerous applications of Mrs. Clarke, the noble lord felt convinced suspicions must have struck the Duke of York's mind; and if the House had not heard a tittle of evidence at their bar, still his lordship should think that the letters on the table alone would prove his Royal Highness's connivance at corrup- tion. If there was a natural ground for this: suspicion, the Duke should be dismissed. In a former reign, the Duke of Cumberland had been not only deprived of all offices, but dismissed his majesty's councils and presence for ever, in consequence of the capitulation of Closter- seven. The noble lord applied to the difficulty of making out charges against a prince, in the high situation of the Duke of York, the speech of Angelo to Isabel, in Shak- speare's Measure for Measure : “Who will believe theef - My vouch against you, and my place i' the state, Will so your accusation overweigh, That you shall stifle in your own report, . And smell of calumny.” - The noble lord then cursorily went over the cases of Kennet, Carter, General Clavering, and Mr. Dowler, to prove the influence of Mrs. Clarke, and the gross and culpable negligence and connivance at corruption of the Duke of York, and concluded by supporting the original address. * - " * Mr. Leycester reminded the House, that the address, on which they were now to vote, declared there was no ground to charge his Royal Highness with personal cor- ruption; but that the abuses proved could hardly have ex- } 748 PROCEET) 1 NGS R51, AT1W E ºr 6 isted without exciting his suspicion; and even if they eould be presumed to have existed without his knowledge (sub- stituting knowledge for suspicion) still the command of the army could not properly be continued in his hands. *†he ††. ought to be plain and simple, Whether his Royal Highness was or was not guilty of the charge in- puted to him Whoever voted for the address proposed, in substance said this, I acquit him of personal corrup- tion; but I suspect, he must either have suspected or known of Mrs. Clarke's corrupt practices; which do you suspect—that he suspected, or that he knew From the vote upon the journals nobody could tell, though there is a great difference between them. Resolve that he is guilty of corruption, and he may have an opportunity of de- fending himself by a legal trial like any other British sub- ject; but by acquitting him of the guilt, ſund adding, that on suspect him of it, he can have no trial ; you fix an indelible stigma upon his reputation that must last for ever; you inflict a wound, and you wrest from him the remedy; a proceeding without a precedent in the history of parliament, or of any court whatever, where the name of justice was ever heard of; a more unfair, a more flar grantly unjust, a more cruel act against the character of his Royal Highness, the most hostile ingenuity could not have devised. • Persuaded the House would never furnish so dangerous an example of injustice, but would negative this address, the next question would be plain and clear, viz. is he or is he not guilty of corruption or connivance 2 The case stated against him by Mrs. Clarke was, “That she sold commissions, not only with his assent, but by his original instigation for their mutual benefit; on her veracity the Charge depended; it being always understood, though in the arguments on the other side it seemed always to be in- dustriously forgot, that the question was not whether his . Highness permitted her to apply to him at all on military matters, which was not denied, but whether he was a party in any manner to her pecuniary traffic ; on her credit therefore the debate must turn, though a pros- titute or an accomplice, he admitted, was not therefore ne- cessarily to be discredited, yet it must be admitted also, that the course of prostitution in which she had lived must tend to loosen her sense of every moral duty; and the practice in which she had been engaged, receiving TÉIf: COMMANDER IN CIII pſ. 749 money for promotions under a pretence that she had ob- tained them, in which, in some instances at least, it is demonstrably proved she had no concern, and pretending a great influence over the Duke of Portland, as well as the Duke of York, at a time when it is clear she had no interest with either, exhibited a species of Swindling, and a systematic course of imposition, of which the very basis was artifice and falsehood; to this, as the general cha- racter she appeared in as a witness against the Duke of York, was added that of a discarded mistress, with re- venge agaiast him in her heart, as proved by Colonel M“Mahoa ; and having threatened to expose him, if her terms were not complied with, as appears in her own letters to Mr. Adam, and also in her declarations to Mr. Knight a short time ago, and then positively dehy- ing that she had ever said so, though of the verncity of Mr. Knight there can be no doubt.. With such objections to the credit of a witness, if they were to stop here, and the witHess were not confirmed by ether testimony, there is not a judge in any court of jus- tice who would not close his book, and say, no jury can safely rely upon evidence like this; but did she redeem her credit by her subsequent testimony and conduct: Her deaial upon the first day's examination of her having seen Mr. Wardle the very day before, though she had seen him in a particular manner at three distinct periods of the day, and twice for a considerable time together, was so ma- hifest a falsehood, that had she given the same evidence upon oath in a court of justice, she would probably have been instantly committed for wilful and corrupt perjury; if a prosecution had been carried on, she would inevitably have been convicted, and the pillory would probably have been the result of that conviction; and this is the person of whom the roble Iord (Lord Folkestone) gravely says, in which he was followed by the honourable baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) he thinks her one of the fairest wit. nesses he ever saw in a court of justice. In this late stage of the debate, he would not repeat the endless variety of contradictions to her testimony, so un- answerably proved by those who had gone before hin. But it was necessary to notice the very extraordinary observation tºpon the effect of these contradictions by his hóñourable and leafired frieńd, the late Selieiter General, #50 PRocłEDINGS REi, Ative to - a night or two ago, whom he understood to say, “These contradietions ought not to have the same weight, as if they were upon oath;” he did not observe the same remark made upon her, criminating evidence ; and if it was to weaken the effect of one, was it not to weaken the effect of the other exactly, in the same proportion ? Upon what principle of reason, or justice, or common sense, was it to be said, I believe the evidence of a witness who proves the charge, though not given upon oath; but I will not believe in the same degree the contradictions to that evidence; for want of that important sanction ; they must both be upon the same footing, the same diminution of credit upon that account applied equally to both ; and if so unjust and so unfounded a distinction were suffered to prevail, the doors of that House should be closed for ever against all wit- nesses, and the bar destroyed, at which testimony upon so false a principle could be given. . t Upon the credit of Mrs. Clarke there was only one more topic which did not seem to have been before adverted to, when her statement against the Duke of York was first heard, one naturally felt a difficulty in believing there could be so wicked and depraved a mind, as to fabricate a charge tending to destroy the reputation and honour of the accused person, in which there was no truth; but when she is discovered in the course of her examination scattering about her scandal and her groundless imputations without reserve, intimating of one witness, that he had forged a letter from the Duke of York, of another that he had stolen something from her house, of a third that she sup- posed he had been bribed, of Mr. Wilkinson, a very re- spectable solicitor, that he had bribed him; and above all, when they found her, upon a demand being made upon her for a debt by Mr. Nichols, answering the demand by a de- liberate charge in writing of his having forged a will, without a pretence of truth, the difficulty of believing her capable of fabricating such a charge as this was at once removed; they saw a person habitually in the practice of it; a mind hardened to do it by use, and found in the pre- sent charge nothing but an instance, only more seriously persevered in, of what to her was no very extraordinary, occurrence. Under all these circumstances, to attach the minutest credit to a syllable uttered by Mrs. Clarke in, charging the Duke of York, unless upon the confirmation *HE com MANDER IN CHIEF. 751. of other credible and distinct evidence, would be acting in the most important case against the most exalted per- sonage, directly contrary to the principle and practice universally adopted by cvery court of justice in the most trifling case against the meanest subject ; a principle not founded by any technical rule of law, but on the eternal basis of sound reason and substantial justice, upon the wisdom and experience of all past ages. The next question then was, In what respect was the testimony of Mrs. Clarke confirmed 2 and here the attention of the House must be particularly called to the nature of the confirmation that was required, which seemed to be so miraculously understood, even by the late Solicitor General, notwithstanding all that has been said upon this subject; and even he, as well as others, still referred, as a confirmation, to the letter about General Clavering, and other evidence of the like nature, particularly such as she could not know existed till the time of its production, which certainly confirm her evidence as to her being per- mitted to apply to him on the subject of military matters, which was not denied, but was no confirmation whatever as to his knowledge of her pecuniary traffic, which was the only question in dispute; permitted applications may be wrong, but permitted corruption is most criminal; there is nothing dishonourable in the one, there is every thing that is infamous in the other; the most upright man might easily be intrapped into the first, who would shrink with horror from the last. These letters prove permitted ap- lication, on which there is no want of confirmation, they do not prove knowledge of corruption, on which there is." On this point the only, direct confirmatory evidence sug- gested was that of Miss Taylor, and the Duke's letter respecting Tonya, both of them suspicious in their nature and equivocal in their meaning. The latter indeed was in general given up; it could be only forced into the ser- vice upon this point by the evidence of Sandon; and his account, of the intended use of it, which alone made it applicable at all, was rendered morally impossibfe by the date of the envelope. As to Miss Taylor, supposing full crédit was given to a person who remembered not one' word.of a conversation with Mrs. Clarke three weeks be-, fore, except her repetition to Mrs. Clarke of: words ascribed to the Duke of York near four years ago, the 752 Proceedings RELArive to words themselves conveyed no idea of any thing pectini- ary, “French is perpetually worrying me about the levy, how does he behave to you?” What was the natural and , obvious meaning of the words : Why, certainly, does he worry you in the same manner It proves his knowledge of French's application to Mrs. Clarke about the levy, but nothing about the money; it is certainly not incon- sistent with his knowing of the money, but it is equally consistent with his knowing only of the application; and the words in their plain meaning import nothing but the latter; you cannot apply them to the former without referring to Mrs. Clarke's evidence for that application ; how then can these words be in the least degree a confirmation ? It is only confirming her by herself. Upon this evidence it was important to observe, that the words as represented in several of the papers are: “ Darling, does French behave handsomely to you ?” Words that do certainly imply a knowledge of some pecuniary transaction: this would be a most material confirmation, and upon this gross and scandalous mis- representation of these most important words upon this most important point, opinions had been formed to his own knowledge against the Duke, which were instantly changed when this falsehood was corrected. Though nobody was more inclined to respect public opinion, where it could be truly formed, it ought not to have any weight, where it might be founded, as in this in- stance, on misrepresentation and mistake; especially in a case where the charge against the Duke, upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, was plain and simple, but where the detec- tion of its utter falsehood must necessarily be made out by a minute attention to dates and circumstances; and the various parts of the evidence compared together for this purpose, for which the public, who form their judgment from the papers, had neither the leisure, the attention, or the means. On the conclusion drawn from the expenses of the establishment, it was sufficient to refer to what had been already said, particularly by the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Windham), in whose admirable speech in most parts of it he perfectly concurred, though he was concerned to hear it prefaced with an assertion, that there were different rules of evidence for different classes of the community, to which nothing but his want of know- / THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 753. ledge upon the subject could have led him, and for which every man who had been in the habit of attending the courts of justice, would tell him there was not the least foundation. Upon the Duke's knowledge of the corrup- tion, Mrs. Clarke remained entirely unconfirmed; and unless her evidence was to be believed under such a variety of objections, one-tenth part of which would utterly disa credit any witness in any court of justice, the proof against the Duke of any knowledge of corruption had completely failed; but besides this, every circumstance in the case, if that were necessary, tended to disprove it. In this view, it was material to advert to the letters to Mr. Adam ; in the first she says, he is more in my power than may be ima- gined ; in the second, that she had drawn up the case on paper, and had fifty or sixty letters that will prove the whole; of this whole, the Duke's suggestion and know- ledge of the corruption, if it in truth existed, must have formed the principal ingredient; and yet not one of these fifty or sixty letters was produced, in which there was one word to prove it; then the gross improbability of her story upon the face of it, as to the Duke's suggestion and know- ledge of this corruption, strengthened by his positive di- rections at the very time given to Colonel Gordon to sift all corrupt practices to the bottom, on whomsoever it might fall; his utter defiance of her threats and malice, when the important effect of it, had he been conscious of any guilt, could have so easily been stopped; his forwardness to court the most public inquiry; the total want of all evidence of knowledge, except Mrs. Clarke, either from letters or con- versation; her repeated injunctions to her confidents, proved by Corri and others, to keep all pecuniary trans- actions a secret from the Duke, that his discovery of it would be her ruin and disgrace; and the particular cases that were proved demonstrably to be false, formed toge- ther such a body of negative evidence against the truth of iMrs. Clarke's unconfirmed account of what had secretly passed between them, that he should think, to a mind not anxious to find out guilt where there is no proof of its existence, and not in the habit of substituting groundless suspicion for positive evidence, the conclusion of his Royal Highness's perfect innocence must be inevitable; and as to himself, so convinced he was, that there was not only no proof of guilt, but *there was no ground what- 754 PRoceedINGs RELATIVE To ever to believe or suspect it; that were he then to pro- nounce the last verdict he should ever give upon his solemn oath, he should most decidedly and satisfactorily declare, not guilty. * * Whether, supposing him acquitted of all corruption and connivance whatever, his permitting her to have access to him in the manner that had been proved should be a sufficient ground to remove him from his office, was not the question then before the House ; he should only say, much as the unfortunate connection was on all accounts to be regretted, yet thinking the House ought not to interfere in it otherwise than as it must be injurious to the public service, finding that it had long ceased, that whilst it lasted, the instances-of such access were so few, the injury to the public, nothing ; the appointments uniformly pro- per and unexceptionable (for that of Carter was not worth mentioning), it did not, in his judgment, afford any rational cause for such removal; and after the information they had received of the unexampled regularity and order of the office, his Royal Highness's almost unprecedented attention to the duties of it, and singular industry in performing them, and the admitted important benefits derived to the military part of the establishment from the Duke's excellent administration, he had no scruple in de- claring, that in his estimation of his merits in that depart- ment, he stood much higher at the close than he did at the beginning of the inquiry; and he should certainly feel great regret if, in compliance with the popular opi- nion, founded as he was convinced it was upon misre- presentation and mistake, it should be found expedient, as a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Windham) had suggested, that for the benefit of the public, the public should be deprived of the benefit of his service. Sir Thomas Turton began by assuring the House that after all that had been said upon this subject, he would as briefly as possible trespass on their patience. He ad- verted to the absolute impropriety of passing sentence upon any man in the land, no matter what his rank, at least without the formality of an oath. This, he said, was the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone, whom he quoted in support of his assertion. In the Roman senate an oath was even required from Cato, whose probity was proverbial. By voting the address proposed, he thought THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF: 755 the Duke of York would be degraded, and deprived of that which every British subject had a right to demand, an impartial and solemn hearing ; this was not denied to Lord Somers, or Lord Melville, and why should it be refused to his Royal Highness : The very lamp-lighter who attended their hall would not be refused it; surely the dignity of rank would not be held out as an argument for refusing to it the privileges of the most humble. The letter, then, of the Duke of York, only demanding this privilege on the immutable and eternal grounds of justice, must be considered as equitable and praiseworthy. The amendment of the honourable gentleman refusing this privilege; was only a gilded dagger, whose beauty could not conceal or counteract its venom. He went to do by insinuation that which it would be much more noble to do by open means. Here he could not help paying a com- pliment to the eloquence of the noble lord (Lord Folkes- tone), who had traversed with him over the plains of Hindostan, but still he was surprized how he could pos- sibly support the original address.-He here drew a dis- tinction between neglect and corruption.—Neglect might have taken place, and it was not to be wondered at in so extensive an establishment as the military one of this country; that it, he thought, might be deserving of some pardon. It would be but fair to tell the country at once, whether the Duke was guilly of corruption, or guilty of . neglect; or whether the desire was to get him out of office. (Hear, hear !) As to the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, he considered her but as so much rubbish; she should be put completely out of the way; they should have something more solid whereon to build a superstructure. Here the honourable baronet went through the different cases, and dwelt particularly on that of Colonel French's levy. The conversation reported by Miss Taylor to have taken place in her presence between Mrs. Clarke and the Duke of York, he could not help considering true, when he re- flected on the long time for which the Duke tolerated the levy : —a levy, too, for which so very few men had been raised, when compared with the number stipulated by the original contract. He, when he considered the general stigma which had been most unfairly cast upon the legal profession, must beg leave to say, what he was sure all the crown lawyers might with § justice say, what Cicero C 756 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO had said on the trial of Werres, that he would much rather defend than accuse. He was consoled when he reflected on this case, by the consideration of the fairness with which it had been treated; by the consideration that all parties and persons in the House had come forward fairly, and impartially had given the opinions which went io direct their votes : for his part, had his constituents the eyes of Argus, he would wish them directed to his poſitical career. In conclusion, he now would say, that he could not think of voting for the original address, because it was not determinative, nor would he vote for the amend- ment of the honourable gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes) because it merely dealt in insinuation ; he would boldly charge the Duke of York with a knowledge of those. corrupt proceedings; and when the right honourable gen- tleman opposite (the Chancellor) moved his resolution tending to utterior proceedings, he should certainly move the following amendment:— - - “Resolved, that this House do believe his Royal High- ness the Commander-in-chief to have had a knowledge of these corrupt practices, of which evidence had been pro- duced at the bar.” Mr. Ryder said, if he was to vote against the Duke of York’s conduct, as Commander-in-chief, he would consi- der the course proposed by the honourable baronet, who had just sat down, as more eligible to be adopted by the House than the amendment of the honourable gentleman opposite, because it was the most manly, honourable, and open. With respect to the so much adverted to testimony of Mrs. Clarke, he would not content himself by saying he thought she was not to be believed, but he would also say he thought she would have been committed to prison by any judge in the land, and subjected to the penalties of per- jury for her evidence. He could not be led to think much more favourably of Miss Taylor—the improbabilities against her were so great, that he never could imagine her entitled to the slightest credit. What! was it to be be- lieved for a moment, that even if the Duke of York had been guilty of such corrupt practices as had been attri- buted to him, he would have made Miss Taylor privy to it —(Hear,' hear, hear !) Was it to be credited that if this conversation even did take place before her, serious as it was, it would be the only one to which she would THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 757 have been witness : . Was it to be credited, either, that this conversation could have made such a minute impression upon her inhocent and unsuspicious mind, that at the dis- tance of four years she could repeat it word by word 2 (Hear, hear!). No person living could for one moment give credit to so highly improbable a story. But as a fur- ther proof of her direct falsehood, he would merely state one answer which she had boldly given, and then leave her credibility to the judgment of the House. She was asked, whether at the time of a conversation which she had with Mrs. Clarke only two days before the present inquiry, she had made any reference to this expected in- quiry; what was her answer, “Why, indeed, I did not know about that.” Who in his senses would believe her after this It had been said, that one who tells falsehood once, ought not therefore to be discredited, as he might afterwards tell truth, and that truth might prove im- portant; but how was it possible to know when such a per- son told truth, and when he told falsehood (Hear, hear!) Suppose, however, the Duke of York had been base, in- stead of honourable in his conduct—suppose he had al- ways herded with the vilest, instead of associating with the best of mankind—kept company with Captain Sandoh, instead of such men as Colonel Gordon—what would be the immediate and necessary inference Why, certainly, guilt. --Thén by what vile, revolutionary logic should not the very feverse consequence follow, when the very reverse conduct had been proved 2 (Hear, hear !) After all the industry which had been used, after all the revengeful ma- lice of Mrs. Clarke, nothing could be proved against him except indiscretion. Out of all the correspondence of Mrs. Clarke with the Duke, the fifty or sixty letters which she had stated she had in her possession, only two could be at last produced to shew even a shadow of imputation against him. Let the House then not vote for an address, condemning him virtually, until on proof it found him guilty; let it be consistent even in its inconsistency. On his view, and he had attentively considered the subject, the House ought not, without better proof, to subjectitself to the inconveniencies which might arise from such a con. demnation. The army had confessedly flourished under the Duke of York; he had made it one of the best in the world, The honourable gentleman himself took this oc. 758 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO casion to say, that in all the professional intercourse to which his situation (judge-advocate) introduced him where the Duke of York was concerned, he had ever found him most affable, most ardent for the interests of the army, and most desirous to go straight forward in the cause of justice, without turning either to the right or to the left. This was also the opinion of the gentleman who had preceded him in office; and when he was com- pelled to resign it on account of ill health, he communi- cated this consolatory circumstance to him, his successor, which communication he now declared had been com- pletely justified. He begged the House to look at the institutions of Marlow and High Wycombe established by the Duke of York. He begged of them to look at the establishment at Chelsea for the education of the or- phan children of soldiers who had fallen in defence of their country, and for the children of those who were abroad fighting its battles. (Hear, hear!) To the amendment of Mr. Bankes he should particularly object, because it differed essentially from his speech. How will you answer the country, when they see you condemn the man by your vote whom you acquit by your speech. Is the Duke guilty or not guilty (Hear, hear!) . “Aye (said Mr. Fuller), speak out, speak out.” (Order, or- der 1) He thought the House ought to say aye or no at once upon the question. The minutes of the evidence were before them—“ those who run may read,” let them then at once decide, and either acquitor move an im- peachment, if they thought him guilty. . . . . Lord Temple said, that he withheld giving his opinion on the question before the House until that protracted hour, because he was anxious to hear the previous discus- sion on it. After having heard the different bearings of the evidence sifted and examined by persons of great talents and acquirements, he thought that he would be the better able to bring his mind to a decision on this great subject—one perhaps as important as ever engaged the attention of parliament. This was not a question of party feeling. It was to be decided on principles of honour and justice. However anxious he might be at other times to be considered as a member of a party, it was an honour which he would renounce on the present occasion. No at- tachment to party should induce him to decide this question THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 759 on any other grounds than those he had stated. Whatever his political bias might be, it should not influence him in the vote he should give. Never in the course of his life had he given his sentiments on any question with so much pain to himself as he should on that upon which he was now addressing the House; but the eyes of the country were upon them, and he would discharge his duty and his conscience, however acutely he might feel in doing so. This, fortunately, was not a question affecting the loyalty of any man. It might be discussed and decided con- sistently with the most perfect veneration for the consti- tutional head of the state. The attachment of all ranks of people to the illustrious family on the throne was daily increasing, by the regard and affection which the virtues of the sovereign inspired. The country had given proof of their attachment by the zeal with which they stepped forward in support of the throne, when its overthrow was threatened by the furious principles that were propagated from another people; this they had shewn by the sacri. fices of every kind which they had made, and were daily making. This, therefore, was not a question whether they should preserve their attachment to the family on the throne, but whether an individual of that family deserved to partake of that confidence they reposed in the head of it. That the character of a son of a king should now be under discussion, was matter of deep and severe regret; the House must acknowledge that it was ; but it was a duty which, however painful, they must discharge; it was a question, however it might affect their feelings, that they must decide. The cup was poured out, and they must drink of it, howeyer bitter the ingredients might be; the shaft was flown, and must take its course. t In the progress of the discussion on the charges against the Duke of York, much was said on the extreme injustice of deciding upon the conduct of any man without a trial, that it was dealing unfairly with the illustrious person ac- cused, to try him in this manner—that it was judging him in his absence—that the evidence was not taken upon oath, Whatever force there might originally have been in these objections, this was not the proper time to make them, Such objections ought to have been stated at the begin- ning. The course of proceeding they had adopted (and that course, he would observe, was not only sanctioned but 760 PROCEEDINGS. RELATIVE To dictated in a great degree by the friends of the Duke of York), could not now be changed. He had also heard similar complaints respecting the violent prejudices which had gone abroad. He lamented that such prejudices should have taken so strong and general a hold on the public mind, as it was impossible for them to disguise from them- selves they had done. He admitted that such preju- dices did prevail, but they were inseparable from the mode of proceeding adopted by the House, and were not to be urged in bar of judgment. He agreed in an observation that had in the course of the discussion been repeatedly urged from the other side of the House, and, lately, by the honourable baronet on the same bench with him, namely, that it was incumbent on the House to come to a specific decision. Gn the charges of corruption, criminal participa- tion, and connivance. It might be said, that these spe- cific charges were not made.' True, they were not reduced to writing, and formally laid on the table, but they were the result of the evidence that had been heard at the bar. . The accusation was made, evidence was heard at the bar in support of it, and out of that evidence arose these charges. The House was, therefore, called to de- cide on the whole of the evidence, or, in other words, on the whole of the charges. They were called upon to de- cide whether his Royal Highness had been guilty of per- sonal corruption'; they were called upon to decide whe- ther he was guilty of criminal participation ; they were called upon to decide whether he was guilty of connivance; and they were called upon to decide not only whether he was guilty of all these ; but they were called upon to de- cide on a charge of allowing Mrs. Clarke to interfere in the concerns of the high office with which the Duke of York was vested, and in the distribution of military pro- motions. The House, in doing this; would not, he trust- ed, come to a decision in the business, so as to leave it uncertain hereafter what was the specific nature of the mis- ' conduct with which his Royal Highness was charged. He would take care that he should give his vote at least upon the specific charges of corruption, criminal participation, connivance, and of allowing Mrs. Clarke to use her in- fluence in the disposal of appointments in the army. A considerable difference of opinion prevailed as to whe- ther the House should proceed by address or resolution: THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 761 For his own part, he thought the mode by address more becoming the dignity of the House. The resolutions, whether they were exculpatory or accusatory, might be easily embodied into and amalgamated with the address. The first resolution proposed by the right honourable mem- ber was, that the House should decide. There wonlú he no objection to make that part of an address. The second was, whether his Royal Highness was or was not guilty of corruption. Again, there would be no difficulty in inter- weaving that in an address. In short, it appeared to him to be just as easy to put the substance of the resolutions in the shape of an address, as in the form proposed by the right honourable member. The proceeding by address had also one great advantage over that which the right honour- able member wished to recommend. If a resolution of censure should be carried, that resolution, in order to be carried to the foot of the throne, must be put in the sha of an address; otherwise it would lie a dead letter on the table. The house therefore would do best to embody the resolutions, whatever their nature may be, in the address which is to be laid before the king, Now with respect to these different charges, he fully agreed with the honourable member who last spoke, that the Duke of York was not proved guilty of corruption— not proved guilty of corrupt participation—not proved guilty of connivance. For, upon whose evidence did the proofs of these facts depend ? Why, upon that of Mrs. Clarke, who came self-accused to the bar, and gave her testimony with a character self-blasted. If the question on these specific charges; or on any other indeed, were to be wholly decided by her evidence, it would not have the smallest weight with him. In pronouncing his opinion, he should discard it wholly from his consideration, and have no difficulty to make up his mind upon the subject. With respect, however, to Miss Taylor's evidence, that stood on other grounds ; he believed it was correct in every point. … It had been said, that she came there pre- pared on her part—that she had previously rehearsed it— that she was a member of the éonspiracy, and had learned her story before she appeared at the bar. He did not be. lieve this. There was nothing in her manner or the matter of her evidence to prove that she was suborned. If she was rehearsing a part, she would have been better tutored. 762 PRoceedINGs RELATIve ro * If she were privy to a conspiracy, would she not have come forward with a detail of facts and circumstances that would have struck much more home at the Duke of York than the evidence she gave But whatever credit he might be disposed to give her evidence, he would not admit that it went to convict the Duke of York of corruption. The House had heard a great deal about that famous phrase, “How does he behave to you, Darling 2" but was this a proof of corruption ? What was the import of this ex- pression ? “How does he behave, Darling,” did not necessarily imply that he meant, “ how does he pay, Darling ** The expression, however, went far to convict him of suffering this woman to interfere in his official duties. He thought that the profusion and extravagance that pre- vailed at Głoucester-place had very improperly been urged as arguments to prove that the Duke of York commived at the practices of Mrs. Clarke. They were far from carry- ing conviction to his mind. The Duke, it was well known, was not remarkable for the order with which he conduct- ed his own domestic concerns ; how was it therefore to be expected that he should take better care of Mrs. Clarke's 2 It was quite possible that this profusion, want of order, and distresses, might have prevailed, and his Royal High- ness know nothing of it. He acquitted the Duke of York of corruption ; he acquitted him of criminal participation; he acquitted him of connivance; but he found him deeply criminal in allowing this woman to interfere in his official duties. The evidence brought forward by accident fur- nished convincing proofs of this crime. He was evident in French's levy. It was evident in the case of Dr. O'Meara, this minister of purity, this mirror of virtue, who, pro- fessing a call from God, could so far debase himself, so far abuse his sacred vocation, as to solicit a recommenda- tion from such a person as Mrs. Clarke, by which, with an eye to a bishopric, he obtained an opportunity of preach- ing before the king. What could be said in justification of his Royal Highness for allowing this hypocrite to come down to Weymouth under a patronage, unbecoming his duty, rank, and situation ? The case of Kennet was equally strong. It was proved that, in the expectation of a loan to be procured for him by this man, his Royal Highness employed his influence to get a place for him, The cases of Elderton and General Clavering, but partis “THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. ‘763 cularly of the latter, shewed that Mrs. Clarke was in the habit of communicating with his Royal Highness on mi- litary subjects. His letter to her on the subject of Clave- ring's application, put it beyond the possibility of doubt. If this communication, this kind of understanding on such subjects, had not taken place, why did the Duke express himself so unreservedly on the business 2 Should he not have answered it in this way : “I am sorry that Clavering has applied through you ; I was not aware that he was acquainted with our connection; I hope he is not. But if he knows any thing of it, let him know this, that this is a point on which I will not suffer you to interfere.” Before he sat down, he could not avoid alluding to the wery extraordinary speech made by an honourable friend near him (Mr. Windham), on the preceding evening. The conclusion of that speech really astonished him. He could hardly, conceive that, after the very ingenious and subtile arguments that he advanced in support of his Royal Highness, that he would have come to the decision he did. If his opinion had been so nicely balanced, he would have acquitted the Duke. He would not have em- ployed so much time in splitting hairs, and then with half a hair strangle his Royal Highness. If he were in a situa- tion to approach that illustrious person, if he could pre- sume to obtrude his advice upon him, he would advise him to resign. (A loud laugh from the ministerial benches). If ministers did their duty, they would advise him to re- sign. They would advise him to resign ; for it was im: possible his Royal Highness could stir a step without hear- ing of these things. They would meet him in every street, in every road, in every corner. Where he went, the deep murmurs of public indignation would strike his ear. The time was fast approaching; when we perhaps would have to fight for British interests on British ground. At such a dreadful crisis, the safety of the state, the salvation of the country, the maintenance of our constitution, the preserv- ation of our liberties, and of every thing dear to us, would depend on the confidence reposed in him who might have , the command of the army. Does his Royal Highness sup- pose that he enjoys that confidence? In every eye that glanced on him, in every voice that assailed his ear, he might discover unequivocal indications that he did not. There was no alternative for him, therefore, but to resign. 764 PRoceebrngs RELATIVE To In retirement he might have an opportunity of regaining, at some distant period, that public confidence which he has not now. “His Royal Highness,” said the noble lord, “cannot be prudently continued a servant of the public. Highly thankful for the patience with which I have been heard, I will no longer trespass on the indulgence of the House. J have done my duty, and I have done it with infinite pain and regret. It was a maxim of Lord Bur- Reigh, that England could not be ruined but by her par- Hiament, England cannot be ruined while her parliament does its duty.” " . . . The Lord Advocate, who rose among a tumultuous cry of “question, question P began with observing, that he was well aware of the just impatience of the House to come to a vote; but he hoped for their indulgence for a few minutes. He seldom rose in that House, and never but when impelled by a sense of duty. He felt himself called on to give an opinion on this important question. . With all the attention that he had been able to pay to the evi- dence, the conclusion which he drew from it was, that his Royal Highness had neither been guilty of corruption, nor criminal participation, nor connivance; and that he had in no one instance abused the power he possessed as Commander-in-chief, of giving away military commissions. This was a conviction that he derived from a minute, un- prejudiced, and conscientious review of the different charges, and the evidence by which they were supported, f The House became here so clamorous for the question, that the honourable member could no longer be heard.] Mr. Wilberforce had wished, before he offered himself to the House, to hear all that had been said upon the subject. He had attended, carefully to all the arguments that had been urged from the first ; and if he had not formed a correct opinion, it was not because he had not considered the subject most seriously and deliberately be. fore he took up the opinion he was then about to state to the House. He must confess, however, whatever might be the shame of acknowledging it, that he had participated in the same prejudices which had been entertained by other gentlemen upon the subject of these charges. He could scarcely credit the charges; he could scarcely bring him- self to consider them true ; and the honourable member who had brought them forward must excuse him if, not- 4. T1H12. COMMAND ER IN CHIEF, 765 withstanding he allowed him credit for being actuated by a sense of duty, in submitting these charges to the consi- deration of the House, he felt it extremely difficult to be. lieve that they could have been founded in fact. In the view which he took of the question, it appeared to him that it was to be considered in two ways; first, whether the Duke of York was guilty of the charges imputed to him, and, if he was, in what degree; and next, what was the course which as a member, and from the view he had taken of the subject, he was of opinion ought to be pursued. As to the question, whether the Duke of York was guilty of corruption, or had participated in the profits arising from the corrupt practices proved in evidence, he could not help stating, that, after all that had appeared and was proved to have taken place, he could not but feel surprize that his Royal Highness should not have con- ceived some suspicion of what was going on. ...His Royal Highness undoubtedly must have known from his military friends, that army promotions had been obtained in an improper and corrupt way. These things were not in a corner, nor in secret, nor in the dark ; they were not the work of unknown and obscure individuals, but openly carried on and generally spoken of, and circulated in pamphlets, which, though they had not met his eye, had loeen industriously distributed amongst military men. But even supposing that a close attention to the duties of his office had prevented the Commander-in-chief from coming at the knowledge of these transactions himself, yet he should have been informed by his friends, whose commu- nications he must have received with the attention they merited. On the supposition, therefore, that, as had been proved by the evidence at the bar, the army patronage had been corruptly disposed of, and, according to the general notion, that the same corrupt interference had been extended by the Duke of York's mistress to the other pub- lic departments, it was clear that his Royal Highness must also have known the circumstance. It was impossible that, with his education, he could have been ignorant that the mistresses of princes are in every instance the sources and the means of corruption. He must have known, if at all acquainted with history, that this had been unfortunately the case in France, and even in this country, at no very remote period of its history. It was a notorious facſ, that #66 Proceep[Ngs RELATIve to the mistresses of princes usually kept a sort of shop for the sale of the favours of the crown. But, if it was true, as had been stated by his right honourable friend (Mr. Yorke), that Mrs. Clarke had lived with an army agent or broker before she went to live with the Duke, and that her ante- cedent experience had enabled her successfully to carry on her corrupt practices; he must observe; that this cir- cumstance should, above all others, have put his Royal Highness upon his guard against her artifices and corrupt views, because he must have known what were her old habits, and that on any favourable opportunity she would not fail to indulge them. His Royal Highness was aware that Mrs. Clarke was extremely distressed ; that the pros- pect of relief would have encouraged her to engage in this criminal traffic; that she was open to the temptation, and was likely to avail herself of it whenever an occasion should be afforded. H. appeared, too, that she had been in the habit of applying from time to time to his Royal Highness for his patronage, in favour of persons whom she did not even know. When the House considered all these cir- cumstances separately; and afterwards weighed their ac- cumulated effect, gentlemen must be astonished that they should never have awakened in the mind of his Royal. Highness the slightest suspicion as to what was going on; although it was notorious to a great many officers in the army, and was calculated to degrade his honour and chas racter in the estimation of the virtuous and thinking part of the community. . . - - In the evidence of Mr. Corri, it was stated, that a few months after the connection had ceased between the Duke , of York and Mrs. Clarke, she called upon him, and told him that the Duke was angry at something, and at the same time recommended to him to destroy all his papers. This circumstance shewed, that some suspicions had then been excited as to some facts, which may have come to light, and flashed conviction upon the mind of his Royal Highness. His Royal Highness seemed not to have been aware of the opportunity he enjoyed to consult those ex- cellent and honourable men by whom he was surrounded, as to the means to prevent Mrs. Clarke from imposing upon his weakness by rendering his attachment to her subservient to her corrupt practices. On the contrary, he appeared to have kept them in the dark upon these THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. j67 subjects; and there was one circumstance to which he would particularly advert, to slew that this had been the case. When he received the letter from Mrs. Suther- land, requesting that the resignation of Major Turner might not be accepted for some time, in order that a lady, to whom he was represented as having behaved ill, might know where to find him, he put that letter into the hands of Colonel Gordon, as if it had been a letter from a perfect stranger (Hear, hear, hear !) and Colonel Gor- don had even stated at the bar, that he had not at that time any knowledge that the contrary was the case. (Hear, hear !) It was not then necessary to state how that case stood. The House was aware that an intimate connection had previously subsisted between his Royal Highness and this Mrs. Sutherland; in short, that she had been his mistress. From this, therefore, they must see, that, blinded by his affection or partiality for this lady, the Duke sunk the circumstance of his knowledge of her on the occasion ; and instead of making an ex- plicit communication of the fact, rather kept Colonel Gordon in the dark—that individual who of all others was most likely to rescue him from the dangerous precipice. upon which he stood, and to save him from the abyss into which he was ready to plunge. (Hear, hear!) . It appeared, also, from the evidence, that though Colonel Gordon had enjoyed the confidence of the Duke of York, so far as the execution of the duties of his office was con- cerned, for which that able officer seemed so well qua- lified, he did not possess so much of his confidence as would enable him to discharge the office of a friend, whom princes so much want, but so seldom meet with. Certain it was, as had been stated by Colonel Gordon in his examination, that he had never even seen Mrs. Clarke until he saw her at the bar of that House; and in every thing that related to the connection between her and the Duke of York, that gentleman appeared to have kept a dignified distance, such as became his just and ho- nourable mind. But before he should make the obser- vations he intended upon several of the cases, he begged to say a few words upon one fact, and an important one too, namely, the very different circumstances in which those who were prosecuting, and those who were defend- ing these charges were placed. It had well been stated 768 FrtočEEDINGS RELATIVE to in his very able speech by the noble lord, (Lord Folkes- tone) that the defence had been conducted and supported by all the legal authorities of the government; by persons who possessed the means to find out, and the power to compel the attendance of any witnesses whom it might be necessary to examine; and it had been assisted through- out by the influence and weight of wealth, rank, and property. The inference that resulted from all this was, that if any unfavourable impressions. existed against the Duke of York, it was not because all the witnesses had not been called, whose testimony might have been neces- sary for his defence, or effectual for his justification. All the witnesses that could have been of any service to that purpose had been examined; and if no more had been called, it was only begause those who conducted the des fence omitted to do so; lest they should injure their own cause. (Hear, hear!) . . . . . . . . - Before he should go into an examination of the sepa- rate charges, he begged the House first to consider what was their nature, and how they were to be proved. The charges must be proved by the Duke of York, by Mrs. Clarke, or by the agents in the transactions; for there were no others who could give information, as it was not to be expected that the parties would tell what so inti- mately concerned themselves. The fact, then was, that with regard to all these sources of information they had ample proof, as well in the letters of his Royal Highness as in the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, confirmed by the un- exceptionable corroborations of letters, which she never thought could have been produced at the time of giving her evidence, and by the agents in these transactions, whether they were to be considered the confidants, or rather the dupes of Mrs. Clarke. And here he must ob- serve, respecting the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, and the corroboration of it by these letters, that her main testi- mony was fully confirmed, notwithstanding all that had been said, as to her having contradicted herself, and being contradicted by others. His right honourable and Hearned friend had, in speaking of the truth of the evi- dence given at the bar, expressed himself as he would, if applying his observations to themselves, viz. that there would be no difference in the evidence stated at the bar, and evidence given upon oath. Unquestionably there the comm ANDER IN chief. . . 769 bught not to be any difference, as the truth ought in either case to be spoken, and he hoped that there would not be any difference of that description in persons of any character in life. From the beginning, however, he bad his doubts, as to the mode of inquiry proposed to be adopted, and had even anticipated the consequences, which had resulted, when it was stated that there would' be a difference between the testimony of Mrs. Clarke at the bar and upon oath. But he would ask whether Mrs. Clarke had not been received differently whether the manner in which she had been examined at the bar, had not produced a great deal of that pertness and flippancy. in the answers which had been so much commented upon?' Though he was confident that Mrs. Clarke was not a witness to whom he should give any great degree of credit, yet when corroborated as she had been, in cases: which appeared the most romantic on their being first mentioned, he could not withhold his credit from her’ testimony. The case of O'Meara, for instance, appeared at first to have been only the creature of her imagina- tion; so also had it appeared impossible to believe her statement respecting General Clavering, and yet both had been afterwards confirmed in a most extraordinary manner. He mentioned these small matters, because it was not possible to put them out of the question, and be- cause it was often, from such circumstances, that the most. correct opinion was to be formed of any transaction. When Mrs. Clarke had been asked how she had made her request to accomplish the exchange for Colonel. Knight, she answered that she had given to the Duke of York the names of the parties upon a slip of paper;. which she had received from Dr. Thynne. }. appeared from the evidence, that, (unknown to her at that time,) Dr. Thynne had also stated that he had given to Mrs. Clarke a slip of paper containing the names of the parties. These coincidences in small matters often amounted to . more cogent proof than resulted from more important parts of evidence. It had likewise been said by Mrs. Clarke, that, whenever the Duke of York was with her, she never suffered a livery servant to attend. It ap- peared that Samuel Carter did attend his Royal High- ness; but it afterwards came out, that he never wore a livery. But the greatest thing of all, that confirmed the testimony of Mn. Chºº the production of the 770 Proceep INGs ReLATIve to * Duke of York’s leiters to her, as well as the production, of the letters, of which she had no idea that they existed, and the note which had been so much disputed. He was ready to give every credit, for their candour and im- partiality, to those who, in commenting upon the evi- dence, did not appear to have sufficiently attended to these documents; but gentlemen should recollect, that when they were acting as judges, they should not have forgotten to have summed up all the evidence. (Hear, hear, hear!) It was very material to keep these letters, and especially the mysterious note in view, in consider- ing how far the testimony of Mrs. Clarke was corrobo- rated. And when gentlemen contended, that the evi- dence of Mrs. Clarke was not to be believed, it was im- possible not to suppose that they would have endeavoured to shew, that these documents contradicted her testimony. He would ask the right honourable gentlemen whether, when they knew that these letters found in the possession of Mr. ś, and the letters procured from Mr. Nichol, afforded the best means to invalidate the testi- mony of Mrs. Clarke, they can shew why, with all their sagacily, research, and power of inquiry, they had yet left these documents entirely out of the question ? He should next say a few words with respect to the arguments which had been drawn from the consideration of the expence of the establishment of Gloucester-place. For himseIf, he could never believe that the Duke of York had looked to the money arising from the corrupt disposal of army promotions as a supply for his expen- diture. As to the statement made by Mrs. Clarke at the bar, that the Duke of York had told her that if she was cunning, she necd never ask him for money; he begged pardon of the House, but the thing was in itself so im - probable that he could not give credit to it. The Duke might, he could suppose, have done something short of this. Mrs. Clarke, it appeared, had been in great dis- tress, and teazed and hunted by her tradesmen; and it was probable, that under such circumstances the Duke of York might not have looked with sufficient jealousy and vigilance in watching the proceedings of Mrs. Clarke, to prevent her from pursuing her corrupt practices. He would admit, that with the large income which he pos- sessed, he might not have calculated with accuracy the expences of that establishment. With respect to the case 4 * * * the commander in chief. 771 6f Colonel Knight, that proved that there had been a generally prevalent persuasion that promotions in the ârmy could be obtained by corrupt means; and nothing could be so injurious to the service and the army than that an opinion shôuld prevail, that what ought only to be the reward of merit or services, could be obtained by the base and mean artifices which, as appeared, were resorted to. As to the case of Mr. Dowler, which is a very important one, though he could not believe that that gen- tleman, who was proved to have had an intimate connection with Mrs. Clarke, had paid her 1000l. for procuring him his place, he thought it manifest that she had induced the Duke of York to procure that place for one whom she Ioved better. He never could suppose that the appoint- ment had been obtained through Sir Brook Watson, his habits and those of Mr. Dowler having been so opposite. Mr. Dowler was the son of a man who had been for fifteen years a member of the whig club, and the constant oppo- ment of Sir Brook Watson in his own ward. It was not to be supposed that he would have provided a place, and in his own office, for the son of that gentleman; at Feast it would require great credulity to believe that fact. But when he had been appointed, Sir Brook Watson did not interfere, though he sent him abroad the following day. With regard to Colonel French's levy, there was some- thing exceedingly suspicious in it. (Hear, hear!) Though he did not apprehend that his Royal Highness had any corrupt motive or criminal participation in the transac- tion, still there was something astonishing in his mind, that it had not excited the suspicion of the Duke of York. If he had not been blinded by his attachment to that wo- man, it was impossible that he should not have suspected, if not known, the corrupt practice that was carried on. For the actual state of the case they had to look to the evidence of Miss Taylor, confirmed by the notes which had been found in the bureau of Sandon, and which shew- ed, that a continual correspondence existed between him and Mrs. Clarke, who, if he was or was not her dupe, had cunning enqugh to persuade him, that she could for- ward his projects in military matters with the Duke of York. If he was her dupe, he was, however, advancing her money all the time, and must consequently have be. lieved her to have had inhº, yi. his Royal Highness 772 Proceedings RELATIVE to to effect his purpose. Few things, had struck his mind more forcibly than the circumstance that gentlemen, hav- ing once taken up one side of this question, allowed them- selves to suppose that the words, mentioned by Miss Tay- lor to have been spoken by the Duke, had actually been spoken, and that they could have been spoken with very innocent effect. Supposing, then, the words to have been actually spoken, why should they have been addressed to Mrs. Clarke, what should, she have to do with French's levy Considering, therefore, only the internal evidence of the thing, and that Miss Taylor could not remember conversations that had occurred more recently; consider- ing, also, that Mrs. Clarke had a communication with Miss Taylor upon the subject, in which she might easily and without Miss Taylor's being aware of it, alter her con- ception of the expressions; he did not think that this was enough to fix the Duke of York, with privity in the cor- ruption, or participation in the profits. As to the case of Major Tonyn, he could not suppose that the note, which had been so much the subject of comment, could have been fabricated by Mrs. Clarke; or that she would run the risk of detection in the course of a cross-examination. Though he admitted that Captain Sandon was not to be believed, yet when he considered that he had, on his arrival at Portsmouth, given the same account to Colonel Hamilton of the note, that he had given at the bar, he was ready to conclude that he had told only the truth. The case of Captain Turner shewed the consequence of a Com- mander-in-chief listening to such persons as Mrs. Clarke. The resignation of that officer had been suspended on the suggestion of a woman, whose application ought to have been instantly spurned at and rejected. When the Duke of York could bring himself to entertain such an application; it appeared to him, that he would have sub- mitted to, and granted much more, under the influence of the fascinations of a woman to whom he appeared to be most strongly attached. . In this he had frankly stated his view of the subject; he had only to add, that nothing of all that had been said squared exactly with the impression upon his mind. He acquitted the, Duke of York of cor- ruption ; but he was of opinion that he could scarcely help suspecting the corrupt practices which were going on. Though the illustrious personage might not, have had a distinct knowledge of the corruption, he must have TíIE COMMANDE in IN CHIEF. 773 had not only a suspicion, but a general idea of its exist- ence, though not so clear and definite as to amount to Knowledge. This was a species of impression which per- sons who were at all acquainted with the human mind 'must be aware of; and when he considered the attach- 'ment his Royal Highness had to this woman, he thought it extremely probable that he might have been actuated by such a feeling, and sensible of such an impression. In voting for the amendment of his honourable friend, he should vote for the acquittal of the Duke of York of cor- ruption as far as he could. But the gentlemen opposite appeared to him to have adopted a strange course. In consequence of the evidence, they called for a direct de- cision of the question of corruption or no corruption. They found fault with the amendment of his honourable friend, because he had not introduced something stronger into it, which they could more easily induce the House to reject. These gentlemen were old soldiers (Hear, hear!) and could not be at any loss for parliamentary expedients (Hear, hear!) He too had some experience in these mat- ters, and should have profited little by his long acquaintance with the practice and forms of parliament, not to perceive the drift of such a suggestion, The most manly course that the House could adopt, would be that which was con- sistent with its duty, and with justice. They should go no farther than their duty demanded, Glad indeed should he be, if it was possible for the House to come to a decision favourable to his Royal Highness, but that the evidence rendered hopeless. They were not to be con- sidered cruel for placing the Duke in the situation in which the question before the House placed him. It was not that House, or any proceeding in it, but those friends who should have informed his Royal Highness of the cor- rupt practicés that were going on, and neglected it, that had brought his Royal Highness to the dreadful situation in which he then was. With regard to all that had beeh said of the evidence as to the general improbability of its character, that had no influence upon his mind. No man would say that the Duke of York recollected the letters which had been produced. This was likely enough to arise from that looseness of mind, of acting, and offeeling, which appeared in the conduct of his Royal Highness. It had been said that the whole was a plot. But fie must say, that there appeared nothing in the evidence to shew 774 PRoceedings RELATIVE ro any trace of such a plot. Most of the witnesses wers upon bad terms with Mrs. Clarke, and yet their testimony corroborated her statements. Her evidence was also sup: ported by the documents which had been produced, though at the time of giving her testimony she could have had no idea of their being in existence. Besides, both Dowler and Sandon whom she could not have expected to attend to confirm her testimony, arrived suddenly from the continent, and corroborated her statements by their testimony but particularly the production of the notes which had been written at the time of the transaction, and of the existence of which she was not aware, most strongly corroborated her evidence; and all these con- siderations taken together had the effect of doing away all idea of a plot. He was ready, in a great degree, to admit the force of the argument which was founded on the choice which the Duke made of the persons imme- diately about him, such as Colonels Gordon, Brownrigg, Calvert, and others. He admired the conduct of Colonel Gordon when he was first examined about the mysterious note. He shewed at that time the greatest dignity, simplici- ty, and determination to do his duty; and upon an occasion which shewed the utmost triumph of principle and ho- nour, he conducted himself with the same ease as if it was one of the ordinary transactions of his life. He regretted, however, that when the Duke of York placed about hini men of such honour, he had not requested them to watch, and give him notice of any abuses which might occur of the nature of those which were now laid to his charge. Although he could entertain no doubt of the truth of the testimony of so many high military characters, with re- spect to the attention which his Royal Highness paid to the duties of his office, yet he thought that one of these high authorities (Sir Arthur Wellesley), had gone a great deal too far, when he thought that the thanks which were paid to those who won the battle of Vimiera were due to the Commander-in-chief for 'giving them such an army. The cause of that victory was not merely owing to the measures of the Commander-in-chief, or any other indivi- dual. It was owing to the soldiers of every class who participated in that victory. The soldiers of this country were men of strong bodies and independent minds. This independence of sentiment they derived from being poss sessed of equal laws, and from the benefits of the British 3. "THE commANDER IN chief. . . 775 tonstitution, that gave a peculiar character of manliness and freedom to every class of the community. Its prin- ciples pervaded all ranks, and of its good effects it might be said, a f “Magnose corpore miscet.” t He could not avoid thinking, that if the House were to pass a resolution which altogether avoided the question of corruption, it would be generally supposed by the public, that such silence proceeded merely from political motives. He thought the House should not appear to shrink from , the constitutional duty which they had now to perform, and he, for his part, felt himself bound to vote for the motion of his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes), as coinciding most with his views and feelings. He cer- tainly did, in his mind, acquit the Duke of York of any real knowledge of those transactions, of any direct corrup- tion or participation in them ; but still he could not, under the impression of the evidence, say, that he could con- ceive that he could be utterly without suspicion on the subject. He thought, moreover, that it was also necessary to make some reparation to public morals and decency, and that the public safety required that the House should communicate to his majesty, that in their opinion, the command of the army could be no longer with prudence confided to the Duke of York. It was customary in that House to call things by very soft and gentle names. That which used to be called adultery, was now only living wnder prolection. It was in this way that when religioſi and social order was attacked in France, we heard of “a mother without being a wife.” The applying those deli- cate expressions to acts of immorality, was striking at the root of the morals of this country, The House had been now sitting, day after day, in the consideration of those transactions, and in tearing off the veil which covered them. If, when they were now laid bare, the House was to abstain from passing an opinion upon them, they would do an irreparable injury to the morality of this country. It would be found throughout the page of history, that religion and morals were the best preservers of states, and that when they were upon the decline in any country, it was a sure prognostic of that country's approaching fall, He would not say that the charges were of that nature that it was absolutely necessary to bring forward; but when the House had been compelled to take notice of º6 Proceepings RELATIye to them, he did not see how they could avoid coming to that conclusion which was impressed on their minds by the evidence which had been stated. He should read an extract from an author who was not considered either as a religious or moral authority, but who was eminently distinguished for political knowledge and sagacity. Ma- chiavel had stated, that “the rulers of all states, whether kingdoms or commonwealths, should take care that reli- gión should be honoured, and all its ceremonies preserved inviolate, for there was not a more certain symptom of the destruction of states, than a contempt for religion and morals.” As to the slight censure conveyed in the reso- lution of his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), he really thought it would have been better not to have touched upon the subject at all, than to touch upon it so lightly. It seemed as if the laws of cour- tesy were more to be attended to than the laws of God. As to the confidence that was expressed in his Royal Highness following for the future the illustrious example set him by his royal father, that was an extraordinary degree of confidence, for which he would be glad to know the grounds. This called to his recollection the circum- stance, that when Charles II. conducted himself impro- perly in Scotland with respect to a loose female, a depu- }. from the kirk was sent to remonstrate with him. Their spokesman, Douglas, having left the rest of the deputation at a considerable distance, went up to his ma- jesty, who, expected a severe lecture, and merely said to †. “When next your majesty pleases to indulge your- self in practices like these, you should shut the shutters, and avoid scandal.” He thought that even such advice as this would be better than the courtly flummery which had been proposed. Even the slight censure proposed, was not for violating the laws of religion and morality, but for a connexion which had, in its consequences, ex- posed the name and character of his Royal Highness to animadversion. This was referring his conduct not to the known rules of religion and morality, but to the fashion- able and fanciful ideas of modern honour. Upon this occasion the House should not listen to their feelings, but to the evidence. They should consider what would be the language of any other judges, who, in the execution of the duties of their office, should be called upon to con- sult their feelings, instead of attending to the evidence. *FHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 777 He felt that he had a solemn but a painful duty to per- form, and he could not conceive how, after all that had been disclosed, the House could believe that the command of the army could be any longer safely confided to his Royal Highness. Supposing the case to be according to the mildest interpretation of his friends, that the Duke had no knowledge or suspicion of the transactions, but was completely deceived and blinded by the woman whom he passionately loved and entirely confided in, that would be reason enough to call for his removal from the com- mand of the army. It was not at a time that all the con- tinental nations were broken down by the armies of France, that this country should have a commander-in- chief who was liable to be blinded and duped by a woman. (Hear, hear!). It was well known that Buonapartesue- ceeded as much by his intrigues as by open force, and if he found that we had a commander-in-chief who was duped by his mistress, it would be easy for him to gain an ascendancy over such a woman, in order to command the most important secrets of the state. . He could buy over such a woman, not only for a sum of money, but by promising to make a duchess or a queen of her. This was a game which Buonaparte had always played. When General Wurmser ever resolved upon a sally from Mantua, he always found that the French had perfect informa- tion of his intentions. The more innocent and the more unsuspecting the Duke of York was described to be, the more danger was there the enemy would find out if any body had influence over him. There was another con- sideration which he felt it his duty to state. That House had been always considered in a peculiar degree as the guardians and stewards of the public purse, and bound to take notice of the waste of money applied for public pur- oses. The luxurious and profuse expenditure of the esta- lishment at Gloucester-place would be read with pain by the heavily-burdened cottager in all parts of the coun- try. Whatever now takes place in higher life, is soon known in every circle of society; but the transaetions which were now under consideration had acquired an ex- traordinary degree of publicity, and the public could not avoid feeling that this profusion was supplied from their money, which had been granted for different purposes. As to the public opinion guiding the determination of that House, it was a principle that he should not contend for ; 779 Proceedings RELATIVE To but he reminded the House that their strength was in the strength of the people, and that it was from this force of public opinion that governments, which were somewhat popular in their form, had the greatest strength. The House would probably this night divide upon the question whether an address to his majesty, or a resolution, such as that proposed by his right honourable friend (the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer), should be agreed to. He hoped that no consideration, even of the delicacy of the subject, would prevent them from discharging, to the utmost, the duty which they owed to their country.—[After Mr. Wilberforce had sat down, there was a very loud and general cry of Question, question || . Mr. Secretary Canning said, that however he disagreed with the honourable gentleman in many points, yet he most cordially agreed with him in this, that in the vote they were to give to-night, the character and honour of that House were most deeply engaged. He hoped that the House and the right honourable gentleman would be- lieve, that although he took a very different view of the question, yet his vote should be determined by the con- scientious opinion which he had formed after the most attentive consideration of the evidence. The debate had now continued for an unexampled length of timie, and had been conducted with unexampled ability. He had waited with patience, and a sincere desire to collect from other gentlemen materials to enable him to come to the most correct judgment which his mind could enable him to form on the subject. Of all the speeches which he had expected to hear upon this subject, there was none for which he had waited with more anxiety than for the speech of the honourable gentleman. He had looked to his speech as one, from which he expected that all party views would be entirely banished. He was sure that the honourable gentleman would not practise any manager ment, or feel or express himself like a parliamentary tactician on such a day as this. He thought, however, that he would not have entered into any compromise upon such an occasion, or have given his support to an address which had no character at all. (Hear, hear!) The ad- dress which was proposed, pronounced nothing respecting the question which they had been so long investigating, whether the Duke of York was guilty or not. It appear- ed to him, that the decision of the House ought to direct the opinion of the public, instead of following the stream , THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 779 ºf popular opinion. It was by rightly discharging their fluty, that true and lasting popularity was to be hoped for. What was it, however, that the honourable gen- tleman had stated as his opinion ? He had told the House that after the fullest consideration of the evidence, and after six days had been spent in debating the subject, he had not been able to give a decided opinion whether the Duke had been guilty of corruption or not. This was thea the result of six days debate, and this was all the opinion pro- nounced by the right honourable gentleman, to whose opi- nion the largestnumber of people looked up to fashion theirs. If he was not prepared to give a decided opinion upon the guilt or innocence of his Royal Highness, he thought that it would have been better for him not to have gone into those comprehensive and general views which rather en- cumbered and perplexed the question, than placed it any new light which would have been able to guide the House in their determination. After stating the immorality of the cqnnection which was disclosed, the honourable gen- tleman asked, would it not be a scandal and a shame to that House not to come into resolutions which would dis- grace the Commander-in-chief ? For his part, he doubted much whether the House had any right to consider more about the immorality of this connection than as related fo its practical effects as to the administration of that de- partment in the state which had been confided to his Royal Highness. He considered that religion, as well as morality, was best judged of by its practical effects ; and until a deviation from religion and morality had produced serious evils to the state, he did not know that parliament should be called upon to interfere by its censure. As to the address originally proposed, he must dissent from it, pecause he did not agree with the averments of it; but at the same time he thought it had this great advantage over the address moved in its place, that it was much more direct and intelligible. The address, however, which was moved in its place, was complicated and confused in a high degree. It blended all manner of questions toge- ther. It took in something of religion, something of con- nivance; something of the immorality of the connection, and formed a sort of average upon all that was in any way objected to the Duke, without coming to any decision upon what was really the charge against him ; namely, whether he was guilty of corruption or not. This conduct would tº BO PROCEED INGS RELATIVE To not be just to the illustrious personage, who was the ob- ject of the accusation, nor kind towards the sovereign, who would be called upon to punish his son, before he should be found guilty. Comparing the present times with other times, all that should be asked for the Duke of York was, that he should not be considered more than another person, but that on account of his rank he should not be made a sacrifice. These charges, in the shape of accusations, accused the Duke of York with having been personally corrupt. The honourable gentlemen say, there is no record; he wished the matter to be investigated fairly, not by a spirit of charge, and a vote of compromise. . The address of his honourable friend did not mean to infer corruption or cri- minal connivance, but was built solely on suspicion, and both addresses contained considerations of expediency and rudence, more than any spirit of justice. The Duke of º. had been accused of base and wilful corruption; he had also been assaulted by minor charges, and he wished only to have a fair opportunity of proving his innocence by a fair and impartial trial. The judgment of his peers was one of the highest privileges of an English subject, and surely his Royal Highness is fully entitled to his share of that right. Justice he can only have by the House coming to a decision on a resolution of guilty or not guilty; and he was astonished how the honourable gentlemen could reconcile it to their minds to lump all these considerations together. The grave charge of corruption the House ought fairly to decide upon; and he thought, if censure should be found necessary, it would be better conveyed by a resolution than an address, a mode which could not fail to wound the feelings of his majesty. A noble lord had, on a former night, spoken with some asperity on what had fallen from him on the outset of this inquiry. He owned he did say infamy must rest somewhere, but he did not say it must fall on the head of the accuser. He meant that infamy must lie on that confederacy to which the honourable gentleman had been, he had no doubt, an unwilling instrument. He would not say whether the honourable gentleman was to be praised or blamed for what he had done; that was between God and himself: that he had done any national good he could not agree. Whether it was right to have brought for- ward the charges in the present instance, it was for hims THE COMMANDER IN CHIEP, . 781 self alone to determine. He (Mr. Canning) thought the honourable gentleman ought to have been sure that he was proceeding on sure grounds, and could prove the several facts he had so courageously brought forward. If the ho- nourable gentleman's opinions were to be adopted by the House, it ought to be by resolutions. His right honour- able friend had proposed resolutions, and thought it would be further necessary to lay the decision of the House be- fore his majesty, who would thereby be enabled to see: what steps had been taken by the House; and it could not but be highly satisfactory to, the feelings of his majesty, who during the whole course of a long and amiable reign, had evinced towards the country such paternal feelings. Mr. Tierney rose to order, and said that the right ho- nourable gentleman was then using the king's name for the purpose of influencing the House, which was contrary. to the orders of the House. Mr. Canning-proceeded, and observed that both the addresses were highly objectionable. In one of them, that of his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes), there was a misstate- ment in the very beginning. The Committee had sat six weeks to inquire into the conduct of the Duke of York—the House had been... sitting six days to consider what way. they should communicate their sentiments on that con- duct, and yet the name of the Duke of York was not once mentioned in that address. In the whole history of ad- dresses, such, a one as this had never been framed by the heart of man, nor had the like ever before been presented to the House. It said no more nor less than this—“We believe him to be guilty, but if he should happen to be innocent, we will still punish him as if guilty.” He hoped, however, such an address of alternatives would not be permitted to stand on the journals of the House. The honourable gentleman who brought forward the charges had devised one of his own; but he had suffered others to interfere, and to inoculate or vaccinate it with . matter of their producing, which had warped it from its natural purpose, and made it differ from itself. Some of those who had, thus, interfered, might have derived their presumption and , pertinacity, by an inheritance of the splendid vices of one of the mistresses of Charles II. The question was not that the Committee should inquire into the abuses and corruptions of the army, but into the con- duct of the Duke of York. This address, however, shirked 7.8% Pitoceepſ NG's RELATIve to the question, and shifted it to the abuses which might * have existed before the Duke of York was born. It had. been said, that ministers encouraged this open mode of proceeding that had been pursued. He was one that did so, because he thought that proceeding would lead to impeachment, and not that by restoring the Speaker to the chair, they should proceed from the character of inquisitors to those of judges. He did not repent of that proceeding, because, whatever steps the House might take, it would appear to the public, that they wished the truth to be fully and fairly investigated. From the case of Lord Falkland to that of Lord Melville, the course of that House had always been to proceed by way of resolution, and then an address; but an address with a resolution he thought highly unjust. It had been said the other night, by a great grandee of the House of Commons, styling him- self an independent country gentleman, that gº." in office were not to be believed. On such declarations he should always look with sovereign contempt. He con- ceived it to be the fair inference of what would have been the conduct of the man who said it, had he been in office. It was not a glass that reflected others, but a glass that reflected himself. He was the last man who would wish to have any deference paid to the Duke of York on account of his rank; but in proportion as they acted con- sonant to the principles of justice, posterity would look on them, and he would wish the decision to be such as should do honour to the justice and dignity of the House. Lord Folkestone, in explanation, begged to make an observation or two on some words which had fallen from the right honourable gentleman in the course of his speech. What he had stated on a former night on the subject of the word “infamy,” was from what he understood the right honourable gentleman to have said on the com- mencement of the inquiry. The right honourable gentle- man had this evening given another ground of which he rested it, instead of the head of his honourable friend." He had certainly been in error, and he was sorry the right. hon. gentleman had not taken an earlier opportunity of mentioning it, as he then should have escaped the using. the language he had done upon it. With respect to another allusion which went to the situation of an ances- tor of his in the reign of Charles II. long before the per- -† =– THE commANDER IN CHIEF. 733 \ son who gave him being was born, it would be ridiculous in him to seem not to know who was glanced at in what had been said; but he begged leave to state to the right honourable gentleman and to the House, that every in- quiry and investigation at the time had been made into the truth or falsehood of the report of that connection, and the result was, there was never any warrantable proof of it. And though the Almighty had thought fit, in the plenitude of his wrath, “to visit the sins of the father upon the children to the third and fourth generation,” he did not conceive the right honourable gentleman would have arrogated the right to do so. He appealed, how- ever, to the candour, the liberality, the decency, and the º of the right honourable gentleman, whether he ad a right to do so. A Mr. Bragge Bathurst said a few words in explanation. Mr. G. Ponsonby spoke shortly against the resolu-, tions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was con- vinced the Commander-in-chief ought, from the evidence given before the House, to be removed from his present situation. t Mr. Tierney spoke shortly, and the House becoming most clamorous for the question, strangers were ordered to withdraw. [While the division was taking place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the members in the lobby, and stated to them that the first division went only to deter- mine the form of their proceedings. The next question would determine the fate of Colonel Wardle's motion, and if it was negatived, he would then propose the second of his resolutions, having waved the first. The manner in which that second resolution was carried would decide whether the Duke of York was guilty or not. He would afterwards propose, if his second resolution was carried, to adjourn the consideration of the others to another day. In every case it was highly desirable that they should come to a conclusion on the main question before they parted; # was probable several divisions would take place, he trusted no member would go away until they were all decided.] The first division was on the question, whether the House should proceed by address or resolution. [This decided the fate of Mr. Bankes's amendment.] - & 784 PRoceedings RELATI've to – For proceeding by address … . . - - 199 --- For proceeding by resolution - - 294 Majority against Mr. Bankes's amended address 95 . . . A second division then took place on Colonel Wardle's motion :- - T - - - - - - For it. - sº – gº - - - - 123. Against it. - - - - - 364 Majority. against Colonel Wardle's motion - 241 Friday, March 17, 1809. Tord Folkestone moved the order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the conduct of the Commander-in-chief. - *. The Chancellor of the Earchequer, after a few words had passed between him and Mr. Tierney, announced his intention to withdraw his resolution, and omit from it the word “charges,” and otherwise to alter it to the following effect : - - “That this House having appointed a committee to investigate the conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, as Commander-in-chief, and having carefully: considered the evidence which camé before the said Committee, and finding that personal corruption, and connivance at corruption, having been imputed to his . said Royal Highness, find it expedient to pronounce a dis- tinct opinion upon the said imputation, and are accord- ingly of opinion that it is wholly without foundation.” Mr. Tierney said, that the character of the Duke off York was public property, the public having an interest." to see that no person should sit on the thrône whose cha- racter was tainted. If, therefore, the charge of corruption : should be proved against his Royal Highness; a bill of exclusion from the throne must necessarily, follow. The House, knowing that he was corrupt, would degrade them- selves if they did not pass such a bill. The rightſhonour-, able member was solemnly of opinion, thāt the charge of: corruption had not been proved against the Duke of . York, and had no objection to comply with the right honourable gentleman's (the Chancellor of the Exche- quer's) resolution, that it had not been proved. He was desirous too of some such resolution, to assure the public frie CoMMANDER IN CHIEF. 785 that the present case was not disposed of: the general im- pression upon the public mind seemed to be that the Duke of York had received a full acquittal. At this gentlemen acquainted with the forms of the House would wonder; but he could assure them it was pretty universally believed so. But the right honourable gentleman's resolution stopped too soon. The charge of corruption not being proved, the Duke of York came before them as a publić func- tionary, and was to be treated as such ; and the right ho- Iiourable Speaker wanted some pledge from the right ho- nourable gentleman, that this resolution, denying the Duke's corruption, was not all that was to be done. The right honourable member was sorry the right ho- nourable gentleman’s resolution required so distinct and positive an answer. “You force me,” said he, “ to say what I had rather not say: I feel for the Duke of York's rank, and I cannot but acknowledge his kindness and good- Iſature; and I agree with the noble lord who spoke a night or two ago, that nobody was ever more pleasant to have to do with.” But the House had another duty to perform; they had to take care that a public office was not filled by any person liable to suspicion. All this was done away by the amendment. The right bonourable member knew that the right honourable gentleman meant to propose no other resolution; and he in candour acknowledged he did not. If he carried this resolution, he meant to incor- porate it into the address, and carry the whole to the king. So that while every mind in the kingdom had been heated and torn with this subject, this House would be the only place where no opinion was to be found about the matter. They were to embody this resolution into the address, and then to conceive they had done their duty. The address not only did not go far enough, but it went too far the other way : not only did it not propose to remove the Duke of York, but it suggested the propriety of retain- ing him. . . The right honourable member hoped the House would bear in mind the intention of the right ho- nourable gentleman as to this address, in the event of his carrying his present resolution, and not go too hastily with him. (Hear, hear, hear!) The right honourable member then proceeded to com- ment upon the Duke of York’s letter to the House, which, he said, was evidently the production of the cabinet. The right honourable gentleman had stated, that the ho- 24 786 PRoceedings RELATIVE To nourable gentleman (Mr. Wardle) had consulted cooler heads than his own. He thought the Duke of York had, in this letter, consulted cooler heads than his own; for, from what the right honourable member knew of the cha- racter of the Duke of York, he did not think he would have put his hand to such a proceeding. The right ho- nourable member could comprehend the meaning of the Duke's asserting his innocence; but could not understand why he did not do this at first. He was innocent “upon his honour as a prince l’” The honour of a peer was in- telligible; but this phrase had no meaning at all. The letter was certainly the production of one of the cabinet; he did not know who had the controul of the flourishing department. The letter went on to regret the connection which had exposed the Duke's character to animadver- sion: as much as to say, “I have fallen into bad com- pany ; but let me off this once, and I’ll never do so any more.” The re was no “ honour of a prince” in this? The Duke of York was decoyed into this letter, it now appeared, for the sake of grounding an address upon it. He conld never have expected that the repentanee of this letter should be made the terms upon which his of. fice should be continued to him. The latter part of the Ietter must have come from the special pleader’s office. The House had been told that they could do nothing with a man in public office but impeach or acquit him. These words must have given great pain to any one who valued the privileges, of the House. Hm many cases it would be madness to impeach, however they might be convinced of guilt. In the present case, there were many reasons against impeachment. Was there no afternative between inconvenience and injustice Ft was difficult to produce an instance, where the deficiency in power of examining upon oath was productive of mueh inconve- aience. Their's were called inquisitorial powers: true; but inquisitorial powers must be lodged somewhere; and where could they be lodged better than in the House of Commons : It was true the House were bound by no £ule; but then they had the sound discretion of the repre- sentatives of the people, and that, though no rule, was a Suſlicient guide to honest men. If the House were bound by rules, they would be in even a more unpleasant situ- ation than they at present were. The right honourable. member was not bound to say aye or no to the right ho- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 787 nourable gentleman's question : an address might be so framed as to satisfy the minds of his majesty, of the House, and of the country. And unless the right ho- nourable gentleman carried his resolution unanimously, what did he do The right honourable member did not think the Duke corrupt ; but many members might, and then, where was the delicacy of ministers ? The House were a jury pronounced by majority; and in many of that jury were to be found names that did not wish to speak as to the corruption of the Duke of York. Be- sides, if the right honourable gentleman proceeded as he ought to do, he would put a separate vote upon each charge. Many might say, “I do not know as to general corruption; but what do you think of this case ?” The right honourable gentleman would not be content with any fair and liberal support ; he would provoke them to speak as to corruption; the right honourable member did not believe there was corruption, but no man had a right to sift him, whether any thing unpleasant had passed. across his mind. The right honourable member then came to the ques- tion whether their proceedings should be prefaced, by thus informing the public what they were going to do. He would not agree to the resolution unless it went further, and gave a distinct opinion as to the bearing of the whole. If the right honourable gentleman had no objec- tion to this addition, he had no objection to the right ho- nourable gentleman's commencement. But it was ne- cessary to satisfy the public, who had too soon begun to despair, that so far from the discussion being closed, it was only just opened. The right honourable gentleman might say, “Only agree to my resolution first, and then you may propose what you please.” The right honourable member was very much obliged to him ; so he told the House before. It was important, however, not to sepa- rate the opinions; having done with the Duke of York in his royal capacity, inasmuch as he might one day be our sovereign, then he came to consider him as a public functionary; and there he was open to the same sifting and censure as any other man. No man agreed more cordially than the right honourable member in all the praises that could be bestowed upon the Duke as Com- mander-in-chief; but he could not remain where he was ; and the milder the means º gºing him could be de- 788 PROCF. Ef INGS RELATIVE TO vised the better. The removal, however, was what the House owed to itself. There was a time when nothing would have made the right honourable member more happy than to have heard that the Duke had resigned; and he might have resigned without the smallest disgrace. There was a precedent of this in the case of the Duke of Marlborough, of whom the House of Parliament received certain information that he had unduly put 63,000l. into his pocket. The House took this into its consideration, and her majesty in council declared that, being informed of the proceedings, she resumed the Duke of Marlbo- rough's appointments, and nothing appeared on the jour- mals of the House but the removal of the Duke. The right honourable member concluded with announe- ing his intention to propose an amendment to the right honourable gentleman's intended resolution, to the follow- ing effect, upon which he should be inclined to take the sefise of the House :- • , “That the House having considered the various cir cumstances, think it right, first to pronounceton the ho- nour of the Duke of Yºrk; and next, what impression the whole of those circumstances has left on their minds.” Mr. Bragge Bathurst said there was a degree of un- fairness in omitting the word “charges” in the resolution, after the right honourable gentleman had used it in his argument. The honourable member urged the advantage of hurthening the House with as few divisions as possible, and said that now the right honourable gentleman's reso- Jution was withdrawn, the House was open to the propo- sition which the honourable member had taken the liberty to state to the House on a former night. - Mr. Rarham' could not bring himself to think that im- mediate degradation and eternal infamy were no punish- ment; and thought it wrong to inflict punishment for an ambiguity, and to pronounce judgment upon an alterna- tive. All that the House had to say was, that the charge of corruption was not proved ; and it was injustice to the Duke of York to deprive him of the votes of those who could go thus far, and no farther. He had rather kill a. man outright, than mercifully inflict a lingering death; he had rather stab him in open day, than insinuate into his body a poisoned dagger. The Duke of York might be innocent of corruption, and yet guilty of misconduct : it was impossible to dismiss the subject without a further. | THE CO M M A N DER IN CHIEF, 789 resolution, and the address would form the subject of a third resolution. It was desirable that there should be an address, in order to relieve the anxiety of his majesty's mind. The honourable member's view of the subject would be better explained by a resolution which he should not propose for the opinion of the House, but merely read as a declaration of his own. It stated first, that there were corrupt practices; secondly, that the Duke of York did not participate in or connive at them ; and thirdly, that he had, however, permitted the undue influence of a connection in itself highly immoral, to the injury of the service and the scandal of the public. Mr. Cartwright said, he thought it of little consequence whether the first resolution was withdrawn or not, but the second was in his opinion extremely material; as it ap- peared to him to be due to common justice to decide the guestion of participation and corruption by a distinct vote. He also thought there was no difference whatever between connivance and corruption, and 'he hoped the House would not consent to separate those two conside- rations. If his Royal Highness connived at corrupt prac- tices, he was guilty of participation to the full extent. Mr. Cartwright had no hesitation in declaring it to be his opinion, that the Duke of York was wholly acquitted of corruption; at the same time he thought an improper in- fluence had been proved to exist, which was highly cen- surable, and rendered it unfit for his Royal Highness to remain in office as Commander-in-chief. With these feelings he should afterwards support the third resolution, proposed to be moved by the right hononourable gentle- man (Mr. Bathurst). Lord W. Russell said, that after the very long discus- sions that had already taken place on this subject, he would hot enter into an examination of the evidence, but confine what he had to say to the first proposition of the right honourable gentleman. Neither that proposition northe amendment of his honourable friend met his approbation. He would be sorry to find it drawn into precedent, that the character of any person, however great and exalted he might be, was to have preference to a consideration of public grievances or even inconveniencies. It might be necessary, perhaps, to pronounce an opinion on the cha- racter of the Duke of York; but the expression of it was not to be a preface to their proceedings. The fair course 790 PROCEED INGS REI, ATIVE TO of proceeding would be first to examine into the abuses charged to have been committed under the sanction of the , T]uke of York; to ascertain whether they did or did not exist; and if the result of that inquiry should prove that they did exist, to follow it up by an address for the re- moval of his Royal Highness. 3 *- Sir H. Montgomery could not help expressing his sur- prize at the consistency of those gentlemen, who wished that the House should pronounce a specific opinion upon the question of aye or no. In an early stage of the pro- ceedings, they objected to pronounce upon the evidence without due inquiry, and now they are called upon to declare the innocence of the party accused. The whole country was ringing with the abuses committed in the de- fº. of which his Royal Highness was at the head. e trusted that these would be inquired into before they came to a specific vote on the Duke of York's guilt or iHITO CenCG. + Sir James Hall.—In the early part of the investigation, such a scene of depravity and knavery was disclosed, and the principal witness betrayed a temper so vindictive, and was guilty of so much contradiction, that I was inclined to expect, that when the charges against the Commander- in-chief were sifted to the bottom, they would be found to be the result of a most base and artful conspiracy against his Royal Highness. - - But when the written evidence appeared the scene changed. It became no longer possible to doubt the truth of many circumstances related by Mrs. Clarke, which when first delivered, had been held, almost universally, as falsehoods. What was then to be thought of those circumstances, the credibility of which depended upon the unconfirmed testimony of this woman, and upon which the essential proofs of actual connivance depended ? • In such a state of things it is not wonderful that men, equally impartial, should form opposite conclusions; for one class of circumstances might produce in the mind of each a bias too strong to be moved by all the rest. This opposite tendency of the facts produced in my mind a state of the most disagreeable perplexity, and induced me, as the investigation was about to close, to move for the production of more letters; for the rejection of this pro- posal, I can blame neither the accusers nor the friends of * THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 7gll the Royal Duke, since both concurred in it; I could not help thinking however that the inquiry had been prema- turely concluded. - I was happy to hear from a high authority in the House (the Master of the Rolls) a doctrine laid down, which tended to illustrate and justify my view, though, as appeared by the sequel of his speech, it did not accord with his own opinion, . That learned and right honour- able gentleman stated it to be a practice of the Roman law that the judge might decline the delivery of an abso- lute verdict of guilty or not guilty; and, by using the £xpression non liquet, might denote that his judgment was suspended, and that further inquiry was necessary. Such is my opinion with regard to the present question, and for that reason I look upon the resolution now pro- posed as an improper one to be put at all ; I think that the honourable gentleman who brought forward the ori- ginal motion, did well in resting the measure he proposed on other grounds, and in keeping clear of the charge of highest criminality. Though I have doubts, as to that charge, I have none as to the minor charges; none as to a degree of blame amply sufficient to render the removal of his Royal High- ness from the command of the army, absolutely necessary. Most of my reasons for forming this opinion have been anticipated in the very able speech made by an honour- able member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wilberforce), particu- larly where he alluded to our foreign relations, and to the yerson who is now opposed to us. I am so well con- winced of the importance of the measure of removal, that I have given my vote in favour of the second amendment roposed by an honourable member (Mr. Bankes) because it concludes with that measure ; though its introduction savours, in my opinion, too much of adulation. I gave my support still more heartily to the original motion, be- cause it contains also that essential measure, laid down in such a manner, as to leave those at liberty to adopt it, who have doubts as to the highest degree of criminality. I shall also yote for the resolution thrown out by another honourable gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) as leading indi- rectly to the same conclusion. - . . . Had the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Perceval) stated in the resolution now before us, that there are no sufficient grounds of criminal charge; I could have agreed 792 Proceep INGS RELATIvr. To with him ; since it would have been thus implied that some grounds did exist. Worded, however, as it is, I must oppose it, and support the amendment of the honour- able baronet (Sir T. Turton) which I consider as its simple negative. r Mr. C. Adams rose, merely for the purpose of explain- ing the grounds on which he had voted. It was with the greatest regret that he felt himself obliged to give a vote against any branch of the royal family ; but an imperious sense of duty compelled him to declare, that he thought enough had been proved at the bar to justify the original address. Mr. Lockhart said, that not having an opportunity before of stating his opinion, he would claim the indul- gence of the House for one moment. Upon a careful review of the evidence, he would conscientiously declare, that the charges of corruption, criminal participation, or connivance, were not sufficiently made out. w Sir W. Curtis wished to explain the grounds upon which he had given his vote. He had carefully examined the evidence, and he could find nothing in it to justify him in laying his hand upon his heart, and saying, that the Duke of York was guilty of corruption or conni- vance. He thought the House was bound to come to a specific resolution of aye or no. Colonel Wood said that there seemed a disposition in some gentlemen at the other side of the House to acquit the Duke of York of corruption or connivance, and yet to fix him with other charges for which they could find no name. The honourable member proceeded to remark upon the evidence of Mrs. Clarke, but the House mani. festing much impatience, he sat down, declaring that he agreed in the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exche- Ilêr. - Mr. M. Fitzgerald hoped, from the complicated na- ture of the questions, that the House would indulge him in explaining the vote he should give. On the preceding debate, he voted for both the addresses, though he was decidedly of opinion that resolutions were preferable. He did so, because although there might be parts in these addresses that were objectionable, yet on the whole they were to be preferred to what he knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would substitute in their place if they were rejected. In whatever vote he had given or should THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 793 give on this subject, he was and would be actuated by a Čonscientious sense of duty. He had not the honour of being known in any way to any branch of the royal family; but there was no person in the House who could feel less satisfaction in the degradation of any branch of that family. He did not think the House should be called upon to pronounce a specific opinion ; but if they were, He hoped a distinction would be made between the dif- ferent parts of the accusation." He objected to an address, because, after having instituted an inquiry, he conceived it would be more worthy the dignity of the House to come to a specific resolution. . In voting an address, they were calling upon the aid of the crown, for that which they could do of their own authority. He wished also to spare the feelings of the Sovereign upon such a subject. Still he could not help considering an address, with all these disadvantages, as preferable to the resolution proposed. He lamented that the examination of evidence should havé deviated into the wild and irregular course it had done; that the whole of the private life of the Duke of York should be brought before the House. This was not matter of state crime, but of state scandal, and was calcu- lated to make a most dangerous impression on the public. He was surprized at the course pursued by ministers. He was astonished they did not prefer at first to meet the ori- ginal address by a direct negative. Mr. Cartwright explained. General Ferguson observed, that after the able speech they had heard, and the many others they might expect, it might appear presumptuous in him to offer himself to the House. But he stood in a peculiar situation. He had the misfortune to differ in opinion with all the mili- tary officers in that House on this important question, and he was anxious, therefore, to explain the grounds of his opinion. He fully agreed in the praises that were be- stowed on the Duke of York, as the head of the military department. He would offer his tribute of acknowledg- ment for the many important services he had rendered to the army. He felt also grateful to him for many per- sonal favours and kindnesses; and it was with deep re- luctance, that he found himself compelled to concur in a vote of censure on the conduct of his Royal Highness. But, on questions of such vital importance to the well- being of the state, every private feeling must give way. 794 \ PROC EEDINGS RELATIVE TO He would do his duty to his constituents, whatever pain he might feel in the discharge of that duty. He would say one word as to the evidence. After the most careful perusal of it, after considering it with all the attention of which he was capable, the result was a perfect conviction upon his mind, that the Duke of York was extremely culpable. Until the cloud under which he was should be dispersed, he thought the Commander-in-chief would not hold his situation with credit to himself, or satisfaction to the people. Lord H. Petty complimented the gallant officer who had just sat down, for the manly manner in which he de- clared his sentiments. The motion made by the right honourable member appeared to him to be not only un- necessary, but extremely objectionable. The question was, whether, the motion should be withdrawn or nega- tived. He could not consent to put the special circum- stances of this case upon the records of the House. In official characters the House were not to look to any thing but official duties. They were not to be influenced by personal considerations. If royal personages will as- sume official situations, they must be responsible for the discharge of the duties incidental thereto. He had no ob- jection, however, that the motion should be withdrawn, though he was of opinion that it would be better it should be negatived. He trusted that it would not be again of. fered to the House in any shape, whether amended or not. An Hon. General said, that if the army were to lose the Commander-in-chief, they would lose the man who stood between the unprotected officer and the great political and parliamentary interest, which, under other commanders- in-chief, controuled and disposed of all military promo- tions. He could recollect what the army was under Ge- neral Conway, and he had witnessed the benefits derived from the system introduced by the Duke of York. The Chancellor of the Erchequer said, that by what had fallen from the noble lord and from his right honour- able friend Mr. Tierney, (he begged pardon for having slipped into his old habits and addressing him by so fa- miliar a name,) he understood that there was no objection that this motion should be withdrawn. He certainly did not wish to have it negatived, when he could arrive at the same object by having it withdrawn. The question was then put from the chair, and leave was given for withdrawing the motion. THE COMMAN DEIR IN CHIEF. 79.5 The Chancellor of the Erchequer proceeded. . In the place of the resolution that was withdrawn he had now to propose a resolution on the guilt or innocence of the royal personage.” The subject had already been so fully dis- cussed, that he would not take up the time of the House by observing upon any part of it. [The honourable member here read the rsolution he meant to propose. It briefly recited the proceedings on the charges, and con- cluded with stating, that there was no grounds for charg- ing his Royal Highness with corruption or connivance in any of the infamous practices alluded to in the charges.] That is, said the right honourable gentleman, that there are no facts proved against the Duke of York. He thought it necessary that the House should colne to a dis- tinct opinion on the charges of corruption and connivance. It would not be doing justice to his Royal Highness to dismiss him with a general verdict of acquittal. The specific crimes of which he was accused must be pro- nounced upon. When they had disposed of the charges of corruption and connivance, other matters would re- main behind fitting for the House to take up, and make the subject of an address. He had no intention to entrap the House. They were only called upon to give their opinion upon the charges of corruption and connivance, which they might fairly do without the least danger of being involved in the necessity of adopting the latter part of his resolution, the object of which was, he would frankly confess, to afford the grounds of an address for continu- ing the Duke of York in the command of the army. When that part of the resolution was proposed, it would be competent for any member to move an amendment, which would do away the effect he proposed from it. Mr. Lyttleton hoped that the House would allow him to state the consitutional doctrine respecting its proceed- ings, which was to be found in the records of parliament. He agreed that the House could not pronounce sentence. Upon reference to precedent that took place in the begin- ning of Charles I. (and it would be well for the ministers and the House to consider the occurrences of that un- happy period), he found the authority of the House, ac- curately defined, in the second year of that prince’s reign, that the House was not competent to give defini- tive judgment, but that its privileges only extended to inquiry and presentation. In this definition of its 796 ProC E EDINGS RELATIVE TO authority he fully agreed. With respect to the question, whether they ought to proceed by address or resolution, he would prefer the former, as more respectful to the feelings of the sovereign, and more effective for the gene- ral purpose. He coincided in the sentiments that had been expressed, respecting the character of princes—that their character was public property; that it was the cha- racter of the nation. True, it was so. The glory which they acquired reflected upon us; but whenever they dis- honoured themselves, did not their disgrace redound upon us also Such must be the feeling of every man, with a drop of British blood in his veins. Thinking thus, he would rather have been spared the necessity of making the declaration he would now make. It was this, that the charges against the Duke of York were fully proved,— proved not perhaps in strictness of law ; but sufficiently proved to satisfy the conscience and understanding of any plain, honourable man. The evidence, if not as good as could be wished—if not the very best, was yet the best that the nature of the transactions would admit. It was besides corroborated by other evidence, and by evidence of that kind, which next to the confession of the person accused, wººs reckoned the best evidence: he meant the writing of the Duke of York. To that evidence the could hot reſuse his assent. Combining all its parts—seeing how they supported and confirmed each other, it carried complete conyiction to his mind. . It was objected that the evidence of many persons heard at the bar was not en- titled to credit. It might be so. But were there not per- sons heard whose cwidence was entited to credit; and did not these corroborate the testimony of those of suspicious characters ? But why not credit their evidence : Some of these persons ruined themselves by their evidence. They had no interest in coming forward ; quite the con- trary. Prevarication was not an objection to evidence. In opposition to this evidence, sufficient in his opi- mion to establish every one of the charges, there was nothing but inference, hypothesis, and assertion. Against these they had hypothesis and assertion to oppose; and they had something better—written documents admitting important facts. As to the merits of the Duke of York as Commander-in-chief, he was not disposed to deny them, or to withhold his tribute of praise for the services which he was stated to haye rendered the army; but mere evidence THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 797 to character was good for nothing, except in mitigation of punishment. He could not help noticing the subdued tone in which gentlemen at the other side now spoke of the motive which induced his honourable friend to bring forward these charges. When the subject was first mentioned, they endeavoured to raise a cry of jacobinism. . By this cry they hoped to pervert the feelings of the country, and prejudge the question. They were disap- pointed in this expectation. They shewed little judg- ment in attempting to revive this mad cry. The great maagician who first raised it possessed commanding powers, and was able to give it effect, and keep it up ; but per- séns who were not endowed with such great talents, were not competent to so mighty a work. No successor to this Prospero, no inferior magician, should attempt so dan- gerous a spell. He felt himself in some measure taunted into the vote he should give on this question. The ho- nourable members on the other side flung down the gauntlet and absolutely defied him into a declaration of his opinion. They went the length of saying, that what he did, he did in compliance with popular opinion. He had a better opinion of his majesty's ministers than to suppose they were unanimous in their opinion on this point. He did not coincide in the opinion that the moment a member of that House became a servant of the crown. he became un- worthy of credit. With the leave of the House, he would draw another precedent from former times. He should quote nothing that did not appear on their journals. . In 1680 two resolutions were passed by that House. The first ordered that a list of the monies or pensions paid to mem- bers of that House out of the fund appropriated to secret services should be laid before the House. The second provided that no member of that House should accept any place under the crown, without the previous consent of the House, and that if lie should so offend, he should be expelled. Now he would not go the whole length of these resolutions, though he was prepared to say that there was much in them which he would wish to see adopted. He felt somewhat of the spirit of those times, and as far as parliament might be pensioned, its decision would not have much weight with him. He would not be terrified from stating these things by the fear of incur- ring the rebuke of a right honourable scCretary (Mr. Can- ning) whom he did not see in his place. He was not to 798 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO be deterred from expressing his sentiments by the state- ment of some obscure anecdotes, by the apprehension of that severity, which, if exercised, would be exercised with the grace peculiar to that gentleman. This was a kind of warfare in which he was not worthy to engage with a gentleman respecting whose ancestors no trace could be found either in historical facts or traditional anecdotes. (A laugh, and hear, hear ! from the oppo- sition benches.) He thought it necessary to say thus much on this tender subject, for he was sufficiently aware of the right honourable gentleman's disposition and powers, not to take measures of proper prudence for his self-defence. With respect to the propriety of the present investigation Ile contended that common fame was sufficient ground for proceeding in that House. He could quote several in- stances in which it had been so declared, and in which such declaration had been acted upon. IHe said, if in- quiries had been instituted even on the grounds of com- mon fame, surely no blame could attach to the honourable mover for having instituted this inquiry on the founda- tion which he had. He knew of the tumult which this inquiry had excited in the public mind. He hoped such an inquiry would not be instituted only to tend to the hu- miliation of the House; it would be a sad calamity, wean- ing the minds of the people from their representatives, the consequences of which he feared would be tremendous. These consequences might occur when a suppression of them would be impossible. It was far from his wish un- necessarily to condemn the Duke of York : could it be possible to send forth his name unsullied to the public, he would rejoice in it; he would even, to obtain such an end, vote against his conscience. But that was now im- possible—the proofs were before the public, and the pub- fic would judge of them, no matter what would be the decision of that House. (Hear, hear!) He had always wished for the removal of the Commander-in-chief in the mildest way possible; but now, since this inquiry had been suffered to proceed as it had done, he hoped the House would not add their humiliation to his disgrace. If this did prove to be the case, he trembled at the result —he knew the people would sink into gloomy and sullen despondency—they would have no confidence in their representatives—they would say, “ these are men whom we cannot trust—men, whom ministerial influence can in- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 795. duce to varnish over any job.” They would begin to ask themselves what security they could have against op- pression when protected by such men; and this, perhaps, would be their mildest expostulation ; they might have recourse to other means, which, he hoped to God they would never be induced or compelled to adopt. He hoped, however, these melancholy anticipations were groundless, and that a British House of Commons would prove itself worthy the epithet applied to the celestial font of Justice—that it “ was no respecter of persons.” (Hear, hear, hear!) 4. - Sir Thomas Turton declared it as his opinion, that the people believed the House was doing nothing, and meant to do nothing ; at the same time, however, he was sure that the coolly-judging part of the community would be content with their decision, if they thought it was given from their conviction. Thinking thus, he would act con- scientiously, and he now declared before God and his country, in the most unequivocal and solemn manner, that he believed the Duke of York had a knowledge of the corrupt practices which had been disclosed at the bar. This was no time for concealment. He did not wish by his vote to restrict others; let any man who thinks differently in his heart vote differently, and let him look for his own approbation in his closet, and in the hour of his dissolution. He now considered it his dut to move an amendment, which did not go to charge the Duke of York personally with corruption, but with a knowledge that such corruption had existed. He then moved, as an amendment to the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “ that this House has grounds for believing that his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief had knowledge of the corrupt transactions of which evidence has been given at the bar.” Mr. Brand seconded the amendment. Mr. H. Browne next rose, but it was impossible to collect his sentiments from the continual coughing in the House. * Mr. Herbert was of opinion that no evidence of corrup- tion had been proved against the Commander-in-chief; but at the same time could not go the length of saying that there were no grounds for the present inquiry. Mr. Brand said, he had intended to have gone at some length into the evidence ; but since he saw the evident 800. Proceedings RELATrve roº disposition of the House to come to the question, he would: content himself by merely stating the general grounds on which he would give his vote—a vote which he gave with as much solemnity as if he had been bound by the so- Iemnity of an oath. He was now brought to the last stage of the business; he was compelled to come to a distinct vote of aye or no—guilty or not guilty, and he was sorry for it, but he would do his duty. Much had been said against the credibility of Mrs. Clarke because she was an accomplice ; but he would ask in the presence of so many legal gentlemen, who could correctly answer, “ was she not a witness on whom much greater reliancé ought to be placed than on a king's evidence 2 (Hear, hear!) Did she come to the bar covered over with such morah turpitude as he—he who could be subject to indictment, if he did not give an acceptable testimony The passion of revenge might be strong, but who could ever put it in comparison with that of self-existence, by which the king's evidence was actuated 2 (Hear, hear !) Much had been said of the bias with which she gave her testimony; much of the motives which induced it, much of the con- tradictions which appeared in it ; he would, however, say, that he knew it to be the opinion of the bar in general, that Mrs. Clarke was a strong and conclusive witness. (IHear, hear 1) He, did he choose it, could shew an in- stance where the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who now objected to Mrs. Clarke's evidence, had strongly pressed for conviction on the sole uncorroborated tes- iimony of a king's evidence. Objections had also been taken to the testimony of Miss Taylor; he would not now advert to her general conduct, but to the idea which went to set aside her testimony, because it was merely the tes- timony of words. It should, however, be considered that she was only a corroborative witness of facts which were already before them in evidence. (Hear, hear !) But still in the courts of law an evidence of words was not re- jected; in a very notorious case, that of the murder of Steele, there a conviction took place, not only on an evi- dence of words but on the evidence of an accomplice also. This was a case exactly in point; a case where the wit- ness was an accomplice, a murderer, a mere testimony of words, and these not corroborated. Here the testimony was that of an accomplice, backed by a good witness, of words which were corroborated. (Hear, hear!) If THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 80] then it is said there are no grounds for entertaining this sºccusation, it exactly militates against every decision in the courts of law; it goes to say, that every verdict is unjust, and every execution a murder . He had heard the popular feelings were high on this occasion, and he believed it; he was led to believe it from the habits of the people; they were nurtured in strong and exalted no- tions of freedom; they were also exercised in discriminat- ing ; the trial by jury was to them a practical lesson by which they were taught to judge of the present ver- dict. (Hear, hear!) He would much rather have been allowed to meet the original resolution with a direct nega- tive, but since the amendment had been proposed, how- eyer painful a duty it was to him, he would support it. He thanked the House sincerely for the indulgence with which they had honoured him, and hoped he had not abused it. (Hear, hear !) Mr. M. Sutton combated the comparison between the jurisdiction of the House and that of the courts of law. They should take care that no character was blasted by a loose testimony, but still all testimony at the bar must necessarily be loose : a greater latitude of evidence then of course must be allowed, and the scrutiny should be proportioned to such latitude. He believed the eyes of the people were upon them, but he also believed that the public would adopt their decision if it was distinct. Mr. Dickinson, when he gave his vote, disclaimed be- ing influenced by popular opinion; and gave an instance where be, though representing a very large body, voted against their wishes, and yet was placed on the ensuing election high above his competitors. r Mr. Fuller rose and said, it was not his intention at so very late an hour to trespass much on the attention of the House, but he thought it his duty to address them be- cause he had been badgered by letters and abuse, and such sort of things. (Hear, hear! and loud, laughter.) I tell you, Sir, (said Mr. F.) I have even been called a black-hearted fellow, but I’ll do my duty. (Order, order!) People talk very much now of popular cla- mour; but I remember when this case was bad enough in the beginning, not a man on the opposite side al- most but denied he had any thing to do with it. They all staid behind until they º the popular clamour ex- 3 302 PRoceepſngs REI, Ativ E to cited, and then they came forward.—(Loud cries of order 1) I tell you it is a fact. Why, one man to whom I at first said it was a bad case, very near knocked me down. (Loud laughter.) Zounds, Sir, said he, what! do you think I have any thing to do with it? I am of opinion we ought to acquit the Duke of York. He is a great mi- litary character: he has carried our arms into all the rest of the world, and under him the army has flourished. Will you then hunt him into the world with an harpoon stuck in his back 2 (Much laughter.) An honourable baronet opposite has talked of “ śio." hope he did not mean a dissolution of Parliament. Indeed I’m inclined to think he meant another kind of dissolution, from an honourable member whom he seemed to have in his eye. But, Sir, if he did mean a dissolution even of parliament, I trust in God I shall be returned (loud laugh- ing) for doing my duty—[Hear, hear !] I have said, sir, I have been annoyed by letters—it ought to be made a misdemeanour. He who does not like England, d-n him, let him die. [On this last expression much confusion took place in the House, and it was followed by loud cries of Order, order t. Chair, chair ºl Mr. Fuller said he had heard the expression given as a toast, and did not think it was disorderly ; at all events, he did not mean it to be so.- Hear, hear, hear !] He voted against the amendment. - Lord A. Hamilton spoke, but we could not ascertain his sentiments, from the noise in the gallery. f Lord Morpeth gave a decided negative to the amend- ment, as he was of opinion that the charge of corruption had not been made out. - Mr. Portman expressed his opinion, that after the maturest and most diligent examination of the evidence F. to the House against his Royal Highness the Puke of York, he must give his decided negative to the motion of the right honourable the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer. . And that, however deeply he regretted the unfavourable issue of this painful investigation, he could safely lay his hand upon his heart, and say, that he gave his vote from the most absolute conviction of his mind. The honourable member concluded with these words, I conjure the House to present a firm, dignified, and temperate address to his majesty, convinced in my own mind, that the injured feelings of the House and the THE COM M ANDER IN CHIE f. 803 country can only be satisfied by the removal of the Duke of York from his situation of Commander-in-chief. Mr. Tracey expressed his regret that any misrepresen- tation had gone abroad, that this inquiry was not levelled against the Duke of York, but the family on the throné. He thought the honourable mover of it déserved the thanks both of the House and the country. (Hear, hear!) From the letters which had appeared, and from the information which Colonel Gordon had given to the Duke of York, he must have known that Mrs. Clarke did not act as she did gratuitously. He would, therefore, vote the Duke guilty of these corrupt practices, as alledged in the amendment. Mr. Bankes assured the House, that he would trespass but shortly upon its patience, and if he had not felt that the proposition of the honourable baronet had placed the House in a situation of great embarrassment, he should have foreborne to offer himself on the present occasion to its attention. The worthy baronet, instead of proceeding . to give a direct negative to the resolution of the Chancel- lor of the Exchequer, consistently with the tenor of his arguments, had, on the contrary, pursued a course which precluded those who agreed in a part of the original reso- lution, and differed from a part of it, from voting ac- cording to their conviction. He had to complain, there- fore, that the amendment of the worthy baronet had laced gentlemen who thought as he did, in situations of such difficulty and distress, that they knew not how to vote. (A laugh.) There was nothing ridiculous in the observation. The hon, baronet disapproving of the resolu- tion which stated that there was no ground to charge cor- ruption upon the Duke of York, ought, to be consistent with himself, to have given it a negative; but instead of that, he proposed as an amendment the direct contrary re- solution. Let the House but reflect in what a situation it *would be placed by this proceeding. If they should ne- gative the amendment of the worthy baronet, they would be necessarily obliged to affirm the original motion. (No, no, no!) He insisted that such would be the case; and to shew that he had not made the assertion lightly, appealed to the cháir, whether on mentioning his doubt to the Speaker, he had not his authority for the statement he had made. The amendment of the worthy baronet went to fix the Duke of Yº: yith both corruption and ** 804 PROCE EDINGS RELATIVE TO connivance; and considering the different opinions which were entertained on this subject, he must say the incon- venience of such an amendment was extreme. He had clearly understood his right honourable friend to mean by his statement this night, but still more clearly by what he had said on a former night, that nothing further was to be done judicially or criminally by the House. But though the House was not to adopt any further judicial measures, nor to follow up the business criminally, by bringing the party to a trial, did it follow that no other proceeding was to be adopted For himself, he could not go the length of voting, that some sort of connivance, or at least a violent suspicion of the practices which were going on, was not chargeable on the B. of York. The main objection which had been urged against this pro- position on a former night was, that it was complex and ambiguous, at a time when it was argued by his right honourable friend, that the House was bound to come to a simple decision. His right honourable friend, however, had in his resolution that night transgressed his own rule, and offered to the House a complex proposition. Frt the first part of that proposition he concurred, but he differed as to the second. He had heard his right honourable friend state, that he considered the smallest degree of con- nivance at corrupt practices and corruption to be the same. If so, then why had he made use of two words, which, in his apprehension, meant the same thing : (Hear, hear, hear!) Of corruption, and corrupt par- ticipation, he was ready to acquit the Duke of York; and it had been his intention, if not precluded by the course *pursued by the honourable baronet, to move an amend- ment to his right honourable friend's resolution, to omit the word connivance, for the purpose of proposing after- wards another resolution, stating that his Royal Highness was guilty of that sort of connivance which the evidence established. It was necessary that the House should know what vote it was to come to. There were two distinct parts in the resolution of his right honourable friend, ac- cording to common sense and sound logic. It must be obvious that there was a great difference between con- mivance and a participation in corruption. Connivance was defined by a great authority to be concealed or dis- sembled knowledge, which could not be the same as cor- ¥uption, and consequently both were confounded in the THE COMM A Ni).ER IN CHIEF. 895 resolution. He believed his right honourable friend to have been sincere, when he declared that the lowest species of connivance was as high an offence as any degree of personal corruption ; but he must observe how dangerous such a confusion of moral distinctions, such an undistin- guishing estimate of the degrees of moral turpitude, would be to the interests of the community. Was not, he would ask, personal corruption a much more heinous and dangerous offence than that species of connivance, which amounted only to a dissembled knowledge of a corrupt practice that was going on 2 . It was material for gentlemen, particularly his hon. friend (Mr. Bathurst) who could not admit that corruption, and that species of connivance were the same—it was material for them to con- sider whether, by their adopting large, comprehensive and covering words, if they should afterwards wish to carry up some vote of censure to the throne, they were not sapping their own foundation, and taking away the very ground upon which they stood 2 If they should acquit the Duke of York of all corruption and connivance at-corruption, they would be procluded from following up that acquit- tal by any resolution of censure. (Loud cries of Question, question Withdraw, withdraw 1) It had been imputed to him on a former night, that he practised a parliamen- tary manoeuvre; but that charge would, with more pro- priety, be applied to the proposition of his right honour- able friend. It appeared that his right honourable friend persevered in the conclusion of the proceeding which he had stated in his first able speech upon the subject, and that he was disposed not to follow up the proceeding by any measure upon what he called the moral part of the question. That part of the subject he had taken care to have introduced in the manner in which alone it,ought to have been mentioned, in the amended address...which he. had submitted to the House.—(Cries of Question, ques- :tion () . The bare immorality of the case was nºt a ground for Parliament to proceed upon. They'possessed, in this opinion, considerable censorial powers; but notwithstand- ling that powers of that particular description belonge to Parliament, it was not bound, to actiupon them, unless some political consequence was to have resulted from the immorality...to which spgh powers might, be applied. It did not appear that any inconvenience in the discharge of the official duties of the Ruke of York's department 806 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE To had resulted from the immoral connection which he had formed, though some of the appointments which had been solicited by his mistress had unquestionably been ob- tained. (A general cry of Question, question Withdraw, withdraw 1) If the resolution should be agreed to, there would remain no case upon which to address the throne; and in order that gentlemen who approved of one part of it and could not vote for the other, might have an op- portunity of moving their separation by an amendment, he put it to the worthy baronet, whether it would not be desirable for him to withdraw his amendment; but if the honourable baronet should still press his amendment, he should certainly vote against it. (Loud cries of Question, question () Sir Thomas Turton observed, that it was impossible for ihe House to hear him at all (he was extremely hoarse), unless it should be perfectly silent. The arguments of the honourable gentleman who put it to him to withdraw his amendment, had been directed against the complex nature of the original proposition. , Not one of his obser- vations applied to his motion, and, therefore, he could not consent to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Hibbert (amidst loud and general calls for the question), expressed his concurrence in the opinion that #. connivance was not equally blameable with actual corruption (here the uproar for the question was so gene- ral and loud, as to drown the voice of the honourable mem- ber, who sat down in consequence.) Lord H. Petty rose, in consequence of the manner in which the last speaker had been treated, to call the House of Commons to order. From the palpable indisposition which the House manifested to discharge its duty that night, he thought it would be useless to continue the discussion, and therefore moved that the House do now adjourn. - - - Upon the question being put that the House do adjourn, 3 The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his hope that the House would not concur in the motion of the noble lord, though at the same time, after the protracted debates that had taken place, it was not surprising if some degree of impatience had been shewn to come to a decision. - The Speaker observed, that it would become the House THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 807 to consult its own dignity, by a more decorous attention to the business under consideration. The Chancellor of the Earchequer continued. He trusted, that after the ability with which the debate had been hitherto conducted, the House would not, at its close, shew to the country and to the world that it would not persevere in the same temper which had been up to that moment observed in the discussion. The ques- tion then before the House was the most important, though not the whole of the case; but unless the House should entertain it with patience, they would not get out of the business with the same credit to which their past proceedings were entitled. The motion of the noble lord had not arisen from any wish to interrupt the discussion, but had been forced upon him by the impatience of the House ; he should not therefore propose to negative that motion, as he hoped the noble lord would withdraw it, and then he trusted that the House would pay that atten- tion to the sentiments of gentlemen, which the importance of the subject merited. g Lord Henry Petty had no objection to withdraw his motion, if the House was disposed to attend with temper to the discussion. - Mr. Whitbread meant not to object to the withdrawing of the noble lord’s motion, but to urge to the House the propriety, from personal consideration for the Speaker, of abstaining from any course by which the fatigues to which he was subjected might be increased. • The motion of the adjournment was withdrawn; and Mr. Hibbert again rose and stated, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House, that if his resolu- tion should be carried, they might vote either for the removal of the Duke of York, or for his continuance in office. Now, he would ask, whether, if the House should vote that the Duke of York was not guilty of corruption, or of participation in corruption, or of connivance at cor- ruption, it would be open to the House to vote for the removal of his Royal Highness He hoped that the ho- nourable baronet would withdraw his amendment, and meet the resolution of the right honourable gentleman with a direct negative; but if the amendment should be pressed, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. Mr. Ellison, after the exhausted state of the House, felt unwilling to offer himself to its notice; but he 808 proceedINGs RELATIVE To had an important duty to perform, and he should en- deavour to do it in a few words. He was sorry to differ from those with whom he could not agree upon this occa- sion, but he had a bounden duty to perform, and must perform it faithfully. It had been said, that the House could not come to any conclusion, as the evidence had not been taken upon oath ; but he would contend, that the House was bound to form its opinion upon the evi- déºthat had been laid before it. The conviction upon his mind was, that there was no ground for a charge of personal corruption against the Duke of York, though he thought him completely guilty of connivance. He defied any man to lay his hand upon his heart and say, that there was not evidence of this connivance in the course of the proceedings. The testimony may be as little as they might please entitled to credit; but if cor- roborated by little circumstances travelling up step by step, there was not a person in the kingdom who would not think it the best evidence, upon which a man might be convicted and hanged. If the evidence was not to be taken, then they had spent the last six weeks in a most foolish way. It was his opinion that they were bound to take the evidence as it was, and to come to some decision upon it. The argument founded upon an assertion, that the whole proceedings was to be attributed to Jacobins, was a weak one. Such an argument was calculated to do mischief, by exciting what does not exist. It was like “talk of the devil and he will appear.” It was the duty of that House to proceed against great names, if they should be found to have committed great wrongs. He was attached to the throne, and loved his sovereign as a father; but thought that the best way of supporting the throne.'was by calling those to account, whom the people did not wish to pull down because they are princes, but whom the people wished to make act as princes. Having attended diligently to all the proceedings, and maturely weighed all the evidence, the result of the whole was a grave and substantial conviction upon his mind, that his Royal Highness was not guilty of corruption, though he felt it impossible to acquit his Royal Highness of connivance. Mr. Sumner should not vote for the amendment of the honourable baronét, as he was not prepared to go the length of stating, that there were grounds for charging corruption upon his Royal Highfiess. "It had been his ‘th E comm ANDER IN CHIEF. S09 intention, if he could have obtained a hearing earlier, to have proposed as an amendment, to separate the pro- positions of the resolution respecting corruption and con- mivance. The situation in which they were placed was painful, but it would be some mitigation of that pain, if these two points were separated. He should with plea- sure vote for the acquittal of the Duke of York of all personal corruption, though he could not of connivance. He thought that Mrs. Clarke had dealt out to the House many falsehoods, but she had also told them many grave truths; and upon these truths it was, that he could not think that the }. of York was wholly ignorant of the corrupt practices which were passing. * Mr. Wilberforce had but a few words to offer. The honourable baronet appeared to him not to have suffi- ciently attended to what had fallen from his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) relative to the amendment, which he took that opportunity of conjuring him to withdraw. The honourable baronet's amendment was calculated to give the public a false notion of the opinion of the House of Commons. It was unfair—it was cruel to place gen- tlemen, who might by an amendment separate the ori- ginal resolution, so as to be able to vote for the part in which they concurred, and to negative that which they disapproved of. The motion of the honourable baronet placed him and those who thought with him in a very distressing situation, and he therefore conjured him again to withdraw his amendment. Lord Henry Petty thought that it was right for those, who felt it necessary to state the reasons upon which they voted, to do so before the first division. Whatever differences of opinion might exist on other subjects, he was sure there could be in that House but one sentiment of attachment towards the illustrious family upon the throne, upon every principle, every memory, and every hope of liberty hereafter in these realms. It was with extreme anxiety that he dissented from the proposition of the right honourable gentleman; it was painful to him to be compelled to give a negative, where it would be mostgratifying to him to give his support. It was to explain the grounds upon which he was induced to give this negative to the proposition of the right honourable ‘gentleman that he had risen. The proceeding upon the subject under oonsideration had been repeatedly de- 810 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO scribed by the right honourable gentleman and others, but most erroneously as a judicial proceeding. This was an opinion inconsistent with parliamentary usage, and not authorized by the forms, the practice, or the constitution of parliament. It was absolutely impossible for that House to resort to any juridical proceeding, or to bring this question to a juridical decision. If in the opinion he gave he was in error, it was the error of the constitu- tion, which had not supplied the House with the same requisites or the same shackles, as other courts of jus- tice—which had not subjected them to the same con- sequences of a verdict, that it might affect the life or property of a fellow-subject. He had said thus much in order to bring the House to the consideration of this question with the same deliberate, cool, and considerate attention to the matter submitted to them, as belongs to , a judge or a jury. But having said this, he would con- tend that his duty as a member of parliament was not to punish an individual, but to watch over and guard the public safety. In this view, he contended, that the ob- ject of the proceeding then before the House was not to punish the Duke of York, but to save and protect the public from the consequences of the abuses which the Duke of York may have permitted in his department, and which were the subject of inquiry. This was the ground of his negative, because, looking to the whole of the proceedings, and considering the evidence which had been laid before them, he could lay his hand upon his heart and say, that he could not find in that evidence any thing to warrant him in saying that the Duke of York had not connived at the abuses into which the House had been inquiring. As to the character of the evidence, he agreed with his learned friend (Mr. Bur- ton) that it was loose; but loose as it was, it was capable of being sifted as well as any other evidence. That evidence, however, had been so supported, as to entitle it to credit, and he confessed the manner in which it was supported appeared to his mind greatly to strengthen the whole mass; because, in every instance, where it admitted of being supported by documents, it had received that sup- port, and in no one instance had it been contradicted by a document. He had listened with attention to the able and ingenious defence, which had been made by the right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex= The comMANDER IN CHIEF. 811 chequer); and the parts which appeared so ingenious in themselves, when taken together, were contradictory to each other. When the right honourable gentleman com- mented on the note respecting Major Tonyn's case, and argued against the credibility of Miss Taylor's evidence, he shewed his ingenuity in endeavouring to establish the fact of a conspiracy. At first, he did not consider the note of much consequence, and contended that it might have been written by the Duke of York with very in- nocent intentions. But when he wanted to establish the conspiracy, he endeavoured to shew that the note was forged, and by shewing the means that in such an event would be placed within the reach of the conspirators, at the same time that solittle use was made of them, establish- ed in his mind the strongest proof that the note was not forgery. He agreed with his right honourable friend as to the distinction which he took between different degrees of connivance, and was ready to contend, that corruption or deliberate connivance was not the same as blind con- nivance or resisted inquiry. This latter species of con- nivance was not equally criminal, but it was such as to require the removal of any public officer. (Hear, Hear!) Having stated that to be his opinion of connivance, how, he would ask, could he vote for the resolution acquitting his Royal Highness both of personal corruption and con- nivance, when there was not a tittle of evidence that could bear him out as to the latter Those who could pursue a contrary course might be said, in the language of a moral poet, to . -> * Gulp down whole reasons in a lump, And come to short conclusions at a jump.” What would be the situation of the House if they should vote the resolution of the right honourable gentleman 2 Why this—that whilst they had a conviction of his con- nivance at abuses, the highest officer in the state would still continue in his situation. (Hear, hear!) Was it right that his Royal Highness should continue as Com- mander-in-chief, whilst it was proved that such practices had passed before him . If the Duke of York’ever, re- flected atall, which hesineerely believed henever had done, he would have put astop to such corrupt practices. He would never have lent himself to such a case as the recom- mendation of a doctor of divinity from Ireland, or coin- 812 P Roc EED INGS RELATIVE To mitted himself with respect to General Clavering, or Major Tonyn ; the thing was absolutely impossible. He agreed with his right honourable friend, that a blindness and an indisposition to make themselves acquainted with unplea- sant truths were the characteristics of many men in high office. Therefore he should not vote for the resolution. The right honourable gentleman now asserted, that there were no grounds for further proceedings if his resolution should be agreed to ; but if there were no grounds for further pro- ceeding, what was to become of the necessity the House was under, according to his argument, to come to a direct decision, aye or no, guilty or not guilty, unless that the House was only to be allowed to find for the acquittal 2 He was aware that the right honourable gentleman had frequently changed his votes, not that he would impute to him the design of catching thereby a few more votes, but that it had arisen from accidental changes in his opinions. It was impossible for him to vote for the resolution, and it would be improper for the House to vote any words of equivocal or ambiguous meaning. The public expected that they should do their duty fairly and openly, and the House, he was sure, would do itself credit by proving to the public that it performed its duty, plainly, honestly, and uprightly. He could not shut it out from the House, that to vote for the resolution would preclude them from any proceeding which would have the effect of securing the public from the future recurrence of such abuses. The right honourable gentleman, no doubt, might say, that there was another head, that of improper influence, under which a resolution of censure might afterwards be brought forward; but no such thing had been proposed by the right honourable gentleman. But if the right honourable gentleman did not think that his Royal Highness had been guilty of corruption or connivance, the proceeding he proposed was one of the most unjust description towards his Royal Highness. After the House of Commons de- clared that his Royal Highness was not guilty of corrup- tion, of participation, of connivance, or improper in- fluence, the proceeding of the right honourable gentle- man was to go on to brand his Royal Highness for a crime, of which that House could have no cognizance, unless it was connected with some official delinquency. He had voted for the amendment of the honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes), on a former night, because this, circum- THE CO M M A N DER IN CHIEF. $13 stance had been introduced into it in the only way in which it ought to be introduced. But he would never consent that it should be introduced in any other way. With re- gard to the vote he should give, he must say that on the score of corruption there was no ground of charge against his Royal Highness, but he could not express by his vote that there had been no connivance, because it had been clearly proved that an improper influence had been exer- cised. Neither should he vote for the amendment of the honourable baronet. It was but justice, however, to the illustrious person, who was the object of the vote he was to give that night, to state, that from all the information he had been able to collect, the regulations made by the Duke of York had been highly beneficial to the army. The noble lord concluded by declaring, that he should negative the resolution and the amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think the noble lord was well founded in the ironical reproach which he had thrown out against him, for shaping his resolution in such a manner as to catch the greatest number of votes. He had only adopted an alteration in the phrase for the purpose of more clearly expressing his idea. If the noble lord really felt himself in that painful situation that he had mentioned, he would be glad to find that the grounds of his argument had originated entirely from mistake. The noble lord said, that he could find no grounds from the evidence to say that the Duke of York was not guilty. The address, however, did not go the length of saying that his Royal Highness was not guilty, but merely that there was no ground for the House to charge him with guilt. The noble lord had said, that when the resolution stated that there was no ground, he could not avoid supplying a word, and putting the question, whether there was a “sufficient” ground If the noble lord would then so far give him credit as to believe that this was really what he meant by the resolution, it would spare his lordship the pain of voting against it. He hoped that, if the word “sufficient” were supplied, the noble lord would yote in favour of the resolution. As to the word charge, however, he would remind the noble lord that when the word was first mentioned, the whole bench upon which he sat was in an uproar. They then said that nothing could come up to the meaning of the word charge, but such an accusation as might be the subject of an impeachment, or \ 3}4. PRoceedINGs RELATIve to of further proceedings of a criminal nature; he would say; for himself, or in explanation of his own meaning, that when he called upon the House by this resolution to say, not guilty of corruption or criminal connivance, he meant nothing more than to state that there was no ground upon which the House would be justified in convicting him as guilty. He did not meant to express that he was not guilty, but to say that the House could not find him, guilty. In such cases he would refer to an old maxim of law, “ De non apparentibus et non existentibus, eaſlem est ratio.” The noble lord had said, that the passing this resolution would lead to an address to his Majesty to con- tinue the Duke of York in his situation of Commander-in- chief. He would declare, that by this resolution he meant no such thing ; and the House would be perfectly at li- berty to take what other measure they might think proper. This resolution would not at all touch the question which had been started, of the Duke's permitting an undue in- fluence to be used. The noble lord had asked, Can I say, after the cases of Dr. O'Meara and Major Tonyn, that there was no corruption or criminal connivance 2 To this it might easily be answered, that those cases neither proved corruption nor connivance, although in the opinion of some gentlemen they would be considered sufficient to establish the fact of his Royal Highness allowing Mrs. Clarke to use an improper influence. He might allow, that an improper interference had been permitted in the eases of Dr. O'Meara, General Clavering, and Major Tonyn, and yet this (although highly improper) would not go to convict the Duke of either corruption or con- nivance. As to the distinction which had been attempted to be drawn between direct corruption and corrupt con- nivance, he could not admit it. The one was as base and as infamous as the other. If by connivance was meant the definition which was given in the dictionaries of that word, “a voluntary blindness,” this came quite up to the idea of corruption. He, therefore, could not thank the House for an acquittal, on the ground of personal corruption, if they found the Duke guilty of this connivance. Indecd, if either of those crimes were supposed to be worse than the other, he should conceive connivance to be the worst, inasmuch as hypocrisy is one of the most odious vices. If the Duke, under the parade of regulations for the good of the army, was conniving at practices directly contrary THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 845 to the spirit and meaning of these regulations, he would have been guilty not only of corruption, but hypocrisy. He, therefore, should not be satisfied with any acquittal that did not clear him of both these crimes. After the House had cleared his Royal Highness of those charges, which he did hope they would, he begged it might be per- fectly understood, that he considered that it was com- pletely open to them to resolve as they thought proper upon the question of undue influence, or to bring up what- ever address they thought proper to the foot of the throne. He should be very sorry indeed if by any imperfection in his mode of expressing his sentiments on the resolution, he should fail to have his lordship's vote in acquitting his Royal Highness of the base criminality which had been imputed to him. If there was any gentleman in the House who considered his Royal Highness guilty of personal cor- ruption, or connivance at money being taken by Mrs. Clarke for his interest, he could not ask such gentleman for his vote, as it would disgrace him to give it. He would confess, however, that in his opinion, the happiest ter- mination of the case would be, if it terminated in the con- tinuance of the service of his Royal Highness. In the opi- nion of all who acquitted his Royal Highness from the charge of personal corruption, the case which was before the House was a case supported by falsehood, (for personal corruption was what Mrs. Clarke meant to prove). It would then be much to be regretted, if a case supported by falsehood, and avowedly aimed at his destruction, should be crowned with complete success as to its object. He conceived that the resolution would be attended with some inconvenience and mischief, not merely from the private immorality which it would have to notice, but from the great inconvenience that the country must have suffered in consequence of all other business having been post- poned for this long protracted discussion. All those public inconveniencies ought to be traced up to their proper source. The question at present before the House, and which was the only question, was, whether the Duke of York was guilty of personal corruption, or connivance to the corrupt practices of others ? The resolution did not imply a denial of improper influence having been per- mitted. . It did, however, deny the infamy that would be attached to personal corruption or connivance. This was all that it meant to deny, and he hoped it would have the 816 PROCEEbrNG8 R ELATIVE to support of all those who really did not believe the Duke either personally corrupt, or conniving at corruption in others. - $ Mr. Whitbread differed from the right honourable gen- tleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in supposing that direct corruption and connivance were crimes o equal magnitude, or, if any thing, that connivance was the worst, as including hypocrisy. Now it appeared to him, that direct or personal corruption was a crime so base and so mean, that it could never admit of any excuse or palliation; but he could conceive it very possible, that a man under the infatuation and madness that the Duke might be supposed to be from his love to Mrs. Clarke, might connive at very improper things, and yet not be capable of the baseness personally to commit them. In the one case a man's character was retrievable—in the other not. The right honourable gentleman had said that the House was at perfect liberty, whether they ne- gatived this resolution or not, to go up to the throne with an address, grounded upon the idea of an improper in- fluence having been exerted. The House, however, must be aware that the right honourable gentleman only in- tended these resolutions as a step to something further. The right honourable gentleman had informed the House that, in his opinion, the Duke of York was a fit person to command the army. This conclusion was in fact the point to which his resolution tended. He now had asked the House, would they lend themselves as instruments to Mrs. Clarke Mrs. Clarke, however, was not the ac- cuser, but the witness. The accuser was his honourable friend (Colonel Wardle). A right honourable gentle- man had said the other day that his honourable friend was the reluctant instrument of an abandoned junto. As to the situation of a public accuser, he thought that, at the present time, it ought to be cherished as the only means of bringing to light the vices of the great. But as to the abandoned junto, he would ask, of what did it consist It certainly consisted of those instruments of a system of corruption, which it required the firmness and ability of his honourable friend to extract the truth from, and to make them the instruments of good, instead of the instruments of evil. A right honourable friend of his (Mr. Windham), had spoken of the manner in which his honourable friend (Colonel Wardle), had obtained THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 817, those letters on which the charges were grounded, as it was much worse than the charges themselves. It was said, that those letters were obtained from Mrs. Clarke, either by collusion or violence. As to collusion; what object had his honourable friend in colluding with Mrs. Clarket and as to violence, every person could under- stand the difference between absolute force and taking them partly against her will, and partly by her own con- sent. But supposing the words violence or collusion to apply to their full extent, what then It was only get- ting those letters from her, which he might have got another way. Every body would allow, that his ho- nourable friend had a right to do as Mr. Paull had done, throw an article of impeachment upon the table, and then all those letters would have been seized by order of the House. He should therefore declare, that for his own part he should have had no objection to have pos- sessed himself of letters of great importance to the state, in the manner that his honourable friend had done; but he would have great objections indeed to be supposed guilty of any one of the charges against his Royal High- ness the Duke of York. It must be recollected how se- verely Dr. Franklin was arraigned at the bar of that House, for getting possession of letters connected with the salvation and existence of his country, in a way that was not considered regular. Those accusations had long since died away; and Dr. Franklin yet lived, and would live, to the end of time, as one of the best and wisest statesmen. That line which was applied to him would never be forgotten: “Eripuit coelo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis.” It appeared to him that there were irrefragable proofs of corruption in the present case. Here was a man em- ploying his mistress as his agent in negotiating loans through the medium of Mr. Corri, her music-master, jew King, and other persons. This to his mind was strong grounds for presuming corruption. If, however, by the word charge, in the sense in which it was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nothing was meant but such description of charge as would warrant an im- peachment, he would say, that he could see many pru- dential reasons för not wishing to bring the matter to an impeachment, which, at * * time, could have no in- 818 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO fluence in determining his mind as to the conclusion of guilty or not guilty. As for the mere private vices or immoralities of princes, he did not think they should be visited with more severity than those of private men, unless when they went directly to affect the public weal: He did not think the son of our king should be charged upon this account, more than any other man, unless the immorality went directly to produce evil and mischief to the state. The right honourable gentleman had men- tioned how odious a vice that of hypocrisy was. If it was odious in individuals, it was still more odious in go- vernments. Gentlemen were now going to the quarter sessions, where they would hear long discourses gabbled over, about vice and immorality, &c. What could they think of this, if they had strongly in their recollection a much greater degree of immorality unpunished But a right honourable gentleman said it would be most un- just to punish him for immorality by depriving him of his command. All the ministers and their friends stated, that he was a most excellent Commander-in-chief. Now it would be recollected, that when charges were brought in that House against the great Duke of Marlborough, he was immediately suspended from all his employments. And yet the Duke of Marlborough could have had at least as good a military character as the Duke of York. It might have been said of him that he never fought a battle that he did not win, never besieged a town that he did not take, and that all his campaigns were most glo- rious and useful to his country. He thought it necessary now to take notice.of a report which he had heard, and if he was wrong he hoped the gentlemen on the other side would set him right. Upon the subject of the Tuke's resignation, he had heard that it was in con- templation, that a meeting of general officers, over whom a royal Duke was to preside, were to have addressed his Royal Highness, and that they only waited till the pre- sent question was disposed of. As he was not con- tradicted in this statement, he believed it true, and not more true than it was dangerous and unconstitutional. It was extraordinary that officers, who talked so much of the necessity of discipline and obedience in all below them, should themselves interfere with what was above them. A gallant friend of his (General Ferguson) had given his opi- ºnion on the fitness of the Duke of York to remain Com- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, * 819 # - * mander-in-chief, in a manner that came from his heart; and went to the hearts of those who heard him. He could not, however, avoid noticing, that the vote of a piece of plate, in which he had concurred, the votes at Lloyd's, the granting a sword by the city to an officer that was after. wards reprimanded by a court-martial, were all of them things that were improper, as establishing a sort of ima perium in º ; but when general officers came to sit in judgment, on the propriety of the Duke of York remain- ing their ë. he thought this was infini- tely more improper that any thing of the sort which he had heard of. A right honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) had said, of one of his honourable friends, that like Ro- bespierre, he had brought charges for no other offence than “ d’étre soupçonné d'étre suspect.” He should not repeat the answer which had been given to this by a noble friend of his, but he would say, that he thought it strange, that a secretary of George III. should rake up the ashes of George II. to institute any comparison. . He must have recollected, that George II. collected to his councils the best talents that he could find ; that he appointed the illus- trious Chatham to be his minister, and that his whole reign was marked with glory and success. He did not think it an instance of judgment, or good taste, for the right honourable secretary to have introduced the subject. They say if this resolution of the Chancellor of the Exche- quer should not be carried, that his Royal Highness the Duke of York is destroyed for ever. It was in his mind a ridiculous idea ; but if it could possibly be supposed to be the case, it was solely to be attributed to the weakness and misconduct of ministers. They had endeavoured to awe and alarm the House with the talk of a bill of exclusion; and the member for Cambridgeshire had seriously informed the House, that if the measures proposed by his side of the House to adopt either of the addresses which had been moved, should be acceded to by the House, that 900 out of 1000 of the people would be of that opinion, and that a bill of exclusion could not more powerfully operate against the Duke of York than such a proceeding. He thought, however, for his own part, that nothing could be more futile than such an argument. The history of the world in all times past proved the delusion and falsity of the apprehension, and it was not necessary to look fur. ther back into history º §§ that of France, and ié 820 PRoceedings RELATIVE to would be found that in a similar situation Louis XI. had boldly declared, that the monarchy of France could not be disgraced or weakened by the crimes of the Duke of Orleans. So it was fair and rational to infer, that what- ever may at this moment have been the weakness, the folly, or the negligence of the Duke of York, should he here- after come to be king, he should not therefore be sup- posed at all events to be unfit to reign, because that in this particular period of his life he had unfortunately proved himself to be no match for the craft, the subtilty, and the deceitfulness of those with whom he had so closely con- nected himself. Such, however, were the arguments of the defenders and advisers of the Duke of York, and he could not help asking if any such dreadful consequences were likely to ensue, if these were the men who would be able “to ride on the whirlwind and direct the storm 7” (Hear, hear, hear 1) No, no, they had shewn themselves totally inadequate to the occasion, sheuld it ever unfortunately happen, and the House of Commons would and ought te be the only medium which could with effect throw oil upon the waves. An honourable gentleman on the other side of the House had said so, which plainly shewed that many people in the country wanted a democracy, which was the greatest of all tyrannies. What an argument! He had himself received, and he believed many other honour- able members had also received, bushels of anonymous letters; but from those he could not, nor could any one, fairly impute to the people that they wanted a democracy. He verily believed that the utmost they had ever thought of was a reasonable reform of Parliament. If the idea of jacobinism were thrown aside, and reasonable reform agreed to, he had not the smallest doubt but that this would be a day of glory and triumph to the country. The right honourable secretary (Mr. Canning) had talked of landed grandees ; if he meant that as a term of repreach; Mr. Coke, who was not then present, would, he believed, feel proud in its application to himself. But it would seem as " if landed grandees were looked upon by ministers as the highest epithet which could be bestowed on members of that House, by the eagerness with which ministers strove to take them into the other House. He thought Mr. Goke would not change the independent epithet bestowed on him efan independentlanded grandee of that House, and the re- presentative of one of the finest counties in the kingdom; THE COMMANDER IN GHIEF. 821 to the most splendid and dignified title in the power of the crown to bestow. The right honourable secretary had, in the course of the last night's debate, made a most ad- mirable and eloquent speech, but unfortunately he had not even by accident once touched on the question in de- bate. He begged pardon of the House for having detained them so long, but he could not consistently with his duty omit the mention of what he had just stated. He could have wished the honourable baronet would withdraw his amendment; but if he persisted in it, he should certainly give it his vote. The Secretary at War, in answer to what had been said by Mr. Whitbread, relative to a meeting of general offi- cers, said there was a military club, of which he was a member, at which a number of general officers had some evenings since been present, and the conversation having turned on his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief, they might have expressed a wish to address his Royal Highness in one shape or other. He must, however, in- form the House, that one point to be observed was, the address was to have no allusion to the present time, and further, that nothing was to be done in it till the proceed- ings on this inquiry were over. w Sir T. Turton said, he never meant by his motion to glance at an impeachment, nor any thing, but what it plainly and clearly professed, viz. a knowledge of the corruption that had taken place. - General Phipps said, he was a member of the military club which had been alluded to, but he had never heard any thing of their intention to address the Commander- in-chief till that instant. - Mr. Secretary Canning said, he should think himself wanting in duty to himself, and to the country, if he did not agree with the honourable gentleman (Mr. Whit- bread) that if what he had represented respecting a meet- ing of general officers be true, they were extremely in the wrong; and to caution them, that if they wished well to his Royal Highness, they would do well to abstain from all such proceedings in future. . . . . . . The question being loudly and generally called for, a division took place on Sir T. Turton's amendment: Ayes * - - - - - . 135 jº Noes - - - - - - 334 Majority as ºr s 199 822 PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO After the first division, the gallery was continued to be closed against strangers. We understood, however, that the question being put on Mr. Perceval's resolution, Lord Porchester expressed his intention of giving in a negative, on the ground of his being compelled to do so; in consequence of the course of proceeding which ha been adopted, it being his wish to produce another mo- tion in its place. * T - Mr. H. Thornton explained the ground of his vote, (which would also be against Mr. Perceval’s resolution) to be a similar wish to negative that resolution, with a view of substituting another, in which one part of the resolution which should have been negatived would be introduced. He wished gentlemen to understand, that in voting against the resolution of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, they in fact gave themselves the only oppor- tunity which they could have of amending it. They might, by a new resolution, acquit the Duke of personal corruption, and leave out the part which acquitted him of connivance. ſº Mr. Windham expressed himself on the same side. The House divided, for Mr. Perceval's motion 278 - - Against it - - - - 196 - -s Majority - - 82 On the second division, while the members were in the Hobby, Mr. Perceval addressed them as follows:—“Give me leave, gentlemen, to inform you, that after this mo- tion is disposed of, there will be another question on- which you may divide, and I hope, therefore, no gen- tleman will go away.” . - , - $. Strangers were still excluded from the gallery, but we learned that a warm debate took place on the question whether Mr. Bathurst's resolution should be immediately proceeded on. . . . . * 3: .. 4 Mr. Bathurst expressed a wish to postpone it till Monday, on account of the lateness of the hour, and the impatience of the House; and Mr. Perceval urged the adjournment of it. Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Tierney, and others, insisted that the motion of Mr. Bathurst ought at least to be made, and that the House might then adjourn; by which means it would be made manifest on the journals that the House had not come to a conclusion on the general subject. Mr. Perceval, who had already THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 823 moved the order of the day, refused to withdraw his mo- tion, and observed, that as he should propose a call of the House on Monday, it would sufficiently appear that the deliberations on the subject had not come to a con- clusion. Mr. Hutchinson intimated, that a certain event might possibly take place before the House should meet again; and that in that case it would be for ever disgraced, as it might express no further opinion upon the subject. After some further discussion, it was understood that Mr. Bathurst's motion was to have the precedence on Mon- day.—Adjourned till Monday. - Monday, March 20, 1809. The order of the day being moved for taking into further consideration the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Duke of York, The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and said, he took that opportunity of stating a fact which he hoped might induce his right honourable friend (Mr. Bathurst) to forego the motion which he had promised to bring forward that evening. He had to communicate to the House that his Royal Highness the Duke of York had, on Saturday morning, of his own accord, spontaneously waited on his majesty, and resigned the high office, which he had so long held as Commander-in-chief, into his majesty's hands. The motives for his Royal Highness having taken that step at the time he had done appeared to him so proper, that he entertained the most sanguine hopes they would prove sa- tisfactory to the House. The substance of the communi- cation was to the following effect:- - * “That the House of Commons, after a long and full investigation into the conduct of his Royal Highness, as Commander-in-chief, having passed certain resolutions, declaring their conviction of his innocence, and acquitting him of those criminal charges which had been moved against him, he thought he might now tender a resignation of the office he held of Commander-in-chief, without ap- pearing to shrink from those charges, or that he ever en- tertained a doubt of his innocence being fully proved. That the motives which induced him to approach his majesty, who as a kind and indulgent father and gracious sovereign, had conferred on him this high command, in 834 ‘PROCEED INGS RELATIVE TO order to request he would again receive them, were, that having obtained so complete an acquittal of all corrupt motives and of all participation or connivance at cor- ruption, with which he had been charged, he was desirous of giving way to that public sentiment which those charges, however ill founded, had unfortunately drawn on him. That it did not become him to give up a situa- tion, in which his majesty's confidence had placed him, without expressing a hope, that during the period of fourteen years he had had the honour to hold it, his ma- jesty had been convinced that he had done every thing in his power to promote the interests of the service, and to evince his constant regard to the welfare and prosperity of the army.” This communication having been made to his majesty by his Royal Highness, his majesty had been most graciously pleased to accept it. He had then stated it to the House, without any comment of his own, and he left it to his right honourable friend to determine, after having heard it, whether he would think it necessary to proceed with his motion. JMr. Bragge Bathurst said, his right honourable friend, who had just stated a great and important fact, had called on him to say whether he would deem it necessary for to persist in bringing forward his motion. He could assure his right honourable friend and the House, that nothing but the imperious duty he owed to himself as an humble individual, added to the respect he felt for the opinions of many members of that House, who had all along thought with him that something more was necessary than the re- solutions of his right honourable friend, which had already been passed, to shew to the public the sense which that House entertained of such parts of the conduct of his Royal Highness as did not partake either of corruption or connivance, but which they thought, nevertheless, were deserving of censure, would influence him to persist in bringing forward his resolution. With respect to the event itself, no man could feel more sensibly than he did the loss the army and the public would sustain by the re- signation of that illustrious personage—no one more than he would rejoice at seeing him again in that important and exalted station. He thought it would be found that if it came into the hands of a simple commoner, the Treasury, that House, and the public in general, would have every THE COMMAND ER IN CHIEF. 895 reason to regret the consequences that might result from it. If gentlemen would, however, recollect the reasons he had given for the course which he thought it was neces- sary for the House to pursue, they would find that from the commencement the whole charge had met with no op- ponent more determined than he was. He had voted against both the addresses, and it was with extreme regret he saw several gentlemen who went the whole length, and many others who did so with only a shade of difference. He for one (beyond the resolution which he was now to submit to the House), had no idea that the Duke of York would not go out of it with clean hands. The House would recollect why it was he had been led to take the present course. There were two addresses, one of which went to remove his Royal Highness, after declaring him guilty of corruption. His right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then stated to the House the course he meant to pursue. The first of these propositions was to put into the form of resolutions the opinion of the House, absolutely acquitting his Royal Highness from all corrup- tion or connivance, and he further stated that he meant to address his majesty for the purpose of putting his majesty in possession of the opinion of the House, and this without calling on the House to do any thing more. He must, therefore, beg to call to their attention the situation the House was in at the time he took upon him to interfere, which he was the better enabled to do by the private con- fidence which his right honourable friend had reposed in him. He saw that the proceeding of his right honourable friend did not go the length which many honourable members, who thought as he (Mr. Bathurst) did, were of opinion the House ought to go—and yet they could not prevail on themselves to join in either of the addresses. He perceived, therefore, an opportunity of proposing a measure which fully acquitted his Royal Highness of cor- ruption or connivance, and yet went so far as to censure him for certain culpabilities of which they thought he had been guilty. It appeared to be a measure which in itself afforded ground for a substantive question on which he thought the House might come to a resolution by way of admonition and example... 'That being the view in which he had at first taken it, he should state also that he could not but look at what his right honourable friend meant to do fell short of what was due to those parts of the charge 826 - PRocBEDINGS RELATIVE To which had been but too fully proved. It appeared to him that having done away the whole charge of corruption, he was desirous, that under the sanction of the father, the House should pass over all that was done by the son. This was a strong reason with him for wishing to propose a , measure which should operate in a certain degree to con- vey a censure on part of the transactions which had so unfortunately taken place. In doing this, he was un- questionably putting himself in a painful situation ; but feeling that to be the wish of many respectable gentlemen in the House, it did not appear to him that he ought to recede, and not place on the table some record that should shew the sense of the House on those parts of the charges which, though not amounting to corruption or connivance, yet contained so much culpability as the House ought not in their opinion, to pass over in silence. Having taken this up as a course which he thought parliament might well pursue, without having at that time entertained the smallest idea of the resignation of his Royal Highness, he could not admit that such an event having now taken place ought to cause any alteration in the mode of proceeding he thought it best to pursue. ... Having disposed of the moral part of the question, parliament had been called on to give an opinion on the political part, and having come to a determination on the former, he did not see why they should not do the same on the latter. In submitting his resolution, it was not his intention to detain the House by re-stating the arguments which he had used when he first introduced the subject. The only question that could now arise would be, whether, in the evidence laid before the House, there existed grounds for the proposition, which he at that moment submitted to the consideration of the House. He disavowed having aggravated the resolution with any term which did not appear to him to be true. It did not appear to him that he was now called on to state what he might have done when he first offered his proposition to the House; but considering the question of time, it might perhaps make it necessary to go into an argument as to the terms in which it was couched. If there should be any that appeared to be too strong, he would have no objection to modify them. He should therefore at present leave it to the House, whether any expressions in it were too strong. It was his intention only to shew that the House had not left any thing unattended to, that THE COMM ANDER IN CHIEF, Sg'ſ they had acquitted him of all thecriminal part,but had taken up the irregularities which had appeared in the conduct of his Royal Highness. There was on the journals a Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Duke of York—there was a letter of his Royal Highness to the House—and a resolution which declared there was no ground for corruption. If this question should be disposed of by a previous one, nothing would appear to justify the House in passing over the culpabilities which it was evident had been proved in such a manner as to make a strong impression on the public mind. There was nothing on the journals to shew that the Duke of York had resigned, and therefore, notwithstanding the com- munication which had just been made by his right ho- nourable friend, he thought that he was bound to persist in his motion. He might, perhaps, be open to obloquy from some, on the score that he seemed, desirous to follow up with the censure of the House a fallen character; but he declared he was not actuated by any such base motive—he had no such object. He had, indeed, an object, the sub- ject of which had been thought proper by the sound part of the community, who would certainly look for some such proceeding. Many persons thought the House had not gone far enough in adopting the resolutions of his right honourable friend, and he saw no reason why some- thing further should not be the consequence of the inquiry, in a case which lay between the public and the illustrious person who had been the object of it. To explain his in- tention to the House was all he was desirous of doing : hoping he had succeeded in that, he would no longer de- tain them, than by putting his resolution into the hands of the Speaker to be read from the chair. The Speaker then read the resolution, the purport of which was 2– w “That while the House acknowledges the beneficial effects resulting from the services of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, during the time of his being Com- mander-in-chief, they had observed with the deepest regret that, in consequence of a connection most immoral and unbecoming, a pernicious and corrupt influence had been used in respect to military promotions, and such as gave colour to the various reports respecting the knowledge of the Commander-in-chief of these transactions.” Sir W. Curtis seconded the motion." 823 PRoceedINGs RELATIVE To Lord Althorpe said, that the righthonourablegentleman had lamented the loss the public would sustain by the resignation of the Duke of York as Commander-in-chief; but the question was, whether that loss would not be much diminished, by the removal of a person who had lost the confidence of the public, and whose conduct had received so many severe animadversions in the course of the inquiry which had taken place. As to the argument of his rank, when he recollected the delicacy which many persons in that House had thought it necessary to use with regard to His Royal Highness, because he was the king's son, he must own he thought it much better that, in responsible situations, such persons only should be placed as to take away every idea of hesitation, in calling them to the strictest account, whenever their conduct should appear to the House to deserve it. His Royal Highness had, by the resolutions adopted by the House, been declared not guilty of corruption. He, for his own part, did think the Duke of York had been found guilty. He thought however, the question now stood in the way in which it ought, as the House would shew by that might's pro- ceeding, that if his Royal Highness had not resigned, the House would have gone further; but as the ease now stood, they would evince, that by forbearing to go further, they did not wish to push matters to any unnecessary ex- tremity, but would be satisfied with having taken such measures as would prevent the recurrence of similar trans- actions in future. He did not consider the resignation of the Duke of York as a punishment, but as a step taken in consequence of having by his imprudence and irregu- larity lost the confidence of the public. The right ho- mourable gentleman had spoken, as if he seemed to think the Duke of York might hereafter be restored to the high office he had so lately enjoyed. He hoped, however, the Duke of York would never again be permitted to resume that situation. It was his intention to move an amend- ment, and the purport of the resolution he would wish to Propose was— - , “That the Duke of York having resigned, the House did not now think it necessary to proceed further on the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Duke of York, as far as relates to his Royal Highness.” - THE COMMAN ly ER IN GHIEE, * 829 He had purposely put in the word “ now” because he thought the Duke of York ought not at any time here- after to be restored to his late situation as Commander-in- chief, and if he should, the House would resume their pro- ceeding upon the charges. He was convinced it was the opinion of the public, that his Royal Highness ought never to he restored to his late command, and he hoped such a measure would never be attempted. Some allusion had been made to the possibility or probability of his Royal Highness one day or other succeeding to the throne of this kingdom. Should that ever be the case, he hoped that in the present proceedings his Royal Highness would read an useful and memorable lesson, and that his present humiliation might be the means of rendering him a sove- reign who deserved to reign over such a people, and who would choose his servants from those classes of the come munity which would not require either delicacy or diffi- culty to make them responsible while they continued in office; or to remove them from it, whenever it might be deemed necessary. His lordship concluded, by handing his resolution to the chair, which was read to the effect above mentioned. Mr. Cartwright stated, that his intention was to have voted with the right honourable gentleman, who had pro- posed the motion, as he thought the Duke of York culpa- ble, though not corrupt ; and he had on a former night declared it to be his opinion that his Royal Highness had rendered himself unfit to remain in office; now, however, his Royal Highness having resigned, the necessity of the House going further was entirely done away. Resigna- tion was, in his opinion, a sufficient atonement, under the circumstances of the case. He thought his Royal High- ness had acted as he ought, in retiring at the time he did. He could not be expected to do so before; had he re- signed before the opinion of the House was taken upon the important question of corrupt participation, or con- nivance at it, his conduct might have been misinterpreted. . As to the amendment moved by the noble lord, it was, no doubt, extremely consistent with the opinions expressed by his noble colleague(Lord Althorpe), but he differed with him materially. Although he thought it not right for his Royal Highness to continue in office as Commander-in- chief, after the transactions which have been disclosed, he was not disposed to record any thing upon the journals 890 PROCEED INGS RELATIVE TO which could go the length of excluding him for ever. He should therefore oppose both the original motion and the amendment, unless the House would support him in an amendment upon the noble lord’s amendment, to leave out the word “ now.” - ^ The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he should detain the House very shortly on the present question. He felt that, after what had been communicated to the House, enough had becn dome, and it did not become the House to go to further lengths. He therefore preferred the amendment which had been proposed to the original reso- lution, although he could not vote with that amendment unamended. He gave his right honourable friend (Mr. Bathurst) credit for the fairness of his motives; but he could not conceive that the Duke of York would have heard such a censure as his resolution implied, without feeling it his duty to resign: the simple allegation of un- due interference in military promotions could not but have tended to have that effect; and how could this be stated, without charging the Duke of York of that connivance, which the right honourable gentleman had joined with him in denying 2 The noble lord’s amendment was more consistent: he distinctly stated, that a connivance existed; and if he, (the Chaneellor of the Exchequer) could con- cur in that opinion, he should have no objection to concur likewise in the proposition of the noble lord to its fullest extent. But his was not only the conviction of his own mind, but the decision of the House; and could the House, with any degree of reason, adopt the noble lord’s amendment, which stood upon grounds they themselves had negatived : The noble lord conceived it extremely objectionable, that a person of such high rank as the Dukc of York should fill a responsible situation; and argued that, from this circumstance, great difficulties were thrown in the way of the late investigation. If ever there was a period when this complaint was without foundation, it was the present, when the House had been for several weeks examining into the conduct of the Duke of York, without any difficulty, and the right honourable gentle- man could not help saying, without any peculiar delicacy. The objection which the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to the noble lord's amendment was, to the word “ now” in it, the meaning of which he had so candidly explained to the House. With this com- THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 831 ment before him, no honourable member could concur in the noble lord’s amendment—not even he who was of opinion that the Duke had been guilty of connivance or corruption, or who thought a royal Duke, however imma- culate, should be excluded from an office of trust. The right honourable gentleman concluded with saying, that he had given his support to the amendment, in order to get rid of the resolution; but when this was done, he should think himself at liberty to propose a further amend- ment of that amendment. Sir C. Price felt himself justified in the vote he had given, by the evidence before the House, from which he could not impute to the Duke of York corruption or con- nivance at it; but he still thought there was sufficient in that evidence to warrant the motion of the right honourable gentleman, in support of which he spoke. • Lord Folkestene considered it absolutely necessary that some cause should appear on the journals of the House why the present proceedings should cease. If the Duke's letter, which the right honourable gentleman had com- municated, had been addressed to the House, it would have been a different thing; but all the House had heard was a speech, which could not be entered on their jour- mals and commented upon. The noble lord could agree in the amendment of his noble friend, and in no part more cordially than in the word “ now.” It was cer- tainly very unfit that the Duke of York should ever re- turn to his command, after the corruption of which many members had believed him guilty; and if the noble lord agreed to the word for that reason, many might agree to it for other reasons, on account of the Duke's indiscretion, or his loss of the public confidence. The right honour- able Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken an objection to what his noble friend had said upon the subject of the royal family's holding places of trust. The noble speaker felt the position of his noble friend to be perfectly true; and however long the House might have been enquiring into the Duke's conduct, asked whether if he had been any other person than a royal Duke, he would not long ago have been removed from his situation ? The noble lord was glad to find the right honourable gentleman in- tended to support his noble friend's amendment, and then those gentlemen who preferred it, as it originally stood, to the right honourable gentleman's amendment of it, 832 PROC EEDINGS RELATIVE TO would have an opportunity of declaring such opiniori of it. . . . . .* Lord Temple, in consequence of the reports of the pre- sent resignation, which had gone abroad before he entered the House, had made up his mind that no further steps ought to be taken against the Duke of York; nor should he have obtruded himself upon the notice of the House, had it not been for the letter in which that resignation was contained. He should vote for the amendment of his noble friend; and he could not but lament that the right honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the language of the Dukes and that a private letter had been used in support of public conduct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Duke was arrived at that period when the House had declared their conviction of his innocence. The noble lord, feeling however that innocence had been declared on only one point, entered his protest against any construction which might suppose this to have been the case on all points. There was a point as to misconduct in office, still remaining behind, of allowing Mrs. Clarke to interfere in public business; of giving public situations to unworthy persons: on this oint, but for the Duke's resignation, the House would ave come to a decision that night. It would have been better if the Duke had resigned from different views, he should have said, “I bow to the opinion of the country; and after the House of Commons has acquitted me of the charge of corruption, I withdraw, not because I am per- fectly cleared by the latter, but because it is more respect- ful upon the whole to submit to the opinion of the former.” Even voting as the noble lord did, against the charge of corruption in the Duke, these were his sentiments. To the resolution of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) the noble lord could by no means agree: he did not think it should be hinted to his majesty by a side- wind that the Duke ought to resign. If the resolution had been brought forward during the progress of the de- bate, it would not have done enough; and now it did too much. As to the word “ now” in his noble friend's amendment, the noble lord did not see it in the light of the right honourable gentleman's objection; and if he could conscientiously vote for the amendment, taking the word in the sense which it struck him to bear, he had a right to do so. - - - THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 833 The call for the question was then loud and general ; when Mr. Whitbread rose. He could not consent to come to the present question, without speaking his entire approba- tion of the amendment which his noble friend had, in a speech, totally devoid of affectation and full of ability, proposed for the consideration of the House. There were different ways of considering every thing; and some of the gravest things in the world might be considered in a Hudicrous view. If it had not been from the well known gravity of the speaker, he should have thought his right honourable friend (Mr. Bathurst) had been joking, when he stated on a former night that his proposition was such as to facilitate the continuance of the Duke of York in office. His right honourable friend’s resolution acknow- ledged the influence of Mrs. Clarke, and stated that it could not but tend to the Duke's discredit and to give colour and effect to the various reports which had been raised. And this was to facilitate the Duke of York’s continuance in office! The honourable member could not view it in that light; nor, he would venture to say, could one man in the House suppose that the Duke of York could have remained in office a single hour after such a vote. The honourable member objected to another part of his right honourable friend's resolution, that wherein he praised the conduct of the Duke of York while Corn- mander-in-chief. It had not been proved to the honour. able member, that this conduct had been so transcend. ently brilliant. As to the morality of the resolution, this was not a proper time to read the Duke a lecture on that virtue. . Whether the Duke's resignation proceeded from a conviction of his innocence, whether it proceeded from the opinion of the minority of that House, “which we all know,” said the honourable member, “ has, when ex- pressed abstractedly from all party views had the greatest effects both externally and internally,” whether it pro- ceeded from that growing sense of right in the House, which had induced some to find the Duke guilty of conni. vance at corruption, and some of corruption itself, and whether either of those opinions would have declared it improper for him to continue in his office; from what. ever cause it proceeded, the fact was, that he had resigned; and now the honourable member thought the right honour. able gentleman (the clºne ºf the Exchequer), liable 3 840 PROCEED ING's fle LATIVE To to attack for having deserted the purpose he said he should adopt, and for having abandoned the Duke of York to his fate. As it was so especially necessary for the army that the Duke of York should continue his com- mand, why did not the right honourable gentleman, as he said he should do, advise the king not to accept the resignation, which the Duke had, with the magnanimity that was ascribed to him, tendered : Or the king accept- ing it, why did the right honourable gentleman retain his situation?" It was sufficient for the honourable member's purpose, that the Duke of York had resigned. This was all the object he had in view ; and having resigned, he would not inquire into the motives of that resignation. He was satisfied with what had passed, and he had no doubt the country would be so too. The resolution now proposed was somewhat ungenerous: all it wanted was the Duke's resignation, and yet, it could not be satis- fied with that resignation, when it had got it. “We have been beaten,” said the honourable member, “ as to cor- ruption; as to influence, the Duke is out of office now, and influence cannot come to him again ; and as to mo- rality, he is now a private man.” The honourable mem- ber was somewhat surprized to see the vehemence which the two worthy city baromets had manifested to protest against the undue influence which the Duke permitted, though they denied all corruption, and to have a slap at him before it was too late. They came in at the death, and aimed a blow at the carcase when killed, just to say to their constituents, “We did vote for something against the Duke.” (Loud laughing.) “... I trust, however,” said Mr. Whitbread, “their project will be completely foiled.” The honourable member thought the word “ now” es- sentially necessary to the amendment. Of the Duke's exclusion from the throne, it was improper for the House to think for a moment: all that was meant was his exclu- sion from office. The amendment, as it stood, the ho- nourable member could promise, would give the country complete satisfaction; but if it were known that the Duke of York was to be at any time reinstated in his honours— if it were possible he ever could resume them, little or nothing was done to quell the popular opinion which had been so justly raised on the present occasion, and which was too the honourable member's own opinion. The word “ now” was necessary in this view ; and if the THE Coxſyſ ANDER IN CHIEF. 835 honourable member were told that such reinstatement would never take place, he would not preclude himself from saying it might not be so. If the amendment were to be carried without the word “ now,” and in the course of a month this reinstatement were to happen, the House would be considered to have abandoned all their present proceedings, and it would not be allowed them to resume the report of their late Committee. If ever there was a question carried against party purposes, this was the ques- tion. In fact, not one of the parties of which the House. is supposed to consist gave it any countenance or sanction. The right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his friends certainly gave it no assistance. It met with as little support from many of the persons. with whom he had the honour to act. The party of which the honourable mover of the question was a principal took no decided line on the occasion. There was also a fourth party, if he could apply that epithet to a set of gentlemen who were generally seen to act with each other in the House, which did not put itself forward, and yet against all these parties, no less than 125 members were found to vote, that the charges were proved, and that the Duke of York was guilty of corruption. The effect of that vote would be to re-establish the House in the opinion of the country. But it was not only over the parties he had mentioned that this triumph was obtained. There was another party, invisible, indeed, but much more danger- ous and powerful than any he had stated, which would feel the effect of this investigation, and the consequences. by which it was followed. For upwards of forty years the influence of that party was felt in the government. In the course of that time it had upset and created many administrations. It was this party which Lord Chatham, described as something behind the throne that was greater than the throne itself. This was the party alluded to in, that phamphlet called the “Statement,” that was so au. daciously put forth last summer, and which, if his majese ty's law officers did their duty, they would prosecute, #. party was called the king's party, a name foreign to the constitution, not known to it, nor recognized in any principles of it. It was to this party that the right ho- nourable gentleman and his colleagues were supposed to owe the situations they how filled. He trusted that the House and the country wº !” no more of this influ- 836 PROC EED INGS RELATIVE To ence, or of princes plotting to form or overthrow admi- nistrations, and that they who owed their places to its secret operation will be among the first to extinguish and put it down. He would recommend to any prince who was disposed to cherish and support such a party, the advice of Sir W. Temple to Charles II. that he might retain about him five or ten, or as many secret counsellors as he pleased, but that he should only be guided by those who were ostensible, and that any deviation from this principle would lead to the overthrow of the constitution. He could not agree with the right hononrable mover of the question, that this was a proper time to read the Duke of York a lecture on morality. That was a subject on which he had already been pretty well lectured, and on which he required no further lessons. However persons in humble life might be dazzled by the splendor and rank of princes, they were oftener subjects of compassion than envy. Cut off from society, they seldom enjoyed its happiness and comforts. Above all, they rarely felt the advantage of possessing an admonishing friend. There was another thing also in the situation of princes, which should not induce the House to read them lectures of mo- rality. They were often forced by state policy into con- nections in which their hearts were not engaged; in which the affections had no concern. Great allowance was to be made in favour of persons so circumstanced, and an occasional departure from the strictness of mora- lity was not to be visited so severely in them as in persons who were placed in situations where the temptation was not so great, and the excuse less plausible. He had also another reason for addressing the House. He wished again to call their attention to the meeting of general offi- cers to which he alluded on the last debate. He under- stood from the right honourable the Secretary at War, that the proposition for addressing the Duke of York had been put down, and put down by him, almost as soon as it was mentioned. ow he had heard quite a different story. He was informed that that proposition was ground- ed upon a letter written by a general officer, commanding a garrison town : he would state his name—General Sir David Dundas. (Hear, hear, from the opposition benches.) That proposition was read, recommended in a speech from the officer who took the chair at that meeting, and seconded. It was afterwards withdrawn on the opposition THE CO M M ANDER IN CHIEF. 837 of one of the officers who was present. But this was not all. He had reason to suppose that such intentions were entertained in other quarters. He was informed by a per- son whom he met in the street, a bookseller well-known to many members on the other side of the House, that he had been applicd to by a clergymen, to recommend a literary person to correct an address which it was proposed to present to the Duke of York. The purport of this address was to continue his Royal Highness in the com- mand of the army. He told him to go back, and to tell his friends that it was one of the most fatal steps they could take. He was glad that there were military persons in the House to explain this business. He trusted that the notice he had taken of these most unconstitutional designs, and the manner in which that notice was received by all sides of the House, would have the effect of putting a total stop to them. We learned from history, that Caesar once stopped the march of his tumultuous legions by merely pronouncing the word Quiriles ; so he trusted the voice of parliament would arrest any such unconsti- tutional projects as those he mentioned : that those who contemplated them would recollect that they were citizens, as well as soldiers, and that in either capacity it was their duty to listen to the voice of their representatives, and to obey. In the course of these discussions, much had been said respecting the great benefits that were to be derived from having a royal person at the head of the army. Now he happened to have a quite contrary impression on his mind, and he believed such was the general feeling of the country. He believed they agreed with him in thinking that a son of the king should not be at the head of the army. They had heard something in the last de- bate from an honourable General about the Duke of York stepping in between the unprotected officer and parlia- ment. If it was meant to infer from this, that the com- mand of the army would, in any other hands, be the source of corruption and undue influence, that was a doctrine against which he must protest. . He was not one of those who was disposed to admit that every administration must be necessi, iily corrupt. But it was urged as an argument for continuing the Duke of York in office, that He was as liable to have his conduct investigated as any other man. What I could these charges have been made for a week, or even two days against any other man, and $38 PHo CE EDINGS RELATIVE TO he still have retained his situation ? Since the 1st of February, the House had been unceasingly engaged in this business, and what had they gained by it? The voluntary resignation of the Duke of York. The charges which were scouted at first, were at last brought into a “ tangible shape;” into that shape for which some gen- tlemen on the other side affected to thank his honourable friend. But when they found these charges began to pinch pretty closely, they were not quite so liberal of their thanks. When the idea of a vote of thanks to his ho- nourable friend was thrown out, they immediately declared their intention of opposing it. They who were among the thankers, that the charges were brought forward, did not relish the idea of thanking his honourable friend for having prosecuted them to a conclusion so little ex- pected by them. But his honourable friend had no occasion for their thanks. He had the cordial thanks of the independent men who supported him in that House and he believed of nine hundred and ninty-nine in a thousand of those out of it. The Secretary at War said, that respecting the meeting of general officers, on which the honourable member who had just sat down had so much dwelt, he would only repeat the statement he made on a former evening. An address was talked of, but no form of address was read or proposed. . It was merely the subject of a short conversa- tion. So far was he from seconding such a proposition, that he knew nothing of it until the cloh was removed. He gave his opinion that nothing should be done until the investigation was at an end. There were only 13 officers present, very few of whom took any part in the conversa- tion. If he had been asked, on coming out of the room, whether such an address was intended or not, he would have been at a loss to answer the question. Mr. Whitbread said, he understood a paper, the writing of General Dundas, had been read from the chair. He was happy to find, by the statement of the Secretary at War, that it was not so. It would make him more happy if he could learn from him that the idea was wholly abandoned. Mr. Secretary Canning observed, that when he heard for the first time of an intention of addressing the Duke of York, he lost no time in expressing his marked dis- approbation of such an interference of any part of the THE comm ANDER IN chief. 839 army. He did then suppose that the statement was made on some more grave authority than it now appeared to be. If there existed any intention of making such an use of any part of the army, a more culpable design could not be formed. But there seemed to be no foundation for such an apprehension on his part. A, mere conver- sation at a convivial meeting was swelled into an idea so alarming to his mind. If at any future time a design so criminal and unconstitutional should be formed by the army, or any other body, he could assure the honourable gentleman he would give him every support in his power in any measures he might think necessary to counteract such designs. # *.* Mr. Whitbread said, that if any doubt was entertained respecting the accuracy of his information, the best way would be to call the persons to the bar, and investigate the fact. He understood the proposition had been made before dinner, when perhaps the honourable member was not in the room. - The Chancellor of the Ecchequer, in reply to an ob- servation in Mr. Whitbread's speech, said, that the re- signation of the Duke of York was his act alone. He was therefore at a loss to discover upon what grounds the honourable member would say that he had deserted his Royal Highness. t General Loftus confirmed the statement of the Secretary at War. He said, he was assured by an old general officer, who was present at the meeting, that the idea of an address was merely thrown out, and that the conversation on it lasted only for a very short time. Mr. Legh Keck declared himself against the amend- ment proposed by the noble lord, and in favour of the original motion. - Mr. Bathurst replied. He would not consent to with- draw his motion. It did not come by surprize upon the House, but had been almost a week before them. He conceived the House was bound to pronounce upon the minor charge, that of his Royal Highness having permit- ted an improper influence to be exercised over him. The putting his resolution on the journals would be no bar to his Royal Highness's return to office. It did not charge him with corruption or connivance, but went merely to say that he had been indiscreet. He thought it incumbent 840 PRoceedINGs RELATIVE To on the House to mark their sense of this part of the Duke of York's conduct. - The question being loudly called for, strangers were ordered to withdraw. We understood Mr. Bathurst's resolution was negatived without a division. The Chancellor of the Erchequer next moved, that the word “ now” should be left out of Lord Althorpe's amend- ment. After a conversation of some length, from hearing which strangers were excluded, a division took place. Ayes tºº 235 Noes - 112 Majority 123 for leaving out the word “ now.” During the exclusion of strangers from the gallery, we understood that the further consideration of General Cla- vering's testimony was deferred to Thursday; that Lord Folkestone gave notice that he would move for the return of all the letters unconnected with the late inquiry to the persons to whom they belonged, and that he would, on the 17th of April, lay before the House some farther dis- coveries in relation to his Royal Highness the Duke of York.-Adjourned. Thursday, March 23, 1809. Mr. C. W. Wynne said, that as the House had thought proper to drop all proceedings on the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, in consequence of the re- signation of his Royal Highness, he did not think it neces- sary, to pursue any further the notice which he had given relative to the letter written by the Duke to that House. His opinion, that a certain paragraph in the letter in ques- tion was highly unconstitutional, still remained the same; and if the House had determined on any further measure, either by address, or by any prosecution or impeachment, he would unquestionably have persisted in his motion oil that subject. As it had, however, been thought proper by the House to adopt a different course of proceeding, and as he himself had understood that his Royal Highness had been led into the measure by others, contrary to his own better advice, he should in consequence abandon the motion respecting that letter, of which he had given notice. The Chancellor of the Earchequer said, he did not know from whom the honourable and learned gentleman had received the information he had just mentioned, but he THE COMMAN DER IN CHIEF. 84+ assured him that he was ready at any time, and at all times, to meet him on that subject. He had explained sufficiently, when the letter was first objected to, that he was sure his Royal Highness never had the slightest in- tention of addressing any thing to that House which could be deemed unconstitutional, and that no part of it could fairly be construed as such. The honourable and learned gentleman had, therefore, no more reason then to give the notice than he had now to abandon it. He was certainly at liberty to act as he thought proper; but he (Mr. Per- ceval) must repeat, that there was no position, from the be- ginning to the end of that letter, which he was not ready to maintain. Mr. Whitbread said, he maintained the opinion which he had first expressed relative to that letter, viz. that it was highly unconstitutional ; and if his honourable friend had persisted in his motion, he would have supported that doctrine. He had always thought that his Royal High- ness was not the author of that letter; and from the man- ner of the right honourable gentleman, he was persuaded the composition was chiefly his own. He was therefore right in º it was not unconstitutional, as it in all likelihood rested solely on his own head. He should be sorry if what the right honourable gentleman had said should provoke his honourable friend to revive his motion; at the same time he must say, the right honourable gentleman might as well have abstained from throwing down the gantlet at the moment he had chosen ; but if it had been brought before the House, he had no doubt of being able to shew he was well founded in his objections to that letter. Mr. W. C. Wynne, in explanation, said he had not abandoned his notice on any view of having changed his opinion, but from a desire to conform to the sentiments of the House in the mode they had thought fit to adopt. Mr. G. Ponsonby said, that if he had been in the House when the letter was read from the chair, he should have objected to its being allowed the moment it was menti- oued. - - : Mr. C. W. Wynne moved the order of the day for now resuming the debate on General Clavering's evidence. Lord John Cavendish, after a few prefatory words, spoken in so low a tone that we could not distinctly hear what he said, concluded by moving as an amendment, that the debate be resumed on Tucsilay next. 4. $42 . P Roceepings net, Ative to Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Ellison shortly opposed the amendment, on the ground that as the matter had more than once been postponed, and as Captain Sandon was still in Newgate for similar conduct, the public might suppose the House wished to screen this individual. Sir M. W. Ridley, spoke in favour of the amendment, and said, it was not from any wish or interference of Ge- neral Clavering, or any of his friends, that the business had before been postponed. The honourable gentleman might have brought it forward on any of the four days on which it had been fixed. Several of General Clavering’s friends, whose abilities in that House he should wish to have the advantage of, were now absent, and he hoped therefore this interval of a few days would be acceded to. Mr. C. W. ſºynne said, the honourable baronet had told the House he might have brought the business for- ward on any of the four days on which it had from time to time being fixed. His proposition had always been so to do, and he thought the House had more than once lost sight of its dignity in postponing it. In the case of Sandon they had seen the wholesomeness of a prompt pro- ceeding, and it was only to the feeling of the House that he gave way, rather than to oppose to them his individual opinion. At present be felt the subject taken out of his hands, and it was for the House to do in it what they deemed most proper to be done. - Mr. Shawe Le Fevre was decidedly against postponing the business : there was one person already suffering in Newgate, and no one in that House, he believed, knew what the sufferings of persons in Newgate were. He thought they should be inquired into by the House. Mr. W. Smith said, if he considered either'substantial justice or the dignity of the House to be affected by the postponement requested, he would vote against it; but under all the circumstances then adduced, he should vote for the amendment. - - - Sir J. Newport thought, that as many persons of inferior ank had been visited with the punishment of the House, the public might suppose they meant to shelter those of the higher classes, and was therefore against the post- pongment. - - - The Secretary at War and Mr. R. Dundas said each a few words in favour of the amendment. . . . . Mr. Wilberforce said, that if it were a question of nicety --- T || E CO M M A N DER IN CHIEF, 843 as to General Clavering’s evidence, he should not object to so short a delay as that now asked for; but the question was such as ought on all occasions to be determined as speedily as possible, and as it had already been put off once or twice, he could not help saying he thought the dignity of the House was concerned, and he was there- fore against the amendment. The amendment was negatived without a division. The question of debate was then read, viz. “That General Clavering has, in his said evidence, been guilty of prevarication.” Sir M. W. Ridley said, that General Clavering had been guilty of great inaccuracy in his evidence, he would allow ; but he firmly believed, because he had repeatedly heard him assert it in the most solemn manner, that he never entertained for a moment the slightest intention either of prevaricating, or in any manner offending the House. When his rank in life, his education, and his profession were considered, he thought it was impossible any one could suppose he intended to prevaricate. He instanced the case which had been mentioned by more than one, in the course of the late debates, of honourable members of that House, who had, notwithstanding they were accustomed to its usages, fallen into errors of memory in their examinations on the same subject, and alluded particularly to Mr. Wardle, who, in answer to the ques- tions put to him, as to how often he had seen Mrs. Clarke on a particular day, had contradicted himself, and, though he (Sir M. W. Ridley) was sure without any in- tention more than embarrassment arising from an exami- nation, to which he had not been accustomed, forgot a circumstance which took place only twenty-four hours before. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider that General Clavering laboured under the same embar- rassment, and that he had not intentionally erred. Mr. M'Naghten said, it had been asked, how was it possible to suppose a man of General Clavering's rank, a man of his education, and of the profession of a soldier, could be guilty of prevarication ? His answer was, if he had done it, his punishment should be the heavier. Sandon had been immediately committed to Newgate, who said, in his own excuse, that it did not proceed from a bad heart, but from the confusion attendant on a cross-examination. As to General Clavering, so far as rank and cducation went, '844. proceep INGs RELATIve to - they made against him. He had no personal knowledge of General Clavering, nor had he ever seen him till he ap- peared at the bar of that House, but he believed his con- stituents knew something of him. The House had heard a great deal about the honour of a General officer; were was his honour in offering 1000l. to a w-e to obtain pro- motion 2 What would the public voice say * Would they not be apt to say, you have sent Sandon to Newgate direct for the same offence 2 This motion had been put off from time to time, and was again attempted this night. Might they not say with the poet— “Thro' tatter'd robes vices do appear— Robes and fur gowns hide all—” He should therefore vote in favour of the motion. Mr. Whitbread could not help wondering at the allusion which had been made by the honourable baronet to his honourable friend's conduct; if any objection could be made to it, let it be made the subject of a regular motion, and he had no doubt it would be properly met. At the time Mr. Wardle gave his testimony, he could have no possible reason not to tell the whole and plain truth. Ge- neral Clavering came forward, however, to overthrow Mrs. Clarke's testiumony at once, and entirely exculpate the Duke of York; he stated that he came at first a volun- tary witness, and at last it appeared he had been colluding with Mr. Lowten, in order to deceive the House. Then his professed object was to overthrow the credibility of a witness, which object was itself defeated by the produc- tion of his own letters. On the appearance of those letters, he came back again to explain his former testimony, and such was this explanation, that had it been given at the same time with the testimony it was intended to clear, the immediate and inevitable result would have been his commitment to Newgate. It had been said by the ho- nourable baronet that justice would be done by the country at some future day to General Clavering ; he hoped justice would also be done to the House. It had been also said, that General Clavering was not prepared for the cxamina- tion which he unde went—that he expected to be question- ed only to one point—that he was not fit, in fact, to be ex- amined. Why, then he was not fit to have the command of men—he was not fit to go to Malta nor to Ireland, nor to bear a general's commission. ( II car, hear !). His family had been mentioned as an appeal to the compassion THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. 845 of the House; he felt for them, so he did for the family of Captain Sandon ; but it had becn truly said, tender mer- cies were often severe cruelties, and here he could not help , thinking mercy to the individual would be cruelty to the country. The public should see that the House did not respect a high-born offender more than the very lowest; that rank could not be a shield from merited punishment. If it was, in cases even of life and death the example might be quoted to justify prevarication. It would even give double effect to a popular sentiment which had already inade too deep an impression :- “But gold from law can take out the sting, And if rich rogues like us were to swing, 'Twould thin the land, such numbers would string.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he should have been very happy that some of General Clavering's friends had been present, because he confessed, from the most at- tentive consideration he could give to the subject, he did not see how any talent or exertion could possibly excul- pate General Clavering. The only question to be consi- dered was, whether a false answer had been given under a misapprehension of the question, or with a view to de- lude the House. This could be judged of only from his course; and in the very first instance he began by misre- presenting the fact which led him to the House. [Here the right honourable gentleman went through the contra- dictions in the evidence of General Clavering]. It ap- peared plainly that he had denied a military correspon- dence with Mrs. Clarke, which, from his offering her the thogsand pounds, he must have known he had held, and that he went to Colonel Gordon to do away an impression which he must have felt to be true. He confessed he might be mistaken in his judgment, but as well as it could de-, cide, it convicted General Clavering of prevarication. Lord John Cainpbell stated, that but for the death of a near relation, be was authorised to say, that a noble friend of his would have come forward, and declared that General Clavering's answer had been given from a misap- prehension of the question, Mr. Wharton could find no precedent on the books for committing any witness for contradiction, but all were on account of prevarication; prevarication, meant shuffling, but contradiction was positive; and in this sense, as 846. . PROCEFDINGS RELATIVE To General Clavering's answers were all positive, he could not be convicted of prevarication. Mr. Ellison would not willingly push severify against any man alive, but in this sentiment he could not be ex- pected to merge the principles of justice and the dignity of the House. The questions put to §. Clavering were so plain, that it was utterly impossible any man could misunderstand them. A distinction had been made between prevarication and contradiction ; these distinc- tions puzzled him,and he had heard speeches from lawyers in that House which had so bewildered him, he did not know how to decide. It reminded him of a trial where, under the Coventry Act, a man was indicted for cutting another's face, and his defence was that he did not mean to cut his face, but to murder him. As far as he was a judge, he never knew an instance of more foolish, wanton, and unnecessary prevarication than the present. Mr. Wynne remarked, that as to there being no precedent of commitment for contradiction, all he would say was, if that could be a valid objection against the present pro- ceeding, then one of their standing orders, which says, if a witness give false evidence, that the House should in- stantly proceed against him, was nugatory, and should be expunged from their journals. ſ The question was here put, and strangers were ordered to withdraw. During our exclusion, Mr. Wynne's mo- tion was carried without a division, and the Serjeant at Arms was in consequence ordered to take General Claver- ing into custody. - Friday, March 24, 1809. Mr. W. Wynne moved that General Clavering, now in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, be committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant for that purpose. The question was put and agreed to without opposition. (847). LIST OF THE MINORITY. . The following are the names of the members who voted for Mr. Wardle's original address. Adams, C. : Althorpe, Lord Antonie, W. L. Astell, William Aubrey, Sir J. Bagenell, Waller Baillie, Evan Baring, Thomas Baring, Alexander Bastard, J. Pollex. Bewicke, C. Biddulph, R. M. Bradshaw, hon. A. C. Brand, hon. T. Brogden, J. - Browne, Anthony Byng, George Calcraft, J. sº Coke, J. W. Colbourne, N. R. Combe, H. C. Cooke, Bryan Qraig, J. Creevey, Thomas Qurwen, J. Q. Cuthbert, I. R. *. Daly, Right Hon. D. B. Dickenson, W. Fellows, Hon. N. Ferguson, R. C. Fitzgerald, Right Hon. M. Foley, Hon. A. Poley, Thomas Folkestone, lord (Teller) goddard, Thomas Gordon, William Grenfell, Pascos. Halsey, Joseph March 15. Hamilton, Lord A. Hibbert, George Honywood, W. Horner, F. Horrocks, S. Howard, Hon. W. Howard, H. Howorth, Humphrey Hughes, W. L. Hume, H. W. Hurst, R. Hussey, William Hutchinson, Hon. C. Jackson, J. ºr Jacob, William • /~ Kemp, T. "- - Kensington, Lord ; §. D. Ilapp, Gr. #. R. Langton, W. G. Latouche, J. Latouche, R. Lefevre, C. S. Lester, Garland Lloyd, J. M., . Lloyd, Sir E. Longman, G. Littleton, Hon. W. Madocks, W. A. Mahon, Lord Markham, J. . . Martin, H. . . Maule, Hon. W. Maxwell, William Milbanké, Sir R. Mildmay, Sir H. Milner, Sir W. 848 LIST OE THE MIXORITY, Moore, Peter Smith, J. Morris, Robert Smith, George Moseley, Sir Oswald Staniforth, John Mostyn, Sir T. Stanley, Lord Neville, Hon. R. Symonds, Thomas Noel, C. N. Talbot, R. W. Ord, W. Taylor, C. W. Ossulston, Lord Taylor, W. Parnell, H. Thomas, George White Peirse, H. Thompson, Thomas Pelham, Hon. C. A. Tighe, W. Pochin, C. . Townshend, Lord J. Porcher, J. D. 4. Tracey, C. H. Portman, E. B. Turner, J. F. Prittie, Hon. F. A. Vaughan, Hon. J. Pym, F. Walsh, B. Ridley, Sir M. Wardle G. L. (Teller) Romilly, Sir S. Western, C. C. Scudamore, R. P. Wharton, J. Sebright, Sir J. Whitbread, S. Sharpe, R. Wilkins, Walter Shelley, H. Williams, Owen Shelley, T. Winnington, Sir T. Shipley, W. Wynne, Sir W.W. Smith, Samuel * Wynne, C. W. W. Sir Francis Burdett was obliged to retire on account of indisposition. List of the minority on Sir Thomas Turton’s amend- ment, that the late Commander in Chief had knowledge of, or did connive at the corrupt practices of his mistress. March 17. # Those marked thus” did not vote in the minority on Mr. Wardle's motion. The new members are 23 in num- ber :— Adams, C. Baring, Thomas Althorpe, Wiscount Baring, Alexander Antoine, W. L. Bastard, J. Pollex. Astell, William Biddulph, R. M. Astley, Sir Jacob” Bradshaw, Iſon. A. C. Babington, Thomas” Brand, Hon. T. ( Teller) Bagenell, W. Brogden, J. LIST OF THE MINORITY. 849 Browne, Anthony Byng, George Calcraft, J. Combe, H. C. Cooke, Bryan Craig, J. Creevey, Thomas Curwen, J. C. Cuthbert, J. R. Daly, Right Hon. D. B. Dickenson, W. Ellison, Richard* Fane, John” Fellowes, Hon. N. Ferguson, R. C. Fitzgerald, Right Hon. M. Foley, Hon. A. Foley, Thomas Folkestone, Wiscount Folkes, Sir Martinº Giles, D. Goddard, Thomas Gordon, William Gower, Earl” Greenhill, Robert Grenfell, Pascoe Hall, Sir J.” Halsey, Joseph Hamilton, Lord A. Hibbert, George Honeywood, W. Horner, F. Horrocks, S. Howard, Hon. W. Howard, H. Howorth, Humphrey Hughes, W. L. Hume, H. W. Hurst, R. Hutchinson, Hon. C. Jackson, J. (Dover) Jackson, J.(Southampton)* Jacob, William Kemp, T. Kensington, Lord Knapp, G. Lemon, Sir W.* Hemon, John” Lester, Garland Latouche, J. Latouche, R. Lambe, W. Lambton, R. J. Langton, W. G. Lefevre, C. Shaw Lloyd, Sir E. Łloyd, J. M. Lloyd, Hardress* Lubbock, Sir John” Longman, George Ilyttelton, Hon. W. M“Donald, James” Madocks, W. A. Mahon, Lord Markham, J. Martin, H. Miller, Sir Thomasº Maxwell, William Maule, Hon. W. Mills,” William+ Mildmay, Sir H. Milner, Sir W. Moore, Peter Morris, Robert Mostyn, Sir T. Moseley, Sir Oswald Newport, Sir J.” Noel, G. W. North, Dudley* Ord, W. Parnell, H. Palmer, Charles* Peirse, H. Pelham, Hon. C. A., Pochin, C. Porcher, J. D. Portman, E. B. Prittie, Hon. F. A. 3 I 850 1,15T OF THE MINORITY. Pym, F. Romilly, Sir S. . St. Aubin, Sir J.” Scudamore, R. P. Sebright, Sir J. Sharpe, R. Shelley, H. Shelly, T. Shipley, W. Smith, Henry” Smith, Samuel Smith, J. Georg Smith, J. - Staniforth, John Stanley, Lord Stuart, Hon. M. Symonds, Thomas Taylor, W. Talbot, R. W. Taylor, C. W. Tempest, Sir H. W. Thomas, George White Thompson, Thomas Turton, Sir Thomas” (Teller) Thornton, Samuel Tighe, W. Townshend, Lord J. Tracey, C. H. Turner, J. F. Waughan, Hon. J. Walsh, Benjamin Wardle, G. L. Western, C. C. Wharton, J. Whitbread, S. Wilkins, Walter Winnington, Sir T. A List of the Minority on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Dnke of York was not guilty of personal corruption, or of any corrupt connivance. March 17. . Adams, C. Abercromby, Hon. J. Agar, Emanuel Althorpe, Wiscount Anstruther, Sir J. Antonie, W. L. Astelſ, William Astley, Sir Jacob Aubrey; Sir J. Babington, Thomas Bagenell, W. Baker, J. P. Bewicke, C. Biddulph, R. M. Blackburne, J. Blackburie, J. J. Bouverie, Hon. B. Bowyer, Sir George Brand, Hon. T. * Bradshaw, Hon. C. Bogden, J. Browne, Anthony Byng, George Calcraft, J. Calvert, N. Cocks, J. Coke, D. P. Colburne, N. W. R. Combe, H. C. Cooke, Bryan Cowper, E. Synge Craig, J. Creevey, Thomas Curwen, J. C. Cuthbert, J. Daly, Rt. Hon. D. B. Dickensen, W. Drake, T. D. IIST OF THE MINORITY. 851 Elliot, Right Hon. W. Ellison, Richard Fane, John Fellowes, Hon. N. Ferguson, R. C. Fitzgerald, Right Hon. M. Foley, Hon. A. Foley, Thomas Folkes, Sir Martin Folkestone, Wiscount Frankland, W. Goddard, Thomas Gordon, William Gower, Earl Grant, C. Grattan, Rt. Hon. H. Greenhill, Robert Greenough, G. B. Grenfell, Pascoe Giles, D. Hall, Sir J. Halsey, Joseph Hamilton, Lord A. Herbert, H. Hibbert, George Hobhouse, B. Holmes, W. Honywood, W. Horner, F. Horrocks, S. Howard, H. Howard, Hon. W. Howorth, Humphrey Hughes, W. L. Hume, W. H. Hurst, R. Hutchinson, Hon. C. Jacob, William Jackson, J. Keck, G. A. L. Kemp, T. Kensington, Lord King, Sir J. D. Knapp, G. Knox, Hon. T. Lamb, Hon. W. Lambton, R. Jangton, W. G. Latouche, D. Latouche, R. Lefevre, C. Shaw Lemon, John Lemon, Sir W. Lester, G. Lethbridge, J. B. Lloyd, J. M. Lloyd, Hardress Lloyd, Sir E. Longman, George Lygon, Hon. J. Lyttelton, Hon. W. M“Donald, James Madocks, W. Malion, Hon. S. Mahon, Wiscount Markham, J. Maryatt, J. Martin, H. Maule, Hon. W. Maxwell, William Mildmay, Sir H. Miller, Sir J. Mills, C. Mills, William Milner, Sir W. Milnes, R. P. Moore, Peter Morris, Robert Moscley, Sir Oswald Mostyn, Sir T. Neville, Hon. R. Newport, Right Hon. Sir J. Noel, C. North, Dudley O“Hara, C. Ord, W. Ossulston, Lord Palmer, C. 852 LIST OF THE MINORITY. Parnell, H. Peele, Sir R. Peirse, H. Pelham, Hon. C. Petty, Lord H. Pochin, C. Pole, Sir C. M. Ponsonby, Right Hon. G. Ponsonby, Hon. F. Porchester, Lord Portman, E. B. Prittie, Hon. F. Pym, F. Ridley, Sir M. Romilly, Sir S. Russell, Lord W. St. Aubin, Sir J. Salusbury, Sir R. Savile, A. Scudamore, R. P. Sebright, Sir J. Sharpe, R. Shelley, H. Shelley, T. Shipley, W. Simeon, J. Smith, Henry Smith, Samuel Smith, George Smith, W. Staniforth, John Stanley, Lord Stuart, Hon. M. Sumner, G. H. Symonds, J. P. Talbot, R. W. Taylor, C. W. Taylor, W. Tempesi, Sir H. W. Temple, Earl Thellusson, G. W. Thomas, George White Thompson, J. Thornton, H. Thornton, Samuel Tierney, Rt. Hon. George Tighe, W. Townshend, Lord G. Tracey, C. H. Tremayne, J. H. Turner, J. F. Turton, Sir Thomas Vaughan, Sir W. Waughan, Hon. J. Ward, Hon. J. W. Ward le, G. L. Warrender, Sir G. Western, C. C. Wharton, J. Whitbread, S. Whitmore, S. Wilberforce, W. Wilkins, Walter Windham, Rt. Hon. W. Winnington, Sir T. E. Wynne, C. W. Wynne, Sir W. Lord Milton and the three honourable Mr. Dundas’s were kept away by the death of a near relation. Mr. T. W. Coke and Mr. Owen Williams were cbliged to go into the country. In the divisions against the Duke of York there divided 56 knights of Shires. THE END, T. Gillel, Printer, Crown-court, Fleet-street, London. * \ * º: - - --- - l “ss F * • ſ | * º * - * & - - : - + ! t ** f * t -- - & * . * * ! W i $ * - tº º g & 3. & & | * . - J. & - . . . t - . . '. .* -- • t y * w - \ -- R * * ' 3. \ - -- ** ! : f - - - { l tº A. * * * †: *č .. * - - - - : , • * t §, `--- - ! *** g g :- + * l - - : º, - - * , - - * 2-. ~ * * f . -- * . - ** sº #. - - * k • a .” * . r : t s & *. } - . * -~ ~ .-- --• •! , ！ ·（~~~~. --~~~~. ſ--> `~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~--~ | | MICHIGAN B 364502 7481 3729 | | | 3 9015 UNIVERSITY OF | ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ > --~~~~ -…--º--º- （>. s - : i * § º: : & ; : º : ~ isjº, ; ::::::: *ś ‘. . . . .