Star. — London, England, 1809-02-21 00:00:00

ness, knew nothing of the writing of his ness , _• and it appeared to him some what that the Committee should now resort not nearly so strong as that of those had already been examined. Such a which the Committee was now about once obtained, he believed, in Courts . cases of capital offences, but it had for been discontinued. If that were really the case, he begged the House to consider seliously 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 almost immediately afterwards forty letters were shewn to Mrs. Clarke, and she was told that she must not read any one or any part of any one of them ; but must, from merely viewing the signatnre, say positively whether they were her's or not. It would seem rather hard she should not have been allowed to see whether any al terations 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 to be confined within the strict rules respecting evidence, by which the Courts cf Law re gulated themselves—but having made this allowance to Colonel Gordon, he must throw it out for the con sideration of the Committee, whether having already committed 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 circumstances, he wished the Committee to pause before they determine, for it seemed to him to be of such importance, that if a vote should take place on it, he should give his against the witness being admitted. :the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed, that this objection of the Honourable Gen tleman ought to have been made when the subject, was first introduced to the notice of the Committee ; for when it had been decided that sash evidence . should be resorted to, it seemed rather hard t hat an y opposition should now be made to it. He supposed, however, the Honourable Gentleman had left the House the other night before the subject was men tioned 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 of York's hand-writing, the letteis in the note appeared to him, from their formation, to be more like an imitation of letters than a regular hand-writing. On this it was thought necessary that the information should be at tended to, and followed up as accurately as possible ; and, as it would be altogether out of the power of all the Members of that House to examine the papers so minutely as to form a decision on the point, it was thought most adviseable to apply to four or five per sisns of the Post -Office and the Bank, who were in the use and habit of investigating such points in cases of life and death. If these letters and note were only to be submitted to a Jury of twelve men, they might all of them examine all the letters so minutely, as to decide the point by themselves ; but in so great anum-' ber as the Members (-f that House, such an examinsoj tion would be absolutely impossible. Such a pro ceeding had been allowed in a trial at bar by four' Judges, sitting in solemn decision in the Court of I King's Bench ; but in one case, that decision had been denied to be law by one Judge at Nisi Prius. The present proceeding, as he observed before, had' been adopted the other night ; and, though it might not fall in with the observations of the Honourable Gentleman on the subject, it was somewhat hard the witness should now be objected to, after it had previ ously been agreed upon that he should be examined, and he had been sent for accordingly. As to the ob servation of the Honourable Gentleman, viz. that it seemed as if the Committee were inclined to give in. dulgence on one side and not on the other, he thought it was by no means the case. In one instance a per son was called to examine a hand-writing that was not his own, and in the other, a writing which was he. own. If there had been' any irregularity, it was in having admitted 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 evidence, she would be allowed to have an examination of such parts, and, if any alterations and interpolations had been made, she would be able to detect and point them out. From the mode adopt ed by the Speaker, he was equally ignorant of the evidence this witness would give as the Honourable Gentleman was, or any other person whatever; but he thought as he had been called upon by the Com mittee to make the examination, and had done so, he ought to be permitted to give his evidence on the subject, be it whatever it might. Mr. WHITBREAD said he saw no difference be, , tween a Jury and the Members of that House, as he thought no Member would give his judgment without having examined the papers carefully with his own eyes, and after he had so done, he believed them was not a Member who would not give his opinion in pre ference to his own eye-sight, before that of this wit ness, or any other who formed his judgment from the same basis. Lord FOLKESTONE said he came prepared to' make the same objection, in which he had been anti cipated by the Honourable Gentleman below him; and he must observe generally as to this kind of evi dence, that whenever it had been resorted to, it was always in the case of its being the best evidence that could be obtained on the subject. Mrs. 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 testimony as could be given. Four Gen tlemen of honour had been examined on the point in question, who all agreed that it was so like the Duke of York's hand-wi iting, that they believed it to be his (ii cry cf No, no o—With0 —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 arterwatds conveyed a number of separate parcels I from his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke, but could not prove their contents. lie regretted, if the House was disposed to adopt the plan of a Committee, that the interval had been lost. There had been a variety of opinions expressed on the subject, but no Gentle man intimated any wish fin• the select Committee ;If the time; If, however, the House was now disposed to adopt the Committee, he had no,objection. Sir THOMAS TURTON said, ha did not hear the Right Hon. Gentleman mention a Committee ; but he feared that the opinion of a Select Committee ♦would not he satisfactory. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCidEQUER was, however, of opinion, that a Report of a Select Committee on this subject, like other Select Commit tees, 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 con ducted, on both sides, with the utmost candour and fairness ; and he therefore thought, that such a Com mittee in the present case, composed more nume rously, it deemed expedient, would much expedite the business, save the time of the House, and be per fectly satisfactory: Sir T. TURTON said he did not mean satisfac tory to the House, but to the Public ; for his own part, he was perfectly satisfied on ale subject, and had no doubts to remove; but he thought the evi dence would with much better effect be examined at the l3ar. Mr. ABERCROMBY rose to express his wish that a mistaternent, which appeared on the face of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the House, should be corrected. It related to the evidence of Mr. Greenwood, in the case of Mr. Elderton, Ai° was appointed to a Pa} -mastership in consequence of his recommendation ; but Mr. Greenwood was re presented on the Minutes to have said, that subse quent to his first recommendation, he found upon enquiry that Mr. Elderton was a person unfit to be recommended, in consequence of which, he forward ed a remonstrance to the Duke of York upon the subject, hut Mr. Elderton's appointment had taken pl ice notwithstanding. Now having himself some doubts as to the accuracy of the statement, he had ap pealed to Mr. Greenwood himself, whose authority he h.id r stating that the minutes on this point were inaccurate ; and he proposed to call Mr. Greenwood to the Bar for re-examination, in order to correct the error. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER s that the evidence of Mr. Greenwood had not rated his having made a subsequent communication to the Doke after his first recommendation ; but he stated that he found Mr. Elderton a person of im proper character, after his first representation, and that the appointment had taken place before his se cond rept eentati< n reached the Duke. Mr. CHARLES ADAMS wished to ask the Right Honourable Gentleman, in which of the con ferences stated by him to have taken place with dif ferent persons, in the transaction of the particular note in questirm, he was informed of the suppression of that note by Captain Sanden. CHANChLLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he received 11:s information from Colonel Ha- miltne. Mr. WHIT T-READ, with the leave of the House, before it lesoived into the Committee, moved, in the usual 'igen, r a Copy of the Letter addressed by Mr Pincknc y to Mr. Secretary Canning, and of any Correspondence which ensued thereon.—Ordered. it,PANISII TREATY. Mr. G. PONSONBY wished tctask the same Right He notireb:e Gentleman a question on an important subject. His Majesty's Speech. had intimated his Rey al intention to enter into a treaty of alliance with the G, vernrnent of Spain in the name of Ferdinand VII. What he, therefiire, wished to know from the Ineht Honourable Gentleman was, whether or not trea:y had been concluded ; and if it had, on what day the Right Honourable Gentleman would, by order (4 . his ,laiesty, lay it before the House Mr. Secrctary CANNING answered, the treaty in question was concluded, and he believed it was rati tied, hut had not yet arrived from Spain, and there fore e s eeld not be laid before the House. Sir T. T R TON begged to know of the Noble! Lord (H. Petty) who had a motion which stood fixed for to-morrow, whether it was his intention to bring it forward on that day, as he wets apprehensive the discussion on the present night was likely to be so late, as might render it somewhat inconvenient to bring on a debate of so much importance the next evening. Lelll IL PETTY said the Honourable Baronet anJ tine House would be pleased to recollect that his motion, wl.•ch stood for tomorrow, had already been postponed eeveral times, and more than once on ac count of the present Inquiry. He had however re ceived intimaton from several Members, of their wish to be present at the discussion, and that they could not attend after to-morrow. It was therefore his de eded determination to bring it on, according to the notice he had last given. The House then went into the Committee. The CHA LIMAN informed the Committee, that he had received a letter from General Clavering, stat ing th :t there is a seeming inconsistency in his evi dence, and expressing a wish that he might again be called belote the Committee, in order that he might explain it.—[// ay of read, read ri Lord TEMPLE moved, that the letter mentioned by the Chairman to have been received by him from General ClavLrng, he read. TheCHAN CELLO It of the EXCHEQUER said that if General Chive!' lig wished to correct any thing which appeateg to be inconsistent or contradictory in his evidence, let him be sunm.ned, or let him attend f he was there ; but he saw ito reason why his letter s hould be read. Lord TEMPLE answered, that as he understood General Givering was then attending, he would, with the levee of the House, withdraw his motion. Mr. JonesoN was then called in as a witness. ITBREAD rose, and the witness was de . ; .fe d to w it hdraw. The Hon. Gentleman then s tid: apprehereied the Committee had already examined s everal persons who were deemed the most competent klow the Duke of York's hand-writing. It would; froth what he had been given to understand,! . . :t this Goatlete an, who was then produced as aN% II • . . sat Maidstone. It was that_ ofJoeksort That w;.l a comparison of hands, :end eras obje c e e 1 . libel ; and Mr. GajroW for the Platt to. The inspector was aked, whether the wrili n .., idence sncle as this to prove that the' shewn him was a felgned hand ? andht t th hat h fore t e wa s e l". :ten in a feigned or ; suppo sitious hand, lowed to answer. The House ougere o e ., was a sirrantrity bitween this fe.igned - as far at least as the Courts of Law, and hate s of the defendant Caton. The Ndole ' what is wanted to ask of this witness from the Po..t ad an extract from the speech of lord Office. Because the Duke of Yotk's baud-writing ; , s agb, who was then Attorney7Qeoer,a, m e t . to this note is not proved at all, •it is • desirable to Counsel for the Defendant, by which it appeared, know whether it is likely to be a real or a feigned that he said he was not desiring the Court not to go hand. He was therefore o f o p inion the.witness o ught the length of Judges in the worst of times, but only to be examined. the Judges who Were then administering the laws of • Mr. BRAND was decidedly of opinion that the the land. He referred to the case of Revet and Bra e witness ought to be examined. ham, which had been quoted by the Ri g ht Honour- Si r SAMUEL ROMILLY said the question ap. able Gentlemen o pposite, being the trial at bar he had peared to him to he of such high importance, that he men tioned, and shewed that that case had afterwards thought the Committee should not determine on i t been reversed by Lord Keny on : The witness was before they were in possession of more information. asked whether he could say the libel was like the The object was very different from that of Courts of hand-writing of Cator, but Lord Kenyon would not Justice, and therefore the House could not be bo un d allow him to answer th e question, because, he said, by the same tie s. The Ri g ht Honourable Geetle that compatison of hands was no evidence. And in man opposite had not stated the matter fairly, el m a similar case, which came to be heard before Mr. he merely talked of a decision at bar, and one et Justice Yates, that most upright and learned Judge Nisi Prius. The fact was, that in the case of Revee. held expressly the same doctrine, and.said he did not and Braham, which was a trial at bar, the decisi on know any case where comparison of hands could be was so contrary to the established principles of law, admittede In an indictment for forgery, a person and gave so universal and so great alarm to t i e who had seen the party write, might be admitted to whole bar, that on the subsequent occasion in the prove it, but not by a comp arison on a similarity of case of Nisi Prius, Mr. Baron Hotham, who was aeli hands. There was also submitted by Lord Ellenbc- known to be a judge very diffident of his own of:. rough to the Court the case of the seven Bishops, in Mon, took on himself to reverse the law held in the which Chief Justice Jefferys and another Judge were other case of the trial at bar; and it was vel y eel willing to receive such evidence, and Mr. Justice dent, and perfectly well known, that he, a s i n o i Powell and another were against it, which sliewed. Judge sitting at Nisi Prius, never would hare Linder that the lawyers even of that day never thought it taken to overturn that decision of the Court, l a d h e right to prove forgery by a comparison of hands.— not been well aware that it had been highly an d Mr. Baron Hotham's decision in the case of Jackson loudly' condemned by d:e universal opinion of the and Cator, and in which he rejected the doctrine laid , whole bar. There was no question of law so nier down in Revet and Braham, was an authority which • as that of saying whether any certain piece of ie l e. compelled him to acquiesce entirely in the opinion of : tmg is that -of any one particular person or rh.,t; that Learned Judge. The Solicitor for the Plaintiffs, i the property, the liberties and the lives of ell t 1.,, in the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to 1 subjects of this realm were deeply interested in it; take down a host of Inspectors from the Post-Office, 1 and it ought never to be forgottea in that House, to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The Dee; in particular, that Algernon Sydney lest his life by fendant was prepared with another host of Inspectors : admitting a comparison of hand-writing ; and as ',from the Bank, who would have proved the direct i Lord Ellenborough had so lately argued the case contrary. This statement had been made to him by i most seriously, the House ought well to consicee 1 the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of ! whether this Was really law or not.—He should 'ost great honour and credit in his profession, and chewed' sorry to take up the time of the Committee, by Bow very great the difference of opinions was, with going deeper . into the reason of this case, but. le regard to the comparison of hands. He would there- i had really heard nothing to convince him in nhilt fore entreat the Committee to'weigh well the matter, had been advanced that night on the subject., before they allowed such evidence to be called to the If the House were to judge by what had fallen from bar. . 1 the Honourable Gentleman below him (Mr. ,:mitt:) Mr. BERESFORD said a few words in favour of , a comparison of hands was unquestionably betel. the witness being called in. i than seeing a person write ; that argument, it seemed Mr.W.SMITH said, that having given his opinion 1 , to him, went too far, for it proved the compariin in favour of the proceeding on the last night of the in- !to be the hest, which WAS a doctrine 'long since en:. quirt', he should certainly maintain it then, though I ploded. The Right Honourable Gentleman on tie in direct opposition to that of his Hon. Friend and 1 floor (Mr. Bathurst) had said that the House had the Noble Lord, with who m he was g enerall y in the ! examined four gentlemen, but had not put the prover habit of voting. The subject, indeed, divided 'itself i questions to them. Then why not put these clues. into more branches than he was inclined to enter upon stions to them ? they were still to be called before the. at that moment, but he could not help offering a few House, and it was much better to put these questior. observations on it. He was sorry the mode of exa- ,to them in such a manner as the Right Honourable mining witnesses on oath had not been adopted; as he I Gentleman should point out as a proper one, than to t h oug ht this House ought to examine on oath as well admit evidence so very alarming as this appeared to as the other, and he believed tie custom had obtain- him to be. He begged the Committee to recollect ed in the other House from the circumstance of their 1 that the evidence to be produced was to decide the! being more frequently used to act in their judicial t point by a comparison of bands; that this was deemed capacity. As it was, the House must now proceed ! contrary to the established law of the land ; and is it, in the way that it had set out with. There appeared ! said he, the evidence of those persons which shall in to him great-confusion in the manner of arguing the I allowed to determine this- positively to be the hand. subject. The first question in these ca!es generally i writing of the Duke of Yee I: ? He thought it °ugh! t was have you seen the party w r ite ? and in answering I not ; and should therefore object to the witness beta; this the witness did not give his o p inion on havin g seen called to the bar. the party write, but on what he had written, which is Mr. BERESFORD said a few words explenater merely matter of opinion from comparison of the iof what he had said before. • hand-writing. That this, however, was, after all, a The ATTORNEY GENERAL said his Rig(! very uncertain mode of proceeding, he was ready to Honourable and Learned Friend v. ho had jus say admit. This had to him been strongly exemplified , down, cruld not more highly respect the inc ici.. in a case which occurred in that House a few nights I opinion of Lord Ellenlaorough than he• himself did ago. Au Honourable Gentleman had been cxaniin- i but when he considered that in the case alluded to 1. ed as to the hand-writing of Sir Horace Mann, who went to Maidstone as Counsel for the Defendant, al had on that occasion said, that the first paper pro- 1 the law he had then held on the subject was merel duced to him was the hand-writing of Sir Horace, I that of an advocate, doing the most he could for th and the second was not. He (Mr. Smith) had care- ! cause of his client, but was by no means to be cer fully and minutely examined both, and though he I sidered in the light of a judicial opinion. He cool had never keen Sir Horace M ann write, from the not allow the reason given by his Right Honourab; first paper being allowed by the Honourable Member I and Learned Friend for Baron Hotham's overruli; without any doubt, to be the hand-writing of Sir the decision of the Court, because it was the iiiiie( Horace Mann, he (Mr. Smith) should have felt no sal opinion of the Bar that that decision was cootr.r, doubt the second was also ; with no other difference to law. In the case of Revett and Braham the poi than that the one had been written with what is gene- . was, whether the hand-writing was feigned or rea rally called a better pm. As to the Gentleman who 1 and this was to be determined by persons from pub. had been called to prove the Du ke of York ' s hand- offices, who acted as ins p ectors. In the trial befo: writing, they had done themselves honour on the , Baron Hotham, the inspectors from .the Post o th occasion, by the great caution with which they had. .were asked whether 'the hand-writing of the Pei: given their evidence. If the. House had strictly dant Cator was a feigned hand — so far it agreed V.:: adhered to the rules adopted by the Courts of Law, 1 the case of Revett and Braliam ; but it went fueli he would allow they should confine themselves to it ; ! and having proved the opinion di-.-. the panel-wri: but having once taken a greater latitude, they ought was feigned, they proceeded to ask whether it I: to permit themselves to be circumscribed, and there- been feigned by the person who wive the libel, a fore he thought that Colonel Gordon's comparison of i this was to be done by shewin& the D; fendant's u. hands was not liable to the objection his Honourable 1 ing, and then comparing it with the libel ; this w Friend had made to it. As to Mrs. Clarke, the I refused ; but so ter as whether the hand was a feign( Chancellor of the Exchequer had well observed, that hand, Baron Hotham, in the case .of Jackson al if any alterations or interpolations had taken place, Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Brah she might be allowed to correct them. He could not, The question, hoivever, then was, whether, as therefore, but think it right that the witness should Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witne! be examined as to the comparison of hands. ~. should be allowed to be called, and whether the Ci Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST said , that as this I mince shall receive any further assistance tow:( point hadbeen objected to, it behoved them to look well • • proving the hand-writing ? The Committee I to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought.. already exceeded the strict rules of legal jug! They might set up technical or legal proofst6 bar such `and were then only asked to admit the eviAnci a mode of proceeding, but this case was nothing like persons who 1-ad been accustomed to examine, what is su called in Courts of Law. As to Mrs. to say whether certain handwriting, submits, Clarke, he should give no opinion og her evidence.— I their inspection, befeigned or real, and wheth;.:. He should not follow the conduct of Noble Lord, l will not be better able to judge,: frompersons 0: I who had panegyrized the Lady on the occasion, be- experience, than by their own only ; on that erai 1 cause he thought it was premature to do so at pre - he sh ould a pp r e hend the Committee would come sent. As to the others, there was not one of them -decision. : • but General Brownrigg to whom a legal question had i i The question was then put, and the witness been put, and that question he had answered so as to ' allowed to be called in without a division. deny that it was, in his opinion, the hand-writing of Dr. M ETCA I. F appeared at the Bar to prove the Duke of York. So far, therefore, from the fact . indisposition of Mrs. Camila : he stated her inc.; being absolutely proved, there is still a doubt—it hility of attending the summons of the He use, stands at present in quilibrio ; and the question now ; hoped she might be. in. a situation to appear b: was, whether the House might not apply to persons ; them in the course of two days. who are adequate to speak on the subject ? and for ' Mr. JOIINSIki called in, and exatninad by the Cr his own part, he saw no reason why they should not 1 CELLOR of the EXCH EQVER. endeavour to obtain as much information in it as they Q r . ain O nkt f hs w ain h t a ct t hae p p ro apco f i e tsy s t. s o :ol Ac a e r .. e —l you ? A.,.An In 7 o'bfeeln could. A case had been adduced where a person of was aked whether a libel was in the genuine Post-Office.—Q. o b w e l n on iiftr writing of the plaintiff, and that was allowed. The O ffi ce about thirteen years ; inspector of franks e person's hand-writing was then shewn, and he was six. —Q. Were you accustomed to he pa -. asked whether that and the libel were not the same ?:_writings, and see that it was origin.tl! A. ',:t, s RoyalViEtil. the su i ti o wai texlieg•y v. Ca r r wan eViciave -Fa evic withAps MID Vos writt a ruley'l-s drii; 4 nd that there to pnrsuelta4 li . and and that of Justice, in Lord then rea for some time Ellenborough. was z , t to 9 bin) Yes , . ten that' i s i 6114 he P o .. t koirable to feign e d 41111 by that the stion ap. Q r e, that he of ttt ne on it )rmation. tbal ,ourts of witt be bound , mu .e Gentle. --c rly, whet. Id one at bet` of Reveit A Le decision cue ,s of law, put m to t.11 , - : n hi the sup o was we'l s Aic ; own or:. pat :Id in. the Lin vely eei. 1 °, a singli aVe LI/der- trt, lad he Iry Uglily and ar lion of the 6 . 2 W so nic: .ce of wr!... ni or rh.,t; sh of :111 ested in it; hat Home, his life by cc t g ; and as ed the case he to consi&l c should I),e amittee, by ase, but he him in whit tI e. subject.— fallen from a (Mr. smith) nably bett,l• ti nt, it seemed : compati_oa Ong since :than on ti.e House had ut the prover t these ques. ecl before 11! iese question t Honourable • one, than to appeared to to recollect to decide tlie s was deemed id ; and is it, inch shall be the hand. night it ought witness ben,.; Is explamitery aid his Rigl!t ) had juq ac !t the judicial himself d;kl ; e alluded to 1.: Defendant, all ect was merov c 'could for ill,: tans to be ct‘.- ni. He could ht lionourable trn's ow crruli:: was the ttiver- on was contrary •aham the poin:- igned or real? ons from pub the trial before the Post Office g of the Defer.- ir it agreed v. - :::t it went further, he hand-wri:l:4; whether it IA e the libel, :tn.! kfendant's u tn. libel ; this was . id was a feigned of Jackson and ett and Brah whether, as the these tVitnes , es 'healer the Corn- istance towards Committee had f legal j!is•.;ce. t the evidence to examine, nd. submittal tnd whettn.: . Jr:7 a °persons 0: °,..lct ; on that gronr,l would come z.°) 3 I the witness was vision. ; a t i to t r h e ea d t p o p H l p ie eci r ur o r ii e ; b • c e , : s i it i t o : l ; e : lad by the Cr:V. JER. A.,.An In7 . c :cf ow long hay Y°