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

IIIm." that no wrong franks passed.—Q. (Shetring any doubt as to t . authenticity of the note, befOrel 0 see You have seen these. papers ? i. A. you camp -. hi r e tnr he • ? iro, t e e p a pers you think the note and the lettersivri - no prejudice •--- -,e44411P401140--.44-ITRVO, ..-11.1#1.1 . t on lily inind.--Q., I. goeup,lll , t imilar that t hi' 2 ci, ,- t repeated ? • A. I u h t a.L . no.frt ia ' 1 4: • I N :‘ : :I S cg; Ifo°-rie hand ? A. They are so s p to ra te ti s c u e rei a l re k a n d e i w n g t.b e - e.notis s4Z w 4 r disp :l ,:null think they were. i Mr. SE !I LE called in. 'paper' every evening of my A. lam a Deputy hfe. e), What is your profession (el laugh.)—Q. In the letters themselves have eeeccter of Franks.—Q, How long have you held you remarked • any difference ? A.- I have ; only it ituation A. About eighteen year s.— Q. Are wher e the i nk was faded. ? ,e,c letters, and this note, in your o pinion, written Q. (By Mr. WARD.) Is the difference, between the me person ? A. Yes , I th i n k the y are. note and the letter greater than, you have often ob ' \li NISBE I T was called in, and examined by ~... ... • served in the writing of the same person ? A. There Mr. BEBE-vont.. is a stiffness in the note which is not in the letters. 0 What is your profession ? A. lam a servant Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) You have said you -„ e Bank.—Q. Is it your business to sec that no for- have only been able to judge of the authenticity o f t . tr i es pass ? A. Ye s ; I have been there for more one signature, by comparing it with another ; how '•• 30 yearc.—Q. Do you j ud g e b y a comparison are you then a better judge than any clerk in any t!i2n , ; , : h other writings ?A. Certainly.—Q. Do you re- counting-house in London ? . :nar k the particular turnings of the hand ? A. Yes. Mr. DENT said it was impossible for the witness _O. Have you ever seen these papers ? A. Yes.— to answer that question. • 0,1 there any difference in the turn of the hand I Mr. WHITBREAD defended the question. He ~e the note and letters ? 1, , t .%t.• said, if the witness had only to be asked whether Mr. BATHURST objected to the propriety of this Frederick was like Frederick, then the witness might , sstia : lia could not see why the form of questions be competent to pass an opinion; but when he con .,/ t o the nth' r witnesses was varied from now. fessed lie could only judge of the authenticity of one, c! .: C HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER signature by comparing it with another, then he re I the question : he thought as the witness had , thought the question'a just and proper one. , l e e- had farmed his opinion cf writing from the ; Mr. CANNING considered it unfair,*because the ....; ii.ir turn of the letters, that it was fair to ask ' witness did not come to the Bar voluntarily to be ex: ... ; . e el that ground as to the similarity here. : amined, presuming on his own superior competency, - . • ' e ITI - IURST explained. ~.!. ) but he came on a summons to give the best opinion L1,1.10T said this witness merely spoke to sig- he could form. ee and that there had been one witness already Mr. WHITBREAD could not agree in any such ~z , e d because he could oily speak to signatures, opinion. When the witness was summoned, he was ), wt,v should this witness be entertained on the : set up as a judge, and of course * *should be able to :.e.l • . . 5. , .;)?':lt f i prove the competency which he, if not openly, at .fe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER least tacitly, assumed. ~) : t h e question ought to be put , as it tended to . Mr. B. I 3 A T HU RST su gg ested the followin g form t, e . ?. : a variety of particular circumstances from for the question, in which Mr. Whitbread acquiesced. sli:h r!le witness formed his judgment. I Witness again called in. 1.1: - . ELLISON said, in his opinion, this question i Q. From your habits at the Bank, have you had went rather to lead the witness to an answer than to more frequent opportunities of comparing hand ; cm: at his real opinion. . 'writing than those in a merchant's.offiee ? A. 'I do M: . . BERESFORD said, this was the way in which ' not compare the hand-writing so often as the signa he wired his own judgment as to forgeries, and it . tures only. . . was the opirpon of .those about him, that it would .Q. (By a MEMBER. ) You say you have been an r.) it ~trbeii7 tin hisroper opinion.topoin y tit out to the witness as a i hour devote olie rexamn t iinf :ill wttheo particularly ) papers. How much halftime did e; . . \VILBERFORCE did not think the object of I an hour.— Q. Might not the letters have been written t! einluiry could be answered by such a course. The , before dinner, and the note after dinner, and yet ..it:..:,:es had lren allowed time to inspect the papers, , both be by the same person ? A. Certainly the wri ;r.2: ) form their nature opinions on them; and now t ting of one might be much worse if h wrote in the I e Ll:very cf these opinions was interrupted by ques- evening than if he wrote in the nosing. 1, il .ikc the present. Mr. Beaciceoan called in, and examined by the ae witness again called. . ATTORNEY-GP. ERA L. (). Do you think these papers were all written by Q. 'What is your business ? A.II am in the Bank. t: :, :.one hand ? A. After comparing the note most i —Q. In what department ? A. To view powers of :i !catively with the two letters, lam of opinion that 1 attorney.—Q. Have you viewed these notes, to see if u:..7 were not written by the same ..hand.—Q. From 1 they were the same? A. Yes.—Q. How long have e!et circumstance have you been led to this opinion ? ; you been employed ? A. Nearly 20 years.- Q. Do .e. Tecee is a neatness, a smaller kind of letter, and , you think that the letters and the note were Written a .tl:Tness in the ncte which' I have not observed in the ;by the same person ? A. I think there is a very ear l. to .In the letters there is a general freedom ' responding similarity.—Q.. Repeat the question ?A. w:iich does not aprear in- the note. 1 I say there is a marked similarity. Q. (By Lord Fotxs!roN.E.) You say the letters of ! Q. (By Mr. LOCKHART. ) Have you any reason to tie. e, .e are of a small description—might not that , think they were not written by the same person ? A. ,eisen from a difference in the pen and ink 111 can only give the same answer which I have given .. .•:,.., has not escaped my scrutiny, yet lam still 1 before.—Q. If two powers of Attorney were written ....'.., ,trie opinion. —Q. In the Attorney Office do! in the hand as like as that in which the note and let .l .;a inspect s i g natures ?A. Chiefly.—Q. What 1 ters were, would you have passed them? A. Yes. . : ... I read over the whole power of attorney Mr. Bless called in, and examined by the ATTORNEY. 1• , ~. tit is correct, and then compare the signa- GENERAL. ---i I. Arc the letters written in• the same hand Q :... Of what profession are you ? A. An invest; e 2 s' , ;:latures ?A. No. The letters are in gene- 1 gator of the Bank of England.—Q. In what depart ..' - I, el up by the Clerks of the Office.—Q. Then ment ?A. Inspector of forged notes. — Q. How 1. eee.e.-: the signatures merely ?A. Yes . i ilong have you been employed ?A. About fifteen t 2. (Ey Mr. CII A SILES A oasts.) Did you, in ob- 1 years: 7 —Q. To see it the signatures were genuine ? fcr - ,,ng and comparing the note and the letters, re- A. Yes.—Q. Were you to see any thing else .in the .:;iy t::ing particular as to the dots in the i's ? i notes ? A. Yes, I was to inspect the bodies of them. i. Nc.—Q. Look at them again ? .A. I now see; —Q. What part of the bills were written beside the let ee dot in the first letter.—Q. Are you now of I signatures.? A. The dates and numbers.—Q. Is ::.e same (-pinion ? A. That has not changed it.— 1 there any thing else written ?A. Only what is written te Yee sa id you compared these papers very accu- l on them by the public.—Q. Have you inspected the r::Ay : how has this circumstance escaped you ?A. ' letters and the note ?A. Yes.—Q. Are they in your it is ra.,t , tirprising, considering that this is the first' opinion written by the same person ? A. Yes. 1 . :!e I have ever been before this House.—Q. How I Q. (By Mr. knee Swum.) Have you any doubt ? : le Nrcl 0 you examining these papers above stairs ?I A. From letters I have seen since, I have some.—Q. A. I veic about an hour ; but I had other letters to `What letters have you seen? A. Different letters ..!.::ne at the same time. I when I saw these.--Q. Have you no doubt they were i s '• (Dv Mr. YORKE.) If a person wanted to forge I written by the same hand ? A. I have said what I :. .= \ ; : it ing of another who put dots on his i's, would ; thought before. ~ : . cirt r not do it also ? I Q. (By Mr. BATHURST.) What letters lid you :.1 .. ‘V lI,LI A NI SMITH objected to this ques- : see ? A. From No. 30 to 40. I did not examine 1, as it could at best be nothing more than a mat- I them all, as I was called in late. I understood they e: ( : inference. were Mrs. Clarke's letters.—Q. How did Mrs. Clarke's Ye •• YORKE said, it was not a question of infer- . letters bring any doubt of these ? A. I looked at ee ',et of experience. I many others after these,and compared them with these THONIAS TURTON thought if that was the j two.—Q. Repeat the question ?A. They differed so . .: !.!, the best viay of putting the question would much in their frame ; some of the letters were larger . ,i.l Ivr ever remember such a circumstance ? . I And some smaller.— Q. What is the difference of the :, . ;iI.-I.ARPE said any answer the wit ness g ave ; hand-writing? A. Some are written in a free and ` • ~! : , e of no consequence, as he had confessed he I easy hand, some in a stiff and neat one, some alike, • IL: Out attended to this circumstance. 1 and some different. But if I had seen but the two The Witness again called in. ;letters and the note, I should not have had a doubt i Q. Do you ever remember a similar circumstance? : that they were written by the sa me person. But since A. Na, Ido not recollect one. — Q. D oes the differ- I have seen the other letteri, I have had a very dif- i e : c.: as to the dots incline you to change your on-' ferent opinion. —Q. Whether do the letters you speak p„n 11 opinion ? A. No, it has some weight, but still ! of resemble more the two letters that have been shewn Et'' '. C..t)Ugh to make me chnige my opinion. Ito you,- or the note ?A. They resemble both the two Q. (By Mr. T H ompsoy,.) Did you often observe , letters and the note.—Q. Do you mean to say, that t'.:e sigatures of the same person to vary ? A. Car - I t he resemblance between the letters, from No. 30. to 1 'ly, and that may happen from .a variety of cir- I No. 40 . and the t wo letu p s has excited the doubt you : . w.n.stances ; for in a man's hand may be vet y I now entertain, whether fhe two letters and the note (''': rat before and after dinner.—(A loud laugh.)— Ibe the same hand-writing ?A. The letters them ,• Bare y ou not o f ten o b s erved the signatures of, , selves afforded the only reason for a doubt in my -, .'n! , ! person in such circumstances to differ .as . mind. n .!: .riAlv as the note and th - letters. b efore y ou do ? i Q. (By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.) Did y ou per •i. No doubt I have.—Q. When Powers of Attor- I ceive any similarity between the papers, from Nos. nay Lave been submitted to you, have they not varied 30 to 40, and tile two letters and the note ? A. One mach is the writing though signed by the same per-1 or two of the former, I thought, bore a resemblance s'.::' A. Ye: , .. —(2. And yet they have been passe d I to the two letters and the note.—Q. -Did the view of 13. i you ?A. Yes.—Q. Have they not differed often : these papers leave and th a e no doubt upon writ[ mind whether niaferially :Is the ncte and letters befo re- y ou ? A.- 1 the two lettersnote weren by the same (• •, .inly ; bat then I had collateral evidence to guide ! person ? A. It did. ":';* • e•l'ement. I The witness was then ordered to withdraw, when, Q. / i:y 6ir J A m E s HALL.) Is the note in a dif- after a short conversation between Sir M.W. RIDLEY, f"..:rt:t t hand from the letters ? A. That is my opinion. Mr. BERESFORD, Mr. WILLIAM WYNNE, and another Q. (1V Mr. LITTLE CON:) In comparing signa- Member, General Clavering was called in, ancrexa t.''T'', do you contrast the signature with the writing mined on the Motion of Sir id W. RIDLEY. itei. or with other signatures of - the same person ? . The evidence given by -General Clavering on a I .: • , ;it!i other signatures.—Q. Do the signatures former nig_ht being _read, eer -ily differ f rom the writing ?A. I have observed The CHAIRI*AthN. aske d whether there was any, . .., (-:attires are generally more invariable in their - and.what part, Qf ~ at evi ence,, whiCh the witness . .......cc than the body of a letter. People often- wished. to exlain. . . A. 46 &fine I came to the part of my evidence ::,.sir name in a particular manner. .. f, 3 / Mr. MARTIN.) Were.you told there was which . .I wish to explain I. l'must request permission to state the reason why I have come forward on this oc cosialu. has been notified re 11041,t,itliatrAt - 4147144.# pasticirtla. of my hkving, in my formes evidence,'en snaccitrate. On that occasion I owtainly otateci that ahotild give information upon every point to thekliett of my. knowledge. On a reference, however, to the minutes, I find that the answers I gave were not such ; as I should have done, if I bad comprelended fully the questions. With the peimission of the committee, I beg leave to refer to the questions put to me on the former occasion. I was then asked Whether I had had any communication whatever, relative to • army promotions with Mrs. Clarke ?' y answer was, that I had had none, and it is perfectly clear to me that epistolary correspondence was left out of considera tion, and that personal communication was only meant. Besides, the following question shewed that any other construction was impossible. The next question was, Whether I knew Mrs. Clarke to have exercised any influence over the Duke of York, with a view to procure military promotions ? This ques tion I misunderstood, and as a proof of that I can state to the Committee, that, after I had withdrawn from the bar, I met a noble relative, a Member a another House, who observed, that he was surprised I had not been examined touching other points, which might be collected from the same source, as those upon Which I had actually been examined. The CHAIRMAN then asked the witness whether he had any thing farther to add to his former testi mony ? To which he replied in the negative. • The letter purporting to be the letter of General Clavering was next read, on the motion of Mr. W. WYNNE. . General Clavering examined by Mr. WARD. Q. in your former evidence you state that to your eertain knowledge you did not know of any applic - tions-to Mrs. Clarke, for military promotions: did you think yourself eicintled from the question ? A. I certainly did. Q. ( By .Mr W .: ILITEIEAD.) Did you or did you not, in writi ng cr Otherivise, ask Mrs. Clarke to use her influence with the Commander in Chief to pro cure you proMotioil ? A. I did. Q. (By Mr. Irnata.)- Had • your. applicntilit* any effect ? • A. I believe not.— u, picyy,s4...ob - tokiwws. you-asked for ? A. I made two applications... not succeed in the first, and Whattoktined on-the' second, was, I believe, not in ConseqUence of the. in fluence of Mrs. Clarke.—Q, W your,request grant ed ? A. What I obtained wo uld have been equally - Q. I 'with for a ; cause at the thus I WU at a &tante from London.— promotion from Mrs. Ciarie l you Q. MI . did,,you s uppose thae-rpomroyold tet militar; c. 04.14 not pet even from the Wir Office ? Bioclense I was d:J• taut from town, and I supposed on my application to that lady, I should get Information which the persons in office would not be justified in givinpr--Q..Cor what reason did you think that Mrs. Clarke could have information of what was passing at the Horse guards, which would have been refined to you if you regularly applied at the office ? A. Because I had i.* opinion that her influence over -4e Commander ill Chief could obtain information of that deieriptien ; and I hope I may be permitted to add, that she was represented to me as possessing that influence..—Q. How do you reconcile that with pour former state ! ment, that you did not believe her to have bad any influence over the Commander in Chief ? A. If I am correct, I before stated that her influence over the Commander in Chief did not e to obtain military promo ions. —Q. Did you, in point of fact, obtain the inform 'don you desired ? A. I. did not. The infor mation I obtained was, that the rank of Brigadier. General was to be restored,' instead of Brigadier-Co. lonels.—Q: Was or was not that, the information you . desired ? A. It was not. I have already explained the reason why the rank of Brigadier General was restored.--Q. Look at that letter, and see whether you did not address it to Mrs. Clarke ? A. I rather think it ref...rs to the proposition about raising the re. .riment.—Q. State what conversation you had w i th ‘ &lrs. Clark.: on your return to town after writing that letter ? A. It is above five years since I wrote that letter, and it is impossible that I could recollect a conversation of so trifling a nature.—Q. Do you ad. here to your answer on a former night, that you never had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke on the subject of military promotions ? A. Ido not recollect. It is possible I might have alluded to the circumstance, but Icannot now recollect—Q. You say you offered Mrs. Clarke 10001. to procure you the regiment ; did you afterwards make her any offer or tender for her influence, or supposed influence with the Conimander in Chief ? . A. I pcs:tively never did.--Q. Did you ever give her any pecuniary recompence or valuable consi lefation ? A. I never gave her any thing in my lire, except accidentally. Q.: (By Sir THOMAS Twerox.) What reason had you to .think that Mrs. Clarke had no influence with the Commander in Chief ? A, The ground of my. opinion was my own case, and also the statements of various Military officers. Besides whatever might granted without any applica. direct answer.? A. My request was pasted, but it. have been sai.d:on the subject, no case was ever could no:. have been done in any way the application brought home to his Royal Highness. could be made.—Q. Why then apply though Mrs. Q. (By Sir Joint SEBRIGHT.) Did you ever ob- Clarke ? A. Before I state the answer, I hope I shall min, by letter, to Mrs. Clarke, or otherwise, an ap be permitted to state the cirqmstance of the case. In pointment on the Staff ? A. I was placed on the the year 1803 I was appointed to the rank of a Field Staff on the 24th of September, 1803, as the date of Officer as Lieutenant-Colonel. In 1804 the Govern- the appointment will show, and the acquaintance of ment thought fit to raise all Officers of my rank, and the Duke of York with Mrs. Clarke did not take place some below me, to the rank of Brigadier-General. for four months after, in January 1804.—Q. Did In a fortnight after it was notified to them, that you not write a letter to the Attorney-General, desir they were to be only Brigadier-Colonels instead of ing to be examined at the Bar of this House ? A. I Generals. Upon this I wrote to Mrs. Clai ke, to did, and shall be extremely happy to state the reason. ascertain why the promotion had been reduced from —Q. State the ground upon which you wrote that Brigadier-Generals to Colonels, to which she replied, letter ? A. A day or two after this Inquiry com that the rank of Brigadier-General would be re- menced, I perceived by the Papers, that my name stored, as it afterwards was. The reason was ob- had been introduced in the proceedings, and I-was vious, because at the time it was supposed that the apprehensive, that his Royal Highness might sup- Militia and the Army would have to act together ; pose, that I had resorted to improper means to pro in consequence of which, it was thought necessary to cure military objects. I went therefore to the Horse give superior rank to the Colonel, of the Army.—Q. Guards with a view to see Colonel Gordon, whom I. How came you to apply to Mts. Clarke, and not did not meet, and was referred to Mr. Lowten. This through the office of the Commander in Chief ? A. Gentleman told me it would be necessary for me to Became the persons in the office would not give me be examined at the bar of the House of Commons, the information I desired, or would be reprehensible which I wished anxiously to avoid. Consequently I for giving it.—Q. What secret source of informa- came town and wrote the letter to the Attorney Ge tion, which it would be reprehensible in the Clerks of neral, which at first stated that I wished to appear at the office to divulge, did you suppose Mrs. Clarke to the bar by the desire of Mr. Lowten. But that pas possess ? A. I cer,ainly supposed that Mrs. Clarke sage was expunged, and I appeared at the bar in the was informed of what was passing at the Horse. character of a voluntary witness. guards, and I had reason to think that she could in- Q. (By a Member.) With what view did you write form me.—Q. What reason, and from whence did the letter to the Attorney-General ?A. Mr. Lowten you suppose she could derive her information? A. stated to me, that he conceived any evidence before From the Commander in Chief.—Q. How do you the House would he of great service, and consequently reconcile that statement with your former declare- I applied to be examined. Q. Did you inform Mr.. tion, that you supposed Mrs. Clarke not to have any Lowten of all your transactions with Mrs. Clarke at influence upon the Commander in Chief ? A. The re- the time ? A. Not of all. ply I before gave went to the influence of Mrs. Clarke Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) Do you mean to state, over the Commander in Chief as to military promotion. that you were a voluntary or an involuntary witness —Q. Of the two applications made to Mrs. Clarke, on the occasion ? A. I have no objection to state, which succeeded ? A. If I recollect right, the resto- that the last wish of my heart was to be examined ration to the rank of Brigadier-General could not have at the bar of this House. Mr. Lowten told me it been denied without a marked stigma.—Q. I wish was necessary, and therefore I have appeared. the question to be repeated ?A. I have to apologise By the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER. to the House if I have not understood the question. Q. For what purpose did you go to the Horse- Q. What were the two applications which you made ? Guards, and afterwards to Mr. Lowten ? A. I was A. The first ariplication. I made was in 1802. I had anxious to remove from the mind of Colonel Gordon heard that Mrs. Clarke had influence with the Duke that I had any thing to do in the traffic for commis of York with respect to military promotions. I thought sions, and particularly to explain the circumstances of it would not be amiss to apply to her, and conse- Lieutenant Sumner's business.—Q. Was it for the quently wrote; offering her £lOOO if she could get purpose of contradicting the fact to Colonel Gordon, me the levy of a regiment. She wrote back to me, that you went to the Horse Guards ? A. It was for in answer, that the Duke of York would not hear of the purpose of explaining the mode in nhich my it ; and that shewed me that she had no influence.— name had been introduced by Mrs. Clarke, in her ex- Q. Did you in fact obtain the regiment ? A. I did amination. not.—Q. Did you make .any other application ?A. Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) Did ylu mention to My other application was to know the reason why Mr. Low ten your offer of £lOOO to Mrs. Clarke ?A. the Brigadier-Generals were reduced to Colonels.— I did not.—Q. Are you sure ?A. I think I did nor. Q. Did you ever, make any other application for —Q. Had you any district given you after having promotion, exchange, or for any other purpose ?A. been made a Brigadier-General ?A. I was constantly Ido not recollect ; but if any Hon. Member will in the same district as when I was appointed. I was give me an intimation of it, I am ready to explain it. promoted at the same time with all others of the same Q. When you stated before, that Mrs. Clarke had no rank, some senior and some junior to me.—Q. Did influence, how came you to make a second applica- you apply directly or indirectly, or otherwise, to Mrs. tion ? A. If lam correct, I stated, that from her Clarke upon the subject ? A. lam certain I did not, answer I concluded she had no influence, though I and the more certain, because the first I heard of the thought it likely that the Commander in Chief might promotion was from Mrs. Clarke, and about amo ginth talk to her about military affairs.--Q. Do you know before it took place.--Q. Was the information ven whether any other officer received the permission that to you early and as a secret ? A. It was communicated VMS refused to you ? A. Did you mean through the by letter, and no secrecy was enjoined. same channel ?—Q. Through any channel ? A. If The witness was then ordered to withdraw, when I recollect right, there were some new regiments Mr. C. W. NV YNNE rose to discharges painful raised in Ireland ?—Q. Were they raised on the same duty ; but, painful as it may be, it was a duty, and terms you proposed ? A. No ; my proposal was to he should not shrink from the discharge of it. The raise from the militia ; the Irish regiments were raised r. Committee must be aware of the nature of the tes by a bounty.—Q. From whom did Mrs. Clarke re- timony - given by the witness who had just withdrawn, ceive the information, which, when you supposed her and as he had been warned that he was to live his to have no influence with the Commander in Chief, in- evidence at his own peril, and had exposed himself to duced you to apply to her ? A. My information was the animadveriion- of the House, he should move that merely upon report. lam ready to state the name General Clavering has prevaricated in his evidence. of the person who informed me, if the Committee de- General MATHEW contended, that no preVaii sire it. (No! No !No !)—Q. Had you ever any \ cation whatever had taken place ; and that the 'wit other than a wiitten communication with Mrs. Clarke ness at the bar was incapable of p r evaricating. on the subject of your own p ref e rment ? A. To the Mr. WHITBREAD did jnstice to the feelings of best of my recollection and opinion I had not, be- the Honourable General, bet C3llld not zdopt his view of dte question. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ / 1 , .1 .0 1 ./ ir .. i • il I I I i r I I , 'i• i iy i 4 • ',I i• 1 • 1. ‘ t • 1 • I # ' i • i f ) i' i 1 kl J'' • .1 33 AN' N o Ye out I