Star. — London, England, 1809-02-18 00:00:00

tic S IR , - g ! /140091 6 . 1 - v . ../.. " I have learned with extreme regret. that Iliessopreasay that licentiousness would stop. He deprecated much-lamented brother bas bees introduced in b to4oll . i. 410 verity with which the Hon. Gentleman who-last no w pending before the Hor ro of h C a omm e un°lldue as • ' ' had adverted, though obliquely, to the conduct his itomoti_ Law Officers of the Crown, and Judges of the ___ .(i e. l on in e to state I° t yest a jsat my brother was,advantodio, e of his services in India, under Lord Coloivrallia;'' in prosecuting and punishing libellers. If men ' guilty of criminal acts, there were public tram- and obtained a brevet tank, by his exertions ip the Egyptioatlpt pedition under Sir of Dri sea lialrd—he obtained an ere he. eff rnet ete fa M te. joi s the country to which recourse might be ha d . r t on aice against them ; but if persons were permit- L have tl no ilo cc urt in there are man al y Officers Members of she House, take vengeance into their own hands, by pubs w m h . o seg bo , tli l h e ave now to an saT d . I will bave speak obtaned to hi s al m m y eri cammigoo„ ts ; with respect ,lzpvet to their accusations in preference, it . was impos . my / Ensi g ncy and Lieutenancy, hygradual.aclvaneve meritede _sow. to say where the mischief would terminate. This served . Li tu exp editions , many bm aw d iro b il o , P;: , t ill hawthe ml goodnen been the case insome recent libellous publication • " I havethe honour to be , Sir, yours, Scc. 'ithors of which were ; he sources from which r te ei oblig s e.'nersby by this l et ter e ll th e pub l ic it y la your Pew er ' Gentlemen had derived the grounds of their (Signed) " o. TUCKZIL " ts, and yet they could make nothing of the Sir A. WELLESLEY rose for the purpose of those persons were able to furnish. paying a just tribute to the talents and services of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in Officer in question. He had known him particularly r to what had fallen from Mr. Whitbread, said • lid well in Portugal, and certainly esteemed him a Ver y be an irregular proceeding to enter upon the meritorious Officer. He was the more willing to state - , :es of the Committee the whole of the narrative , this, as he had many communications with the Offi- ! •hich he had felt it necessary to introduce the , cer's family ; and be he believed, that at the time Co heated circumstances afterwards produced. in lonel Tucker was about to promoted, several ap nce respecting Colonel Hamilton and Captain pllcations had been made to him offering advance ei. • Whatever facts were within his own know meet, by money-brokers, which that Officer spurned ,he was ready to state if examined, and his an- at with becoming contempt. He knew that Colonel would be the most regular form in which the Tucker had got his promotions properly, and all by ;t could appear in the minutes. brevet rank. (Hear !) n the question that the debate on. this subject Lord TEMPLE was happy to add his mite to the amid be postponed to Monday se'nnight, applause of the gallant General, as to the brother who The ATTORNEY GENERAL said , as t o t h e had fallen, and he was sure ti6e same justice would Gentlemaa's allusion to the Law Officers' con- be done to the living brother. He would. move that concerning the licentiousness of the press, he the letter should be entered oa the minutes. lit his duty to say a few words. It had been Lord FOLKESTONE was inclined perfectly to they had not been remiss in their prosecutions ; coincide with the opinion's of those who hadpreeeded h ,s e would have no objection to the assertion, if him as to the merits of the two Officers; he appre thrase in which it had been conveyed meant no : than it ostensibly implied ; but he well knew heeded the name of Tucker had been placed in the evidence improperly for that of Trotter. -hat a colour it would appear in the publications Sir THOMAS TURTON objected to the letter led to : he well knew it would not have the snme being entered on the minutes, as it could not pos ing every where else which it had in that House silly be evidence. would there appear to imply that they had been The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER yarly diligent ; and he had no doubt that such thought that no objection could be urged except as truction would be put on it. Now he would ap to the identity-of the writing : . many letters had been to all who had read one, or even one-tenth part put on the minutes on as slight grounds. • • ie publications alluded to; whether it could he Mr. STURGES BOURNE said, that one serious ty imputed to the Law Officers of the Crown that charge ( chat of Colonel French) was entirely ground many prosecutions had been proceeded in ? As ed on similar evidence. Se imputation upon the Courts, he could only Lord TEMPLE thought that if the writing was that it would be more fair, generous, and manly, first proved, the difficulty would be done away .., produce it where the accued could enter into a This was deferred until some person was to be defence of their decisions. It was not, however, right, found who : could prove the writing. such an assertion should go forth to the public Mr. WARDLE wished here to read a letter which replied to.. he had received from Miss Taylor relative to her tes- Mr. WHITBREAD explained. timony— Mr. CANNING was proceeding to reply, When " Stn—Mrs. Hovenden has chosen to draw some Inferences cord PORCHESTER rose to order. He consi- unfavourable to me in her evidence. I have only U. say, that she :d a prolongation of the debate unnecessary and visited me once at Bayswater and once at Dolby Terrace. She Aderly. l has said she would net place her daughter under my care. do Mr. CANNING contended he was perfectly in not know whether she would do that or nor: but I know she sent her niece, of the ,age Of 14 years, on a visit to me. 'der. He had not been in the House at the comb (Signed) " *ONO TATLOa." lcement of the debate ; but as he understood the Mr. WARDLE did not desire this to be placed ctnourable Gentleman opposite had animadverted upon the minutes. the conduct of the Judges, and the Attorney Ge• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER al had very properly complained of the general wished now that some person should be called forward sire of the charge, such a charge should certainly to prove the Duke of York's writing. brought forward minutely and gravely, and lie Lord FOLKESTONE said, that be heard Mrs. ,uld admonish the Honourable Gentleman— Clarke had various letters now to produce with seal Lord FOLKSTONE called the Right Honourable unbroken, similar to that 'which was appended to ntlernan to Order. He thought the phrase adono- the private note of the Duke of York, which was very improperly applied to any Member of the f o u n d in the bureau of Captain Sanden. ~use. Mr. YORK said, the only reason why he had ask . - The SPEAKER said it was impossible to consider ed about the unbroken seal was, that if the writing ! Right Honourable Gentleman out of order, when i had been forged, there would have been no difficulty usage of the House allowed such a general mode i n forging the seal. otpression as it did, and he could see no personal The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER noon. had no objection, if it was thought necessary to con- Lord FOLKSTONE said he was misunderstood. firm the testimony of Mrs. Clarke. • le Right Honourable Gentleman had not coin- I Mr. W. SMITH wished to know whether the Ho ined of the course, or of an y p art i cu l ar p o i n t i n the nourable Member intended to found any proceeding .nourable Gentleman's (Mr. ‘Vhitbread's) speech, upon the letter of Miss Taylor ; he thought her case : rose to admonish him. This was what be cum- was a peculiarly hard one ; he did not see why any lined of. • shadow of diggrace should attach to her (cries of hear The SPEAKER said no personal allusion had and order.) " I should imagine (said Mr. Smith). in intruded. 1 that when any man rises in this House to advocate Mr. CANNING declared Ile was very , far f r om ! the cause of an unprotected female, he should be suf. icing any reflection on the Honourable Gentleman ! fered to proceed." iposlte, nor did lie know any subject on which he 1 'The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER :s less inclined to be warm ; but he thought this ' thought the Honourable Gentleman was proceeding irge ought to have ')een brought gravely and so- 1 in :t disorderly course. .If he thought Miss Taylor .mnly forward, and he was sure the venerable Ma- ! had been treated severely, he should have' noticed it strates accused would And advocates enough in that ; at the time, and not now, after such an interval : if AIM. this proceeding was allowed, the consequence would Mr. WHITBREAD assured the Right Honoura- I be, that those who were accused must defend them- Gentleman, that he would be always happy to selves, and thus the *time of the House would be it any thing from him ,in the way of admonition ; in I wasted. present instance, however, it was quite unneces-1 Mr. SMITH thought that the time of Miss Tay try. He had not accused the Judges of too great lot's letter being read was the most proper for him to rerity, but he had said they could not be accused I make his remark on the subject, and he only wished . lenity in their sentences on those who had been . to know whether any proceeding was intended to be .01witted of supporting the licentiousness of the press. I founded on her letter : however, as the House did not had also said, that too severe judgments would • seem inclined to entertain the subject, he was not anxi ty produce the contrary effect to that which was ! ous to press it. .ended. If lie had intended to animadvert on the; Colonel GORDON called in and examined by .the CHAN- . edges, he would have done it directly, by bringing! ' . CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. ward a charge in the regular manner;—(Hear, i Q. I need not ask Colonel Gordon if he isacqUain srr .9--As to the Right Honourable Gentleman, , ted with the hand-writing of the Duke of York. \ Is. Canning), he would doubly thank him, if, as , Look at that note, and do not hurry yourself. Do -night, lie would always openly state to whom he you think it is his ? A. It is very like it. I cannot nted, and not merely utter an insinuation which say positively ; .the address is not his.—Q. Is the in- Ft its meaning in doubt ! i . side his ? A. It is like it. I The further consideration of this subject was post- j Q. cßy Mr. MARTIN.) Have you any reason to lied to Monday se'nnight. I doubt it ? A. I cannot, with honour, give a stronger Mr. CANNI•G brought up some American Papers,' answer than I have (Hear! Hear !) 1 !tich were ordered to be printed- -Q. (By Lord FOLKESTONE.) There are two other DUKE OF YORK. letters. Can you say whether these are in the Duke's; The 1-louse having resolved itself into a Committee . writing ? inquire further into the conduct_ of the Commander I These letters were some time searching for. Chief, Mr. O'DELL — " Colonel Gordon, Sir, perhaps, Mr. ADAM said, that he wished some of the may be accommodated with a chair." . aids should be summoned who attended Mrs Clarke Mr. WHARTON—" Colonel Gordon you will Gloucester-place, to prove whether they saw the be indulged by the Committee with a seat under the Aof recommendations of O ffi cers which Mrs Clarke G a ll er y." said she was in the habit of pinning up at the head of , The letters having been at length produced, the - :r bed, and which the Duke of York used to take first was shewn'to the witness. • (own every morning. He thought they should be ; Q. Is that the Duke's writing? A. I think it is. :amined on this point. 1 —Q. And this (Sheaving the second)? A.- lam of mr. WHITBREAD said it would be to no pup- ; the same opinion.— Q: I have observed thit Colonel pose, as no doubt the maids would say they never . Gordon compared the note which he was shewn first' saw it in the morning, and Mrs. Clarke would say with some other papers; why did he not do so with 'she never pinned it up t ill ni g ht. ' I the two last letters ? A. The papers with which I Mr. WHARTON stated to the Committee, th a t compare d- t h e note. were l etters I received from the he as their Chairman, had received a letter from Duke of York in the years 1804, 5 1 6, 7,, and 8, and Lieutenant -Colonel Tucker on the subject of this in- I did so because I knew - the Duke-vaned i 57 little ,airy, which he would hegleave to read to the Core- in his writin g (Ifeeril Mt note was also a .very ~ fhit tee I. . `small scrap of paper; which was soothe:treason why. the House of Commons last night, when a Tim ( A arose respecting the authenticity of the letter [The former evidence of the gallant General wac then read, when he withdrew from the bar without having any other question put to him.) Examination of Mr. ADAM by the CHANCELLOR of the Excusa:ze. Q. What is your opinion of the hand -writing o f that note ? A. Ido think it like the hand-writin g of the Duie of York, but cannot positively state more than that. • _ _ lAO SD (Hear I Hear !) Thi other letter, were of XO4 than two pages, and I knew those at' once.-1 *as your *poi& as tube - scrap formed from -4-essetlinowledge of the. Duke's waiting, or• from the czparison with the papers? From both. Q. (By Mr. Maims.) If a scrap, such as that you speak of, had been sent to you, would you have acted apou-k ? A. The scrap had no signature, and 1 so I should not have acted upon it. Q. (By Mr. CREEI;EY.) If it had a signature would yttu? A. If it had the signature of the Duke of York, I certainly would. Q. (By Mr. MARTIN.) If it had the signature 4g Frederick" to it, would you ? A. I really cannot say, unless I was to see the signature. After a few words from Mr. BRAND and the CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, General BROWNRIGG was 'called in, and examined by the CHANCELLOR of the Exenerauen. Q. Is that the Duke of York's writing (chewing him the note)? A. It resembles it much ; the ad- 1 dress does not. lam noepositive.—Q. Is the inside his ? A. I am not certain.—Q. (Shewing others.) Do you believe these to be in his hand-writing ? A. It is so like it, that I would believe it.—Q. Look at the short note again: what do you say of that pow ? A. It is not ,so like it as the other letters are. lam not so positive of that as of the others.—Q. Is the direction of it like the Duke's hand ? A. I think it is more like ' than the direction of the other letters. Q. (By Mr. Mantes.) If that was sent to you as the Duke's, and you had no suspicion of it, would you act on it i A. It is so short, I would. Q. (By Lord Fr:eau:over.) What gave you a suspicion of it ? A. I was in the House last night, and heard the nature of the questions. Colonel GORDON called in and examined by Lord FOLKESTONE. Q. Did you ever hear a suspicion of the authen -1 ticity of the note before your examination here ? A. Certainly.— Q. When and where ? A. I suppose I am to - state exactly as it happened. On last Saturday week, at half past ten at night, the Duke of York abd Mr. Adam called on me at my house. I was un dressing at that time, and was obliged to go down to the Duke in my undress ; the first word the Duke said to me was, 4 , This is an extraordinary business; here is a forgery." Mr. Adam then told me that Colonel Hamilton and Captain Sanden had come to town ; and that Colonel Hamilton had told him he had seen a note of the Duke of York's v.i.th Smitten ; it was then determined that Colonel Hamilton should call at the Horse Guards the next day, and see Mr. Adam. e He accordingly did call about one o'clock, and Mr. Adam went out - to see him ; this is all I know of the business.—Q. Do you say that your sus picion of the writing arose from the Duke of York's speaking of its being a forgery ?. A. Certainly.— Q. How do you know this is the same note ? A. I never heard of any other.—Q. Did you ever hear of it from any one else ? A. Yes ; on Tuesday I had a conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it, and the substance of it was as I have already stated.— Q. Did you speak of it to anyone else since ? A. Yes ; in my waiting above stairs, some loose ge neral conversation occurred between Colonel Hamil ton and me on the subject ; it was very general. —Q. To none other ? A. mentioned it in confidence to Generals Hope and Brownrigg, and Sir William Harris, and to no more.—Q. What was the conver sation ? A The same as I have stated.—Q. Any with the Duke of York ? A. Yes.--Q. When ? A. This morning. —Q. What occurred ? A. The mo meat I saw the Duke, he said, As you are to be I examined to-night, I shall not speak a word to you on the Subject." I told his Royal Highness I had been summoned on the subject of the note. After the witness had withdrawn, Mr.WINDHAM observed on the delicate situation in which the witness had been placed ; he held a con fidential situation under the Duke of York, and many conversations must certainly have taken placebetween them, which it would not be proper to communicate. He might be allowed to remark on this now, as the mischief had occurred, and as a guard in future. In cases where Law Officers were concerned, they were allowed to entrench themselves 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 vindicate his Noble Friend. If any improper questions were asked, they' would of course be stopped before they were answer ed : many questions, however, required an answer, which he was aware it might be unpleasant to give ; duties were often painful, but yet they were to be performed. After a few words on this subject from Mr. Wind ham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, andMr.Yorke, Mr. DICRIE was called in. By the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. Q. You are a Clerk in Coutts's Bank ? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see the Duke of York write ? A. I saw him sign his name.—Q. Not more ?A. Yes, I have seen him frank a letter.—Q. Are you able to prove his writing ? A. No, only his signature. General. Hope examined. .(Shelvw the ao:e.) Q. Have you observed the note ?A. Yes.—Q. Is it the Duke of York's lind ? A. Very like it but I cannot say to a certainty. (Sherpa a letter.) — Q. Is that his ? A. I think it is. —Q. Is it more like than the other ? A. I believe It is ; indeed, I think I can discern merely a shadow of difference between them, and that is so slight that I cannot speak posi tively. Q. (By Mr.-Werrenst.) Q. Does the shade of dif ference, which the Hon. General states as giving him a degree of belief that the letters are the hand-writing, of the Duke of York, preferably to the note, arise from the quantity of the writing, or from any differ- 1 eace of hand-writing between the note and the letters ? A. I think it possibly may arise from the quantity of 1 the writing. It strikes my eye as unlike the hand writing of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. I do not feel competent to state, by comparison, the difference of character in the writing of the note and the letters. I spoke of the. general impression as it The two-other letters, dated from Sandgate and Weymouth were then shewn to the. HollottraV c Member, when he declared . his opition of both to .be that they were the hand-writing of the Duke of York. Q. Do you mean to speak more positively as t o the letters than as to the note ? A. I do. Q. (By Mr. WESTERN.) Have you been ever toll by the Duke of York that the note was a forgelv A. Colonel Gordon, in his testimony, has givcn a -correct description of what the Duke of York said on that subject. —Q. I wish to know whether I am to understand, that the Duke of York represented the note to the Honourable Member, on the same even. ing that he did to Coloael Gordon, as a torgery A. When first I had a conversation with the Duke of York upon the subject, it was on Saturday the of February. His Royal Highness declared, that he had no hesitation to say, that he had no recoll2c. Lion whatever of such a note, and that he Nvas con. vinced it was a forgery. When we went to Mr. Per. ceval's that evening, - he made an asseveration pre. cisely to the same effect; and afterwards, when w e went from - Mr. Percevars to Colonel Gordon', h e made a similar asseveration, which Colonel Gordon has already given in evidence.—Q Are these the only occasions in which the Duke of York informed the Honourable and Learned Member that the note was a forgery ? A. .0f course, I have repeated con. versations with his Royal Highness upon the matter now pending before the House ; and in the course o 1 these conversations, without my being able to spe cify the particular time, his Royal Highness held the same language.—Q. Do you perceive from the cha racters of the note any thing unlike the hand-writing of the Duke of York ? A. I can't say, from the cha. racters of the writing in the note that I can perceive any think unlike the hand-writing of the Duke of York ; t ut from the shortness of the note, and from there not being a possibility of correcting the judge. ment respecting.the writing by the general appear ance di it which takes place in a long letter, i can not speak with the same positiveness as I can with ro gard to the other letters. Mr. Dickiz was then again called in and examined by Mr..l. Ssurn. Q. What situation do you hold at Messrs. Coutts', A. That of Principal Clerk.--Q..Are you not, or were you not in the habit of accepting bills for that house ? A. A considerable time.—Q. Are you not in the habit of observing upon the hand-writing of the individuals connected with the House of Messrs. Coutts ? A. I am, in !general ; but there is a clerk in our house more competent to speak to the signa tures of the different customers, and who examines the signatures before the bills are sent to me.—Q. Is it not occasionally your business to ascertain the ge nuineness of hand-writing ? A. No.—Q. Have you seen any drafts filled up as well as signed by the Commander in Chief ? A. I have seen him sign, but can't say that I have seen him fill up drafts.— Q. Have you seen the letters that are now shewn to you ; look at them; and say whether you see any dif ference in the hand-writing of the three letters ? and if 'you do, state what it is.—A. There is a difference, the note strikes me at not so like the Duke's hand writing.— Q. Explain what the difference is.—A. The hand-writing being smaller, and not like the others. Q. (By Mr. W. Sman.) Did you insert the words, " not so like the Duke's ?" A. I mean, that the writing is not'so like as these two letters laid before me.—Q. Did you not state that you never sawa draft filled up by his Royal Highness ? A. I have seen him sign a draft repeatedly, but not fill up a draught to my knowledge. I am not cashier.--Q. Are you competent to say, that the letter is not the handwri ting of the Duke of York ? A. I am not sufficiently acquainted with his Royal Highness's letter hand• writing to do that. Q. (By Lord HENNIKER.) Do you mean by the words " not so like the Duke's," nut so like the Duke's hand-writing.? A. I only stated that it was not so like it as the other two letters. Mr. NICHOLSON CALVERT. put it to the Committee, whether thecourse of examination that bad been pursued was not an unnecessary waste of time. The witness had stated a long time since, that lw could only speak as to the signature of his Royal Highness to examine ; therefore, with respect to that which he could not prove, namely, the Duke's hand• writing, - was absolutely to throw away the time tit the Committee. Mr. Town called in and examined, By the CHANCEI.I.dII of the Excintorr.s. Q. Where does Mr. Town live ? A. In Boni. street.—Q. What business do you follow ? A. Th it of an artist.—Q. In what line ? A. As a velvet painter.—Q. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Clarke ? A. Yes.—Q. Was it when she lived in Gloucester. place ? A. Yes.—Q. Recollect whether you ever heard her say any thing respecting the hand-writing of the Duke of York ? A. Yes. Qi On what occa sion, and what did she say ? A. In the course conversation she observed that she had forged t!:, Duke's name, and did it On a blank paper, and gay.' it to me, when I could not tell the difference benveci, the Duke's signature and her own.—Q. What to make this observation ? A. That I can't tell.—t. was your business with Mts. Clarke at the tune of this conversation ? A. I gave her a lesson in the ;at of portrait painting.—Q. Have you attended tc tcactt her the art of painting ? A. Yes —Q. Did the obscr - tion which you have stated, :.ri e oat of the siabj,sa of painting and the lesson you gave Mrs. Clarke ? A. I slo not rightly comprehend your meaning.—Q.. Did it arise out of, any conversation on the subject at the art of painting? A. No; there were wriziil;4 and letters 'on the table.—Q. What led her to make that observation ? • A. I do not recollect.--Q. Was that all that passed on the occasion ? A. It was. — Q. Did you ever see her imitate any hand-writing ? A. None, but '.what nave before stated. She said that. sht.s4uldforge the Dukeof York's hand-writiug.. 12. Did she imitate the hand-writing of the Duke a Yerigi; lase Shediti.—Q. hlatlabeleen drawin At struck my eye. - General ,BROWNRICA was then called, and examin ed by a Member.--(2. If General Brownrigg had not been in the Honse.of Coaunons last night, should he hay* had astr•dotdot.that note was. in dm kend e writing of the Duke of York? A. I certainly should; because,T. do not think it like the band writing of the . bake.. of Vork . . 7 .Q. Lundriolood you stio ban said that your susinctoo aspic from your having boat in where t • the sevt • • s poke b of the ] land, in were gi nals in I for just ted to lishing 1 1 1 Bible to had'bet the aul some I charge! . • proofs The answer it woul minute by .Nil compli eviden Sander ledge, swecs subject On should • Tht Hon. fillet found said tl and II the pl more in wh allude nreani —lt • ~, impoj constr peal of the justly too 171 to the Say LI to pit defen that unrer MI MI • Lc dere( disor M order Inenl on tl nen] natu he I won L Grn nish Hot T the the • of e: alln • I Thc plait H.r but plai '1 beer cast opp• i was cha: lem gist Hol ble hear the sun SCV( Of 1. coil He onl; i inte • Juc tors /mu (M to-r alit I. left , j a pOl ' to l Wla in • list sal kel _do ex:l P.° sal he Li qu the . . ' 10 4 6. her 1 14 9 * ° thi 1 OM OA X 1 illati thiPl ! .. thra L CIA hog , sal the 1 was it w ) upc i do sip A ber 1 Vri tor I . Ch ? use :e b* . 71 I It Do c. A r.- fat t. .e. ti ve he A 0,5 s he it, ed It? m.. V ICI' N of * Pe- V the ha- ng ha. 1 !ive 1 of . em 1 Ige. i ear. i :an. 1 1 ro. 1 fined ' tts', ~ or that not E the ssrs. lerk tait. tines ). Is ge- you the iign, s.-- n to dif- and mce, arid- The )rs. jrds, ,the :fore draft seen ught you -wr;- ':ntlf and• r the the . was ) the t had time. u hi: Loyal ) that land. ac Gl 30n.?- '.11.1 ;elvet Ake ? ester• ever riling occi. : rse ..:: d C.:. gay' t %%TO, —(, 11 t :..ek l : , .s i lit i cce e ize : ,riti j i,,,, .... ....i i c. t.. o,. r ' i : t ti.. : . nia:e Was i Ling• ? e said ritiug.. uke ot i n. dr. I.i