Star. — London, England, 1809-03-09 00:00:00

of business , ant; cause an i nqu i ry *n iter rout ine • de into the conduct of an Officer ? This would b : l ea hat's been done on the authority of an anonymous Lea ; in the presen t instance, it was even worse than sia an(i ny mous letter , th at the Commander in Chief Ad, in a manner , make into a party with suchl ttUttus. And the enquiry the conduct of a lacrcine officer, which 'nest, at the time, throw a ~lnr on his character, he thought reflected no honour , , f i, e c e wno caused it. After slightly alluding to cthilecfte of Mr. Kennett, the Honourable Gentleman : e d the. House , that a s he conceived it his dut y , ro rin F tae his sentiments with out dis g uise, he had thrown on into the form of an Address. He was the last 033 who would wish to injure the Illustrious Perso e:ige • w ho .e as the Arbject of the inquiry which had ta ken place ; but he considered it a sacred duty im d den him to act as he had done. The Hduse of d e cide on the merits of the Address he was ,:hout to submit to them, and on the justice of their t e c i l ien he relied with confidence. The Honourable Gentleman then concluded by moving, That au humble Address be presented to his Majesty, bum f', s:n irg to his Majesty , that information has been communi - c .!ed to this House, an evidence produced to support it, of va .,,as c rrupt practices and other abuses having prevailed for :ts past in the disposal of commissions and promotions Ir.' his Majesty's Land Forces—That his Majesty's faithful Cont mom, ac:erdiug to the duty by which they are bound to his Ma- 1 , and to their Constituents, have carefully examined into the t7 ,ah of sundry. transactions which have been brought before t•wiy, • p.sof of such corrupt practices and abuses; and that it is t ].e lamest concern and astanishment his Majesty's faith coy:roas fled thents;:ives obliged, niost humbly, to inform that the result of their diligent inquiries into the .-,cq:•l:vexamillazion of persons concerned, together with other w;: , e , 5 .5, and a variety of documents, has been such as to satisfy hi , r .„ ; !-..al Commons that the existence of such corrupt practices and i:,es is substantially true. 1112 t his Majesty's faithful Commons are restrained by of personal respect and attachment to his Majesty, from , ter lir into a detail of these transeetionObeing convinced that not be stated withoot exciting the most painful sensa n e grief and indignation in the breast of his Majesty : j' the proceedings of his Majesty's faithful Commons up ti, important subject have been public, and the evidence broagl:t before them is recorded in the proceedings of Parliament ; they trust his Majesty will give them credit, when t hpv ;;;nlre his Majesty, that in the execution of this painful eat) , they have proceeded with all due deliberation ; That with out entering into any other of the many obvious consequences waieh rosy be expected to follow, from the belief once generally etaKiihetl, of the prevalence of such abuses in the Military De railment, there is one great and essential consideration insepara. from the present subject, which they humbly beg leave, in a more pa%ielar tanner, to submit to his Majesty's gracious consi deration, namely, that if an opinion should prevail amongst his :Majesty's Land Forces, that promotion may be obtained by other than by merit and service—by means at once unjust to the Army and disgraceful to the authority placed over it, the effect of such an opinion must necessarily be to wound the feelings and aba:e the seal all ranks and desCriptions of his Majesty's Army. " That it is the opinion •f this House, that the abuses which Cley have thus most humbly represented to his 1V1:4 - ity, could rat have prevailed to the extent in which they had been proved exist, without the knowledge of the Commander in Chief; -d that even if, upon any principal of reason or probability, it ous!d be presumed that abuses 30 various and so long continued. mid, in fact, have prevailed without hi, knowledge, such a pre c..mpti,n in his favour would not warrant the conclusion, that cenimand of the Army could, with safety, or ought, in pro dcnee, to be continued in his hands. " Ti:at on these grounds and principles his Majesty's faithful Commens most humbly submit their opinion to his Majesty's tracious consideration, that his Royal Highness the Duke of :c•-!: ought to be ilep rived of the Command of the Army The motion being seconded, Mr. BURTON then rose, and apologised for tres reesing upon the attention of the House thus early: ~aering his opinions upon this subject, he had pre. mind upon it by paying the best attention IT could in his power to the evidence he heard, by a e eistant attendance on the House, and a careful study that part which he had not heard. Having done the next consideration that presented itself to his mind, was.to disencumber the case from the vast, nass of extraneous matter, which was pressed- into tins Inquiry. To consider what part of the state eKeits of witnesses was evidence, and what not. This • 1::•H t ; settled, the next thing was to separate the testi : . -iy of such witnesses as could be admissible, from the e.,•idence of such persons as would not be credited it. any Court of justice whatever. ( Hear, h . -ar, hear!) The Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to oh !e.., that it was necessary to notice, in this case, hat some Gentlemen may hear with surprise, no than seventy-eight witnesses had been examined, hr:: many of those witnesses, taking for the sake of :..., ; 11:nt. , nt the facts as they appeared, were to be con ••.,:•.e.e.i in the light of accomplices. It was scarcely rec ear : - for him to state ro the House, that the testi y of such persons, unless •corroborated by full a:1:1 r, ,, pt2ctalile evidence from other quarters, must ceei t illy fall to the ground. Mrs. Clarke was the peec:ieil actress in this scene. She was either an ac. con , pii:e, or she was nothing. There 44 ere many f et the witnesses who stood in a similar predi- He instanced Captain Huxley Sandenv 4. , r•• i:avettrite, and Miss Taylor. All those persons 11. e! ~even, in the first instance, a direct testimony, 1 ; . ey had either contradicted themselves, on cross . ettion, or stood contradicted by other and more, .c . :;:ble witnesses. He then proceeded at some I.h to enter into the que!lion of the credibility of .: witnesses. The evidence of Captain Huxley n, he contended, was such as would not I,.:.ved in any Court of Justice. The testi reeTy of Mrs. Favourite was precisely of the same : ;:ecription, as in her examination she had fallen :et' .t number of gross and palpable contradictions: had, for instance, represented the Reverend Ellis as a common carpenter.—He held in his netts, no less than twenty-eight assertions of Mrs. in sonic sf which she was contradicted by ant in all by persons of credit, respecting 1 .. 1:,e character he might set the world at defiance. vx,!', l , not attempt to retail all from memory, but ce t,iaiel endeavour to submit a few to the House. *would appear upon the minutes, that on being as :cd whether she ever represented herself as a single er unmarried woman, she Answered, that she had Lever repreented herself as a widow except once on a Court-Martial, and at another time in joke. Now it appealed from the evidence of Mr. Few, that she had wired credit from him by talking of her late hus band. (Mar, Hear!) 1 f the Honourable Mem &l's who cried " Hear," were not disposed to re ceive the evidence of Mr. Few, would they reject i,f Mr. Ni c h o lls, to whom she represented her s a s beinz a widow upwards of three years ? --W (.old it . not •be recollected that she said she had e..,•er represented herself as a married woman ; and i.:l:ettlarly as not being married to Dowler, when 1 •11^e had evidence at their Bar that she had done this (a: various occasions. WoUld they so trifle with the rotas C • " o f lAonest men as. not to believe four per. C .:...t. ~~ sons speaking, to these facts ? it appeared from the evidence of Mr. Nicholls, that on her fiOstr gent -to 1 , Hampstead, she represented herself as a widow —ghat i she came for some days to towna-l-that.on -tier return she was accompanied by Dowlet, whom she repre sented as her husband. It was endeavoured to ob viate this, by proving that there were several beds in the house ; and that it did not appear they ever .slept , together. But was it necessary to establish this ? Was. not she mere proof of her having said that she was . married sufficient to destroy the effect of her evidence in other instances? He would refer to the evidence' of Reid, the master of the hotel, to prove that she pas- i sed as Mrs. Dowler. The evidence of the porter and waiter was decisive on the same point. The latter' stated, that she came there more than once, and that i he announced her as Mrs. Dowler. (A laugh.) Gen tlemen might laugh, but they were not to laugh away, the characters of honest men ( Hear, hear !). It was not what he was accustomed to in the Law Courts ; \ and he hoped he should not hear it in that place. It also appeared from the minutes, that the porter had carried wine to Bedford-place, and Westbourn place, 1 , addressed to her as Mrs. Dowler, and that at both places it was received under that direction. He should not fatigue the House by endeavouring to rack his memory for other instances; but he would assure them, that is 28 instances Mrs. Clarke was contradicted by herself, and by no less than 13 witnesses. If sitting in a con: tof justice, this person's evidence was brought forward against the meanest person at the bar, he should feel it his duty to leave her evidence wholly out of the case. The next thing for the House to consider was what evidence existed exclusive of this. With respect to the charge of corruption, he should not detain the House on that part of the case. Whin it appeared from the evidence of these people, that there was nothing so , foul or profligate in which they were not ready to en gage, he did not apprehend that any truly conscien- 1 nous person would place much reliance upon What they might say. The great object of some of these was to connect the culpable facts with the person of the accused. He should not go into the minutia: of the case, but should leave that task to perlons more capable than himself, and not labouring under the - misfortune that-he did. He trusted, however, that ' .the House would indulge him in a few observations on the evidence. The first case he would advert to was that of the exchange between Colonels Knight and Brooke, and the transaction of the £2OO connected with it. This •, rested solely on the evidence of Mrs. Clarke. There was no other testimony but her's to connect that fact with the Illustrious Person under accusation. It was 'supported by no other evidence written or unwritten. She, indeed, came forward, and put the connection both with respect to that fact, and every other imp:icat ing the Commander in Chief, beyond all doubt, and if her testimony was believed, that illustrious Person was privy to her corruption. But the House would recol lect the evidence of Colonel Gordon, who described the transaction as perfectly regular, and whose testi mony was corroborated by documents of incontro vertible authority. [The Hon. Member here went over the memorials and ariswers relating to the ex change between these Officers, and commented upon them.] In contradiction, therefore, to the assertion of Mrs. Clarke, that the exchange had been effected through her influence, they had the evidence of Co lonel Gordon, a witness who might defy any one — ( Hear, hear ! ) and whose evidence would be the won der and envy of every one. As to the changing the 2001. note, he could not perceive. how that circum stance connected the fact with the Duke of York.— That fact was attempted to be proved by Mrs. Fa vorite. What did her evidence amount to ? She said that she brought down a note of 2001. to be changed, and that she gave it to Lodowick, who has declared-, at the Bar that he never did receive a note from, or get one changed for her, but that one morning he saw 1 her f.;:ve a note of 101. to a girl to get exchanged. To bolster up this evidence, they called Mr. Pierson, who on his Erst examination, recollected nothing about changing the note, but on his second, and after having I , some intercourse and conversation with other persons on the subject, stated that he perfectly remembers the ; 1 circumstance, and attributes his want of memoryon his first examination, to a dreadful head ache, to which i he was subject. But it was not proved that the Duke 1 knew any thing of this transaction, and suppose he was even present when Mrs. Clarke received the change, what had that to do with the Duke ? 'Was she never to have a 2001. note in her possession which she did not obtain in a corrupt manner ? 'Was it not in evidence before the House that the Duke was in the habit of receiving notes from his bankers, and sending them in an envelope by Lodowick to this wo man ? What was there to particularize this note ? What was there to induce the supposition of privity, and that the note received was known to have been the • produce and result of a corrupt bargain. But the facility of these allegations did not rest upon the inconsistency of Mrs. Clarke's witnesses. The Honourable Member himself was in direct oppo sition to her. In his examination he stated that in her conversation with him, she particularized the 25th of July as the day when the first application was made to her by that meddling physician, Dr. Thynne. Let the House look at the documents be fore them, at the official documents produced by Colonel Gordon, and they wou ld find from these, that the thing was done two days before the applica-, tion was made. , It was proved by Colonel Gordon that the exchange was recommended on the 230, and that it received the Royal fiat on the day mentioned by Mrs. Clarke as the time of the first application. — This is also coi roborated by Mr. Knight, who though having the misfortune of appearing in the light of an accomplice, is neither contradicted by himself or others. Mrs. Clarke says that the Duke was privy to the corrupt transaction. Mr. Knight on the con trary states, that she enjoined the strictest secrecy to' him, when questioned whether he understood her to mean that it should be kept secret from the Duke of York or the Public, she replied, Certainly from the Duke of York; the public had nothing to do with it: she wishe the circumstance.might be kept from the knowledge of his Royal Hig hness , for if it should ' transpire, it might (he forgot e words) prove fatal to her. - The next case was that of Captain Maling., It was so slight and unimportant, that it had nigh escaped him. On this' stiieject he should only detain the House foal an instant. There was no pretence for a .charge of corruption in tbie instance. Something, . ' hoireVer, washisinuated ahat inndne•N•eference. The Hooevraii the best judg e -whether - this charge had not completely failed. - When it was first brought forward, it WAS confidently stated, that this Mr. Ma ling was then actually a clerk at Mr. Greenwood's desk. Novo,' it appeared that this meritorious officer, from the first - moment of his obtaining a commission, was m active service, and that his promotion was so licited, not by himself, but by his superior officers, - 'who Appreciated his talents as they deserved. When it was found that the charge totally failed, it was en deavoured to be alleged as a matter of serious consi deration to the House, that many Officers, older in the service, were passed over. Good Gots! to what would it lead, if it were once esfablishrd that the course of military promotion was to be penned up, and directed by the deliberations of that .House ? That, he always understood, was the prerogative of his Majesty. What corruption would it give rise to, if the controul ss of the army, in what regarded the dis- I posal of commissions, was vested in that House ! He . hoped he shoals never hear that the Sovereign was Ideprived of this part of the prerogative ; for, to use an expression of the late Lord Chatham, 66 if you de prive the Sovereign of the command of the army, ' you pluck the master feather from the eagle's wing." To vest it in that House, would be to open a door I to the grossest partiality and corruption. The next case was thatof French's levy, and it was much insisted on. But it appeared it was not the first time Colonel French' had obtained a levy. He had before successfully exerted himself on a like oc casion. The only material evidence touching this case I was that of Miss Taylor. The House would recollect what sort of a person this Miss Taylor was ; that she was the constant comp.rnion, or rather the associate l and accomplice, of Mrs. Clarke. If Mrs. Clarke is to be believed, it some of her witnesses are to be - believed, she was an accomplice. She was, according to these, !constantly admitted to the company of the Duke, who is described by Mrs. Clarke as being very fond of her. I And yet this woman, who was frequently in his so, i ciety, could only speak to one instance. But even if this were admitted, what did it amount to ? It ap pears than his Royal Highness came in, according to I Miss Taylor's account, in bad humour ; that he com plained df being teazed by Colonel Frencis and his I levy, and that he turned about to Mrs Clarke, and said, I o How does he behave to you, darling ?" to which the latter replied, 44 Middling, not very well." Nov, what did all this, give it full force, amount to ?. Did it imply any thing corrupt on the part of the Duke ? He after wards said, 44 Master French had best take care of him self, or I will cut up him and his levy too." That is, he was to put an end to that transaction from which Mrs. Clarke, by her own acknowledgement, had derived £2OOO, and from which, in case of its success, she was to obtain £3OOO more. By putting an end to the levy, did he not cut off all hopes of ptotit that might arise from it ? He not only did this but he completely ruined the man who was employed in raising the levy.— Would any man of common sense be so 'absurd, so rash, so inconsiderate, as to put himself so in in the power of a ruined and irritated man? The very fact of the discontinuance of the levy was sufficient to prove that Duke never could have been privy I to any corrupt bargain between Mrs. Clarke and Co lonel French. If he had, he durst not have put an end to it. - Eiposure and clisgraei would have been the inevitable consequence. But it was said, and with same speciousness, not that he put an end to the levy, but that he continued it, notwithstanding the com plaints of Colonel Taylor and the Inspecting Officer of the London District, longer than he oug ht, and that the leave for a trial of two months additional was ob tained through the influence of Mrs. Clarke. It would be in the recollection of the House that this levy was }for general service, and that it was granted at a time i when there was a great demand for recruits, particu -1 larly in the East Indies, whither only men recruited 1 for general service could be sent ; that it was granted i at a time when recruiting for general sei lies was sub ! ject to great disadvantages, in consequence of the damp thrown upon it by two measures, the Ai my of Reserve and the Additional Force Acts. Nothing, therefore, was more fair and reasonable, as well as prudent, on the part of the Commander in Chief, than to allow this officer, who had been so successful on a former occasion, a fartha trial for a short and limited period. Was there any thing wrong in allowing him two short months ? The next case was that of Major Tonyn. The ap- pointment of this Gentleman, it is said, would not have taken place unless Mrs. Clarke had exerted her influence. But the House would recollect the cir cumstances of the case : that he and his brother were recommended by their lathe:, a G:neral in the army, of long and tried service, and that in consequence of that recommendation they were noted for promotion, and that this was notified to them long before there was any intention of applying to Mrs. Clarke. It ap peared, from the evidence of Colonel Gordon, that in consequence of a great augmentation in the army, he was ordered to prepare a list of the persons noted, and 'that in that list the name of MajorTonyn was included. What did Tonyn say of his application to Mrs. Clarke ? Why, rat it was nugatory, for that inconsequence of his father's recommendation, he was sure of being pro moted ? Did it not appear from the evidence of Col. Gordon, that 53 Majors were gazetted on the same night,of which there were 13 junior in rank to Tonyn ? The promotion was not carried down for the sake of including him. There was nothing like corruption or partiality in this case. But the deficiency of the evi dence was endeavoured to be bolstered up by what may be called the mysterious note. Respecting this there was so much doubt (loud cries of hear ! hear ! from all Harts of the House)—so much doubt, he would repeat, that no judge or jury would condemn any person upon the genuineness of that note. But even supposing it genuine, what did it amount to ?---,- 64 Tonyn 's business must remain as It is. COD bless you " If such a note had been received' by Mrs. Clarke from the Commander in Chief, and by her given to Sanden, is it to be supposed that her re. collection was so bad that she should not recollect any thing of the transaction ? It was possible it" might have related to something. innocent. But there was another circumstance coming out of this nest of false witnesses, which shews it could not have related to the corrupt transaction to which it is endeavoured to apply it. The note was wrapped up in a cover from Dover. What did Sanden say ? Not that he so wrapped it up, but that he received the two, the note and the cover, from Mrs. Clarke, to chew Tonyn I to conviitto Mtn, hy'the front on the latter', ltalthey were both in the hand ofthe Ornmsalder itithiet.— Let the House examine the date on the envelope. They would find that it bears date five days after the promotion of Tonyn was gazetted-; not five days after his appointment or recommendation, htitafter he was actually gazetted: This was sufficient to slew that this note could not have been written by the Duke, or that it could not have been written on the occasion ' mentioned. There was another case, that of Major Shaw ; but it was not one upon which the Hon. Member who ' brought forward the accusation appeared much . dis-l . posed to insist. It appears, this Gentleman solicited one thing,' and obtained another. He applied for . promotion in the army ; he obtained an appointment in the Barrack department. The House knew his . ' patron, Sir H. Burrard, who, it appears, not merely' solicited, but importuned the Commandei in Chief in his favour. They would recollect the number of letters which he had. written. • The complaint was 'not that this importunity procured the Barrack-Mas- ' tership, for the Duke had not the power of granting it. It was derived through another channel than that of the Commander in Chief, or Mrs. Clarke. • She, however, laid claim to the bestowing of the ap- I pointment. It was proved by Mr.. Shaw's relative, that they had been imposed on, that they were the dupes of Mr. Clarke's, artifice, and that they paid . the mocy because she seemed to have an inclination to serve him. With respect to the charge of com pelling Major Shaw to gb upon half-pay, that was completely set aside by the evidence of Colonel Gor , don. He showed that the holding of the two ap -1 point'-tents Ati inconsistent with cach other, and that it was the practice to place officers so appointed on half-pay, unless the regiment to which he was at t uhul should happen to be serving in the same place where the duties of the appointment were to be , is. charged. This was the constant rule of the sei4zee, with one or two ezeeptions at most. The only remaining charge of which he had then to take notice was that of Samuel Carter, and in Os he could havi wished the Honourable Gentle Man (Mr. Wardle) had acquiesced so far in the wishes of Mts. Clarke, as nc : to have brought forward thii charge. It was the case of an unprovided orphan', and of what description—not that of a common or phan, but such a one as must have ;made an impres sion on any breast possessed of the smallest degree of feeling. Samuel Carter was particularly reconi mended by an officer, who had always been acknow ledged.by those who knew him, to passess uncommon merit, and who was beloved by all who had the ho nour and hap, incss of In using him, and who was since that tiin?: dead. Th's yo mg man was sup posed to be his natural son ; cousl this recommenda tion be said to be corrupt ? It did not originate nor come from Mrs. Clarke, but front Capt. Sutton, who, in addition to his excellent character as an Officer in the Artillery, had the further claim on the gratitude of the country, and on the humanity of his Royal High ness, of having lost a leg in the service. This was a re commendation made and received in 1801, and at that time the Duke had given his promise to provide for him in that line, which was before his connection with Mrs. Clarke took place. The lion. and Learned Gen tleman begged the House to recollect in what manner S. Carter was received, and treated in Mrs. Clarke's fa ' milt': It had been stated that he cleaned the knives, and performed other services in the family. It had been proved that he went behitid the carriage—but how often ? Only twice, and then it was not shown whether it was by night or by day, and there was no proof that he ever wore a livery. What then was really his business ? Why, to go to school. Was this the character of a menial servant ? And if it could by any means be allowed to be so, did the Duke of York know this,? Did he see him clean the knives, or riding behind the carriage ? No, his Royal Highness saw nothing of any employment he had there, .but that of waiting on himself ; and he was sure that many Gentlemen then present, or their ancestors, had never thought it any degradation to wait on the branches cf fie Royal Family. He verily believed, therefore, that there were many Officers now in the army who have been in stations of life far inferior to that possessed by Samuel Carter, in Mrs. Clarke's family, who we.c at this moment among the highest ornaments of the army. This prOmise to provide for Carter had be .11 made by his Royal Highness long ago; and the lad, by his behavioue, had frequently put the Duke in mind of his• promise. Gon forbid, that the House of Commons should ever vote an addrets to the king to remove from the head of the army, the Commander in Chief, for an act which in itself re flected the highest honour on his humanity and sin cerity. He would endeavour to detain the House as little lonr:er as possible, and would therefore content himself with a few observations on the comments which had been made on the evidence by the Hon. Gentleman. It had beeh argued that though -no scintilla of evidence had been given that the Duke of York was privy to, or cognizant of those transactions, yet it must be presumed he could not but know that Mrs. Clarke could not keep up such an establisk ment, and live in the extravagant manner she did, without some fund being provided from which it should be supported. lie thought, however, this was a delusive and fallacious mode of argument ; for there were, he believed, very few persons of fashion and large fortune who fairly understood how to con duct themselves upon the principles of revenue and expenditure. It was a criterion of conduct which he believed was but little understood, and still less acted on by persons in high life. He happened to have been acquainted about forty years ago with those who were the Precepto rs ic of the Prince of Wales and. Duke t of York, and allowed they were both very quick at learning in general, bat they found it utterly im practicabk to teach them any 'thing respecting the value of money. Though they comprehended the most difficult part of education, they had no idea of the value of a guinea. It had been proved, or ad mitted to be proved, That the Duke of York had- paid F large sums to vintners for wines, and to other trades men for various articles of furniture, &c. amounting in t' e whole to upwards of 50001. in about two years, and in so short • a time. could it be supposed - that his , Royal Highness was likely to have entered into the ' cool and deliberate calculations of a man who sits down to make• a comparison between his revenue and expenditure ? It appeared, that during the' peri<ki ' hewn then alluding to, bOth the Duke and Mrs. Clarke hact often been in great want of money. He was press ed severely, and she in her turn very warmly pressed lam. If his Royal Highness.was sovery corrupt as had / quilt! . routine of business, ant; cause an b : m ade into the conduct of an Officer ? have be en con e on the authority of an . present instance, it was even in the moos letter, that the Comman 3n0 ny„......_ 1, . Ad, in a manner, make himself a pari a w01 11 : 111 . And the enquiry in to the I ih . sav ms o ffi cer, which 'rust, at the 3 sitr o n his character , he t hou g ht reflects t o ta:)e c who caused it. After sli g htl y the e a , c of Mr. Ke nnett, the Honourable ir!Orined the. House, that as he conceive Ft ae his sentiments with out dis g uise, hi t h e m into the form of an .Address. He 0 , 0 who would wish to injure the thus nat ;C • w ho L . : as the Aybject of the inquir taken place ; but he considered it a sac d en him to act as he had done. r' e decide on the merits of the Ad( :;bout to submit to them, and on the jt c!-cisica he relied with confidence. Tht Gentlenum then concluded by moving, That au humble Address be presented to hi, • fly s:atirg to his hlajtnty, that information has c zed to this House, an evidence produced to %I r " 0 0 crrupt practices and other abuses havit v; :es past in the disposal of commissions Ir.-, I.lilesty's Land Forces—That his Majest. morn, ar:erdiug to the duty by which they are 1 and to their Constituents, have carefully e: tt t a th of sundry. transactions which have beet them • p...0f of such corrupt practices and abu: utmest conc.:rn and astanishment his CaT.mons fled themselves obliged, ruost hu that the result of their diligent i fs-,e,..:l:l,eltamirazion of persons concerned, to , nd a variety of documents, has been Commons that the existence of such an .a; is su'istantially true. Th:t his Majesty's faithful Commons : ire ; :v:.: of personal respect and attaohment to I . terlr7 into a detail of these transactionObei not be stated withoot exciting the rt t;.,;, sf grief and indignation in the breas Tot the proceedings of his Majesty's faith 4 ,1 this important subject have been public, broJe:t before them is recorded in the proceedi t.i.t they trust his Majesty will give ti t hee _sure his Majesty, that in the executit eat) , they have proceeded with all due deliber sat entering into any other of the many ob wairh any be expected to follow, from the la enahliihed, of the prevalence of such abuses i Far went, there is one great and essential con from the present subject, which they hum more pJ,irlar tanner, to submit to his Maje. deratco, namely, that if an opinion should Aiajesty's Land Forces, that promotion may b • 11101113 than by merit and service—by means a Army and disgraceful to the authority place, of such an opinion must necessarily be to wut aha:..: the seal o' all ranks and desCriptions of 1 That it is the opinion •f this House, tit eley have thus most humbly represented to rat have prevailed to the extent in which a m exist, without the knowledge of the Co aid t hat even if, upon any principal of reasc maid be presumed that abuses 30 various an mild, in fact, have prevailed -.vitliout hi, km f...mrdan in his favour would not warrant cmamand of the Army could, with safe dcaco, to be continued in his hands. " .I . ::at on these grounds and principles 1 Commcns most humbly submit their opin ;carious consideration, that his Royal Hi ought to be deprived of the Command The motion being seconded, - Mr. BURTON then rose, and al T.:,.islng upon the attention of the I ..:iieting his opinions upon this su tared l.is mind upon it by paying • • IT could in his power to the evider L. r•astant attendance on the House, a that part which he had not heal the next consideration that pm mind, was-to disencumber the ca tnass of extraneous matter, which this Inquiry. To consider what acals of witnesses was evidence, a 1::•1:g settled, the next thing was t( I . .iy of such witnesses as could b ir e,idence of such persons as wo tat any Court of justice whatever. The Hononrable Gentleman then t:: 12..,, that it was necessary to xi( i - -,-I,at some Gentlemen may heat k.), than seventy-eight witnesses h: many of those witnesses, taki :..., ; 11:rivnt the facts as they appear "*z- in the light of accomplice • : for him to state Co the •,-, , such ;v pe r sons, unless •C , a:1:1 rey , 2ctalile evidence from o c::. .t.nnly fall to the ground. Al actress in this scene. S up- con , pii:e, or she was nothing. :al. cf the witnesses who stop' flit a.1.7.t. He instanced Captai i'aveltrite, and Miss Taylox !el7- in the first instance, 1 ; . .:y had either contradicted . :ation, or stood contradict( I.3:l.ctable witnesses. He then tct to otter into the que!:tion k.:' .: witnesses. The evidence ( al, he contended, was s i:: 1, in any Court of J • tai Mrs. Favourite was pi as in her examina .1 number of gross and pal •—Y.a had, for instance, repre! Ellis as a common carpen ' nar.,l, no less than twenty -sigh ( . ..1 in some Pf which she ant in all by persons i ; character he might set V.'ol!'.d not attempt to retail 7)1.L. :at would endeavour to submit AC would appear upon the mil fria. :ed whether she ever represer t, or unmarried woman, she An never repreented herself as a w fief Court-Martial, and at another i appealed from the evidence of iic cred't from him by tall '; band. (Hoar, Hear!) If tr LT2.;••bCI . S who CliCd " Hear," were Ct'ive the evidence of Mr. Fe I,f Mr. Nicholls, to whoa %II as being a widow upw it not. be recollectet reta• t er represented herself as a crii • ai not being man 1•11-7 had evid ence a t their Bar •; ("I, various occasions. Woiild 3,) :* 1 1 '•' •"" of h onest men as. r ~.I..ii , 1, t - T it , t 1 (i. . l' 14,..i. 'll , ~.. . . , . .tl. , l' lit 4 , i 1' t 1 I' r t , 0 I ti „ 1 I ; i • 1 , II ; , 1 1 'n ; i. • . ;1 , *4'! 1 it /1151111‘aa• TT At. Iv v.& w• . ?"! f 1. ;• , c: . ;: Lq2 : ► I In II • Olt •t 4 '1 .~, ,~~'