Star. — London, England, 1809-02-23 00:00:00

:ELLOR of the EXCHEQUtR :ne3i was under examination it would' do it ; but in consideration of Mrs;: indisposition, he should make no objection Sir T. TURTON thought there was great irrgn-, larity and that the examination of the witness who had just left the Bar should be proceeded. with. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied. that he had acknowledged there was au irre gularity in the proceeding, but ander the circumstan ces of the case, he thought that Mrs. Clarke should be examined immediately. A chair was ordered for Mrs. Clarke, in conse quence of her indisposition, and she was desired to come to•tbe bar. xamined by the CtIANcELLon of the EXCHEQUER. —Q. Have you brought with you the two last notes you have received from the Duke of York,*since your separation from him took place ?A. Yes.—q. Did the Duke of York say they werethelast notes ?—A. don't know that, but these ate the notes of which you want an inspection. I have receiveda dozen more notes from him, besides these' have brought, andrnany of them, if not all, were written since.—Q. Look on that note — (a paper was handed to Mrs. Clarke)—Q. Do you re collect to have received a note to that effect from the Duke of York ? A. (after looking over the letter) I do not recollect any thing about it ; possibly I might, possibly I might not. I have been looking over all my notes of 'that day, but cannot find it. I suppose I must have burnt it. I know the Duke wrote to' me that day—the note was writtertby. Greenwood. — Q. Was Mr. Greenwood's note to that effect ? A. It is so long ago, I don't recollect ; it was the longest note I ever received from Greenwood. I had a short, note in the morning, and a long one in the evening ;. the last was not in Greenwood's writing, but I was, told he wrote it, and his Royal Highness copied it.— Q. By whom were you told that Mr. Greenwood! write it, and that the Duke 'copied it ? A. By the Duke of York's servant. After I had seen Mr. Adam, I called at the Duke's house in Portman square, and asked if his Royal Highness would dine at Gloucester-Place. The servant told me he fancied lie would, as he had not ordered any dinner at home. Finding he did not come, I called again in the even ins;, and was informed, that Mr. Greenwood had called on him it} his carriage, and that they had gone out to dine together ; and I was afterwards told, that as soon as dinner was over, Greenwood wrote that note, and his Royal Highness copied it.—Q. When did you burn that letter ? A. I can't say—l never knew I had burnt it, till I could not find it among my papers. I had several love-letters from him, some of which I burnt, and some of which I have still.—Q. Did you ever know Mrs. Favourite by any other name ? A. I never knew her ; but I have heard she has made use of my name on several occa sions in a very unwarrantable way, which has given me great uneasiness. lam afraid, from what I heard, that she has told several falsehoods respecting Mr. Ellis and his family ; but I never knew till yes terday that she had actually misrepresented Mr. El lis's situation. As soon as I knew it, I advised her to take a hackney-coach, and tell Mr. Ellis what she had said.—Q. When she left Mrs. Ellis's service, did she not come back to live with you ? A. She did ; and when she came back, she said she had been mar ried, which I did not believe.—Q. Did you know the man she said she had married ? 'A. I had heard of him, and that he was a man of bad character ; in deed, that he was a married man.—Q. Wereyou ever in habits of intimacy with Mrs. Favourite, when she lived at Mr. Ellis's ? A. No. I believe I called on her once in a hackney-coach.--Q. Did you after wards turn her away because she was married ? A. Yes, I did.—Q. How often has Mts. Favourite been in your service ? A. Several times. I parted with her before I went to Hampstead, and thought Mrs. Nicholls would do better for me • but I found she was as bad as the other, and equally abused my confi deuce, so I took Mrs. Favourite again. —Q. Lid ycu know her husband ? A. Yes. As I said beft r 2, he was generally known to be a bad character, and that he was married. His Royal Highness knew it ; for one day when he was at Gloucester Place, a woman had come to her when she was at dinner, and told her that Mrs. Favourite was no wife, but that she herself was the real wife of the man whote wife Mrs. V. pre, tended to be. I told her, I had heard she had married a man who had a wife, but she was not there at that time, for she had been discharged in consequence of her imprudence.—Q. Then you never called on Mrs. Favourite at Mr. Ellis's, but once in a hackney coach? A. No.—Q. That was the only time ? A. Yes. Mr. C. ADAMS.—" I desire that part of the wit ness's evidence may be read to her in which she speaks of the list of names of persons intended to be promoted being pinned to the, bed head," which was read accordingly. Q. (By Mr. C. ADAMS.) Do you persist in that evidence ? A. Yes.—Q. Do you mean to say that it was pinned there for the purpose of being read by the Duke of York.? A. Yes, it was.—Q. Was this list seen by any other person but yourself and his Royal Highness ? A. I don't know ; I can't say it was not seen by the servants ; though they might not perhaps be able to read it ; hut no one else could have seen it.—Q. Arc you sure his Royal Highness ever read it ? A. Yes, lam ; for his Royal High ness Caine to me and made a remark on it. He said they should all be promoted as speedily as the time would allow.—Q. Did Mrs. Favourite see it ? A. Q. (By the ATTORNEY GENERAL.) Did you ever live with Mr. Ogilvie—(A general buss throughout Per Ihuse)—The ciucstion I meant to ask of the witness is, Are you acquainted with Mr. Ogilvie ? A. Yes. General Clavering some years ago brought him to sec me.—Q. How long have you been acquainted with him ? A. I cannot exactly recollect.—Q. Is it two years ?A. Yes, more than two years.—Q. Is it four ? A. Yes.—Q. Six ? A. No ; I do'nt think I was ac quainted with him six years ago.—Q. You did not know him six years ago ? A. No. I believe not. — Q. Was it before his embarassments that you were acquainted with him ?A. No.—Q. Was it before he failed ? A. Yes.—Q. Was any thing owing by Mr. Ogilvie to you at the time of his faihre ? A. No.—Q. Were you not . examilled as a witness on Mr. Opilvie's bankruptcy ? A. Yes.; but I was then liv ing' with the Duke of York, though unknown to thQ world. ~l • • Q. (Br Lerd Fouterroiti.) Did yont:**gree l 1 with Mr. Ogilvie ? A. r never lived wages., wee , Ibut the Duke. of York. Q. (By Mr..Wtiernariii.) Have you reculeieda4 letters fr om 'the Duke of rark since the timeofloV separation ?A. Yes.—Q. Have you any note thelk can ascertain that fact ? A. I have several, but since I 'left him they are 'not very civil.:- Q. Have you any with dates ? A. I believe I hate one as two. —Q. Are • any of these netts. signer/ ? A... I believe there is one with a name, but I, am not sure.-.-Q. Is the note that is signed . subsequent to the. time, of the separation ? A. No. - Mr. WHITBREAD here 'desired the witness to look at all the notes in her hand, and wished that she. would put in one or two that she thought were write ten since the separation. Mrs. Ceanee answered that she was . willing to put in all the notes. Mr. WHITBREAD desired to know whether the witness wished to put in any more notes. A. I have several more at home, arc} will produce them all,'if it is required. Here the was shewn two dotes that had been put on the taL4e. Q. Is that his Royal Highness's writing ? A. Yes. —Q. Was that first note now on the table written to her subsequent .to the time of the separation ? A. The language will shew.—Q. Have you sufficiently examined these papers to ascertain whether they are the Duke of York's writing ? A. I have.; I can as certain it.—Q. (Paper :hewn to her) Was that -note written after the separation took place ? A. It was, I received it with the money his Royal Highness gave me to defray the expences of my journey into the country. Fbelieire it was about 2001. Mr. WHITBREAD begged she would produce some letters or notes with dates to them. He was sure the Committee would perceive his reason for being so particular. The first letter was then read by the Clerk at the table, as follows : • " Inclosed I send you the money you wish to have for your journey." The other ran thus : " I don't know what you mean. I never authorized any one to plague and teeze you; therefore you may be perfectly easy on my account." Q. (By Mr. Tirosirsose) Was it customary with the Duke of York to mix in those you call love let ters any thing on the subject of military or ecclesias tical matters ? A. I don't know how to answer that question.--Q .Is there any thing in any one of them relative to military or ecclesiastical matters ? A. No. Q. (By Mr. LOCKHART.) Was any person present when you looked over the papers relative to the sub ject of the inquiry ? A. No, not of his Royal High ness's letters.—Q. Did.any one assist you in looking over any other papers ? • A. No, I have never suffeT ed any person to look over_my letters. Q. (By Mr. HERBERT) Did you, when in Glouces ter-place, pay tradesmen's bills yourself, or were they paid by your housekeeper ? A. Sometimes by one and sometimes by the other. I did not not often pay them, so they were generally paid by the housekeeper. —Q. Did Mrs. Favourite ever represent to you that you must have money of the Duke to stop the trades men's mouths, for they were very clamorous for the payment of their bills ? A. I never minded what she said.—Q. Did she never represent to you that she must have money to satisfy the creditors ? A. Yes. I dare say when they teazed her, she teazed me.—Q. Was this to a considerable amount ? A. I do - not know.—Q. Do you not know that bills were very often paid to a large amount on this being so repre sented by Mrs. Favourite ? A. I do not know. I believe not very considerable. Mr. WHITBREAD said there were but three or four letters requisite to be delivered, he therefore moved, that all the letters, except three or four, be returned to Mrs. Clarke, which was done accordingly. The Hon. Member then requested that Mrs. Clarke would send two or three of his Royal Highness's let ters, with dates, or by the rust -mark of which it could be ascertained that they had been written since the se paration took place. He was particular in this, be cause as be hoped the inquiry would close this eve ning, it would be necessary for Mrs. Clarke to attend again, and a Messenger might go with her to bring' back the letters. Mrs. CLARKE answered, she would send them as soon a, ever she got home. She was then going, •but Sir T. TURTON desired to put a question to her. Q. Do you recollect . whether, in the presence of Miss Taylor, the Duke of York and you ever talked of military matters ? A. Upon my word I do not know. The Duke never minded what he said befere Miss Taylor : he was very fond of her. Q. (By Mr. Locenan•r.) The witness says, that several of the Duke of York's letters are in her own possession, and in the possession of several of her friends. I wish her to name those friends in whose possession the letters are ? The witness was ordered to withdraw, when . Lord FOLKESTONE desired to know by what right or title the Learned Gentleman was authorised to enquire where all the letters, which Mrs. Clarke stated herself to have received, were to be found ? - Mr. LOCKHART observed, that the Noble Lord seemed to forget that this was a Committee of In quiry, and that it was competent to demand any do cuments which might be necessary either to the con viction or acquittal of the illustrious person, against whom the charges- under investigation had been brought: The witness had no right, therefore, to withhold any letters which might conduce to eluci date the subject of inquiry. If the Committee, how ever, should be c.f a different opinion, he should not press the question, though upon the broad principle he was convinced it was a proper one to be put. Lord FOLKESTONE contended. that the argu ment of the Leaned Gentleman went too far, be cause it would go to the extent, that the witness was bound to produce all her papers, in order to give the Learned Gentleman an opportunity to look them over and judge which were applicable to the question under consideration. Any papers that the Committee would be authorised to demand, ought to be defined ; and the Learned Gentleman beneath the Learned Member would inform him, that it was not in the practice of any Court of Justice to order a party to produce all his papers, with a view that the Court should decide, on examination of them, which were relevant to the matter in issue, Mr. BATHURST observed, that the Noble Lord seemed to have mistaken the object of the Learned Gensleman'S question. They were not Mrs. ClArke's The CH ANC said, that as Wi" be irregular to d aarke ' S indiSPOsi I , I 1 e . t .., .. teigrile ch he ;wished to have it s ` ii tteetd; buttiee*- never stated that either of the notes had Hen wtittee Royal : pet eon, eh f against whoth by the Ddke of York, or by whom ther had been mittee was e n stge iii ifilesti tinge fr the written. I to r tirord,or the Holmium he. brought ': Q. Why did he compare the note with Ole letee RetSvaid the chargesetlad t ._ quest* of the A. I have already stated that'it was to caevince m e Learned Gentleman, !he wa Atptri . inced• that no ob- that the writing 'of the note and of the letters w ee: lection would have bee n madinto. -to -it. - The Piialp*,ft owsmottlio--e!. fecirhat purpoee tlo you to *as a tnitiVoil ' , an — il It .was certainly compe- derstand he ,hould prove the note and lettoo; to Leve tent to , any Heitiodeablt Member .to call for any pa- been the sam e hand-writing, unless for the Teirpee: o f :pevievhiele law aid theie*ietigetiiie: On-theembolie -pointing-out scune persons whose hand-wiitin g L e o therefore,. heethenght • thatthe letters of his Royal were ? A. I have already most unequivneally ee .. t Highness ought to be produced, though.if the fe.trued that he did not mention to me whos: lee 1 de,e i . e e Gentleman valaki - take_MPen biro to - say, that .they they were. All he mentioned in the cenv er,e: • .• would not bear upon the subject, it would' not - be de- was, tfiat they were both the same panel-v: 'te .. sirable to add them to the minutes. without comment or observation.— Q. Were e. .. Mr. CHARLESADAMS:thonght that the ques- nceeoniments made upon the Dever letter ? A. 1 . . . Lion was a fit one to be tote, but that it would be merely stated that it had got the Dover pt , :,.e,- . competent to the Witness to refuse to answer it. , upon iL-r--Q. At what period of your cc'mmui , M CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER tion with Captain Sandell did you state that de: : agreed with his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. lea. was the hafichwriting of the Commander ie si,' thurst) that if any Honourable Member thought any A. I never stated any such observation to one letter would throw light upon the .sobject, he . Sa n den.—Q. Did Captain Sanden state to yee .• , might call for its production ; and if tio objection the note came into his possession ? A: Not could be made to See production of one, - none could I understood: him to have received it from : he made to the production of all if called for. If the Clarke, or through some means from hen—Q. I: .„.. Noble Lord had moved for the letters, no objection you not already stated:that. when you .00k a (es' :. ; would have• been made to his motion : and what , the note you said it was of some iinoortarice ? _, . e right had the Noble Lord to suppose the . motive of ; is impossible I could have itutedit, -because i e el the Learned Gentleman in calling for them different ! made such a statement to Captain Salaien. from that which would have actuated himself ? He ! Q. (By toiet^Mit:To..) 'When von coral:nee:. e e agreed, however, that it would not be desirable to ; what you knew to Mr 4. Adath, did you do it v. ; •- i place the letters upon the minutes, already swelled to intention ler expectation that it: should ie'rsetle !, 1 , e e an inconvenient bulk, unless they should bear uponto this Heinle' Ae-fe'sit red the circemstar.e. v ; the subject of inquiry. Upon this ground, he would : a view to the advantige of is opihi-ori ,in,l j:,:; : .; :: . t submit it to the Learned Gentleman to withdraw his . ass betterthen my own. I had no other view in meki. question ; but if he was dieposed to insist upon it, he ; the 'communication.—Q. If I rightly apprehend, \ e l saw no reason in which the Committee could re- consiCe red the note of importance in the inquiry tlea ject it. isgoing on -in this House ? A. I have already wire,;wire,; . Mr. BATHURST stated, that the witne s s had : that to the best of my. judgment, I believed the le!te already declared in evidence, tbat.in no one of the to be the 1141 d-uniting of the Duke of Yell, ;1 love letters was there any mention of military or cc- - therefore it was imposeible for me not to consiar the clesiastical preferments. ! nete of importance.--Q. After yottiecommunicie'en Mr. LOCKHART observed, that the object of ; with the Chancellor (TIM tethetnietoded. you leteer his question had been misunderstood. It was not his [ that it was his intention not to produce tie! n; e: to wish to have all, or any of the letters produced. It ' this House for some days ? 'A. I_ had no knowliee would be recollected that the witness had been assis- ! whatever of his intentions. ted in preparing the papers for this investigation ; Q. (By Mr. Tooetesox. ). When Captain San '.• a and the object of his question was, to discover in stated to yeti that the. usual channel ter atteieHe; whose hands the letters were, with a, view to come at promotion tailed, what other person was it, ie •.. re same information respecting the person who assisted opinion, he alluded to. when lt spoke of new ,:, ee her, and the nature and circumstances of that assis- nel ? A. He never informed me who the inetivi'r 1 tance. He. should therefore press his question. j person was.— Q. Did Captain. Sandell Ment;cei - Mr. MARRYAT thought the witness had said, you his intention to destroy the note . _II. (.. :1 . ! athe love letters were either in her own or her mo- contrary, he promised me to preServe all the•pei , :•. ther's possession. —Q. Did he ever mention that he had des, cc - e l ;i., Mr. ROSE thought, that as the witness had stated,' note ? A. I have already mentioned the conse . • .;:-,11 that the letters did not contain any thing relating to in which lie stated that he had destroyed the wee.— military promotions or ecclesiastical preferments, their ,Q. Did he ever mention to you-what Malec he hal production was unnecessary ; otherwise he should have', for destroying the note ? A. Captain Sandell neve': had no obj ', ection to the question. mentioned to • me any motive that actuated him ie Mr. WHITBREAD wished the Learned Gentlee! any part of his conduct.—Q. Did he mention to yea [ man to withdraw his question. As to the object , that the concealment of the wee was for tLe ben(:t stated by the _Learned Gentleman, for which he had lof any person ?A. Never.—Q. Did he ever men. put his question, namely, to discover who had as- tion to you that the production of the note would Le • sisted the witness in preparing the papers for the ; a prejudice to any person ? A. Certainly not. Committee, he should only observe, that, if it was the i The witness was then ordered to withdraw, ael case, it would be quite natural, that the person con- . Lord FOLKSTONE conce;.v•ng it necessary, trom sone!- ' ducting this investigation should have looked over the thing that had fallen from the last witness, to put a papers which might bear upon it. He had. stated this fee. questions to one or two Members is their place, only to shew that the Committee did not acquiesce in • and to call Mr. Harrison to • the bar—The lame the inferences to be drawn from the Learned Mem- - Gentleman was called in, and examined. bee's statement of his object, that blame was imputa- ! Q. (By Lord FOLKESTONE.) Are you Agent cr ble any where. . - • ; Counsel for the Duke of York, or in any way employ. Mr. LOCKHART then withdrew his question. .ed for the Duke of York in the busineee b,:flee thh Colonel HAMILTON called in again, and.re-examined, House ? A. lam certainly not an Agent ; het ;e by Lord FOLKESTONE. Counsel am not employed in the proceeding. I let His 1 ast answer being read, the witness was asked , consulted as occasion may require, though pet c,.: Q. Whether Captain Sanden had ever stated to ployed professionally. 1 ant consulted in the Offlee of • !him that he had received money from Major Tonyn ?• the Commander in Chief, the War Office, and the A. No.—Q. Did he state from whom he received the Barrack-Office, upon military subjects, and am (elite! note ? A. To the best of my recollection, he stated upon in consequence of the knowledge lam sterpoed that he received it from Mrs. Clarke, or that it was to possess as to the legal construction of such subiec; ;. conveyed to him from Mrs. Clarke.—Q. When did From an early stage of the present business I v.-as er you see the note ? A. On the Saturday after I had dered to attend and assist whenever it should he twee . . made my first communication to Mr. Adam.--Q. sary.—Q. Is it in consequence of this that von atti.el Was it wrapped up in a piece of paper, or was it ac- the proceedings in this business? A. Certainly.- t companied by a piece of paper, with a similar direc- When did Colonel Hamilton tell you that the wee tion upon it ? A. I do not recollect. But Captain purporting to be we item by the Duke of Yeee, be 1 Sanden shewed me, at the same time, part of the not' been destroyed ? A. It was between four a: 2 cover of a letter, with' the Dover post-mark upon it. five o'cloc k in the evening of the first day that c' c:• —Q. Yon said that when informed of the note having taro Sandell eas called to the bar, I met Colonel i-, - been destroyed, you were not certain that you in- milton in Parliament-street. I was walking, I le formed Mr. Adam of that circumstance, are you now • lieve, with the Solicitor-General. Colenel Hen.:l; • certain ?A. I can•only repeat the answer wlfich I ! took me aeide, and told me-that he heard thet nee have already given. My impression was that I had ing that the note had not been destroyed.-0. I' informed Mr. Harrison.—Q. Why did you give the you take any steps in consequence of this internee. , information to Mr. Harrison ? A. Because I con- :A. I immediately came to the House, and e lea ! sidered him the agent of his Royal Highness.—Q.' came the Committee was sitting. I itelsrrnej .\ • • How have you known Mr. Harrison ? A. From i Huskisson, but lam not certain, whether Ilm, er ~, • having been frequently in the room when he came' other Honourable Member, that I had just rcee'e.'l into it and conversed with Mr. Lowten upon the sub-1 this information.—O. Was the House, after that eee:• ject of this investigation.—Q. Did you understand mnnication, engaged in the prosecution eftheet pe that Mr. Lowten was an agent for his Royal High-! ceedings that night ?A. It was.—Q. Was this • ness, and•from whom ? A. I did, from himself.—' formation given by you previous to the staiene: • Q. Were you referred by any one to Mr. Lowten ? ! made that night by the Chancellor of the Exchelee A. Yes, I received a note from Lieutenant-Colonel :, A. Certainly. Gordon, desiring my attendance upon this House ; ! The witne ss was then ordered to withdraw. but that I was to call upon Mr. Lowten, whom I ! Mr. • HLSKISSON examined in his plsce by L -: would find here.—Q. When Captain Sandell shewed i FOLKSTONE. you the paper with the Dover post-mark upon it, did i Q. Did you receive this information from '?.' • he state to you how it came into his possession ? A. Harrison at the time alluded to ? A. did. I - Ido not recollect. It was shewn to me merely to stated to me Right Honourable Friend die Cli..utc: - • impress upon my mind that the letter and the note • of the Exchequer, that thn note was not destnee.' were in the same hand-writing.—Q. Have you been ! adding, that it mattered not whether or no it iv., long acquainted with Captain Sanden ?A. I have . existence.--Q. had you heard of the note Ineeer '' known him since the year 1794, but he was never an , time ? A. Yes, in confidence by my 16 - ,;-t :-' acquaintance of mine. I have known him only as al Friend, and of Colonel Hamilton's ertquee lete military man.—Q. Had you much intercourse with ! circumstances. • him in the years 1801 and 1805 ? 'A. None what- ! The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIM.QtER exami .. 1 .... ' - ever. • I Lord FOLKSTONE. Q. (By Mr. SHAW Leeevne.) Did Captain San- I Q. Do you wish to correct any of the ev:: den shew any reluctance to allow you to copy the ; given by you on Monday evening ? A. I e'' note ?A. None whatever.—Q. After he stated to I aware that I have any alteration to melee. II . • you that he had destroyed the note, did he say any i are any questions the Noble Lord would wish ~ ...;. thing of the copy of the note ?A. Nothing what- - will answer them.--Q. At the time you m ete -' .ever. . statement to the House, did you know xi lee :.. told, deat the note was not destroyed ? A. i str that time to the House, that I did not knew v ..- .• it was destroyed or not. There was a strene 1:' • • sion eon my mind that it was destroyed.— whom did you communicate the circuresteree nected with the note ?• A. I can mntion :Lel'l' - ' am not sure that I can recollect every name. i - • tinned the circumstances to Mr. Htes!isson, 7J'e ning, Lord Castlereagh Mr. Yorke, the Atee'e• - - - Solicitor General, to the Lord (.:1: ze,.....! :. • Q. (By Mr. BATHURST.) Did Captain Sanden shew you any other note ? A. On the production of the note, I called to his recollection, that in the for mer conversation he had mentione,d two notes; to which he 'replied, • that he must have been mistaken, or if there had been a second note, he must have given it to Major Tonyn.....Q. Did Captain Sanden explain what the contents of that note were ? A. It had been. given him to convince . Major Tonyn than his promotion would take place, he said. But he #!d person confti. _ dew . 1 persc Mi t hat 1 rain 4 6en her cf I c 4.1