The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1809-02-21 00:00:00

I *add be nothing else than mere opinion ; he there fore *Ould have the house consider well before they called the wituess in; however indulgence was due to the Duke of York, yet he would ask them would others he allowed the same, if it were their case. Oae or two irregularities had occurred already, which, except extreme delicacy interfered he thotight!onght to have beet, steppe& at the time.' In one instant. •, Colonel Gordon had been suffered to pull out of fi di pocket a parcel of letters for the purist:we of comparing them with the note it, ques tion. On the other forty or fifty lettuce had been put into the hunt s of Mis. Clarke, to say whethes' they were her ram* and she was riot suffered to see the contents of them. Now when those had come ant of the po,,,bion of Cant. Sandell. W 34 it but fair and reasonable that she took them on herself she should be taloned to inspect them, if it were mar for the purpose of as certain*: Whether any adihtioos or alterations had been made ite the body of them ? Passing over, therefore, these two;improp►ieties, they were going t•, adopt a third still wore lariu., they were going into ►vidente that was not in itself admissible, and whish, if tali:tat:xi, would weigh nothing in their de- For these reasons, if the questioh ttliauld be pat upon it, heabould certainly vote against it. Afr. PERCEVAL explained the course of proceed i'l.4 to the Committee ; on the last 'sight, after the H•mse had resumed, and hut very few Itleiabers bad remained, on Lion. Member, not Una present, had coinear..l the note in question with the two letters a•l•nitted to be of the Duke's hand-writing, aril hell:ill heed struck with what appeared to him in the formation a/certain letters in ' the note, which gave it the appearance in his mind of an imitation, awl not an origival. These sus picions he had communicated to others, and they . see•ned to tl•etu to have great weight ; and it was • thotOtt sailissuhle to follow the matter up. All the Members coold not inspect and compare them, and sn it was thought ads isable to call in others who should examine anJ give their opinion on them. If this were a case of a trial 'afore a Jury of twelve mete, they could have individually in s;itteted them, cud formed their opinion for them sclves ; bat drat was impossible to be done here. With respect to the legality of this mode of pro ceeding, it had certainly liven admitted at a trial at bar; and though it had been overruled after •, ' stems, that was, in the opinion of a single Judge; • erhieli, hoe/ever respectable. might not be stip . posed to outweigh that of four Jail e ;es. Where doub.s, therefore. were fo IPi exi.t, it had been • tie/light actetaattle to make use of this mode, in the present inetatice, and at eordingly tVitneesee were procure.: to iuspect the ;ripen. NVith tweet to • the obsecvations of the Mon. Gentlemen, he eertaialy thought it hard that irregularities had been eft-nitwit ; they had not been obverted Whet they arrived ; if the objection bud been taken at the time, Colonel Gored.* would have put his papers up a4aiu its his pocket, and then he would have given the beat testimony iu his power. The nest ousietvatious is respecting the preventing Mrs. 421erlie to read het letters, *twined to be applied to hint ; but it would lie observed in the one case, it was that •df a stranger called to epe.d. to the of another in the letter.• It wee Mre ea akise ins•rely asked ILS to her own ; end this was the constant practice e Courts of Law, where Witneesee ware never en;stred to peruse the contents or papers they wee. celled to 'Tidy, and therefore there had not beer any irregularity in this mode of proceeding. If, newest, any parts of these letters should appear denbusul, and be attempted to be observed on, it would he bns right she slikielil have an rapport •ty of set tug teem, for the purpose of admitting or • denying, before they were taken as fact ; and is the stature sir etiect of the evidence to be offered at tkseir Bee He professed himself, in consequence of the wise and Ailoroirk (Natio,. of NIG Speaker, as wholly epee ;OA us any Member of that noose. He ha d gees ttrectious that they should be eitsiteined seestrately, and had likewise cautiknied them Against divulging the effects of their inspec tion, omit they should come to give their evidence at the Bar of that House.. a caution he hopen und trusted they had inviolably observed. Mr. Walk raIIEAD, in ex phonation, declared be slid not in the least allude to the Hon. ticutlentan ue what he lied said. neither did he mean to cast the slightest imputation ots Colonel Gordon, but merely used that instance us an argument against their g•-nunditig their opinions' merely on reputation; and he true:est, if the evidence were suffered to ha given, Ole 110 our analog vote ell that gentle', a ith eut first leokiug ut the papers, and jadgilig for themeelves. Lord iJIAVITONE offered sortie eleserv a tio n s on the mode attempted to be pursued in offeriag this evidence. The known principle was, to nekton to the beet testimony in their power; turd ou this s.kbject they had received the most positive testi moue. (By whom, woe relied front the other side of the Ifo:sse,l by Mrs. Chute; and he had no doubt but whets they tame to consider her evidence, they would see no meows to dwite. us it would he timid clear maul cornet. (Ilene ! hear 1) There were likewise fists' more %stemmed who had spoken ins to their belief (No ! Ao !) lie therefore sulimitts d, that when they had such evidence, they ought not to re. sort to such its was now offered. A Oast this, his Lordebip likewise stated the report of a ease of li bel, Jackson' o. Cator, tried at Maid -ton., *serous 3lr. Germ, ' 40 Counsel for the perste eutor, had offered the same evidence as that offered now. and which was resisted by Lord Elleuttorongh, then Attorney-General, who was . Counsel far 11.1 i D. femleut ;. who, in his erguinent on that oceesion, noticing the ease of Bisset and Bedlam, which had been a decision in Grout of the evidence. 'thawed it bed been overturned by the subsequent case of Pitt and Carey, wherein Lord Kenyon lied rejected it; and it the seine time deebeket though hk: had admitted the evidence ou the former caw, he had not noticed it in his address to tee Jury. Upon this agreement, Barns. flatboat hail, eller mature deliberatine, given it es his see' • , the eridenre ought to be rejected. This his Lordship ofterediii the evidencepmdineril its a legal point of view. Ent there was another point in the seise of Jacks:in and Catoe whirls she House must Oak , from him merdy in the shape of statement, am he had only received his infnunatien this day. from the respinenbility of the quarter from which lie had it, Mr. Parke, it might tie relied our, mid it was this : It basin bow discovered that the reeseseutor had brought down a nuinker of clerks to prove the libellous paper, by the similarity of hand-writiag between that and other paper, of the hand-writing of the Deferielaut; the latter had also subpeened u nuMber of respectable wituasses, to negative the libellous paper as his, from the same source of information, uainely, the shall:l6,y of hands; but this became unnecessary, by the re jection of such testimony in the first instuner.— This, therefore, lie hoped would make them weigh well before they admitted the evidence now offered. Mr. Ileaeseonn supported the sort of evidence proposed to be adduced, as, even according to the arguments of the llononrable Gentleman opposite, there was no saying but what it might bear as much one way es smother. Mr. W. SMITII said, that when the Ilonourable Gentleman (just sat down), on the other aide of the House, had pt:mted out to him a very material difference in the two hand-writings of these letter, which appeared tis be by the Duke of York, lie (Mr. Smith) undoubtedly expressed a concurrence in that opinion, as to there icing a very material diffi.rence. IVlien this mode of exa ttt i t mtion was decided upon, he certainly knew there were many inconveniences likely to arise, he being convinced that a commission t• examine upon it would have been the mast advantageous proceeding; since, however, that line had been adopted, he could not help tlookingg that nothing could be more improper or ohj-ctionable, than the laying down one rule of proceeding in a ease of this kind, where the Duke of 1 ork was the person accused ; and another in that where the conduct of a person of inferior rank was to be inquired into. These cases ought, in every polio of view, to be the same. If the Doke of York were not to be treated as any other subject, he thought it was a great argument for not putting his Royal Highness in the high situa tion he now held, and, in short, no one of the Royal Family ought to hold any public situation whatever. Ile thought, that if the House were to carry on any thing of a judicial proceeding at all, they might to have a right to examine upon oath as much as the other House of Parliament had, and he hoped to see the time when that would be the eve , . He believed it was a privilege which crept into the other House, inerely because they were sometimes sitting in a civil or judicial capacity, and he saw no remains why that same privi lege should not be extended to the House of COILI 1110::A. Ilium the present occasion they had, by the Lest means whatever, endenvoured to obtain the truth, II calling witnesses acquainted with the Duke of York's hand-writing, and if they culled others, he thought it would be merely a matter of opinion, and that the members must still all decide for themselves, in order to ii,certaiu whe ther the note in question was or was uot of the Duke of York's hand-writing. There appeared to him to be a great mistake or confusion iu the general reasoning epois this subject ; but there were so snany Centimes) learned in the Law in that House, competent to decide that !gala, that he should nut tally mach tip op the subject, but it struck him that the tint question put to witnesses, under such er*.:urnstances, in Courts of Justice, was, ee Have you seen the person write:" and the witness answering that he has, was supposed to be a move ei•mpetent judge that, if he bad not; for it must tome to be u mere comparison of writing.... Now what couvioced him of the fallacy of such a mode of proof, was, that im Hon. Gentleinass was called upon last week to give his opinion as to Sir Horace Mann's hand-writing,' and, on being sheers' two papers. that Gentleman was convinced that one 1-tier was of his hand-writing and this other was not. Ile (Mr. Smith) had the curiosity to lurk at these two papers afterwards, having beets told by the Hon. Gentleman himself that one only of these letters was of the Hon. Ilaronet'd hand writing: yet he should have said, upon his oath, that the second letter was so likewise, the only dif ference apparently being caused by its having lieeu written with a different pen, or, iii other words, the one better and the other worse. The Jewel: of hesitation which the persons called to the Bar up sot this point evinced, did, in his opinion, do them more honour, than if they had stated it positively to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York. when they had only two short lines to judge from. re /rat Vantaia was nievely all which could be said about it, end he did not know why they were to be bound up by any strict rules or evidence, when they were allowed to do many things in that Kinse„ which were not done elsewhere. In the preseiit case opinions had been al ready. given, which uere thought to be the lost, arid they were uilling to take some means of adding snore or less to their own opinions. so es to enable them the better to decide than probably they otherwise could do. If the House were to direct themselves by their men proceedings, he could see no relearn why other M itiies..es should not be allowed to form a judgment by comparison, as Col. Cordon bad done. It would he a technical reason, for such a mode or procedure did not appear to be an irrelpi !salty in substance. however much in form. As to Mrs. Clerke's not beiser allowed to read over the letters which were sheen I er, to prove the hand writing. and which was said to lie improper at the time ; he could sea: no iluerouriety iu it, as a [Jer boa looking over * writing might see many things which it was impossible they could have said or -written. In short they might ace sufficient cause to think it was not the hand-writing of the persou they might otherwise suppose it. Mr. BRUME BATIIVIGT agreed with the lust speaker, as to the propriety rf examining the wit iiss.ses proposed la be brought forward to give a judgment upon tl:c comparison of Imnd-writings. Ile waver heard it objected to ill soy C 1,4 Law ; uu.l, indeed, he thought it was the common practice, but he had to rant that the proceedings of this Cosumitter bad, in wally cases, exceeded the hounds of legal evidence. The present case was pot like any of those that hail been cited Ali haring oc curred in Courts ot Lam. It had lis:co raid. that Mrs. Clarke, (of whose evidence lie should fur the pre. scut forbear giving any opinion), and the other Witnesses called as to that 'mhos. had all of them proved it to be dust of his Royal High la •S; but he conceived that the only leg.rt question which existed in the ease, via. " Do yon believe that to ha his Royal Highness's lunial.wri!ing." had been past te noise of them, except General Brown. rigg. Ile apprehended it should certainly lava been put to all of them, but it oar, perhaps, their confidential situations that precluded such a quer • non. Au lion. Gentleman examined oiethat point I had said there wei a shade of different.* Which led him to disbelieve that the mote was written by the same hod as the two letters. It then could not be argued hut that it was a qtie4tion which re mained doubtful, and therefore they should cer tainly tale that evidence which would lead them to form an opinion, although it were merely conjec tural. Mr. Bit %ND expressed himself astunisheil at many of the objections which bud hems taken to this ' evidence, as he differed front must of them. It was true, that it was now ruled in Courts of Luw, that that sort of evidence was not generally to be ad mitted ; but in much a case of evidence he thore:it it would be competent even iu those Court', Ile could not help admitting, that a comparhem of hand-writing, by peeems accustomed to make such companions, might enable the House to form a inure correct judgment than it otherwise could do, and upon these grounds he should vote for this witness being examined. Sir SAMUEL 11011 ILLY said, that certainly the I Me le e were not bound by the rules of aint:awe in Courts of Law, for they were I,et smithy to eiealdisli facts, but they were to get the opinions of ethos. It was extremely difficult, however, to cela eive how that evidence was to hear upon the point iu question. Itwus a point °flaw, as well established as any in ‘Vesturitister Hall, not only that such evidence was not admissible, but that it would be most dangerous were it Otherwise. The decision in the ease of Rim , * v. Graham caused great ularni in the profession; but it tweed out that the trial at Bar, which war thought to have settled the cause, was reversed by the Judge at Nisi Prins ; and it could hardly be coaccived, that that would have been the case, had the learned Judge not been convinced that the law was already established upon that point. There was Mailing so important to determine, us that of hand -writing; be understood the witnesses now to be culled were to be exusniued as to whether or not these three letters, on a com parison with each other, were written by one and the same person ? Could tiny man pretend to say that a person looking at a piece of writing, without, haring seen the iedisidual • previously write. wee capable of judging' of his hand-writing ? It was well known, that hand-writing assumed different appearances nu different occasions, from various circumstances, and, amongst others, by its being written with a good or bad pen. If a comparison of band-writings were proper, why had they not had recourse to it at the first, and not at the last. Upon the whole, be could not think that it was either proper or necessary to admit the evidence of persons ecmparitig this scrap of paper with other writings, so as to establish this important fact against his Royal Highness, that the note was of his hand writing. Mr. Breesroan, in explanation, said, that all he had proposed was, that the three pieces of paper should be put before the Witnesses, so as to as certain what each of them thought en the subject. The As roaeir-Gcsietee argued in support of this evidence. He) said, that the case alluded to by the Learned Getitleiaan on the opposite side was not perfectly in point, for the opinion which Lord Ellenborough gave upon the trial ut Maid stone could not be urged as his sound opinion, as he wassicting as advocate fer one of the parties, i a man- I which he deemed most beneficial for his client. That opinion, therefore, given under such circuit'. amours, could not be taken us an authority de livered from the Bench. He Legged leave to observe to an Hun. Gentleman opposite, that the brat question pit to u Witness on suc h occasions, was not, whether he had ever seen the person write ? but it was, whether he had been in the habits of correspondence with the party I fur that *hewed Ile -t have frequently seen the hand-writing he war called on to prove. The question before the Committee was, whether they should receive any assistance in forming their opinion, as to the genuineness of this letter, by the evidence of fered? and as they had in many instances al ready departed from the strict rules of legal evidence, he saw no reaom why they should not assist themselves in Makilig up their minds by every meal's in their power. If so, was it not proper to have the testimony of persons whose business had been to compare writings together, and detect forgeries ? Such persons were surely more competent to form a correct judgment upon such matters, than they themselves ware, and upon that ground lie should be inclined to hear them examined at the Bar. The questiou was then pat and carried, with se veral dissentient voices, but without a division. Before recalling Mr. Johnttnne. of the Post office, Lora FOLSSTONE stated to the Committee, that he had just they learned that Mrs. Clarke was indisposed, and could not andtlid ; he should there% fore pmpow calling as a witness to this fact, Dr. Nletealfe. Physician, who stated, ou the in terrogatories of the Chairman, that lie had been attending Mrs. Clarke, and that he found her state of health such as to preclude her attendance ar the everting. Cposi being asked if he could form soy of nision when Mrs. Clarke's health would permit her to attend, lie answered in the course of two days. MR. JOHNSTONE. Q. (By Mr. Pt ItUF.YAL ) Wind are you am inspector of tranks at the General Post-o ffi ce. Q. Hum long have you been ill that ntuauoo ? —A. I have been in the rake about thirteen t ears, and I have been in that situation about six years, that is since the year 1802. Q. In that situation, is it your dory to examine? letters, and observe the different variations of hand writing It is my duty to re that no franks, either proceeding from those of the House of Peers, or of the House of Commons, pass, but such as are fairly writeu by Peers, or by i'ilembers of this House. Q. In that ditty is it necessary for you, to be verypartienlarly careful in exam g hand-writing? —.4. As much so as our time will allow, Q. (11wisis sliewn lisp two letiers and Short note) bs here you hate open these three papers before, in the roans of the Hoare of Coossionsh--41. Yes, L have. Q. Look at the. small poet. soil ay whether it be your opiiiati, that it is is the same baud •nttaß. es the larzer arres!kusit. htemobies itllll nearly. that I should Lis :IL it is. r j Q. (By anotAer ilfember). 11.zve you. o fact. eccsaionially dtteetedf4:4e or lLi i d siaoa tures ?—A. Yes. I hove. MR. St'ltit. Q. 4By Mr. PFIVAVAT.'. Mint are 3(bU -A . I it IU Deputy linipreiur of frail:;. d the Punt OftiCe. Q. Ilow long have yuu tNti to m that ratuatioa ? --A. A Lout eighteen mouths. (GeitiK shekire the. twit kttere awl the notr.) You have seen thcie paper, bef3re, tool• At thet. a4;liot, mi.4l soy *belie' they are in the same h.lni•.vritiug I—A. I thiuk they are: • M. NISRETI*. Q. (By Mr. lititeseonv.)—ln whet. ore you e mpioscd ?--A. I AM employe,' at the tairkois pi leo ipa: isalocc:or !.et tenet. of A ttoi tory. Q. Are sou tit that Mike tiecustowital ii. exaniiite hats?-writing suspected to be lorgeries Vet, cuoistantly. I limit been in the daily habit of doing so bets Ven thirty and forty yeeis. Q. Are you in the Lint of es.imiiiiiig.writinge so suspected, by comparing them inth other writ. nog% purporting to be of the baud-writiiig of the same pat ty I—A. Certainly. Q. What is your usual habit iii aserytioiloing the facts ?—A. lettyrs of attorney, and their signatures, with otletr docuineuts • the voice hand-writing, whi . ch has been previously left ut the office. Q. (Being shewn the two letters and note.) Have you seen these rapers before ?—A. Yes, I Wive. Q. Da you see any difference in the turn of the hand in the letters and the cote, upon close iuspec. taut? Before the Witness had given an answer to this question, lie was ordered to withdraw, on the si.e;- gestion of Mr. BATHURST, who objected to its being put in that mode. Mr. BERCEVAL said, he email see no olojectioto to this sort of proceeding, as it it cut to point out what appeared to he a different turn ju the writing, cod his Hon. Friend having previously formed an opi. Mon as to there being a perceptible difference in these doeuments, Ise thought he was the best able to put these interrogatories. Mr. BATHURST answered, that it might be ex ' trernely tree, but lie still .objected to it, us it had not been the course adopted towards the forgoer witnesses. Ile thought the question put on such an occasion ought to he a general one, f o r in a ll baud-writings there might be difiereut turnings. The Hun. (..cntlemen who bad put the question had framed an opinion of his own, and he now cab cd upon the witness to say whether that was a true opinion or not. That surely was mist a leading question, and therefore it was not competent to put it now, however proper it might be afterwards. Mr. Et.sterr thought it was of importance that the proceedings should be consistent; but how ceuld that be said of their, when the House had actually rejected a Witness at the. Bar, because he could only speak as to signatures ? If he mistook not, this Witness could only speak to signatures. Mr. BERCEVAL gill persisted in the questiou be ing unobjectiouable. Mr. Emisos thought it was of particular ins portauce that the Witnesses should not be led upon such a point as this, but that the House should have their unbiassed judgment formed upon their professionel knowledge. Mr. BCRESFORD stated, that having been mawy years in the habit of comparing writings, from cir cumstances having tamurred that made him draw a ditto:rem opinion from the former witnewses, and the reasons he gave for that opinion having struck others as forcibly as himself; he could not help thinking this mode of interrogatory was most pro per. He had uo object but to get at the truth. Mr. WILRERFORCC thought that the best mode of examination would be to allow the witnesses to compare the papers and state the result, instead or having their opinion intercepted, and attempts made to shake it. Such questions as these would properly come after the leading questions were an swered ; and its not being a question put to the former witnesses, it was exceedingly desirable they should follow an uniform line of conduct, rather than attempt to fritter away the opiaion of witnesses. It was then agreed the question should be ex punged, and the Witness recalled. Q. (By Mr. BEHUSFORD.) Look at these po per., and say whether you think tile ) were all written by the same person ; look both at the di. rections and the inside of the letters E—A. I hive looked at the note particularly, and compared it with these two letters, and after a greet deal of at tention and care in looking at marest every letter iu the hots, I am of Manion it was iiof written by the same band. Q. On what circumstances in that note do yea ground your opinion ?—A. Because I perceive throughout the whole a neateess in almost every letter of the note, which is sot to be Wand in the two letters, mid the whole of the writing in the note appears to be of a smaller character than tliet of the letters in general. Besides this, I think I perceive a stiffness in several of the letters in the note, winch I do not discern iu the two letters dated from Sundgate and Weymouth. Q. Hive you any thing further to add upon this subject ?—A. I have this to add, that in the two letters, dated Sandgate and Weymouth, there appears to be a greater freedom than I perceive is the note. Q. /By Lord FOLKSTONE.) Maly not that nest neis and smallness of character which you perceive in the note, and not in the letters, arise from the dif. ference iii the pens and ink used in writing ?—A. That circumstance has oot escaped my mind ; but utter looking at it minutely, also with consideratime in view, 1 a,u still of opinion it is not the saws hand-writing. Q. You stated you are Inspector of Letters of Attorney in the Bank, are you not accustomed principally to examine the signatures?—Yes, lam. Q. Is that your only Isueineas?—A. No, surely not; hot that is principally my business. Q. What other part of the band-writing of Let. tern of Attorney, besides the signature, art you accustomed to examine It is accessary for me to read over the whole of these deeds. in order to see that they are correct in ail their puts, and if they agree, of course they are admitted ; if I end ani disagreement with the other wilting's is tsi office, I have recourse to other means, by essmord itig the air/atoms with soy other. ef the mat per. son with* may bit feu lit/elsewhere. Q. 4$ k ssesibi that the hand-wdtipg in the body of by the p 1. The b. the c Q. T *hid' y paresuss Q. (. served t 11 thbte to Stoterve4 Q. 2 a holm 4.titer lend. I thut tltt Q. le.ttera ,no II • 0 6'l :t i (lc • wo ; • .11'3 a te WI thlt 'have es ler Q• turret slide I doubt Acme two el (t• jug, h have have attervi the mil pare i lay h. them 44. fereM hir, ?- vary; Q. letter iTI4, iu th douil your CIIIIIt term qwew with T 1 ceive 1 cal II po C" *Sul lliZhi ir•on Ern am mai cnts hot' 11. •