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

-- . a 11 e )t 4 u or :r if d C 7.. % body of the Letters tit Attorney should be written by the person whose 'signature is at the bottom ?- 1. The Letters or Attorney are uniformly made up bt the clerk in the office. - Q. 'f!,eii is your comparisoluif the writings to • your attentiou is direeteN altogether a coin- Kirison of the signaturee?—A. Yes, it is. Q. (By Alt. CliAaLEr ADAMS). Hare you rai se' ved there are no dots to the i's, in the little uote Mee not. (i. Ikee --you observed whether there are any Both to the is in the two leters?—A. I think I have - Observed dots in ensue parts of the two letters. Q. Examine those two letters again, and say hoher you observe dots to the i's in them After eicansiiiing the letters) I do not observe se -I.ral, but I esti see in the letter dated 'Weymouth, that there is out dot. . Q. Have you observed but one i in those two I.:tiers with a dut over it Inure not observed !,i. I laving adverted to that circumstance, do you .. su itl of the same opinion 54 to the hand-writing .•• Ido not think that should change my opinion, I • , ~use l think the tuns ensemble of the note ap ,irs, altogether of • different hand. Q. Having said that you have looked over the to with navies; attention, how does it happen th it so remarkable a circumstance us that should Cave escaped your memory ?—A. I do not at all n ler that; such a circumstance should have escaped any attention, as this M the first time I was ever la this House to be cross-examined and 'surrounded as I sus by Gentlemen on every side. Q. [low long a period has elapsed since those letters were (tinier your inspection in the Commit tee-Room ;shove 5i , 1101:....A. I think ationt an hoar; but in the course of that time I had a great variety of letters of Mrs. Clarke, to look at and examine. Sir Tuomas Tuieroww, Mr. Yonar. and Mr. Sumter., briefly gave their opinions upon the pro priety of the question, when it was ordered to be expunged. Q. Does the circumstance of there being ne dot to the letter i in the note before you make any &defence in the opinion you have given ?—A. It is of weight, but not roffitieut to alter my opinion. Q. Did you ever notice, "in the executing of powers of attorney, any variation in signatures within a short time ? A. Yes, I certainly have, and it may be accounted for in various ways—from ill health—from being written before or after dinner, or other such circumstances. Q. Did you ever admit the validity of signa tures which varied more front inch other than the mite does from the two letters ?—A. I have no doubt but I have; but it would arise from carotin 'dances. Wheresignatures differ inarenislly, we have two subscribing wittiesees. Q. L/ examining the validity of such band-writ ing, have you not admitted it where the witnesses have hero totally onkuoisii to yon ?—A. I think I have not, because that is my particular business to attend to. Q. (By Mr. I.vmeron.) When you compare the signatory* to powers of attorney, do you coin pare them with ether signature% or with the regu lar hand-writing of the parties ?—.t. I judge of them be the signatures to others. Q. (lave you ever observed the signatures of dif frreut ilerllollS vary from their common hand writ ing ?—A. I have. I think signatures in general vary; they are a more set hand than common lines. Q. (By 31r. H. Moans.) Did any one pre viously to your examining the two notes and the letter, give you any reason to doubt their authen ticity ?—A. I think 1 should answer that by say ing, that I was in the constant habit, every even ing, of reading the iiewspapero, and of what passed in this House. Q. Is she Committee o understand that th.: first doubt you entertained on the subject originated hi your reading the newspapers ?—A. I certainly came here atth no prejudice oo my mind, hut de termined to form my opinion upon what I saw. Mr. MARTIN Objel'il2ll to this answer, and the question we, repeated ?—A. 1 think 1 said I cause with no prejudice, hut to judge from what I saw. The question was a aln repeated.—A. I con ceive I might have reasoned upon the subject, but I came without any prejudice. Q. When you wine carefully examining both the letters, did you perceive in them any material dif ference of cluwacter?—A. I did not perceive any • particular difference in them. Q. (By Mr. W too.) Is the difference between the note and the: letters greater than in cases where you have admitted sceirittee.:s to be the same halal writing E.—A. The erillereiger, hi toy opi ll )) tie be tween the note and the ieuers is, that there is a neatness and Ptiftlitba iu tiirnote which I cannot find in the letters. As to the question, I hardly know how to answer it. Q. (By Mr. WilitillitEAD)• As you have tweet in the habit of comparing agitaturcs with others, do you consider yourself wore competent to speak •n this subject than any person etperienced in another office ? Witness was ordered to withdraw. Mr. th.NT objected to this question being put. Mr. WittvechAn said he would sootier take the !opinion of the Right lion. Gent. opposite than the Witness; for he could give a decided opionin upon letters which lie might be in the habit of re ceiving, while the 'Witness was only accustomed to examine signatures. Mr. CAWIIIWO objected to the question, on ac count of fipt being of a disparaging nature to the Witness. Mr. Warenftran conceived, that although the liVitaseal eat./ there involuntarily, yet he considered timorlf as a judge iu such matters ; :mil hotter r able he might lie to give au o; ) i )) i ) )II II:1011 mere eigurattlies, vet he was incompetent to the task. Upon the suggest:me of ,Ir. liaTutntsr, the question was put to Witness in the following man ner: Q. Heys yen, from your habits of comparing Signatures in the Bank of England, more oppor *sod? of compering general writing:, than exile- Slowed perawis ia avoiding-houses %—A. I am permuted I have not ; f near! Hear !) I feel that I am intotnpetritt, because 1 ant iu the habit of ex amining signatures only. Q. (Ely Mr. Batista. i.) hseeststed, iu the enurse of your examination. dint yon devoted an hour im 1;7411111111416• the %%tette or the pavers before Ste' ensamitter—how (notch of that nine did you 'ftvropruthe to the two letters add elute now bcfure you I thilik about half an tinny Or ..T:L'e to the other papers, and the remainder to "the two letters mod note. Q. Dieyou net conceive that the two letters and note might have been written by the same lend, ideal the letters were written before dinner, and the note afterwards, and vice reran?—A. I think it might hove been the case, stud 'that that written in the morning would have becu better than what was wi itteu afterwards. Q. If two powers of attorney were signed, one in the haul of the letters, and the other in that of the note, would you have refused the th si. ' aitarc ?—A. If no contrary eireutionaiste intervene d, I certainly should not. Witness withdrew. Mr. Bateman was thrill called and examined. Q. (By the ATTORNEY-(JNX CRAL.) What bu siness are you ?—A. I NM 111 tile. service of the Company of the Bank of England. Q. In what department ?—A. My employment is iii exami AA I ll Powers of Attorney. Q. How long have you been in that employ ment ?—A. Nearly twenty years. Q. have you examined these two letters and the note hem Q. As you say yon have examined them, state to the Committee whether it is your opinion they were written by the mune hand or otherwise ?—.l. There it a very corresponding similarity. Q. Aceordiag to your juiliinent, was the note written by the same person who wrote the two let ters?—A. At:wording w nay judgmeot, there is a very marked similarity. Q. (By Sir Jous SEBRIGNT). Have you any reasoii to think they were not written by the same person ?—A. After what I have said, 1 know no other way sof enovering. Q. (By a Member). If two Powers of attorney value before you, one signed in the hand in which the note is written, and the other signed in that hand in which the letters are written, work! you pass them both ?—A. 1 think I should. (Witness withdrew). Mr. Bliss was then called and examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Q. What is your employment ?—A. I aim au ihvestigator of Bank of England notes. Q. In what way do you act ?—A. I examine and inspect forged notes. Q. How long have you been so employed ?—.t. fifteen years. Q. b it your business to examine the signatures? Yes. Q. Do you examine any thing but the signa tures ?—A. Yes, The whole of them ; the en graving, the paper, and every part. Q. Do you examine auy writing or notes besides the signature?—A. Yes, very frequently. Q. What part of notes is it you examine, which is not the signature The date* and the &lum bers. Q. Do you examine post bills?—:t. No. Q. Have you examined those two letters and the note, to fiud whether they were written by the same person I—A. I have. According to the best of any judgment they were written by the seine person. 4. (By Mr. J. Sefton.) Have you any doubt of their being written by the same person ?—A.. From sonic letters I have seen since I for Med my opinion, I have some doubts. Had I seen nu other letters, I should have had no doubt. Q. What other letters have you seen which make von doubt ?—.t. 1 saw different letters in the Committee-room; they were numbered, I think, from No. 31 to No. 41. 4. Whose letters did you understand the others were I—A. Tnere we:•:• a number of letters. I went in late, and cold , : 'nut examine them vets minutely. I believe tOey were Mrs. Clarke'r; collie of them created doohts in my mind. Q. Exolaiii :Boa the soailarity of Mrs. Clarke's letters induced you to i+aege youropinion upon the others I—A. After I had examined the first letters, I was desired to te;amine her's, cud I compared some of them with the others. 4. How did that compaiison alter your former opinion s—A. Because thotb.th they were written lay one person, there was a material difference in them ; some were written very phalli and free, others were cramped, some were written small, and others large. Q. How was it that another person writing dif ferently should alter your opinion ?—A. From this great difference in the writing, I found that some of the letters, from No. 31 to 41, bore a great similitude to the other two letters, which brought a doubt on any mind as to the correctness of my former opinion. Q. Is it the circumstance of these letters diffaing among themselves, or because sonic of them agree with the letters now produced, that you have formed your it.iuimn ?—A. From loath. Q. Did they resemble the letters or the note ? A. Sonic of them resembled the letters. Q. Was it their differing among themselves, or some of them resembling these letters. that created the doubt in your mind ?—A. Their differing among themselves. Q. (By Me ATTORNEY-GENERAL). Was there any similarity between the letter* market! from 30 to 40. and the note I—A. 0, e or two I thought bore some resemblance to t: -e letters mid to the note. 4. Was it that eircumst ,. ... , ! yoys to doubt whether the note was written by the same person who wrote the letters ?—:t. Yes. Sir MATTIIEW lIIVLEY wished that General Claverioig should be celled in. Mr. Ltetteseotto thought that t.!I the Witnesses whose tesatnunnuy was inaterial to t: , e question be fore the House should be first exam ued ; he lied no objection, after that, to admit Gen sal Clever hog _to etolaiii what lie had stated. Mr. W. tl - TaoL did not see ho .v the House could refuse to hear Geiseral Clavering, after hav ing already eoaciided that indolgeuee to otbsr wit seise*. General Clot...ring was nceordingly called in. Q. (By Si, Marritew Ktusee.) Do you wish to explain any, and what port of your former testi mony to the House ?—A. There is a par: of that testimony which I ani alcsirons to correct, mid I will state tlet reason why I requested to Is brought fortriard. It sea intimated to me by an Irliseonr able Member of the House. diet part of the evi dence which I had given on a former night was not correct ; I started at the idea, being conscious that / wished to con sioonieiste all I kiwis all la the sub jute, to the best of my knowledge; on referriog to the minutes, in eonsequeoce of this intimation, I , found thut some of the answers I bud given were not such as I would hare given. if I understood the questions t.) which they were directed, nod I pled g e my sacred honour sod word, that other cud in view than to tweak the truth. I will now rerer to the questioni which I have already mentioned to the I lott,e I most have rnisennteived ; war. u,ki (1, " Had you soy contuitinicatiou with Mr,. ClarLe relative to army promotions ?" my answer was, "I u..ver remembered to have had any, with the exception of one re:pet:6m; Lientanant Sunnier." 1 understood this quetniion to mean conversations; fur, in the to preceding questions, the expressi (((( coointoni , atioi bore that arose, as well as in the question fol:o..nig: that was, " 11:1 you :city coulidential comorto;..neiotre with Mrs. C. upon sock subje , :tsl" I 'twos ercd " commit recollect after smelt a lapse oft -." The next quertion was, Do you know that Mrs. Clarke applied to the Duke of York resperting military " pro 1111 l tions at your instance 1" This question I misunderstood, as will appear from A conversation I hail shortly after with a noble relation of mine in the Upper House, and which I have his authority for tuentioniug here.— I told him I was surprised that the question was put to me respecting others, fur if it had (seen put respecting myself, I wonld havesaid what I belie ve, that Mrs. Clarke never possessed that influence with his Royal INliness which she was supposed to have. This is the correction I war desirous of making in the testimony which I gave to the House. Mr. W. WYNNE desired that the letters, pur porting to be written by the Wastes*, should be shewn to him, which being dune, lie asked, Q. Are those letters your hand-writing ?—.l. They are. Q. (By Mr. WARD.) You have referred to that question car your former examination, wine!, asked whether you knew of any transaction about army promotions being attempted by Mrs. Clarke, did you understand that question to mean auy action in which you yourself were concerned, to the exclusion of elf others ?—A. I certainly did both that and the following. Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) Did you ever ask Mrs. Clarke, by writing, or otherwise, to exert her influence with the Commander-its-Chief iu your behalf?—A. I did. Q. (By Mr. YOREE.) Mad that application any direct ?-aA. I believe not. Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) Did you ch ain what you asked for through her?—A. e two ap plications ; in the first, I did not succeed; the second was granted to me, but then it was uut through her DiflUeller. Q. I ask through what influence then ?—A. Permit me to answer the questiou rather nut directly. Q. I wish it to be directly answered I—A. It was granted to rue, but it could not have been de nied even if such application were not made. Q. Why then did you apply through Mrs. Clarke? —A. If I inn permitted to explaiu the enemas stance, I will do so (Coo*, Go tie). In the year I isoj, I was placed on the Staff as a Colonel ; is some time after Government resolved to raise the Colonels to the rank of Brigadier-Geuerals, whets I uniting the rest was advanced to that rank ; some time after, it was notified to me, that I was appointed Brigadier-Colonel, instead of Brigadier- General, and it was on this occasion I applied to Mrs. Clarke. She informed we that this alteration in the appointment was a mistake, and that we were all to be restored to the rank of Brig.-Generals. Q. Why did vou apply for a representation of the mistake to Mrs. Clarke, and nut to the Com mander-in-Chief I—A. Because it is not customary with persons holding of fi ces to give an explanation of the reasunsof any measures they may be di rected to adopt. Q. What secret source of information did you suppose Mrs. Clarke to hare had i—.l. I certainly supposed that Mrs. Clarke knew what was passing in the War-Otfice—(A lortgk)—and that was the reason I thought she could tell me. Q. Why did you think she would tell you I—A. Because upon former ociatsions I hod found her ex tremely communicative—(d laugh.) Q. From what source did you suppose that she derived her infornsation?—t. I suppose from the Commander-in-Chief. Q. How can you reconcile that answer with your former declaration, that Mrs. Clarke had no influ ence with the Commander-in-Chief ?—A. My for mer declaration went only to the influence she pos sessed Oyer his Royal Highness iii the distribution of places. • Q. At hid of your two requests did you obtain ? —A. The first was relative to raising a regiment. I understood that she ha•l great influence in that way, and under that illyre,witou directed a letter to he written to her, promising her 10001. in case she succeeded with his Royal lighue a its my be half. She returned an answer, stating, thut his Royal klighnetas would not hear of it, and that was my reason for thiiikiug.she had no influence. Q. Did you in point of fact obtain your first re quest ?—A. No. Q. Did you mak , . a second ap;f.ication, and for what?—A. I dal, to know the reason why I was reduced front Brigadier-Geueral to Brigadier- Colonel. Q. Did you make any other application to Mrs. Clacks respecting information, or promitions, or any other thing connected with the army ?—A. I do not recollect ; Van). Honourable :grinner will furnish me with a clue by which my memory may be assisted, I will be thankful to him. Q. flow snot. after Mrs. Clack,: had stated to you, that his Royal Highness 'wonted the idea of your application, did von make your second appli cation to her ?---A. I hefore stated, that from his Royal Highness's answer (if such were his answer). she did 1.01 po,aess nay iuflyence in the sale of promotions; but still I thought she might t r al lowed the ptirilege.of quitersalmo upon twittery suts. bjec Q. Do you know whether. after the application you made through Mrs. Clarke. to be perusattesi to raise-a regiment. soy ogler olstisisied what ea. re fined to you ?—A. Do you mesa through the same donator!? Q. Did Ulf. through any chiumel Some were tali* but it was Mr Ireland. Q. Were they raised upon the same terms a. the tender made by you No; for my prv posal .wee to raisseheas from the militia. and We regiment; raised, in behind were raised hi housdy- Q. From whom did you receive the l int infor mation respecting Mrs. Clarke's influence with the Cuininander-tr-Cbief, winch induced you to errp• to her ?—A. krein report; the letter alluded to was written at the instance of a gentlesasi c if it is necessary for me to mune. I will ftsolne.',/lie bar not yet limn motioned iu the course of tkis I. int) tory. (J. (By Mr. WARD). Had yen elle? any other Alban a written communication with Mrs. Clarke, - tspou the subject of your own preferatot "To the best of my opinion I had urn. and I /pa streiigtbeaed in this belief, (ruin the recaillectims that I was then stationed at a distance fro.a Londe's. Q. (By Mr. Maoris). Do 1 undershind you rightly in conceiving you to have mad, that if yea had applied at the VVar-Oftice, for tb.: ressoa why you were appointed Brigadier-Canoe?! instead of Brigather-General, you would trot have (twinned the information ?—A. I do not think that 1 shuuld ; nor would I have made it, coucciviug the applica tion to be improper. Q. Why did you suppose that Mrs. Clarke would utford inforinetiou which was not to be ob tained at the War-Office ?—a. I thought there was a considerable distinction between tiii appli cation to a lady of her descriptieu, and one through the regular official chui.nr I. Q. What reason had you to thank that Mr.. Clarke had iiiformatiou from the War-Office, which area refused to officers regularly appl Because through her influence with the Commauder-in-Chief she could obtain ialor mai upon that subject ; I wish to add to blob answer, after the influence which she described herself to me to possess. Q. How can you reconcile that with yoor that she did out possess any influence at all ?—t before stated, that I did not believe her influence went to toe distributiou of military remotion," Q. Did it go to the procuring of iirorioitiou withheld from public notice'—.t. So she always gave the to understood. Q. (By Ak. urrnaLau.) Did you obtain what you sought for through her ;sieaus ?—A. I did not. Q. Was the information else recommended to you what you wished to obtain, or was it not I—A". It was not, because she did nut state the reason why we were appointed Brigadier-Coloaels instead of Brigadier-Generals. At the same time I hope the Cominittee will excuse me for any inaccuracy that may appear to my evidence, which refers to transac tions of so distant a period. Q. (After producing a letter to the Witness to read.) Von see )ou there express your thanks to Mrs. Clarke for her endeavours to serve con, though they were unsuccesaful ?—A. I slo. be lieve that letter refers to the application to raise a regiment. Q. Yon express in that letter an intention of coming to town is, a few dap,, do you recollect whether you had any conversation with her ON you. arrival ?-4. It 1. now above five years since I a rote that letter, and it is impossible for a persosi to recollect. Nil the circumstances commeted with so trivial a subject. •• Q. Do you atilt adhere to your former suswer, that you never had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke respecting military matters ?—A. It is 1116.• possible for inc to recollect,, at this distance of time. Q. Did you ever make an offer of money to Mrs. Clarke for her supposed ivaueuce, after the time of your original application ?—A. I am positive I never did. Q. Did you ever make her any pecuniary con sideration ?—A. I never made her any oiler iu toy life, unless accidentally. Q. Was the offer of 10001. contained in a Letter ? —A. Yes. Q. (By Sir T. TuaToti.) You raid that you believed Mrs. Clarke to have no influence, have you any other reason for that belief thus, her not succeeding in your own case?—.l. I formed my opiniwi vu my own case, and the conversatiou other military officers; for though reports on this subject have gone abroad, I never knew any case to be brought home to his Royal Illighnesi; nor do believe that any such case exists. Q. (By Sir Julia SICBRIGAT.) Did you ever ap ply to Mrs. Clarke, by letter, or otherwise, to hare your name put on the staff ?—A. 1 MIA placed as the staff on the ltd of Sept. 1803, mid his Royal Highness did not become acquainted with her for four months atterwards. Q. Did you ever write to the Attorney-General your wish to lie examined here ?—A. Yes ; I wish to state with what view I did so. A day or two after the commencement of this examination, I per ceived my moue introduced into the public papers; I was apprehensive that I would be considered guilty of entering into this traffic, and la order to avoid such an imputation, I waited on Colonel Gordou ut the Uorse-Gusrds ; 1 did not sae Colima Gordan when I called, but had an interview with Mr. Lowten, aho said I ought to go to the those. as my testimony would he necemary ; I said. that in that case I would go ; Mr. LOWteli tllOll thOCOt it advisable that l should write to the Attorney- General, expreming a wish to be examimil. Accord ingly, 1 wrote a letter, and inentiooed Mr. Low tea's *mine in it ; hot a gentleiwio olio was pre- Pent, orserviug that it should iwt appear, 1 wrote soother, is, ohich it was omitted ; thus I appeared to he a apluutery evidence, islets in reality I was not. Q. (o f 11r. TAGGART.) With what view did yam writ:: to the Attorney-General? and why. after writiug a letter in which yon offered to do sway I. e evidence of Mrs. Clarke. do you come to give such evidence at you have given fat the bar of this House ? (.4 &48111,-.A. 1 am lorry to my that do not uuderstanfl the questioo...-/ficar 4eire.') Q. „With what view did you write to the Attor ney-General ?—A. Mr. Lowten states) that use evidience would be considerable (4 bas*), en& reoreamsted a letter as Übe beat fiat bed of intim clueing is. Q. Did you inform Mr. Lowten d all row • transactions I. ih Mrs- Ciarke, os the tima be gate you this *drier N--A. I beieve sot of all. Q. (By Hr. WatTaaaao.) The Amatory. General asked you whether poo hod mot him a letter. requiring to Imo exammasomoor 11404 LA 'mew—we're yes a volumes" Whom 1 nava hstitatiso to state, slat the Last wash of !Ft .` .1 • 1 -;: P I ,i I t' 11 a '~