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

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
empioscd ?--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, for in all
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. •

--

.

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
.. suitl 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 intervened, 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 seensince 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
pledge 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 chain 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 offices 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 tr 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 lint 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 gentlesasic
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. (of 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