Star.
London, England, 1809-02-21 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

The House resolved_ into a Committee of Supply,
and the Army Estimates for the year were referred
to them.
The SECRETARY at WAR expressed regret,
that the Estimates which he had laid before the House
so long ago as Friday se'nnight, had not been print-
ed, and ready for delivery to Members until late this
afternoon, owing to the Printer being occupied with

the evidence on the Inquiry no* Pending. However,.
as there had not been time to examine the whole of the
Estiniates, he should move this evening merely fOr
the ordinary establishment, which differed blit very
little from that voted last year, not more in amount
than £200,000 ; the remainder he shciuld leave to a
future day, in order to give time for further examine-
don, preparatory to any discussion which might be
[ thought necessary. The additional sum was for in-
creasing the effective Strength of the array, So desira.:
ble to the country. In other respects, the expence of
the establishment would rather be diminished than in:
creased. The Militia and Foreign Corps would .be
*early the same. But some increase of expenditure
would appear on the face of the estimates, for articles
whicji were necessary ; this not from any actual ex-
ceeding, but in compliance with the recommendation
of the Finance Committee, that every charge which
could be ascertained for the public service, should, as
far as was practicable; be stated in the Estimates ;
and, therefore, those expenditures , which were here-
tofore charged under the he'ad of Army Extraordina-
ries, were now specified under their particular heads.
Another sum which would have the appearancee
of increase from the last year, was s0:11,000, for allow.
ance to Innkeepers. This, in fact, wasene real ex-
ceeding ; but experience had proved that the real ex-
penditure had far exceeded the former estimate on
this head; and it was deemed therefore expedient to
name a sum as near as possible to the real expeuce.
Another head of apparent exceeding was that of
Second .Lieutenant-Colonelcies to Regiments. This
was no real addition, for the same expence had here-
tofore been borne. With respect to the preient actual
strength of the regiments, no precise account could
be yet given, as no return was yet made of the losses
in Spain, and therefore their amount could not be in-
eluded : there was, however, strong ground to believe
that the expence for recruiting the army, to render the
strength of the regiments effective, would not be
greater than last year: Some expence would be in-
curred for compensation to Officers in Spain for the
losses of their baggage sustained by them in the ser-
vice of their country. The sums, however, for which
he should now move; would be for the mere ordinary
[establishment. He concluded by moving a force of
133,922 effective men for the service of Great Britain
and Ireland in the current year:
,General GASCOIGNE rose to ask the Right
Hon. Baronet a question respecting the charge of ex•
part duty upon clothing for regiments on foreign ser-
vice. When he formerly asked a question on this
subject; he was told, it was in .consequence of the ex-
ten.ive trade carried on by this country with foreign
ports under the protection of his Majesty's arms ; but
he thought it never could have been intended to ap-
[ ply this principle to the extent of charging with the
[ impost, the clothing for his Majesty's troops ; as it
must occasion a very considerable loss to the Colonels
of regiments, whose profits had been estimated at
something between 30 and 33 per cent. but whose
deductions, in consequence of some of the late taxes,
must amount to tiO percent.
The SECRETARY at WAR said, that tilis wes
not the stage in. which to discuss that part of the
eibject ; another and more appropriate opportunity
would speedily occur.
Mr. CALCRAFT rose to ask some questions re-
specting one or two estimates for recruiting the army,
notwithstanding the number of volunteers from the
Militia.
The SECRETARY at WAR deferred explana-
tion to a future day, when that part of the subject
would come under discussion.
Mr. LONG stated, that one difference of £30,000
between this year's estimate and the last, arose prin-
cipally in the department of the Quarter-Master-Ge-
neral, and the employment of his Deputies with troops
on foreign service. Such charges were formerly dis.
but sed under the head of contingencies ; but now in
compliance with the recommendation of the Finance
Committee, the particular charges were specified in
the estimate ; and this he should henceforward en-
deavour to have done, as far as was practicable, in
every estimate for the service of the army.
After some further conversation on the subject of
'the Volunteer Force of the Country, between Sir
THOMAS TURTON and the SECRETARY of WAR, the
ilatter proceeded to move his Estimates, a Schedule
of which he delivered to the Chairman ; but the se-
veral items were read in so low atone of voice, as to
be inaudible from the gallery.
They were severally agreed to, and the Chairman
[ was ordered to report to-morrow.
THE DUKE OF YORK.
Mr. WARDLE moved the order of the day for
going into a Committee for inquiring into the con-
duct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York.
Sir THOMAS TURTON wished previously to
ask a question of the Right Hon. Chancellor of the
Exchequer, respecting the statement made by him
the other day, relative to the sums of money that ap-
peared to have been transmitted from his Royal
Highness to Mrs. Clarke. Many of these sums were
very considerable ; and, therefore, he wished to know
whether the Right Hon. Gentleman meant to exa-
mine any evidence on the subject, in order to obviate
any prejudices that might be entertained through the
want of a more minute examination.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
answered, that when he made the statement a few
days ago, he had mentioned to the Committee that
the different tradesmen who had received sums of
money from Mrs. Clarke, were in attendance to prove
the sums they had respectively received ; and he at
the same time stated, that if the House. was disposed
to ge into a particular investigation upon the subject,
it might be expedient to appoint a Select Committee
for the purpose. He had also stated, that it would
be impossible, he feared, to bring specific proofs of
the actual conveyance of the money from his Royal
Highness to Mrs. Clarke, as the messenger who con-
e-eyed it could only prove that he had brought the
sums from the banker to his Royal Highness, and

ness, knew nothing of the writing of his
ness ,
_• and it appeared to him somewhat
that the Committee should now resort
not nearly so strong as that of those
had already been examined. Such a
which the Committee was now about
once obtained, he believed, in Courts .
cases of capital offences, but it had for
been discontinued. If that were really the case, he
begged the House to consider seliously what must
be the effect of calling this witness before they
agreed to admit him to the Bar ; for however inclined
they might be, to give every indulgence in their power
to the Royal Personage who was accused, yet they
should well weigh in their minds whether any other
person would, if standing before them on the same or
similar charges, be allowed an equal degree of favour.
In his opinion, they had given latitude to Colonel
Gordon, in permitting him to take a paper from his
pocket, and compare it with the note which he was
called upon to say, whether it was, in his opinion, the
Duke of York's hand-writing? yet almost immediately
afterwards forty letters were shewn to Mrs. Clarke,
and she was told that she must not read any one or
any part of any one of them ; but must, from merely
viewing the signatnre, say positively whether they
were her's or not. It would seem rather hard she
should not have been allowed to see whether any al-
terations or interpolations had been made in any of
them, but from solely the name at the bottom, should
be obliged to allow they were her's. He knew very
well the Committee had decided by their proceedings
that they were not to be confined within the strict rules
respecting evidence, by which the Courts cf Law re-
gulated themselves—but having made this allowance
to Colonel Gordon, he must throw it out for the con-
sideration of the Committee, whether having already
committed impropriety would justify them in adding
to those improprieties, by allowing a witness to be
examined, who could only speak upon the writing of
a person whom he had never seen write ; a practice
which certainly would not be allowed in the Courts
below. Under these circumstances, he wished the
Committee to pause before they determine, for it
seemed to him to be of such importance, that if a vote
should take place on it, he should give his against the
witness being admitted.
:the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
observed, that this objection of the Honourable Gen-
tleman ought to have been made when the subject,
was first introduced to the notice of the Committee ;
for when it had been decided that sash evidence.
should be resorted to, it seemed rather hard that any
opposition should now be made to it. He supposed,
however, the Honourable Gentleman had left the
House the other night before the subject was men-
tioned in the Committee. In the course of the last
night's discussion on this inquiry, an Honourable
Member under the gallery had observed, that having
carefully compared the note with the two letters which
had been actually proved to be the Duke of York's
hand-writing, the letteis in the note appeared to him,
from their formation, to be more like an imitation of
letters than a regular hand-writing. On this it was
thought necessary that the information should be at-
tended to, and followed up as accurately as possible ;
and, as it would be altogether out of the power of all
the Members of that House to examine the papers so
minutely as to form a decision on the point, it was
thought most adviseable to apply to four or five per-
sisns of the Post -Office and the Bank, who were in
the use and habit of investigating such points in cases
of life and death. If these letters and note were only
to be submitted to a Jury of twelve men, they might
all of them examine all the letters so minutely, as to
decide the point by themselves ; but in so great anum-'
ber as the Members (-f that House, such an examinsoj
tion would be absolutely impossible. Such a pro-
ceeding had been allowed in a trial at bar by four'
Judges, sitting in solemn decision in the Court of I
King's Bench ; but in one case, that decision had
been denied to be law by one Judge at Nisi Prius.
The present proceeding, as he observed before, had'
been adopted the other night ; and, though it might
not fall in with the observations of the Honourable
Gentleman on the subject, it was somewhat hard the
witness should now be objected to, after it had previ-
ously been agreed upon that he should be examined,
and he had been sent for accordingly. As to the ob-
servation of the Honourable Gentleman, viz. that it
seemed as if the Committee were inclined to give in.
dulgence on one side and not on the other, he thought
it was by no means the case. In one instance a per-
son was called to examine a hand-writing that was
not his own, and in the other, a writing which was he.
own. If there had been' any irregularity, it was in
having admitted Colonel Gordon's evidence, but none
in Mrs. Clarke's ; for,' if any thing should arise in
the course of the letters produced, to the injury of
Mrs. Clarke's evidence, she would be allowed to have
an examination of such parts, and, if any alterations
and interpolations had been made, she would be able
to detect and point them out. From the mode adopt-
ed by the Speaker, he was equally ignorant of the
evidence this witness would give as the Honourable
Gentleman was, or any other person whatever; but
he thought as he had been called upon by the Com-
mittee to make the examination, and had done so, he
ought to be permitted to give his evidence on the
subject, be it whatever it might.
Mr. WHITBREAD said he saw no difference be, ,
tween a Jury and the Members of that House, as he
thought no Member would give his judgment without
having examined the papers carefully with his own
eyes, and after he had so done, he believed them was
not a Member who would not give his opinion in pre-
ference to his own eye-sight, before that of this wit-
ness, or any other who formed his judgment from
the same basis.
Lord FOLKESTONE said he came prepared to'
make the same objection, in which he had been anti-
cipated by the Honourable Gentleman below him;
and he must observe generally as to this kind of evi-
dence, that whenever it had been resorted to, it was
always in the case of its being the best evidence that
could be obtained on the subject. Mrs. Clarke had
given a direct testimony, and if Gentlemen would
seriously and carefully attend to the whole of her
evidence, it would appear to be as correct, fair, and
honourable testimony as could be given. Four Gen-
tlemen of honour had been examined on the point in
question, who all agreed that it was so like the Duke
of York's hand-wi iting, that they believed it to be
his (ii cry cf No, no o—With0—With respect to the doctrine
of being allowed to prove any thing by a comparison
of hands, the last case which had been determined on

arterwatds conveyed a number of separate parcels I
from his Royal Highness to Mrs. Clarke, but could
not prove their contents. lie regretted, if the House
was disposed to adopt the plan of a Committee, that
the interval had been lost. There had been a variety
of opinions expressed on the subject, but no Gentle-
man intimated any wish fin• the select Committee ;If
the time; If, however, the House was now disposed to
adopt the Committee, he had no,objection.
Sir THOMAS TURTON said, ha did not hear
the Right Hon. Gentleman mention a Committee ;
but he feared that the opinion of a Select Committee
♦would not he satisfactory.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCidEQUER
was, however, of opinion, that a Report of a Select
Committee on this subject, like other Select Commit-
tees, to whom particular points had been referred in
the course of this inquiry, would be satisfactory to
the House, as the former reports had been. He had
conversed with the Members of the other Committees,
who acknowledged that every thing had been con-
ducted, on both sides, with the utmost candour and
fairness ; and he therefore thought, that such a Com-
mittee in the present case, composed more nume-
rously, it deemed expedient, would much expedite
the business, save the time of the House, and be per-
fectly satisfactory:
Sir T. TURTON said he did not mean satisfac-
tory to the House, but to the Public ; for his own
part, he was perfectly satisfied on ale subject, and
had no doubts to remove; but he thought the evi-
dence would with much better effect be examined at

the l3ar.
Mr. ABERCROMBY rose to express his wish
that a mistaternent, which appeared on the face of the
Minutes of the Evidence taken before the House,
should be corrected. It related to the evidence of
Mr. Greenwood, in the case of Mr. Elderton, Ai°
was appointed to a Pa}-mastership in consequence of
his recommendation ; but Mr. Greenwood was re-
presented on the Minutes to have said, that subse-
quent to his first recommendation, he found upon
enquiry that Mr. Elderton was a person unfit to be
recommended, in consequence of which, he forward-
ed a remonstrance to the Duke of York upon the
subject, hut Mr. Elderton's appointment had taken
pl ice notwithstanding. Now having himself some
doubts as to the accuracy of the statement, he had ap-
pealed to Mr. Greenwood himself, whose authority
he h.id r stating that the minutes on this point were
inaccurate ; and he proposed to call Mr. Greenwood
to the Bar for re-examination, in order to correct the
error.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
s that the evidence of Mr. Greenwood had not
rated his having made a subsequent communication
to the Doke after his first recommendation ; but he
stated that he found Mr. Elderton a person of im-
proper character, after his first representation, and
that the appointment had taken place before his se-
cond rept eentati< n reached the Duke.
Mr. CHARLES ADAMS wished to ask the
Right Honourable Gentleman, in which of the con-
ferences stated by him to have taken place with dif-
ferent persons, in the transaction of the particular
note in questirm, he was informed of the suppression
of that note by Captain Sanden.
CHANChLLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, he received 11:s information from Colonel Ha-

miltne.
Mr. WHIT T-READ, with the leave of the House,
before it lesoived into the Committee, moved, in the
usual 'igen, r a Copy of the Letter addressed by
Mr Pincknc y to Mr. Secretary Canning, and of any
Correspondence which ensued thereon.—Ordered.
it,PANISII TREATY.
Mr. G. PONSONBY wished tctask the same Right
He notireb:e Gentleman a question on an important
subject. His Majesty's Speech. had intimated his
Rey al intention to enter into a treaty of alliance with
the G, vernrnent of Spain in the name of Ferdinand
VII. What he, therefiire, wished to know from the
Ineht Honourable Gentleman was, whether or not
trea:y had been concluded ; and if it had, on
what day the Right Honourable Gentleman would,
by order (4. his ,laiesty, lay it before the House
Mr. Secrctary CANNING answered, the treaty in
question was concluded, and he believed it was rati-
tied, hut had not yet arrived from Spain, and there-
fore eseeld not be laid before the House.
Sir T. T R TON begged to know of the Noble!
Lord (H. Petty) who had a motion which stood
fixed for to-morrow, whether it was his intention to
bring it forward on that day, as he wets apprehensive
the discussion on the present night was likely to be
so late, as might render it somewhat inconvenient to
bring on a debate of so much importance the next
evening.
Lelll IL PETTY said the Honourable Baronet
anJ tine House would be pleased to recollect that his
motion, wl.•ch stood for tomorrow, had already been
postponed eeveral times, and more than once on ac-
count of the present Inquiry. He had however re-
ceived intimaton from several Members, of their wish
to be present at the discussion, and that they could
not attend after to-morrow. It was therefore his de-
eded determination to bring it on, according to the
notice he had last given.
The House then went into the Committee.
The CHA LIMAN informed the Committee, that
he had received a letter from General Clavering, stat-
ing th :t there is a seeming inconsistency in his evi-
dence, and expressing a wish that he might again be
called belote the Committee, in order that he might
explain it.—[// ay of read, read ri
Lord TEMPLE moved, that the letter mentioned
by the Chairman to have been received by him from
General ClavLrng, he read.
TheCHAN CELLO It of the EXCHEQUER said
that if General Chive!' lig wished to correct any thing
which appeateg to be inconsistent or contradictory in
his evidence, let him be sunm.ned, or let him attend
f he was there ; but he saw ito reason why his letter
should be read.
Lord TEMPLE answered, that as he understood
General Givering was then attending, he would, with
the levee of the House, withdraw his motion.
Mr. JonesoN was then called in as a witness.
ITBREAD rose, and the witness was de-
. ;.fed to w ithdraw. The Hon. Gentleman then s tid:
apprehereied the Committee had already examined
several persons who were deemed the most competent
klow the Duke of York's hand-writing. It would;
froth what he had been given to understand,!.
. :t this Goatlete an, who was then produced as aN% II

• . .
sat Maidstone. It was that_ ofJoeksort That w;.l a comparison of hands, :end eras objecee 1
. libel ; and Mr. GajroW for the Platt to. The inspector was aked, whether the wrilin..,
idence sncle as this to prove that the' shewn him was a felgned hand ? andht t
th hat hfore t e was el".
:ten in a feigned or ;suppositious hand, lowed to answer. The House ougereo e.,
was a sirrantrity bitween this fe.igned - as far at least as the Courts of Law, and hates
of the defendant Caton. The Ndole ' what is wanted to ask of this witness from the Po..t
ad an extract from the speech of lord Office. Because the Duke of Yotk's baud-writing;,s
agb, who was then Attorney7Qeoer,a, met . to this note is not proved at all, •it is • desirable to
Counsel for the Defendant, by which it appeared, know whether it is likely to be a real or a feigned
that he said he was not desiring the Court not to go hand. He was therefore of opinion the.witness ought
the length of Judges in the worst of times, but only to be examined.
the Judges who Were then administering the laws of • Mr. BRAND was decidedly of opinion that the
the land. He referred to the case of Revet and Brae witness ought to be examined.
ham, which had been quoted by the Right Honour- Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said the question ap.
able Gentlemen opposite, being the trial at bar he had peared to him to he of such high importance, that he
mentioned, and shewed that that case had afterwards thought the Committee should not determine on it
been reversed by Lord Kenyon: The witness was before they were in possession of more information.
asked whether he could say the libel was like the The object was very different from that of Courts of
hand-writing of Cator, but Lord Kenyon would not Justice, and therefore the House could not be bound
allow him to answer the question, because, he said, by the same ties. The Right Honourable Geetle-
that compatison of hands was no evidence. And in man opposite had not stated the matter fairly, elm
a similar case, which came to be heard before Mr. he merely talked of a decision at bar, and one et
Justice Yates, that most upright and learned Judge Nisi Prius. The fact was, that in the case of Revee.
held expressly the same doctrine, and.said he did not and Braham, which was a trial at bar, the decision
know any case where comparison of hands could be was so contrary to the established principles of law,
admittede In an indictment for forgery, a person and gave so universal and so great alarm to tie
who had seen the party write, might be admitted to whole bar, that on the subsequent occasion in the
prove it, but not by a comparison on a similarity of case of
Nisi Prius, Mr. Baron Hotham, who was aeli
hands. There was also submitted by Lord Ellenbc- known to be a judge very diffident of his own of:.
rough to the Court the case of the seven Bishops, in Mon, took on himself to reverse the law held in the
which Chief Justice Jefferys and another Judge were other case of the trial at bar; and it was vel y eel-
willing to receive such evidence, and Mr. Justice dent, and perfectly well known, that he, a sinoi
Powell and another were against it, which sliewed. Judge sitting at Nisi Prius, never would hare Linder-
that the lawyers even of that day never thought it taken to overturn that decision of the Court, lad he
right to prove forgery by a comparison of hands.— not been well aware that it had been highly and
Mr. Baron Hotham's decision in the case of Jackson loudly' condemned by d:e universal opinion of the
and Cator, and in which he rejected the doctrine laid , whole bar. There was no question of law so nier
down in Revet and Braham, was an authority which • as that of saying whether any certain piece of iele.
compelled him to acquiesce entirely in the opinion of : tmg is that -of any one particular person or rh.,t;
that Learned Judge. The Solicitor for the Plaintiffs, i the property, the liberties and the lives of ell t 1.,,
in the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to 1 subjects of this realm were deeply interested in it;
take down a host of Inspectors from the Post-Office, 1 and it ought never to be forgottea in that House,
to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The Dee; in particular, that Algernon Sydney lest his life by
fendant was prepared with another host of Inspectors : admitting a comparison of hand-writing ; and as
',from the Bank, who would have proved the direct i Lord Ellenborough had so lately argued the case
contrary. This statement had been made to him by i most seriously, the House ought well to consicee
1 the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of ! whether this Was really law or not.—He should 'ost
great honour and credit in his profession, and chewed' sorry to take up the time of the Committee, by
Bow very great the difference of opinions was, with going deeper. into the reason of this case, but. le
regard to the comparison of hands. He would there- i had really heard nothing to convince him in nhilt
fore entreat the Committee to'weigh well the matter, had been advanced that night on the subject.,
before they allowed such evidence to be called to the If the House were to judge by what had fallen from
bar. . 1 the Honourable Gentleman below him (Mr. ,:mitt:)
Mr. BERESFORD said a few words in favour of , a comparison of hands was unquestionably betel.
the witness being called in. i than seeing a person write ; that argument, it seemed
Mr.W.SMITH said, that having given his opinion 1, to him, went too far, for it proved the compariin
in favour of the proceeding on the last night of the in- !to be the hest, which WAS a doctrine 'long since en:.
quirt', he should certainly maintain it then, though I ploded. The Right Honourable Gentleman on tie
in direct opposition to that of his Hon. Friend and 1 floor (Mr. Bathurst) had said that the House had
the Noble Lord, with whom he was generally in the ! examined four gentlemen, but had not put the prover
habit of voting. The subject, indeed, divided 'itself i questions to them. Then why not put these clues.
into more branches than he was inclined to enter upon stions to them ? they were still to be called before the.
at that moment, but he could not help offering a few House, and it was much better to put these questior.
observations on it. He was sorry the mode of exa- ,to them in such a manner as the Right Honourable
mining witnesses on oath had not been adopted; as he I Gentleman should point out as a proper one, than to
thought this House ought to examine on oath as well admit evidence so very alarming as this appeared to
as the other, and he believed tie custom had obtain- him to be. He begged the Committee to recollect
ed in the other House from the circumstance of their 1 that the evidence to be produced was to decide the!
being more frequently used to act in their judicial t point by a comparison of bands; that this was deemed
capacity. As it was, the House must now proceed ! contrary to the established law of the land ; and is it,
in the way that it had set out with. There appeared ! said he, the evidence of those persons which shall in
to him great-confusion in the manner of arguing the I allowed to determine this- positively to be the hand.
subject. The first question in these ca!es generally i writing of the Duke of Yee I: ? He thought it °ugh!
t
was have you seen the party write ? and in answering I not ; and should therefore object to the witness beta;
this the witness did not give his opinion on having seen called to the bar.
the party write, but on what he had written, which is Mr. BERESFORD said a few words explenater
merely matter of opinion from comparison of the iof what he had said before. •
hand-writing. That this, however, was, after all, a The ATTORNEY GENERAL said his Rig(!
very uncertain mode of proceeding, he was ready to Honourable and Learned Friend v. ho had jus say
admit. This had to him been strongly exemplified , down, cruld not more highly respect the inc ici..
in a case which occurred in that House a few nights I opinion of Lord Ellenlaorough than he• himself did
ago. Au Honourable Gentleman had been cxaniin- i but when he considered that in the case alluded to 1.
ed as to the hand-writing of Sir Horace Mann, who went to Maidstone as Counsel for the Defendant, al
had on that occasion said, that the first paper pro- 1 the law he had then held on the subject was merel
duced to him was the hand-writing of Sir Horace, I that of an advocate, doing the most he could for th
and the second was not. He (Mr. Smith) had care- ! cause of his client, but was by no means to be cer
fully and minutely examined both, and though he I sidered in the light of a judicial opinion. He cool
had never keen Sir Horace Mann write, from the not allow the reason given by his Right Honourab;
first paper being allowed by the Honourable Member I and Learned Friend for Baron Hotham's overruli;
without any doubt, to be the hand-writing of Sir the decision of the Court, because it was the iiiiie(
Horace Mann, he (Mr. Smith) should have felt no sal opinion of the Bar that that decision was cootr.r,
doubt the second was also ; with no other difference to law. In the case of Revett and Braham the poi
than that the one had been written with what is gene- . was, whether the hand-writing was feigned or rea
rally called a better pm. As to the Gentleman who 1 and this was to be determined by persons from pub.
had been called to prove the Duke of York's hand- offices, who acted as inspectors. In the trial befo:
writing, they had done themselves honour on the , Baron Hotham, the inspectors from .the Post oth
occasion, by the great caution with which they had. .were asked whether 'the hand-writing of the Pei:
given their evidence. If the. House had strictly dant Cator was a feigned hand—so far it agreed V.::
adhered to the rules adopted by the Courts of Law, 1 the case of Revett and Braliam ; but it went fueli
he would allow they should confine themselves to it ; ! and having proved the opinion di-.-. the panel-wri:
but having once taken a greater latitude, they ought was feigned, they proceeded to ask whether it I:
to permit themselves to be circumscribed, and there- been feigned by the person who wive the libel, a
fore he thought that Colonel Gordon's comparison of i this was to be done by shewin& the D; fendant's u.
hands was not liable to the objection his Honourable 1 ing, and then comparing it with the libel ; this w
Friend had made to it. As to Mrs. Clarke, the I refused ; but so ter as whether the hand was a feign(
Chancellor of the Exchequer had well observed, that hand, Baron Hotham, in the case .of Jackson al
if any alterations or interpolations had taken place, Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Brah
she might be allowed to correct them. He could not, The question, hoivever, then was, whether, as
therefore, but think it right that the witness should Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witne!
be examined as to the comparison of hands.
~. should be allowed to be called, and whether the Ci
Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST said, that as this I mince shall receive any further assistance tow:(
point hadbeen objected to, it behoved them to look well • • proving the hand-writing ? The Committee I
to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought.. already exceeded the strict rules of legal jug!
They might set up technical or legal proofst6 bar such `and were then only asked to admit the eviAnci
a mode of proceeding, but this case was nothing like persons who 1-ad been accustomed to examine,
what is su called in Courts of Law. As to Mrs. to say whether certain handwriting, submits,
Clarke, he should give no opinion og her evidence.— I their inspection, befeigned or real, and wheth;.:.
He should not follow the conduct of Noble Lord, l will not be better able to judge,: frompersons 0:
I
who had panegyrized the Lady on the occasion, be- experience, than by their own only ; on that erai
1
cause he thought it was premature to do so at pre- he should apprehend the Committee would come
sent. As to the others, there was not one of them -decision. : •
but General Brownrigg to whom a legal question had ii The question was then put, and the witness
been put, and that question he had answered so as to ' allowed to be called in without a division.
deny that it was, in his opinion, the hand-writing of Dr. M ETCA I. F appeared at the Bar to prove
the Duke of York. So far, therefore, from the fact . indisposition of Mrs. Camila : he stated her inc.;
being absolutely proved, there is still a doubt—it hility of attending the summons of the He use,
stands at present in quilibrio ; and the question now ; hoped she might be. in. a situation to appear b:
was, whether the House might not apply to persons ; them in the course of two days.
who are adequate to speak on the subject ? and for ' Mr. JOIINSIki called in, and exatninad by the Cr
his own part, he saw no reason why they should not 1 CELLOR of the EXCH EQVER.
endeavour to obtain as much information in it as they Qr.ainOnktfhswainhtactthaepproapcofietsyst.so:olAcaer..e—lyou ? A.,.An In 7
o'bfeeln-
could. A case had been adduced where a person of
was aked whether a libel was in the genuine Post-Office.—Q.
obwelnoniiftr
writing of the plaintiff, and that was allowed. The Office about thirteen years ; inspector of franks e
person's hand-writing was then shewn, and he was six.—Q. Were you accustomed to he pa -.
asked whether that and the libel were not the same ?:_writings, and see that it was origin.tl! A. ',:t,

s RoyalViEtil. the suitiowai
texlieg•y v. Ca r r
wan eViciave -Fa evic
withAps MID Vos writt
a ruley'l-s drii; 4nd that there
to pnrsuelta4 li.and and that
of Justice, in Lord then rea
for some time Ellenborough.

was z, t
to 9
bin)
Yes,.
ten
that' is i 6114
he Po..t
koirable to
feigned 41111
by
that the
stion ap. Qr
e, that he of ttt
ne on it
)rmation. tbal
,ourts of witt
be bound ,mu
.e Gentle. --c
rly, whet.
Id one at bet`
of Reveit A
Le decision cue
,s of law, put
m to t.11,-:
n hi the sup
o was we'l sAic
; own or:. pat
:Id in. the Lin
vely eei. 1
°, a singli
aVe LI/der-
trt, lad he Iry
Uglily and ar
lion of the 6.2
W so nic:
.ce of wr!...
ni or rh.,t; sh
of :111
ested in it;
hat Home,
his life by cc
tg ; and as
ed the case he
to consi&l
c should I),e
amittee, by
ase, but he
him in whit tI
e. subject.—
fallen from a
(Mr. smith)
nably bett,l• ti
nt, it seemed
: compati_oa
Ong since
:than on ti.e
House had
ut the prover
t these ques.
ecl before 11!
iese question
t Honourable
• one, than to
appeared to
to recollect
to decide tlie
s was deemed
id ; and is it,
inch shall
be the hand.
night it ought
witness ben,.;
Is explamitery
aid his Rigl!t
) had juq ac
!t the judicial
himself d;kl ;
e alluded to 1.:
Defendant, all
ect was merov
c 'could for ill,:
tans to be ct‘.-
ni. He could
ht lionourable
trn's ow crruli::
was the ttiver-
on was contrary
•aham the poin:-
igned or real?
ons from pub
the trial before
the Post Office
g of the Defer.-
ir it agreed v.-:::t
it went further,
he hand-wri:l:4;
whether it IA
e the libel, :tn.!
kfendant's u tn.
libel ; this was.
id was a feigned
of Jackson and
ett and Brah
whether, as the
these tVitnes,es
'healer the Corn-
istance towards
Committee had
f legal j!is•.;ce.
t the evidence
to examine, nd.
submittal
tnd whettn.:. Jr:7
a °persons 0: °,..lct
; on that gronr,l
would come z.°) 3
I the witness was
vision.
;atitotrheeadtpo pHlpieeciruror iie;b•ce,:siitito:l;e:
lad by the Cr:V.
JER.
A.,.An In7.c:cf
ow long hay Y°