Star.
London, England, 1809-02-17 00:00:00

nf the C:r.‘!:.-t T.Olt Gf the Excurgt:Eß.

C. You se,..et;e:-s, d:kl, . that :huei of p:lper in which there is a
draft of rxo : you only receive one of them ?
A. p f.Lr as n;y nk-morr serves foe, I believe both.
.-.Q. Are the e:;igiaal:i rres;:rvcd ?A. No.--Q. Why
were they deslvrbr-ci ?
j,c,d F01,1:6 'ONE rose to order. Ire con-
. tended that lie had lie right of examination, which
could not be st:p&seticti by the reading of the letters.
13 or 13 w.is
,here read; it was, we believe, a
letter, of 4::cnrgit's,..declining the agency as too tri-
:lila wishing fur the vendue-mastership of t;iiri-
yla,
Dam, ou aw sarrie footitT, ns it was placed on at Dc-
ggeraiii.

0. Star what,you,knoit•concernlttg
ariof.the loan ? A Kennett wrote '
his propes4,. and
.desiring 2 it to. be
Duke of York prettoted a loan 01
submitted it to the consideration-of
ness.—Q.. What was the date. of the
do not know.— Q.
_Was this the first
fair? A. Yes.-- "Did-yriu—tell this to
Yes.—Q. What followed ? A. I was desired to
refer him to Mr. Adamr—Q. What more followed?.
A. Kennett said, that he knew Sir H. Mann after-
wards, and that he had his authority to ask him to
use his influence with the Duke of York to get him a
situation.—Q. Was the second communication long
after the first ? A. No, immediately succeeding it.
Q. In the mean timc,had Kennett seen Wkr. Adam?
A. 1 believe he had.—Q. What passed .between
them ? A. I do not- know.—Q. Did Sir H. Mann's ,
codununication become known to you at the second
meeting ? A. Almost.—Q. Was it after the first ?
A. I ain net certain.—Q. Did you state the com-
munication of Sir H. Mann to the Duke of York ?
A. Yes.—Q. How soon after you, knew of it ? A. I
cannot exactly say.
Q. Was the loan ever concluded ? A. I doriot think
it was, but I cannot be precise, as the Duke of York
does not give me the management of h7s money con-
cerns.—Q. Do you know any thing more about the '
loan ? A. Kennett often called on me, and wrote
about it. He said he did not think the business was
of much concern to ilr! Duki of York, .as he -e 'Tried
indifferent about it, and countenanced Mr. Adam's
dclay.—Q. Was No. 18 sliewn to the Duke of York'
A. No. —Q. Nor the substance ? A. I do not think it
was.—Q. Was it not regular to have done so ? A. I
, should have done so it came for the Duke of York.
Q. Was Kennett ever appointed ? A. No.
Mr. Gurxxwoon called in, and examined by Lord

•
appointmentu4dekaelpetstmett .!1
iatever
4
E thenimovta, 1114 Roliert Kennett
s av • • .1
(NE updh suits oborved, that it seguld !
Pith the !dignity of-the Hootticall
ituation of • the man prO,Me_4 to
_ give evidence at its Bar, however 6e51.
...we it might. be td Come at the information expected !
from- him. Such. a per's*. would-nne allowed to I
give testimony in any Court of Justice, and conse,
quently was not aPrOper witntst to be etaniined at
their Bar. ,He threw. out' this observation for the
consideration of ;he Committee.
Lord FOLKSTONt ininiediately declined calling
the witness to the Bar, and declared that be. did not
-ptippose•to examine any more Witnesses.
the • CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
asked, whether the Hon. Member (Mr. WARDLE)
had also no other witnesses to call ?. - I
Lord FOLKSTONE' was unable to state posi-
tively; but believed that the Honourable Gentleman
did not mean to examine any 6ther witnesses.
Mr. WARDLE just then entered .the House,
,and
was asked by the Cmtinnain of the EICHEQLIER,
whether he had any more evidence to produce ?. and
he answered, that that he had tome letters SO sive in
as evidence. The letters were accordingly handed
to the-Chairman; but before they could be suffered
to be read,
Mr. LOCKHART asked the Honourable Mem-
ber (Mr. Wardle) whether the three letters he had
given in were those to which Mrs. Clarke alluded in
her letters to Mr. Donovan of the 28th January ? •
Mr. WARDLE replied, that they -were recom-
mendations of the Officers mentioned in them fur
promotion.
Q. Can the Honourable Member ascertain pre-
cisely the time when he obtained these letters ? A. i
Not precisely.— Q. Does he know in what year he
obtained. possession of thcm 1 A. It was within the
List two months.
Q. (By Mr. 111751CASON.) Can the Ifonourable
Member state whether these letters were the letters
which Mrs. Clarke, in her letter to Mr. Donovan,
stated to have been given to the Honourable Member
with a view to facilitate sothe negotiation ? A. I
can state that these letters are recommendations of
Officers for promotion, which I under mod Mr. Do-
novan to havesent to vlrs. Clarice, for the purpose of
obtaining further recommendations.
Mr. HUSKISSON then obsPrved, that before these
letters could become admissible evidence, it must be
proved that they were the letters sent by Mr. Dono-
r van
.to Mrs. Clarke. Then it would be necessary to
ascertain how they came into the hands of Mr. Do-
novan ; and also whether or not they were in the
handwriting of the Officers whose letters they p.ur.
ported to be. And lastly, it must appear how they
came into the hands of t;e,Honourabl. Member, and
whether it was for. the Purpose of procuriag the sig-
natures of Members of Parliament. He also thought
Mrs. Clarke ought to be called in to prove whether
these were tht letters which she had • received Iron)
Mr. Donovan.
Mr. FREEMANTLE stated, that out of the three
letters,•two purpormd to be from one Officer, though
Ivritten in different hands. •

Mr. HU4KISSON then observed, that this made
it the more necessary to callin Mrs. Clarke, in order
to ascertain this matter, and to learn how she had
come by the letters, before the witness could be
-called in.

tig slig!• . • . for an
to g what
referrgi,/*". 's ARDL]
800 if ie re
his Rolal • .1, WYN?
letter ? X. be inconsistenirwii
st step in the aT a person in the sit
the Duke > A. examined to give