Star.
London, England, 1809-02-23 00:00:00

e.t..,
..
teigrile ch he ;wished to have its`iitteetd; buttiee*- never stated that either of the notes had Hen wtittee
Royal :pet eon, eh f against whoth by the Ddke of York, or by whom ther had been
mittee was en stge iii ifilesti tinge fr the written. I
tortirord,or the Holmium he. brought ': Q. Why did he compare the note with Ole letee
RetSvaid the chargesetlad t
._ quest* of the A. I have already stated that'it was to caevince me
Learned Gentleman, !he wa Atptri. inced• that no ob- that the writing 'of the note and of the letters wee:
lection would have been madinto. -to-it. - The Piialp*,ft owsmottlio--e!. fecirhat purpoee tlo you to
*as a tnitiVoil ' , an—il It
.was certainly compe- derstand he ,hould prove the note and lettoo; to Leve
tent to,any Heitiodeablt Member .to call for any pa- been the same hand-writing, unless for the Teirpee: of
:pevievhiele law aid theie*ietigetiiie: On-theembolie -pointing-out scune persons whose hand-wiiting Leo
therefore,. heethenght • thatthe letters of his Royal were ? A. I have already most unequivneally ee ..t
Highness ought to be produced, though.if the fe.trued that he did not mention to me whos: lee 1 de,ei. ee
Gentleman valaki- take_MPen biro to- say, that .they they were. All he mentioned in the cenv er,e: •
.•
would not bear upon the subject, it would' not-be de- was, tfiat they were both the same panel-v: 'te ..
sirable to add them to the minutes. without comment or observation.— Q. Were e. ..
Mr. CHARLESADAMS:thonght that the ques- nceeoniments made upon the Dever letter ? A. 1.. .
Lion was a fit one to be tote, but that it would be merely stated that it had got the Dover pt,:,.e,- .
competent to the Witness to refuse to answer it. , upon iL-r--Q. At what period of your cc'mmui ,
M CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER tion with Captain Sandell did you state that de: :
agreed with his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. lea. was the hafichwriting of the Commander ie si,'
thurst) that if any Honourable Member thought any A. I never stated any such observation to
one letter would throw light upon the
.sobject, he . Sanden.—Q. Did Captain Sanden state to yee .• ,
might call for its production ; and if tio objection the note came into his possession ? A: Not
could be made to See production of one, -none could I understood: him to have received it from :
he made to the production of all if called for. If the Clarke, or through some means from hen—Q. I: .„..
Noble Lord had moved for the letters, no objection you not already stated:that. when you .00k a (es' :. ;
would have• been made to his motion : and what , the note you said it was of some iinoortarice ? _, . e
right had the Noble Lord to suppose the.motive of ; is impossible I could have itutedit, -because i e el
the Learned Gentleman in calling for them different ! made such a statement to Captain Salaien.
from that which would have actuated himself ? He ! Q. (By toiet^Mit:To..) 'When von coral:nee:. e e
agreed, however, that it would not be desirable to ; what you knew to Mr 4. Adath, did you do it v. ;•-i
place the letters upon the minutes, already swelled to intention ler expectation that it: should ie'rsetle !, 1
,e e
an inconvenient bulk, unless they should bear uponto this Heinle' Ae-fe'sit red the circemstar.e. v ;
the subject of inquiry. Upon this ground, he would : a view to the advantige of is opihi-ori ,in,l j:,:;:.;:: .t
submit it to the Learned Gentleman to withdraw his . ass betterthen my own. I had no other view in meki.
question ; but if he was dieposed to insist upon it, he ; the 'communication.—Q. If I rightly apprehend, \el
saw no reason in which the Committee could re- consiCe red the note of importance in the inquiry tlea
ject it. isgoing on -in this House ? A. I have already wire,;wire,;.
Mr. BATHURST stated, that the witness had : that to the best of my. judgment, I believed the le!te
already declared in evidence, tbat.in no one of the to be the 1141 d-uniting of the Duke of Yell, ;1
love letters was there any mention of military or cc- - therefore it was imposeible for me not to consiar the
clesiastical preferments. ! nete of importance.--Q. After yottiecommunicie'en
Mr. LOCKHART observed, that the object of ; with the Chancellor (TIM tethetnietoded. you leteer
his question had been misunderstood. It was not his [ that it was his intention not to produce tie! n; e: to
wish to have all, or any of the letters produced. It ' this House for some days ? 'A. I_ had no knowliee
would be recollected that the witness had been assis- ! whatever of his intentions.
ted in preparing the papers for this investigation ; Q. (By Mr. Tooetesox. ). When Captain San '.• a
and the object of his question was, to discover in stated to yeti that the. usual channel ter atteieHe;
whose hands the letters were, with a, view to come at promotion tailed, what other person was it, ie •.. re
same information respecting the person who assisted opinion, he alluded to. when lt spoke of new ,:, ee
her, and the nature and circumstances of that assis- nel ? A. He never informed me who the inetivi'r 1
tance. He. should therefore press his question. j person was.— Q. Did Captain. Sandell Ment;cei -
Mr. MARRYAT thought the witness had said, you his intention to destroy the note . _II. (.. :1 . !
athe love letters were either in her own or her mo- contrary, he promised me to preServe all the•pei, :•.
ther's possession. —Q. Did he ever mention that he had des, cc - el ;i.,
Mr. ROSE thought, that as the witness had stated,' note ? A. I have already mentioned the conse . • .;:-,11
that the letters did not contain any thing relating to in which lie stated that he had destroyed the wee.—
military promotions or ecclesiastical preferments, their ,Q. Did he ever mention to you-what Malec he hal
production was unnecessary ; otherwise he should have', for destroying the note ? A. Captain Sandell neve':
had no obj ',
ection to the question. mentioned to • me any motive that actuated him ie
Mr. WHITBREAD wished the Learned Gentlee! any part of his conduct.—Q. Did he mention to yea
[ man to withdraw his question. As to the object , that the concealment of the wee was for tLe ben(:t
stated by the _Learned Gentleman, for which he had lof any person ?A. Never.—Q. Did he ever men.
put his question, namely, to discover who had as- tion to you that the production of the note would Le
• sisted the witness in preparing the papers for the ; a prejudice to any person ? A. Certainly not.
Committee, he should only observe, that, if it was the i The witness was then ordered to withdraw, ael
case, it would be quite natural, that the person con- . Lord FOLKSTONE conce;.v•ng it necessary, trom sone!-
' ducting this investigation should have looked over the thing that had fallen from the last witness, to put a
papers which might bear upon it. He had. stated this fee. questions to one or two Members is their place,
only to shew that the Committee did not acquiesce in • and to call Mr. Harrison to • the bar—The lame
the inferences to be drawn from the Learned Mem- - Gentleman was called in, and examined.
bee's statement of his object, that blame was imputa- ! Q. (By Lord FOLKESTONE.) Are you Agent cr
ble any where. . - • ; Counsel for the Duke of York, or in any way employ.
Mr. LOCKHART then withdrew his question. .ed for the Duke of York in the busineee b,:flee thh
Colonel HAMILTON called in again, and.re-examined, House ? A. lam certainly not an Agent ; het ;e
by Lord FOLKESTONE. Counsel am not employed in the proceeding. I let
His 1 ast answer being read, the witness was asked, consulted as occasion may require, though pet c,.:
Q. Whether Captain Sanden had ever stated to ployed professionally. 1 ant consulted in the Offlee of •
!him that he had received money from Major Tonyn ?• the Commander in Chief, the War Office, and the
A. No.—Q. Did he state from whom he received the Barrack-Office, upon military subjects, and am (elite!
note ? A. To the best of my recollection, he stated upon in consequence of the knowledge lam sterpoed
that he received it from Mrs. Clarke, or that it was to possess as to the legal construction of such subiec; ;.
conveyed to him from Mrs. Clarke.—Q. When did From an early stage of the present business I v.-as er-
you see the note ? A. On the Saturday after I had dered to attend and assist whenever it should he twee..
made my first communication to Mr. Adam.--Q. sary.—Q. Is it in consequence of this that von atti.el
Was it wrapped up in a piece of paper, or was it ac- the proceedings in this business? A. Certainly.- t
companied by a piece of paper, with a similar direc- When did Colonel Hamilton tell you that the wee
tion upon it ? A. I do not recollect. But Captain purporting to be we item by the Duke of Yeee, be 1
Sanden shewed me, at the same time, part of the not' been destroyed ? A. It was between four a: 2
cover of a letter, with' the Dover post-mark upon it. five o'clock in the evening of the first day that c' c:•
—Q. Yon said that when informed of the note having taro Sandell eas called to the bar, I met Colonel i-, -
been destroyed, you were not certain that you in- milton in Parliament-street. I was walking, I le-
formed Mr. Adam of that circumstance, are you now • lieve, with the Solicitor-General. Colenel Hen.:l;
• certain ?A. I can•only repeat the answer wlfich I ! took me aeide, and told me-that he heard thet nee
have already given. My impression was that I had ing that the note had not been destroyed.-0. I'
informed Mr. Harrison.—Q. Why did you give the you take any steps in consequence of this internee.,
information to Mr. Harrison ? A. Because I con- :A. I immediately came to the House, and e lea !
sidered him the agent of his Royal Highness.—Q.' came the Committee was sitting. I itelsrrnej .\ • •
How have you known Mr. Harrison ? A. From i Huskisson, but lam not certain, whether Ilm, er ~, •
having been frequently in the room when he came' other Honourable Member, that I had just rcee'e.'l
into it and conversed with Mr. Lowten upon the sub-1 this information.—O. Was the House, after that eee:•
ject of this investigation.—Q. Did you understand mnnication, engaged in the prosecution eftheet pe
that Mr. Lowten was an agent for his Royal High-! ceedings that night ?A. It was.—Q. Was this •
ness, and•from whom ? A. I did, from himself.—' formation given by you previous to the staiene: •
Q. Were you referred by any one to Mr. Lowten ? ! made that night by the Chancellor of the Exchelee
A. Yes, I received a note from Lieutenant-Colonel :, A. Certainly.
Gordon, desiring my attendance upon this House ; ! The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
but that I was to call upon Mr. Lowten, whom I ! Mr. • HLSKISSON examined in his plsce by L -:
would find here.—Q. When Captain Sandell shewed i FOLKSTONE.
you the paper with the Dover post-mark upon it, did i Q. Did you receive this information from '?.' •
he state to you how it came into his possession ? A. Harrison at the time alluded to ? A. did. I -
Ido not recollect. It was shewn to me merely to stated to me Right Honourable Friend die Cli..utc: - •
impress upon my mind that the letter and the note • of the Exchequer, that thn note was not destnee.'
were in the same hand-writing.—Q. Have you been ! adding, that it mattered not whether or no it iv.,
long acquainted with Captain Sanden ?A. I have . existence.--Q. had you heard of the note Ineeer ''
known him since the year 1794, but he was never an , time ? A. Yes, in confidence by my 16-,;-t :-'
acquaintance of mine. I have known him only as al Friend, and of Colonel Hamilton's ertquee lete
military man.—Q. Had you much intercourse with ! circumstances. •
him in the years 1801 and 1805 ? 'A. None what- ! The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIM.QtER exami .. 1 .... ' -
ever. • I Lord FOLKSTONE.
Q. (By Mr. SHAW Leeevne.) Did Captain San- I Q. Do you wish to correct any of the ev::
den shew any reluctance to allow you to copy the ; given by you on Monday evening ? A. I e''
note ?A. None whatever.—Q. After he stated to I aware that I have any alteration to melee. II . •
you that he had destroyed the note, did he say any i are any questions the Noble Lord would wish ~ ...;.
thing of the copy of the note ?A. Nothing what-- will answer them.--Q. At the time you mete -'
.ever. . statement to the House, did you know xi lee :..
told, deat the note was not destroyed ? A. i str
that time to the House, that I did not knew v..-.•
it was destroyed or not. There was a strene 1:' • •
sion eon my mind that it was destroyed.—
whom did you communicate the circuresteree
nected with the note ?• A. I can mntion :Lel'l' - '
am not sure that I can recollect every name. i - •
tinned the circumstances to Mr. Htes!isson, 7J'e
ning, Lord Castlereagh Mr. Yorke, the Atee'e•- - -
Solicitor General, to the Lord (.:1: ze,.....! :. •

Q. (By Mr. BATHURST.) Did Captain Sanden
shew you any other note ? A. On the production of
the note, I called to his recollection, that in the for-
mer conversation he had mentione,d two notes; to
which he 'replied, • that he must have been mistaken,
or if there had been a second note, he must have
given it to Major Tonyn.....Q. Did Captain Sanden
explain what the contents of that note were ? A. It
had been. given him to convince. Major Tonyn than
his promotion would take place, he said. But he