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

HUIKISSON.

Q. Do you recollect the date of Colonel Clinton's
leaving the Office of Private Secretary to the Com-
mander in Chief, 2nd of your succeeding to him ? A.
26th July 1804. At that time no recommendation
had been laid before his Majesty to promote Captain
Tonyn's obtaining his majority ; no person could
then have stated, that his appointment would ap-
pear in the Saturday's Gazette ; or if. they did so
they must have been grossly ignorant of the rules of
office ; or in stating that they had done so must have
meant to deceive. The documents to chew the day
on which- Captain Tonyn's promotion was actually
sent to his. Majesty, were not then before the witness,
but he believed it was the 9th August. He proceeded
to state that no officer of the name of Astell, or of
the name of Bligh, was at that time to be found in
the Army List, nor had he any recollection of an
officer of the narric of Bacon. It did not appear that at
this time all promotion was stopped hi the 48th Teti-
ment. If it had been so he mint have known it. It
appeared that Lieutenant-Colimel Taylor received his
promotion through Lord Matthew, who was then
raising a levy for rank, and who appointed Colonel
Taylor to that rank, Fe having a tight to appoint
him There was no irregularity in the appointment
of Captain Xitnenes to a majority. He was an old
Captain appointed in the year 1794,
(Examined by Sir GEORGE WARRENDER.)
Having said that it was necessary in June 1804 to
make inquiries into the conduct and fitness of Lieu.

tettatt Colonel ilrooke to be appointed to the sth
Dragoon Gnards—Had it not been esteemed equal•
ly necessary to make some inquiries concerning him
whett, in the January preceding, ht was taken from
the half pay to be Major of the 56th regiment ? A.
iI take it fct granted all due inquiries were made, but
t was particularly necessary that such inquiry should
be made when coming into a Cavalry Regiment.
Mr. ADAM was then examined by Sir THOMAS
TURTON. Q. Having said that it appeared that the
Duke of York had been prejudiced in money mat-
ters by Mrs. Clarke, did the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman recollect any particular instances in which
this had occurred t A, It was impossible for him to
say that he could point out any such. He remembered
perfectly well, however, that the facts which came to
his knowledge satisfied him that such was the case.
—Q. Can the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
state the source whence he had that information ? A.
I have already said, that I committed the inquiry to
Mr. Lowten, who again employed Mr. Wilkinson,
who reported the business to me.—Q. Were the facts
td be communicated to his Royal Highness by Mr.
Lowten, or by that Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man A. I believe the facts were drawn up by

Wilkinson or Lowten, and v. ere • communicated to
his Royal Highness. —Q. Am I to understand that
his Royal Highness was satisfied that Mrs. Clarke
had used his name to his prejudice ? A. I can only
suppnse so, from considering what was the conduct
reserved, by the Duke of York on the occasion. He
ithmediately, or -soon after, came tothe resolution of
separating from her. I could draw no other conclu-
sion froth his conduct ; because, before this circum-
stance al explained to him, I hadveal no reason to sup-
once that he meant to separate from her, but immedi-
ately after this information he took that step.—Q. Did
you at any time read the statement which was draws
up for his Royal Highness's perusal? A. I certainly
have.—Q: Do you tecollect having pointed out to
him any spetific sum raised by Mrs. Clarke, without
hit authority ? A. I do not.
Q. You probably know where that paper is at.pree
sett ? A. I do not ; I have never seen it since the
time I first perused ito—Q. You said that you saw
Colonel Hamilton, be kind enough to tell us when
you taw him first, and what passed between you
A. Colonel Hamilton called on the on Saturday
morning, and told me that he had seen Captain San-
den at Portsmouth ; that he had consulted with him
how he ought to conduct himself. Colonel Hamil-
ton's answer was, that he had no tule by which to
direct himself but one, and that was, the truth ; that
none othet would avail him, because he would be
examined by the united ability cf the country. Capt.
Sanden then told hitn that he had some notes in his
possession from Mrs. Clarke, and that he had ode note
which he believed to be in the hand-writingof the Duke
of York. That lie had shewn it to -Capt. Tonyn to
prevent him from taking up his.deposit ; that he had
another nose which he had delivered to Tonyn, stating
that he would be Gazetted on a particular night.—
Colonel Hamilton at that time gave particular instruc-
tions to Capt. Sanden to preserve the note, and to be
ready with every other evidence in his power. I told
Coloucl Hamilton he could not have given him more
correct advice. I desired that he would take a copy
of the note, and advise Captain Sanden -to ic,rp it.
Colonel Hamilton returned to me ' • told me that he
had repeated his instructions, and had taken a copy
'of the note, which I found to be exactly the same es
that since produced before the House. He (Colonel
Hamilton) said he believed it to be the Duke of
York's writing. Captain Sanden told Colonel
Hamilton that lie had been applied to by Mrs.
Clarke since he carte to town, and, I think, by Mr.
Wardle, also I-4v Mr. Low ten, to know what would be
the nature of his evidence. I advised that Ist shotll4l
call for Mr. Perceiral. 'this he did, and I followed
him. Our determination• was, that Colonel Hamilton
should advise L.:14., .i.t Sanden td have no comtnunica•
v ith any el. the persons alluded to till he told
what he knew a, tar bar of this House. It was then
agreed by Mr. Perceeal and myself, that we s:ottild
commintieate what Captain Sandal bad stated to the
Duke of York, and that the matte should be braiight
before the licitse of Commons by us, if it did not ap-
pe4r in the evi-detice of Sanden. I saw the Dike of
Yul k. He expretod his surprise and astonishment
at the communication, and declated that he had never
wrirtee any such note, as that alluded to. I went to Mr.
Perceval's with his Royal Highness, where he again
made a similar declaration,and again at Col. Gordon's.
I did not see Col. Hamilton till the Sunday. He then
toid me that he had delivered in to Capt. Sanden,in the
-very teems he had been desired, the instructions, who
had said that he Might depend on his observing them ;
but that he would be enraged at him when he-learned
that he had already broken part of his instractions in
destroying the note. Colonel Hamilton said, good
God, have you destroyed it ? I then went to Mr.
Perceval's, and communicated to him what Colonel
Hamilton had told me, and we agreed that it was
our duty. as Members of Parliament, to bring the
Matter before the llouse. We agreed also that it
was proper to communicate what we knew to'certaire
Members of this House, and I accordingly stated ,
what I have nee; related to Lord Castlereagh, Mr.
Canning, the Attorney and Solicitor General, Lord
H. Petty, General -Fitzpatrick, tkc. The Duke of
York said he had never written such a note. That
he had nester written to Mrs. Clarke on Military
matters at all. So it had been thought proper to
bring the matter before the House.
Mr. ADAM stated that it was the desire of his
Royal Highness the Duke of York, that the whole of
the transaction with respect to the suppression of
evidence by Sanden should be made public, leaving
it, however, to his discretion, and that of bitAight I
Honourable Friend (the Chancellor of the -
quer), when it should be published, In the exercise
of this discretion, he had chosen the occasion, as he
had already mentioned, which appeared to him best
calculated tor the purposes -Of justice. With that
view, and in order to avoid embarrassing the course
of the accusation, he had been induced to withhold
from the Committee,the communication alluded to.
Lord FOLKSTONEasked whether it was the wish
of the Right Honourable Gentleman ( the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) tOswdd any thing to what had been
said by thelearnis, Gentleman whohad just sat down?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQER repli-
ed, that the motives which influenced his mind were
precisely those stated by his Learned Friend. He had
thought it proper not to bring the business relative to
the note forward, until the case on the part of the aca

ettsation had closed, and his opinion was founded
upon an impression that the note was destroyed,
coupled with a belief that it,.Ass a forge Under
these circumstances he wished, that the case should
be gone through, and every witness afforded the op-.
partunity of telling his own story before the matter
should be brought before the Committee. If there
were only one charge instead of a variety, and that
the circumstances connected with this note applied to
that charge alone,his cause wouldhave been different.
Mr. 'WHITBREAD said, that the particulars
respecting this note had been communicated to him
by his Learned Friend (Mr. Adam), almost imme-
diately after the inquiry commenced. As a Judge to
decide upon the whole case, he did not of course con-
ceive himself the depositary of a secret which was not
to be known to the Committee and the public ; but
that the communication was certainly made to him
with an understanding that the note was destroyed.
General FITZPATRICK and Mr. BRAND

made a similar declaration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
repeated, that his impression decidedly was, that the
note was destroyed.
Mr. ADAM conceived that it became necessary
for him to state, that the whole course of his conduct
upon this transaction proceeded from a thorough con-
viction that the note had been destroyed.
After a few words from Mr. Weston and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, the letter from Sir Moses
Ximenes was read upon the motion of Mr. litiskisson.
'This letter, alluding to the mention of the wiiter's
name in the correspondence between Mrs. Clarke and
1 Captain Sanden, contained a solemn allegation, that
he had never paid any money improperly for his
promotion, which he had obtained in the regular
way, coupled with a request, that his name should
be expunged from the minutes.
Mr. HUSKISSON wished the writer to be called
in and examined at the bar, but upon a Member
stating his objection to the idea of having this letter
added to the mass of nonsense which already appeared
on the minutes, the preposition was dropped.
Mr. Town was called in and examined by Mr. C.