Star.
London, England, 1809-02-18 00:00:00

tic SIR, -g! /1400916. 1
- v . ../..
" I have learned with extreme regret. that Iliessopreasay
that licentiousness would stop. He deprecated much-lamented brother bas bees introduced inbto4oll . i. 410
verity with which the Hon. Gentleman who-last now pending before the HorroofhCaomme
un°lldue as
• ' '
had adverted, though obliquely, to the conduct his itomoti_
Law Officers of the Crown, and Judges of the
___.(ie. lon
ine
to state I° tyest ajsat my brother was,advantodio,
e of his services in India, under Lord Coloivrallia;''
in prosecuting and punishing libellers. If men '
guilty of criminal acts, there were public tram- and obtained a brevet tank, by his exertions ip the Egyptioatlpt
pedition under SirofDrisealialrd—he obtained an
ere he. effrnetetefaMte.joi
s the country to which recourse might be had
. rt on
aice against them ; but if persons were permit- L havetl no iloccurtinthere are manaly Officers Members of she House,
take vengeance into their own hands, by pubs wmh.osegbo,tlil
heavenowtoansaTd.
Iwillbavespeakobtanedto hisal
mmyericammigoo„ts ; with respect
,lzpvet to
their accusations in preference, it
.was impos-
. my/ Ensigncy and Lieutenancy, hygradual.aclvaneve
meritede _sow.
to say where the mischief would terminate. This served.
Litu expeditions,manybm awd
irobilo,P;:, till
hawthemlgoodnen
been the case insome recent libellous publication
•
" I havethe honour to be, Sir, yours, Scc.
'ithors of which were ;he sources from which rteeiobligs e.'nersby by
this letter ell the publicity la your Pewer'
Gentlemen had derived the grounds of their (Signed) " o. TUCKZIL"
ts, and yet they could make nothing of the Sir A. WELLESLEY rose for the purpose of
those persons were able to furnish.
paying a just tribute to the talents and services of the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in
Officer in question. He had known him particularly
r to what had fallen from Mr. Whitbread, said •
lid well in Portugal, and certainly esteemed him a Very
be an irregular proceeding to enter upon the
meritorious Officer. He was the more willing to state-,
:es of the Committee the whole of the narrative, this, as he had many communications with the Offi- !
•hich he had felt it necessary to introduce the
, cer's family ; and
be he believed, that at the time Co-
heated circumstances afterwards produced. in lonel Tucker was about to promoted, several ap-
nce
respecting Colonel Hamilton and Captain
pllcations had been made to him offering advance-
ei. • Whatever facts were within his own know-
meet, by money-brokers, which that Officer spurned
,he was ready to state if examined, and his an- at with becoming contempt. He knew that Colonel
would be the most regular form in which the
Tucker had got his promotions properly, and all by
;t could appear in the minutes. brevet rank. (Hear !)
n the question that the debate on. this subject Lord TEMPLE was happy to add his mite to the
amid be postponed to Monday se'nnight,
applause of the gallant General, as to the brother who
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, as to the
had fallen, and he was sure ti6e same justice would
Gentlemaa's allusion to the Law Officers' con- be done to the living brother. He would. move that
concerning the licentiousness of the press, he
the letter should be entered oa the minutes.
lit his duty to say a few words. It had been
Lord FOLKESTONE was inclined perfectly to
they had not been remiss in their prosecutions ;
coincide with the opinion's of those who hadpreeeded
h ,se would have no objection to the assertion, if
him as to the merits of the two Officers; he appre-
thrase in which it had been conveyed meant no
: than it ostensibly implied ; but he well knew heeded the name of Tucker had been placed in the
evidence improperly for that of Trotter.
-hat a colour it would appear in the publications
Sir THOMAS TURTON objected to the letter
led to : he well knew it would not have the snme
being entered on the minutes, as it could not pos-
ing every where else which it had in that House
silly be evidence.
would there appear to imply that they had been
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
yarly diligent ; and he had no doubt that such
thought that no objection could be urged except as
truction would be put on it. Now he would ap
to the identity-of the writing :.many letters had been
to all who had read one, or even one-tenth part
put on the minutes on as slight grounds. • •
ie publications alluded to; whether it could he
Mr. STURGES BOURNE said, that one serious
ty imputed to the Law Officers of the Crown that
charge (chat of Colonel French) was entirely ground-
many prosecutions had been proceeded in ? As
ed on similar evidence.
Se imputation upon the Courts, he could only
Lord TEMPLE thought that if the writing was
that it would be more fair, generous, and manly,
first proved, the difficulty would be done away
.., produce it where the accued could enter into a
This was deferred until some person was to be
defence of their decisions. It was not, however, right, found who :could prove the writing.
such an assertion should go forth to the public
Mr. WARDLE wished here to read a letter which
replied to.. he had received from Miss Taylor relative to her tes-
Mr. WHITBREAD explained. timony—
Mr. CANNING was proceeding to reply, When " Stn—Mrs. Hovenden has chosen to draw some Inferences
cord PORCHESTER rose to order. He consi- unfavourable to me in her evidence. I have only U. say, that she
:d a prolongation of the debate unnecessary and visited me once at Bayswater and once at Dolby Terrace. She
Aderly.l
has said she would net place her daughter under my care. do
Mr. CANNING contended he was perfectly in not know whether she would do that or nor: but I know she
sent her niece, of the
,age Of 14 years, on a visit to me.
'der. He had not been in the House at the comb (Signed) " *ONO TATLOa."
lcement of the debate ; but as he understood the Mr. WARDLE did not desire this to be placed
ctnourable Gentleman opposite had animadverted upon the minutes.
the conduct of the Judges, and the Attorney Ge• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
al had very properly complained of the general wished now that some person should be called forward
sire of the charge, such a charge should certainly to prove the Duke of York's writing.
brought forward minutely and gravely, and lie Lord FOLKESTONE said, that be heard Mrs.
,uld admonish the Honourable Gentleman— Clarke had various letters now to produce with seal
Lord FOLKSTONE called the Right Honourable unbroken, similar to that 'which was appended to
ntlernan to Order. He thought the phrase adono- the private note of the Duke of York, which was
very improperly applied to any Member of the found in the bureau of Captain Sanden.
~use. Mr. YORK said, the only reason why he had ask.-
The SPEAKER said it was impossible to consider ed about the unbroken seal was, that if the writing
! Right Honourable Gentleman out of order, when i had been forged, there would have been no difficulty
usage of the House allowed such a general mode in forging the seal.
otpression as it did, and he could see no personal The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
noon. had no objection, if it was thought necessary to con-
Lord FOLKSTONE said he was misunderstood. firm the testimony of Mrs. Clarke. •
le Right Honourable Gentleman had not coin- I Mr. W. SMITH wished to know whether the Ho-
ined of the course, or of any particular point in the nourable Member intended to found any proceeding
.nourable Gentleman's (Mr. ‘Vhitbread's) speech, upon the letter of Miss Taylor ; he thought her case
: rose to admonish him. This was what be cum- was a peculiarly hard one ; he did not see why any
lined of. • shadow of diggrace should attach to her (cries of hear
The SPEAKER said no personal allusion had and order.) " I should imagine (said Mr. Smith).
in intruded. 1 that when any man rises in this House to advocate
Mr. CANNING declared Ile was very, far from ! the cause of an unprotected female, he should be suf.
icing any reflection on the Honourable Gentleman ! fered to proceed."
iposlte, nor did lie know any subject on which he 1 'The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
:s less inclined to be warm ; but he thought this ' thought the Honourable Gentleman was proceeding
irge ought to have ')een brought gravely and so-1 in :t disorderly course. .If he thought Miss Taylor
.mnly forward, and he was sure the venerable Ma- ! had been treated severely, he should have' noticed it
strates accused would And advocates enough in that ; at the time, and not now, after such an interval : if
AIM. this proceeding was allowed, the consequence would
Mr. WHITBREAD assured the Right Honoura- I be, that those who were accused must defend them-
Gentleman, that he would be always happy to selves, and thus the *time of the House would be
it any thing from him
,in the way of admonition ; in I wasted.
present instance, however, it was quite unneces-1 Mr. SMITH thought that the time of Miss Tay-
try. He had not accused the Judges of too great lot's letter being read was the most proper for him to
rerity, but he had said they could not be accused I make his remark on the subject, and he only wished
. lenity in their sentences on those who had been . to know whether any proceeding was intended to be
.01witted of supporting the licentiousness of the press. I founded on her letter : however, as the House did not
had also said, that too severe judgments would • seem inclined to entertain the subject, he was not anxi-
ty produce the contrary effect to that which was ! ous to press it.
.ended. If lie had intended to animadvert on the; Colonel GORDON called in and examined by .the CHAN-.
edges, he would have done it directly, by bringing! ' . CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
ward a charge in the regular manner;—(Hear, i Q. I need not ask Colonel Gordon if he isacqUain-
srr .9--As to the Right Honourable Gentleman, , ted with the hand-writing of the Duke of York.
\ Is. Canning), he would doubly thank him, if, as , Look at that note, and do not hurry yourself. Do
-night, lie would always openly state to whom he you think it is his ? A. It is very like it. I cannot
nted, and not merely utter an insinuation which say positively ; .the address is not his.—Q. Is the in-
Ft its meaning in doubt ! i . side his ? A. It is like it. I
The further consideration of this subject was post- j Q. cßy Mr. MARTIN.) Have you any reason to
lied to Monday se'nnight. I doubt it ? A. I cannot, with honour, give a stronger
Mr. CANNI•G brought up some American Papers,' answer than I have (Hear! Hear !) 1
!tich were ordered to be printed- -Q. (By Lord FOLKESTONE.) There are two other
DUKE OF YORK. letters. Can you say whether these are in the Duke's;
The 1-louse having resolved itself into a Committee . writing ?
inquire further into the conduct_ of the Commander I These letters were some time searching for.
Chief, Mr. O'DELL—" Colonel Gordon, Sir, perhaps,
Mr. ADAM said, that he wished some of the may be accommodated with a chair." .
aids should be summoned who attended Mrs Clarke Mr. WHARTON—" Colonel Gordon you will
Gloucester-place, to prove whether they saw the be indulged by the Committee with a seat under the
Aof recommendations of Officers which Mrs Clarke Gallery."
said she was in the habit of pinning up at the head of , The letters having been at length produced, the
-:r bed, and which the Duke of York used to take first was shewn'to the witness. •
(own every morning. He thought they should be ; Q. Is that the Duke's writing? A. I think it is.
:amined on this point. 1 —Q. And this (Sheaving the second)? A.- lam of
mr. WHITBREAD said it would be to no pup- ; the same opinion.— Q: I have observed thit Colonel
pose, as no doubt the maids would say they never . Gordon compared the note which he was shewn first'
saw it in the morning, and Mrs. Clarke would say with some other papers; why did he not do so with
'she never pinned it up till night. ' I the two last letters ? A. The papers with which I
Mr. WHARTON stated to the Committee, that compared-the note. were letters I received from the
he as their Chairman, had received a letter from Duke of York in the years 1804, 516, 7,, and 8, and
Lieutenant-Colonel Tucker on the subject of this in- I did so because I knew-the Duke-vaned i 57 little
,airy,
which he would hegleave to read to the Core- in his writing (Ifeeril Mt note was also a .very
~
fhit tee I. . `small scrap of paper; which was soothe:treason why.

the House of Commons last night, when a Tim( A
arose respecting the authenticity of the letter
[The former evidence of the gallant General wac
then read, when he withdrew from the bar without
having any other question put to him.)
Examination of Mr. ADAM by the CHANCELLOR of
the Excusa:ze.
Q. What is your opinion of the hand-writing of
that note ? A. Ido think it like the hand-writing
of the Duie of York, but cannot positively state more
than that. • _ _

lAO SD (Hear I Hear !) Thi other letter, were of
XO4 than two pages, and I knew those at' once.-1
*as your *poi& as tube- scrap formed from
-4-essetlinowledge of the. Duke's waiting, or• from the
czparison with the papers? From both.
Q. (By Mr. Maims.) If a scrap, such as that
you speak of, had been sent to you, would you have
acted apou-k ? A. The scrap had no signature, and 1
so I should not have acted upon it.
Q. (By Mr. CREEI;EY.) If it had a signature would
yttu? A. If it had the signature of the Duke of
York, I certainly would.
Q. (By Mr. MARTIN.) If it had the signature
4g Frederick" to it, would you ? A. I really cannot
say, unless I was to see the signature.
After a few words from Mr. BRAND and the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
General BROWNRIGG was 'called in, and examined by
the CHANCELLOR of the Exenerauen.
Q. Is that the Duke of York's writing (chewing
him the note)? A. It resembles it much ; the ad-1
dress does not. lam noepositive.—Q. Is the inside
his ? A. I am not certain.—Q. (Shewing others.)
Do you believe these to be in his hand-writing ? A.
It is so like it, that I would believe it.—Q. Look at the
short note again: what do you say of that pow ? A.
It is not ,so like it as the other letters are. lam not so
positive of that as of the others.—Q. Is the direction
of it like the Duke's hand ? A. I think it is more like
' than the direction of the other letters.
Q. (By Mr. Mantes.) If that was sent to you as
the Duke's, and you had no suspicion of it, would
you act on it i A. It is so short, I would.
Q. (By Lord Fr:eau:over.) What gave you a
suspicion of it ? A. I was in the House last night,
and heard the nature of the questions.
Colonel GORDON called in and examined by Lord
FOLKESTONE.
Q. Did you ever hear a suspicion of the authen-
-1 ticity of the note before your examination here ? A.
Certainly.— Q. When and where ? A. I suppose I
am to-state exactly as it happened. On last Saturday
week, at half past ten at night, the Duke of York abd
Mr. Adam called on me at my house. I was un-
dressing at that time, and was obliged to go down to
the Duke in my undress ; the first word the Duke
said to me was, 4, This is an extraordinary business;
here is a forgery." Mr. Adam then told me that
Colonel Hamilton and Captain Sanden had come to
town ; and that Colonel Hamilton had told him he
had seen a note of the Duke of York's v.i.th Smitten ;
it was then determined that Colonel Hamilton should
call at the Horse Guards the next day, and see Mr.
Adam. e He accordingly did call about one o'clock,
and Mr. Adam went out- to see him ; this is all I
know of the business.—Q. Do you say that your sus-
picion of the writing arose from the Duke of York's
speaking of its being a forgery ?. A. Certainly.—
Q. How do you know this is the same note ? A. I
never heard of any other.—Q. Did you ever hear of
it from any one else ? A. Yes ; on Tuesday I had
a conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer
about it, and the substance of it was as I have already
stated.— Q. Did you speak of it to anyone else since ?
A. Yes ; in my waiting above stairs, some loose ge-
neral conversation occurred between Colonel Hamil-
ton and me on the subject ; it was very general. —Q.
To none other ? A. mentioned it in confidence to
Generals Hope and Brownrigg, and Sir William
Harris, and to no more.—Q. What was the conver-
sation ? A The same as I have stated.—Q. Any
with the Duke of York ? A. Yes.--Q. When ? A.
This morning.—Q. What occurred ? A. The mo-
meat I saw the Duke, he said, As you are to be
I examined to-night, I shall not speak a word to you
on the Subject." I told his Royal Highness I had
been summoned on the subject of the note.
After the witness had withdrawn,
Mr.WINDHAM observed on the delicate situation
in which the witness had been placed ; he held a con-
fidential situation under the Duke of York, and many
conversations must certainly have taken placebetween
them, which it would not be proper to communicate.
He might be allowed to remark on this now, as the
mischief had occurred, and as a guard in future. In
cases where Law Officers were concerned, they were
allowed to entrench themselves in their situations,
and no questions were asked them which could lead
to a discovery of a confidential communication. He
thought the privilege should be general.
Mr. WHITBREAD rose to vindicate his Noble
Friend. If any improper questions were asked, they'
would of course be stopped before they were answer-
ed : many questions, however, required an answer,
which he was aware it might be unpleasant to give ;
duties were often painful, but yet they were to be
performed.
After a few words on this subject from Mr. Wind-
ham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, andMr.Yorke,
Mr. DICRIE was called in.
By the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Q. You are a Clerk in Coutts's Bank ? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see the Duke of York write ? A. I
saw him sign his name.—Q. Not more ?A. Yes, I
have seen him frank a letter.—Q. Are you able to
prove his writing ? A. No, only his signature.
General. Hope examined.
.(Shelvw the ao:e.)
Q. Have you observed the note ?A. Yes.—Q. Is
it the Duke of York's lind ? A. Very like it
but I cannot say to a certainty. (Sherpa a letter.)—
Q. Is that his ? A. I think it is.—Q. Is it more like
than the other ? A. I believe It is ; indeed, I think I
can discern merely a shadow of difference between
them, and that is so slight that I cannot speak posi-
tively.
Q. (By Mr.-Werrenst.) Q. Does the shade of dif-
ference, which the Hon. General states as giving him
a degree of belief that the letters are the hand-writing,
of the Duke of York, preferably to the note, arise
from the quantity of the writing, or from any differ-1
eace of hand-writing between the note and the letters ?
A. I think it possibly may arise from the quantity of 1
the writing. It strikes my eye as unlike the hand-
writing of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. I
do not feel competent to state, by comparison, the
difference of character in the writing of the note and
the letters. I spoke of the. general impression as it

The two-other letters, dated from Sandgate and
Weymouth were then shewn to the. HollottraVc
Member, when he declared.his opition of both to .be
that they were the hand-writing of the Duke of
York.

Q. Do you mean to speak more positively as to
the letters than as to the note ? A. I do.

Q. (By Mr. WESTERN.) Have you been ever toll
by the Duke of York that the note was a forgelv
A. Colonel Gordon, in his testimony, has givcn a
-correct description of what the Duke of York said
on that subject. —Q. I wish to know whether I am
to understand, that the Duke of York represented the
note to the Honourable Member, on the same even.

ing that he did to Coloael Gordon, as a torgery
A. When first I had a conversation with the Duke

of York upon the subject, it was on Saturday the
of February. His Royal Highness declared, that
he had no hesitation to say, that he had no recoll2c.
Lion whatever of such a note, and that he Nvas con.
vinced it was a forgery. When we went to Mr. Per.
ceval's that evening,- he made an asseveration pre.
cisely to the same effect; and afterwards, when we
went from -Mr. Percevars to Colonel Gordon', he
made a similar asseveration, which Colonel Gordon

has already given in evidence.—Q Are these the
only occasions in which the Duke of York informed
the Honourable and Learned Member that the note

was a forgery ? A. .0f course, I have repeated con.
versations with his Royal Highness upon the matter
now pending before the House ; and in the course o 1
these conversations, without my being able to spe-
cify the particular time, his Royal Highness held the
same language.—Q. Do you perceive from the cha-
racters of the note any thing unlike the hand-writing
of the Duke of York ? A. I can't say, from the cha.
racters of the writing in the note that I can perceive
any think unlike the hand-writing of the Duke of
York ; t ut from the shortness of the note, and from
there not being a possibility of correcting the judge.
ment respecting.the writing by the general appear-
ance di it which takes place in a long letter, i can-
not speak with the same positiveness as I can with ro-
gard to the other letters.
Mr. Dickiz was then again called in and examined
by Mr..l. Ssurn.
Q. What situation do you hold at Messrs. Coutts',
A. That of Principal Clerk.--Q..Are you not, or
were you not in the habit of accepting bills for that
house ? A. A considerable time.—Q. Are you not
in the habit of observing upon the hand-writing of the
individuals connected with the House of Messrs.
Coutts ? A. I am, in !general ; but there is a clerk
in our house more competent to speak to the signa-
tures of the different customers, and who examines
the signatures before the bills are sent to me.—Q. Is
it not occasionally your business to ascertain the ge-
nuineness of hand-writing ? A. No.—Q. Have you
seen any drafts filled up as well as signed by the
Commander in Chief ? A. I have seen him sign,
but can't say that I have seen him fill up drafts.—
Q. Have you seen the letters that are now shewn to
you ; look at them; and say whether you see any dif-
ference in the hand-writing of the three letters ? and
if 'you do, state what it is.—A. There is a difference,
the note strikes me at not so like the Duke's hand-
writing.— Q. Explain what the difference is.—A. The
hand-writing being smaller, and not like the others.
Q. (By Mr. W. Sman.) Did you insert the words,
" not so like the Duke's ?" A. I mean, that the
writing is not'so like as these two letters laid before
me.—Q. Did you not state that you never sawa draft
filled up by his Royal Highness ? A. I have seen
him sign a draft repeatedly, but not fill up a draught
to my knowledge. I am not cashier.--Q. Are you
competent to say, that the letter is not the handwri-
ting of the Duke of York ? A. I am not sufficiently
acquainted with his Royal Highness's letter hand•
writing to do that.
Q. (By Lord HENNIKER.) Do you mean by the
words " not so like the Duke's," nut so like the
Duke's hand-writing.? A. I only stated that it was
not so like it as the other two letters.
Mr. NICHOLSON CALVERT. put it to the
Committee, whether thecourse of examination that bad
been pursued was not an unnecessary waste of time.
The witness had stated a long time since, that lw
could only speak as to the signature of his Royal
Highness to examine ; therefore, with respect to that
which he could not prove, namely, the Duke's hand•
writing,-was absolutely to throw away the time tit
the Committee.
Mr. Town called in and examined,
By the CHANCEI.I.dII of the Excintorr.s.
Q. Where does Mr. Town live ? A. In Boni.
street.—Q. What business do you follow ? A. Th it
of an artist.—Q. In what line ? A. As a velvet
painter.—Q. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Clarke ?
A. Yes.—Q. Was it when she lived in Gloucester.
place ? A. Yes.—Q. Recollect whether you ever
heard her say any thing respecting the hand-writing
of the Duke of York ? A. Yes. Qi On what occa-
sion, and what did she say ? A. In the course
conversation she observed that she had forged t!:,
Duke's name, and did it On a blank paper, and gay.'
it to me, when I could not tell the difference benveci,
the Duke's signature and her own.—Q. What
to make this observation ? A. That I can't tell.—t.
was your business with Mts. Clarke at the tune
of this conversation ? A. I gave her a lesson in the ;at
of portrait painting.—Q. Have you attended tc tcactt
her the art of painting ? A. Yes —Q. Did the obscr -
tion which you have stated, :.ri e oat of the siabj,sa
of painting and the lesson you gave Mrs. Clarke ?
A. I slo not rightly comprehend your meaning.—Q..
Did it arise out of, any conversation on the subject at
the art of painting? A. No; there were wriziil;4
and letters 'on the table.—Q. What led her to make
that observation ? • A. I do not recollect.--Q. Was
that all that passed on the occasion ? A. It was.—
Q. Did you ever see her imitate any hand-writing ?
A. None, but '.what nave before stated. She said
that. sht.s4uldforge the Dukeof York's hand-writiug..
12. Did she imitate the hand-writing of the Duke a
Yerigi; lase Shediti.—Q. hlatlabeleen drawin At

struck my eye. -
General ,BROWNRICA was then called, and examin-
ed by a Member.--(2. If General Brownrigg had not
been in the Honse.of Coaunons last night, should
he hay* had astr•dotdot.that note was. in dm kende
writing of the Duke of York? A. I certainly should;
because,T. do not think it like the band writing of the.
bake.. of Vork..7.Q. Lundriolood you stio ban said
that your susinctoo aspic from your having boat in

where t
• the sevt
• • spoke b
of the ]
land, in
were gi
nals in
I for just
ted to
lishing
111 Bible to
had'bet
the aul
some I
charge!
. • proofs
The
answer
it woul
minute
by .Nil
compli
eviden
Sander
ledge,
swecs
subject
On
should
• Tht
Hon.
fillet
found
said tl
and II
the pl
more
in wh
allude
nreani
—lt
• ~, impoj
constr
peal
of the
justly
too 171
to the
Say LI
to pit
defen
that
unrer
MI
MI
• Lc
dere(
disor
M
order
Inenl
on tl
nen]
natu
he I
won
L
Grn
nish
Hot
T
the
the •
of e:
alln
• I
Thc
plait
H.r
but
plai
'1
beer
cast
opp•
i was
cha:
lem
gist
Hol
ble
hear
the
sun
SCV(
Of 1.
coil
He
onl;
i inte
• Juc
tors
/mu
(M
to-r
alit
I. left
,j
a pOl
'
to
l
Wla
in
•
list
sal
kel
_do
ex:l
P.°
sal
he
Li
qu
the