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

IIIm."
that no wrong franks passed.—Q. (Shetring any doubt as to t . authenticity of the note, befOrel
0 see You have seen these. papers ?i. A. you camp -.hire tnrhe •
? iro, tee papers
you think the note and the lettersivri - no prejudice •--- -,e44411P401140--.44-ITRVO, ..-11.1#1.1
. t on lily inind.--Q., I. goeup,lll,
t
imilar that t hi'
2 ci, ,-trepeated ? • A. I
uhta.L.no.frtia ' 1
4:•
IN :‘::IS cg; Ifo°-rie hand ? A. They are so s
ptoratetiscuereialrekandeiwn
gt.be-e.notiss4Zw4r disp:l
,:null think they were.
i Mr. SE !I LE called in. 'paper' every evening of my
A. lam a Deputy hfe.
e), What is your profession (el laugh.)—Q. In the letters themselves have
eeeccter of Franks.—Q, How long have you held you remarked • any difference ? A.- I have ; only
it ituation
A. About eighteen years.—Q. Are where the ink was faded.
?
,e,c letters, and this note, in your opinion, written Q. (By Mr. WARD.) Is the difference, between the
me person ? A. Yes, I think they are.
note and the letter greater than, you have often ob-
' \li NISBE IT was called in, and examined by
~... ... •
served in the writing of the same person ? A. There
Mr. BEBE-vont.. is a stiffness in the note which is not in the letters.
0 What is your profession ? A. lam a servant Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) You have said you
-„e Bank.—Q. Is it your business to sec that no for- have only been able to judge of the authenticity of
t .
tries pass ? A. Yes ; I have been there for more one signature, by comparing it with another ; how
'•• 30 yearc.—Q. Do you judge by a comparison are you then a better judge than any clerk in any
t!i2n
,;,:h other writings ?A. Certainly.—Q. Do you re- counting-house in London ? .
:nark the particular turnings of the hand ? A. Yes. Mr. DENT said it was impossible for the witness
_O. Have you ever seen these papers ? A. Yes.— to answer that question. •
0,1 there any difference in the turn of the hand I Mr. WHITBREAD defended the question. He
~e the note and letters ?
1,,t.%t.• said, if the witness had only to be asked whether
Mr. BATHURST objected to the propriety of this Frederick was like Frederick, then the witness might
,sstia : lia could not see why the form of questions be competent to pass an opinion; but when he con-
.,/ to the nth' r witnesses was varied from now. fessed lie could only judge of the authenticity of one,
c! .: CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER signature by comparing it with another, then he
re I the question : he thought as the witness had , thought the question'a just and proper one.
,le e- had farmed his opinion cf writing from the ; Mr. CANNING considered it unfair,*because the
....; ii.ir turn of the letters, that it was fair to ask ' witness did not come to the Bar voluntarily to be ex:
...
;.eel that ground as to the similarity here. : amined, presuming on his own superior competency,
- . • ' e ITI-IURST explained.
~.!. )but he came on a summons to give the best opinion
L1,1.10T said this witness merely spoke to sig- he could form.
ee and that there had been one witness already Mr. WHITBREAD could not agree in any such
~z,ed because he could oily speak to signatures, opinion. When the witness was summoned, he was
), wt,v should this witness be entertained on the : set up as a judge, and of course **should be able to
:.e.l • . .
5. ,
.;)?':lt f i prove the competency which he, if not openly, at
.fe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER least tacitly, assumed.
~) : the question ought to be put, as it tended to . Mr. B. I3ATHURST suggested the following form
t,
e. ?.:a variety of particular circumstances from for the question, in which Mr. Whitbread acquiesced.
sli:h r!le witness formed his judgment. I Witness again called in.
1.1:-. ELLISON said, in his opinion, this question i Q. From your habits at the Bank, have you had
went rather to lead the witness to an answer than to more frequent opportunities of comparing hand;
cm: at his real opinion. . 'writing than those in a merchant's.offiee ? A. 'I do
M:.. BERESFORD said, this was the way in which ' not compare the hand-writing so often as the signa-
he wired his own judgment as to forgeries, and it . tures only.
. .
was the opirpon of
.those about him, that it would .Q. (By a MEMBER. ) You say you have been an
r.) it
~trbeii7 tin hisroper opinion.topoin y
tit out to the witness as a i hour
devote olie
rexamntiinf :ill
wttheo particularly )
papers. How much
halftime did
e;.. \VILBERFORCE did not think the object of I an hour.— Q. Might not the letters have been written
t! einluiry could be answered by such a course. The , before dinner, and the note after dinner, and yet
..it:..:,:es had lren allowed time to inspect the papers, , both be by the same person ? A. Certainly the wri-
;r.2: ) form their nature opinions on them; and now t ting of one might be much worse if h wrote in the
I e Ll:very cf these opinions was interrupted by ques- evening than if he wrote in the nosing.
1, il .ikc the present. Mr. Beaciceoan called in, and examined by the
ae witness again called. . ATTORNEY-GP. ERA L.
(). Do you think these papers were all written by Q. 'What is your business ? A.II am in the Bank.
t: :, :.one hand ? A. After comparing the note most i —Q. In what department ? A. To view powers of
:i !catively with the two letters, lam of opinion that 1 attorney.—Q. Have you viewed these notes, to see if
u:..7 were not written by the same ..hand.—Q. From 1 they were the same? A. Yes.—Q. How long have
e!et circumstance have you been led to this opinion ? ; you been employed ? A. Nearly 20 years.- Q. Do
.e. Tecee is a neatness, a smaller kind of letter, and , you think that the letters and the note were Written
a .tl:Tness in the ncte which' I have not observed in the ;by the same person ? A. I think there is a very ear-
l. to .In the letters there is a general freedom ' responding similarity.—Q.. Repeat the question ?A.
w:iich does not aprear in- the note. 1 I say there is a marked similarity.
Q. (By Lord Fotxs!roN.E.) You say the letters of ! Q. (By Mr. LOCKHART. ) Have you any reason to
tie. e, .e are of a small description—might not that , think they were not written by the same person ? A.
,eisen from a difference in the pen and ink 111 can only give the same answer which I have given
.. .•:,.., has not escaped my scrutiny, yet lam still 1 before.—Q. If two powers of Attorney were written
....'.., ,trie opinion.—Q. In the Attorney Office do! in the hand as like as that in which the note and let-
.l .;a inspect signatures ?A. Chiefly.—Q. What 1 ters were, would you have passed them? A. Yes.
. : ... I read over the whole power of attorney Mr. Bless called in, and examined by the ATTORNEY.
1• , ~. tit is correct, and then compare the signa- GENERAL.
---i I. Arc the letters written in• the same hand Q:... Of what profession are you ? A. An invest;
e 2 s',;:latures ?A. No. The letters are in gene- 1 gator of the Bank of England.—Q. In what depart-
..' -I,el up by the Clerks of the Office.—Q. Then ment ?A. Inspector of forged notes.—Q. How
1. eee.e.-: the signatures merely ?A. Yes. iilong have you been employed ?A. About fifteen
t 2. (Ey Mr. CII A SILES A oasts.) Did you, in ob- 1 years:7—Q. To see it the signatures were genuine ?
fcr-,,ng and comparing the note and the letters, re- A. Yes.—Q. Were you to see any thing else .in the
.:;iy t::ing particular as to the dots in the i's ? i notes ? A. Yes, I was to inspect the bodies of them.
i. Nc.—Q. Look at them again ? .A. I now see; —Q. What part of the bills were written beside the
let ee dot in the first letter.—Q. Are you now of I signatures.? A. The dates and numbers.—Q. Is
::.e same (-pinion ? A. That has not changed it.— 1 there any thing else written ?A. Only what is written
te Yee said you compared these papers very accu- lon them by the public.—Q. Have you inspected the
r::Ay : how has this circumstance escaped you ?A. ' letters and the note ?A. Yes.—Q. Are they in your
it is ra.,t ,tirprising, considering that this is the first' opinion written by the same person ? A. Yes.
1.:!e I have ever been before this House.—Q. How I Q. (By Mr. knee Swum.) Have you any doubt ?
: le Nrcl 0 you examining these papers above stairs ?I A. From letters I have seen since, I have some.—Q.
A. I veic about an hour ; but I had other letters to `What letters have you seen? A. Different letters
..!.::ne at the same time. I when I saw these.--Q. Have you no doubt they were
is'• (Dv Mr. YORKE.) If a person wanted to forge I written by the same hand ? A. I have said what I
:. .= \ ; : it ing of another who put dots on his i's, would ; thought before.
~ :.cirt r not do it also ? I Q. (By Mr. BATHURST.) What letters lid you
:.1 .. ‘V lI,LI A NI SMITH objected to this ques- : see ? A. From No. 30 to 40. I did not examine
1, as it could at best be nothing more than a mat- I them all, as I was called in late. I understood they
e: ( : inference. were Mrs. Clarke's letters.—Q. How did Mrs. Clarke's
Ye •• YORKE said, it was not a question of infer- . letters bring any doubt of these ? A. I looked at
ee ',et of experience. I many others after these,and compared them with these
THONIAS TURTON thought if that was the j two.—Q. Repeat the question ?A. They differed so
. .: !.!, the best viay of putting the question would much in their frame ; some of the letters were larger
. ,i.l Ivr ever remember such a circumstance ? . I And some smaller.— Q. What is the difference of the
:, . ;iI.-I.ARPE said any answer the witness gave; hand-writing? A. Some are written in a free and
` • ~! :,e of no consequence, as he had confessed he I easy hand, some in a stiff and neat one, some alike,
• IL: Out attended to this circumstance. 1 and some different. But if I had seen but the two
The Witness again called in. ;letters and the note, I should not have had a doubt i
Q. Do you ever remember a similar circumstance?: that they were written by the sa me person. But since
A. Na, Ido not recollect one.—Q. Does the differ- I have seen the other letteri, I have had a very dif- i
e:c.: as to the dots incline you to change your on-' ferent opinion.—Q. Whether do the letters you speak
p„n 11 opinion ? A. No, it has some weight, but still ! of resemble more the two letters that have been shewn
Et'''. C..t)Ugh to make me chnige my opinion. Ito you,- or the note ?A. They resemble both the two
Q. (By Mr. THompsoy,.) Did you often observe , letters and the note.—Q. Do you mean to say, that
t'.:e sigatures of the same person to vary ? A. Car- I the resemblance between the letters, from No. 30. to
1 'ly, and that may happen from .a variety of cir- I No. 40. and the two letups has excited the doubt you
:.w.n.stances ; for in a man's hand may be vet y I now entertain, whether fhe two letters and the note
(''': rat before and after dinner.—(A loud laugh.)— Ibe the same hand-writing ?A. The letters them-
,• Bare you not often observed the signatures of, , selves afforded the only reason for a doubt in my
-, .'n!,! person in such circumstances to differ .as . mind.
n .!: .riAlv as the note and th- letters. before you do ? i Q. (By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.) Did you per-
•i. No doubt I have.—Q. When Powers of Attor- I ceive any similarity between the papers, from Nos.
nay Lave been submitted to you, have they not varied 30 to 40, and tile two letters and the note ? A. One
mach is the writing though signed by the same per-1 or two of the former, I thought, bore a resemblance
s'.::' A. Ye:,..—(2. And yet they have been passed Ito the two letters and the note.—Q. -Did the view of
13. i you ?A. Yes.—Q. Have they not differed often : these papers leave
and th a e
no
doubt upon writ[ mind whether
niaferially :Is the ncte and letters before-you ? A.-1 the two lettersnote weren by the same
(• •, .inly ; bat then I had collateral evidence to guide ! person ? A. It did.
":';* •e•l'ement. I The witness was then ordered to withdraw, when,
Q. / i:y 6ir JA mEs HALL.) Is the note in a dif- after a short conversation between Sir M.W. RIDLEY,
f"..:rt:tt hand from the letters ? A. That is my opinion. Mr. BERESFORD, Mr. WILLIAM WYNNE, and another
Q. (1V Mr. LITTLE CON:) In comparing signa- Member, General Clavering was called in, ancrexa-
t.''T'', do you contrast the signature with the writing mined on the Motion of Sir id W. RIDLEY.
itei. or with other signatures of- the same person ? . The evidence given by -General Clavering on a
I
.: • ,;it!i other signatures.—Q. Do the signatures former nig_ht being
_read,
eer -ily differ from the writing ?A. I have observed The CHAIRI*AthN. asked whether there was any,
. .., (-:attires are generally more invariable in their- and.what part, Qf ~ at evi ence,, whiCh the witness
. .......cc than the body of a letter. People often- wished. to exlain. .
. A. 46 &fine I came to the part of my evidence
::,.sir name in a particular manner.
.. f, 3/ Mr. MARTIN.) Were.you told there was which
..I wish to explain I.l'must request permission to

state the reason why I have come forward on this oc-
cosialu. has been notified re 11041,t,itliatrAt -4147144.#
pasticirtla. of my hkving, in my formes evidence,'en
snaccitrate. On that occasion I owtainly otateci that
ahotild give information upon every point to thekliett
of my. knowledge. On a reference, however, to the
minutes, I find that the answers I gave were not such ;
as I should have done, if I bad comprelended fully
the questions. With the peimission of the committee,
I beg leave to refer to the questions put to me on the
former occasion. I was then asked Whether I had
had any communication whatever, relative to• army
promotions with Mrs. Clarke ?' y answer was, that
I had had none, and it is perfectly clear to me that
epistolary correspondence was left out of considera-
tion, and that personal communication was only
meant. Besides, the following question shewed that
any other construction was impossible. The next
question was, Whether I knew Mrs. Clarke to have
exercised any influence over the Duke of York, with
a view to procure military promotions ? This ques-
tion I misunderstood, and as a proof of that I can
state to the Committee, that, after I had withdrawn
from the bar, I met a noble relative, a Member a
another House, who observed, that he was surprised
I had not been examined touching other points, which
might be collected from the same source, as those upon
Which I had actually been examined.
The CHAIRMAN then asked the witness whether
he had any thing farther to add to his former testi-
mony ? To which he replied in the negative.
• The letter purporting to be the letter of General
Clavering was next read, on the motion of Mr. W.
WYNNE. .
General Clavering examined by Mr. WARD.
Q. in your former evidence you state that to your
eertain knowledge you did not know of any applic -
tions-to Mrs. Clarke, for military promotions: did you
think yourself eicintled from the question ? A. I
certainly did.
Q. ( By
.Mr W .: ILITEIEAD.) Did you or did you
not, in writing cr Otherivise, ask Mrs. Clarke to use
her influence with the Commander in Chief to pro-
cure you proMotioil ? A. I did.
Q. (By Mr. Irnata.)- Had • your. applicntilit* any
effect ? • A. I believe not.— u, picyy,s4...ob-tokiwws.
you-asked for ? A. I made two applications...
not succeed in the first, and Whattoktined on-the'
second, was, I believe, not in ConseqUence of the. in-
fluence of Mrs. Clarke.—Q, W your,request grant-
ed ? A. What I obtained would have been equally
- Q. I 'with for a

;cause at the thus I WU at a &tante from London.—
promotion from Mrs. Ciariel you Q. MI
.did,,you suppose thae-rpomroyold tet militar;
c. 04.14 not pet
even from the Wir Office ? Bioclense I was d:J•
taut from town, and I supposed on my application to
that lady, I should get Information which the persons
in office would not be justified in givinpr--Q..Cor
what reason did you think that Mrs. Clarke could
have information of what was passing at the Horse
guards, which would have been refined to you if you
regularly applied at the office ? A. Because I had i.*
opinion that her influence over -4e Commander ill
Chief could obtain information of that deieriptien ;
and I hope I may be permitted to add, that she was
represented to me as possessing that influence..—Q.
How do you reconcile that with pour former state!
ment, that you did not believe her to have bad any
influence over the Commander in Chief ? A. If I am
correct, I before stated that her influence over the
Commander in Chief did not e to obtain military
promo ions.—Q. Did you, in point of fact, obtain the
inform 'don you desired ? A. I. did not. The infor-
mation I obtained was, that the rank of Brigadier.
General was to be restored,' instead of Brigadier-Co.
lonels.—Q: Was or was not that, the information you.
desired ? A. It was not. I have already explained
the reason why the rank of Brigadier General was
restored.--Q. Look at that letter, and see whether
you did not address it to Mrs. Clarke ? A. I rather
think it ref...rs to the proposition about raising the re.
.riment.—Q. State what conversation you had with
‘&lrs. Clark.: on your return to town after writing that
letter ? A. It is above five years since I wrote that
letter, and it is impossible that I could recollect a
conversation of so trifling a nature.—Q. Do you ad.
here to your answer on a former night, that you never
had any conversation with Mrs. Clarke on the subject
of military promotions ? A. Ido not recollect. It
is possible I might have alluded to the circumstance,
but Icannot now recollect—Q. You say you offered
Mrs. Clarke 10001. to procure you the regiment ; did
you afterwards make her any offer or tender for her
influence, or supposed influence with the Conimander
in Chief ? . A. I pcs:tively never did.--Q. Did you
ever give her any pecuniary recompence or valuable
consi lefation ? A. I never gave her any thing in
my lire, except accidentally.
Q.: (By Sir THOMAS Twerox.) What reason had
you to .think that Mrs. Clarke had no influence with
the Commander in Chief ? A, The ground of my.
opinion was my own case, and also the statements of
various Military officers. Besides whatever might

granted without any applica.
direct answer.? A. My request was pasted, but it. have been sai.d:on the subject, no case was ever
could no:. have been done in any way the application brought home to his Royal Highness.
could be made.—Q. Why then apply though Mrs. Q. (By Sir Joint SEBRIGHT.) Did you ever ob-
Clarke ? A. Before I state the answer, I hope I shall min, by letter, to Mrs. Clarke, or otherwise, an ap-
be permitted to state the cirqmstance of the case. In pointment on the Staff ? A. I was placed on the
the year 1803 I was appointed to the rank of a Field Staff on the 24th of September, 1803, as the date of
Officer as Lieutenant-Colonel. In 1804 the Govern- the appointment will show, and the acquaintance of
ment thought fit to raise all Officers of my rank, and the Duke of York with Mrs. Clarke did not take place
some below me, to the rank of Brigadier-General. for four months after, in January 1804.—Q. Did
In a fortnight after it was notified to them, that you not write a letter to the Attorney-General, desir-
they were to be only Brigadier-Colonels instead of ing to be examined at the Bar of this House ? A. I
Generals. Upon this I wrote to Mrs. Clai ke, to did, and shall be extremely happy to state the reason.
ascertain why the promotion had been reduced from —Q. State the ground upon which you wrote that
Brigadier-Generals to Colonels, to which she replied, letter ? A. A day or two after this Inquiry com-
that the rank of Brigadier-General would be re- menced, I perceived by the Papers, that my name
stored, as it afterwards was. The reason was ob- had been introduced in the proceedings, and I-was
vious, because at the time it was supposed that the apprehensive, that his Royal Highness might sup-
Militia and the Army would have to act together ; pose, that I had resorted to improper means to pro-
in consequence of which, it was thought necessary to cure military objects. I went therefore to the Horse
give superior rank to the Colonel, of the Army.—Q. Guards with a view to see Colonel Gordon, whom I.
How came you to apply to Mts. Clarke, and not did not meet, and was referred to Mr. Lowten. This
through the office of the Commander in Chief ? A. Gentleman told me it would be necessary for me to
Became the persons in the office would not give me be examined at the bar of the House of Commons,
the information I desired, or would be reprehensible which I wished anxiously to avoid. Consequently I
for giving it.—Q. What secret source of informa- came town and wrote the letter to the Attorney Ge-
tion, which it would be reprehensible in the Clerks of neral, which at first stated that I wished to appear at
the office to divulge, did you suppose Mrs. Clarke to the bar by the desire of Mr. Lowten. But that pas-
possess ? A. I cer,ainly supposed that Mrs. Clarke sage was expunged, and I appeared at the bar in the
was informed of what was passing at the Horse. character of a voluntary witness.
guards, and I had reason to think that she could in- Q. (By a Member.) With what view did you write
form me.—Q. What reason, and from whence did the letter to the Attorney-General ?A. Mr. Lowten
you suppose she could derive her information? A. stated to me, that he conceived any evidence before
From the Commander in Chief.—Q. How do you the House would he of great service, and consequently
reconcile that statement with your former declare- I applied to be examined. Q. Did you inform Mr..
tion, that you supposed Mrs. Clarke not to have any Lowten of all your transactions with Mrs. Clarke at
influence upon the Commander in Chief ? A. The re- the time ? A. Not of all.
ply I before gave went to the influence of Mrs. Clarke Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) Do you mean to state,
over the Commander in Chief as to military promotion. that you were a voluntary or an involuntary witness
—Q. Of the two applications made to Mrs. Clarke, on the occasion ? A. I have no objection to state,
which succeeded ? A. If I recollect right, the resto- that the last wish of my heart was to be examined
ration to the rank of Brigadier-General could not have at the bar of this House. Mr. Lowten told me it
been denied without a marked stigma.—Q. I wish was necessary, and therefore I have appeared.
the question to be repeated ?A. I have to apologise By the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER.
to the House if I have not understood the question. Q. For what purpose did you go to the Horse-
Q. What were the two applications which you made ? Guards, and afterwards to Mr. Lowten ? A. I was
A. The first ariplication. I made was in 1802. I had anxious to remove from the mind of Colonel Gordon
heard that Mrs. Clarke had influence with the Duke that I had any thing to do in the traffic for commis-
of York with respect to military promotions. I thought sions, and particularly to explain the circumstances of
it would not be amiss to apply to her, and conse- Lieutenant Sumner's business.—Q. Was it for the
quently wrote; offering her £lOOO if she could get purpose of contradicting the fact to Colonel Gordon,
me the levy of a regiment. She wrote back to me, that you went to the Horse Guards ? A. It was for
in answer, that the Duke of York would not hear of the purpose of explaining the mode in nhich my
it ; and that shewed me that she had no influence.— name had been introduced by Mrs. Clarke, in her ex-
Q. Did you in fact obtain the regiment ? A. I did amination.
not.—Q. Did you make
.any other application ?A. Q. (By Mr. WHITBREAD.) Did ylu mention to
My other application was to know the reason why Mr. Low ten your offer of £lOOO to Mrs. Clarke ?A.
the Brigadier-Generals were reduced to Colonels.— I did not.—Q. Are you sure ?A. I think I did nor.
Q. Did you ever, make any other application for —Q. Had you any district given you after having
promotion, exchange, or for any other purpose ?A. been made a Brigadier-General ?A. I was constantly
Ido not recollect ; but if any Hon. Member will in the same district as when I was appointed. I was
give me an intimation of it, I am ready to explain it. promoted at the same time with all others of the same
Q. When you stated before, that Mrs. Clarke had no rank, some senior and some junior to me.—Q. Did
influence, how came you to make a second applica- you apply directly or indirectly, or otherwise, to Mrs.
tion ? A. If lam correct, I stated, that from her Clarke upon the subject ? A. lam certain I did not,
answer I concluded she had no influence, though I and the more certain, because the first I heard of the
thought it likely that the Commander in Chief might promotion was from Mrs. Clarke, and about amo
ginth
talk to her about military affairs.--Q. Do you know before it took place.--Q. Was the information ven
whether any other officer received the permission that to you early and as a secret ? A. It was communicated
VMS refused to you ? A. Did you mean through the by letter, and no secrecy was enjoined.
same channel ?—Q. Through any channel ? A. If The witness was then ordered to withdraw, when
I recollect right, there were some new regiments Mr. C. W. NV YNNE rose to discharges painful
raised in Ireland ?—Q. Were they raised on the same duty ; but, painful as it may be, it was a duty, and
terms you proposed ? A. No ; my proposal was to he should not shrink from the discharge of it. The
raise from the militia ; the Irish regiments were raised r. Committee must be aware of the nature of the tes-
by a bounty.—Q. From whom did Mrs. Clarke re- timony-given by the witness who had just withdrawn,
ceive the information, which, when you supposed her and as he had been warned that he was to live his
to have no influence with the Commander in Chief, in- evidence at his own peril, and had exposed himself to
duced you to apply to her ? A. My information was the animadveriion- of the House, he should move that
merely upon report. lam ready to state the name General Clavering has prevaricated in his evidence.
of the person who informed me, if the Committee de- General MATHEW contended, that no preVaii-
sire it. (No! No !No !)—Q. Had you ever any \ cation whatever had taken place ; and that the 'wit-
other than a wiitten communication with Mrs. Clarke ness at the bar was incapable of prevaricating.
on the subject of your own preferment ?A. To the Mr. WHITBREAD did jnstice to the feelings of
best of my recollection and opinion I had not, be- the Honourable General, bet C3llld not zdopt his
view of dte question.