Star.
London, England, 1809-02-15 00:00:00

4.,„„, to whozn Ti 5 a belt paid, lie. aik.net--
,
~ , -..1 th,t Mr. Hebden %vas- the person. I sent for '
ien, and, after sane conversation, the
,vill allow me to state my surfrise at the im:
:.:,;,„I.:_. of this Gentleman, when he told me, that •Eic
,
t,':, ~ecefted the money, but would say no mope
:.„. it. That is all that passed on that subjeet.—
j V-as Mrs. Clarke never mcntiOned to you as a
;,,ty ia this or any similar transaction ? A. Cer-
-.Lillis- not.
(lay Mr. DicxvisoN.) 'Did you ever disclose
..,1:-.c Duke of York the affair of Hebden and Frome?
~
Yes, I diu indeed, and. to several others, and
the advice of Counsel as to the course tkat I
uld take.—Q. What did the Duke of York answer
:. :ri vim communicated this :htisinest to him ? • A.
: ...!ii7,ircti that I should scrutinize the matter to the
::•ryin ; and, let the guilt fall on whom it might, that
:. ‘sieuld make an example of them.
t). (Uy Mr. WARDOA) Do you know, whether
i:„ce the transaction, Mr. Frome has been employed
~.; m-. Greenwood ? A. Ho. I do not.
0 ( ity r.r. AD:, `
. ~.:1...., re•pecting the: .... :.•.veen Colonel
~,.41,i ~:1.1 Colonel Brooke, one' which has a pen-
:,:l note upon it. How did that happen ? A. Lt
:,, committee indulge me with the perusal of the
„rers..-Os looking over the papers, Colonel Gordon
l'orli united...As the papers are printed, they are almost
unintelligible to Me: When I received these papers,
/ laid them before the Commander in Chief, and re-
ccivta tis pleasure upon them. It was then that the
first not 2 in pencil was mane ,' C. L. fur Colonel
Lorraine, can't be acceded to—his Royal Highness
does not approve of the exchange proposed:" Sub=
sequeat to this, koWever, inquiries respecting the ser-
vices of Colonel Brooke were fnade, and the result
of these ;nreatries was such as to induce me to lay the
case again before the Commander in Chief, and it was
ro that occasion that the second remark in pencil tvas
.;ride.---Q. Is it usual to make such remarks ? A.
\:0, they are, sometimes made in penCil, grid sOnte-

these appointments? A. sothing Wiitever, e'eept'
submitting them to his Majesty..q.lS this a mattet
of course ? A. It is; when It is .approved of by the
Colonel oF the RegiMent, and the Secretary at Var.
__Q; Do the recOmmendationS of Paymasters aliways
originate with the Colonel's of the Regiments ?
. .
Yes, and the Secitary at War 'sees whether or hot
the securities are good.—Q. Who was Colonel of the
Regiment to which this Paymaster was apiidinted ?
A. I do not know.—Q. Who was the Secretary at
War ? A. I believe General Fitzpatrick.—Q. IS
there not an express regulation that Paymasterships
are not to be sold ? A. I believe so.—Q. Was*Sa-
muel Carter recommended, though an orphan,, as
having received an ejutation sufficient to qualify him
for any Ensigncy ? A. The recommendation is before
the House.

Lord FOLKESTONE desired Colonel G.oliisON to pio-
duce the documents, of Major Turner's resignation:
Thefie documents being delivered to the Clerk were
read as follows :

Copy of a Letter from Messrs. Cox and Carstriwoois.
c 1 Sir—We are tlected to transmit td you, that you may lay
before his Royal Highesi the Comrander in Chief, a copy of the
resignation of Major Turner, of the Sd Dragoons.—We ake, Sir;
your obliged, &c: 11 Cox and GazenWoon."
41 Canterbury, September 7th, 1808.
11 Sir—l hive to solicit you, that you will be pleased to lay be-
fore his Royal Highness the resignation of Major 'Turner; and
that you will be pleased to procure for me his Majesty's permis-
sion to purchase the Troop thereby vacant, at the sum stiFulated
by the regulation.—l am, Sir, your obedient 'nimble servant,
I'll. srrweir..."

• ;
ries in ink.
Q. (By Mr. WRITIIIikAD.) Were you acqUairited
with Mr. Frome, Or did you know any thing of the
sitnatien he stas in previods to the transaction you
!Lire mentioned ? A. I knew him as a reputed arniy
broker to a great extent, and one of that description
c:-ptrsons agaihst whom I was in open war.—Q.
p:d you, in consequence of that transaction, take any
s:eps to prevent Mr. Frome frtom being concerned in
:Inv transactions of agencies for the army ? A. I
don't understand that he was ever authorized to tran-
sact any business for the army, but in spite of every
thing I could do, atS ttri. army broker, but not as an
agent-
By the CP_ANCELLOR of the Excztviloett.
Q. Was it not in consequence of an arrarigeMent
by NOII, that the circular letter was written to '
the officers of the army, and .the clauSe introduced
into the mutiny act ? A. The eirctilar letter was
written pre iious to the transaction to which I have
alluded, but the introduction of the clause into the
mutiny act was subsequent to it, because I found
that ro redress was otherwise to be obtained.
;2. (By Mr. WAftOLE.) Way any entry made that
the exchange between Colonels Knight and Brooke
vas not approved of by the Commander-in-Chief ?
A. Certainly ; and a letter was written to Colonel
Knight or Colonel Brooke, communicating the cir-
cumstance. Q. Through what recommendation, as
arpears it your office, was Samuel Carter appointed
to zn rnsigccy in the 16th Foot ? A: Through the
recommendation of Lietitenatit Sutton of the Royal
I have the letter With Read it.
lien Colonel Gottoots: read the letter, as follows:
" Royal Laboratory, WoolWich, Dec. 7, 1801.
" it please yotr Rbiyal Highuess—Jbe kindness, which
ytt:r Re7al Highness has ever testified towards etnfuldens
to :o make skis application. It is in favour of Samuel Carter, a
g•-1::h whom I have brought up to his present age, which is six-
t‘ri.. Mt), Ibe permitt'ed to solicit your Royal Highnes that he
7.:7 be appointed to the first vacant Ensigncy. I should not have
presumrticn to make this request, but under the confidence
!rat :ny long wrvices will have some weight with your Royal
11..g1met.... I am, &c.
" Your Regal highness's Servant, Ecc.
" 1. SUTTON."
Q. 1)3 you recollect when Samuel Carter was ap-
tcoted ? A. I have here the letter of Lieutenant
,Sttton, in answer to the.notification, which is dated
March 29, 1804. Q. Does Colonel Gordon know
that Lieutenant Simon is .dead? A. Until I
ic,,ked at these papett, I did not know that he was
et..er in existence. I haVe heard that he is dead.—
Is it usual for young. men to be. two or three
retry oa the Com Manner rn Chiefs list before they
un= apro;nted ? A. That depends on a variety of
r:tcarr t n 'es.
A ktter, dated 7th April, 1801, was then read,
stated, that the Commander in Chief had it
r.): in his power at that time to comply with the re-
.Jmmendation of Lim:tenant Sutton, but that the
-17r.c. of Mr, Samuel Carter was noted for a corn-
Q. !VT there many rceonirriendationt of this kind?
Le.rtilittly there are, I dare say, a hundred in the
A. at present. Q. Was there any subsequent re-
.--,mrlendation of Samiiel Carter ? A. I can find no
'A:- notice whatever on the subject in the Office.--
(..! When a recommendation is once in the Office, is
:.:.necessary to repeat it, after it is once noted ? A.
;•?.cy are generally followed up and repeated by the
pplying.
Lord FOLKESTONE.) What is the date cf
ti''corntnission ? A. I believe it is between the
a9ll :Match; 1804: Q: Previous to the ex-
(:..inr.c between Colonels Brooke and Ktight, had not
..71,:n el Knight applied to exchange with Colonel
rierniL4. ?A. Yes.-._Q. Are the documentsof this.ap
p'...;,ation in the Office? A. I believe they arc. Q. Did
witness hear the name of an Ensign of the 54th
hector Stray ? A. Never. Q. Has he
••• y means of ass.ertaitting if such a person it in that
Birnent ? A. Not here t f can know to-morrow.—
t.:• X%, ;is the witness born in the West Indies ? A. I
-.(:t I have the honour to be a Welchman.—
.-.1 , ( lesue.ii .1
( By Alderman Comet.) . Did the person for
7: 1-ithcl.:n interfered, to your knowledge obtain
P.tymastership ? A. It was obtained, and that
r. nit: for:ibly at the time I made the inquiry:—
(_..tr, he produce the documents ? A. I can, and
do sc with great pleastire, if the Cue:Mince will
an order to that effect.
(By the SECRETARY at WAR.) At whose re-
. endation are Paymasters appointed ? A. 'rhg
L.unmended by the Colonels of regiments.—q

- -
. _
4tiftli'ltrelMi 'fdyAin Itte eiiiel-Ve. llteehtiMmakalstiiddrittna)rsJieed titeeeetters'at i-Ise•
-
Q. Whit was her nanso ? • A.. Cannot recollect.— 'Bar, would destroy any of them upon Withdrawing
Q. Of how many did Mri. Clarke's family consist for a few minutes, add he thought the apprehensions
49.. At first of herself', Captain Thannon, and thel of the Honourable Gentlerhaii (Mr. B.irham). aitu-
Fieneh Lady. There were afterwat-di some Oil- gether. unfounded. They Were at present involved :r.
dren.—Q. How many
bet Were • there ? A., a con.siderable difficulty, and he did not well see how
Four or 6/ie.—Q. poet witness know if the French they could proceed a step farther. Letters had not
Lady slept with Mri. Clarke? (A laughs.)q. Have been admitted before till tbe hancliwriting.had been
you a wife with you here f A. Yes.—Q"Have you proved. That the Hon. Gentleman (‘‘ arte) would
ever had any correspondence with Mai. Clarke ? A. produce such as suited his object, there I.v.is no dobbi
.I do not understand the queStiOtt,—(daliegh.)—Q. —but in case there should be any that made mere
Did you ever write to her? A. Yes. —Q: Did you against Mrs. Clarke than the Duke of York, that he
receive a letter froth her yesterday? A. Yes. ca: would produce these was not quit.: so actin He
would not think
Any other letter at a former time ?• A. Yes..Q. was Sure the Honourable Gentleman
Have you that
.letter ? A. No ; I pat it into the that this wai tasting any reflection upon him, for he
hands Of Mr. Masters, to write to lakrs; C; for the I thought, that the Honourable Gentleman woulth ..
Money she owes me.—?.-What were the contents of 1 hiniself, be the last perwin who snotild wish that snch. ,
that letter ? A. I app lied to Mrs, Clarke in town a delicate trust should be committed to hirti alone; if .
for payment of my bill ; she was not to be seen, arid 1 Mrs: Clarke had. giVen him these letters, the House
wrote me that she knew I had forged a will by Which i would have no eetntroul over them ; but now it had
I kept an estate. I went to my lawyer to try to get 1 the whole of theM in its power, mad justice required;
my money.—Q. Was it hi consequence of the debt i that if any, of theM was to be er-amined, the whole
or the threat that Sit gave the letter to a proles- : should be produced. If any of these, letters were .
sional Gentleman ?—A. Of the threat. —Q. How 1 from the Duke of York he did not say that it ought
long ago Was this ?A. In July last.—Q. Were any to be tejected. But his dotibt was, whether the Corn-
' steps taken in consequence? A. He wrote to her, mittee ought to 'receive such a mass of letters, itt
'brit received no answer.—Q. Has Witness applied *inch the diameters of thousands might be imph-
sinee that ? A. Never. , cated without any one being responsible for them.—
Q. (By Mr. WARDLE). Did the letter sent by Mrs. These letters Might have beat teritten by persons of
Clarke say that he had forged a Wills Mid she could whom the Conmiittee could know nothing, and it
hang lijm? A. Something to that effect.—Q, Wbt therefore Would be out Of its power to ascertain whe
did not •he ptheeed against Mrs. Clarke? A. I they ciao whole was not a bundle of falsehoods. The
CIRTITICATI.ON. .
" I big leave to recommend the above; and to certify, thought she had lost me enough already, and I great bulk of this bundle was another leased against
that I verily. believe that no time than the tegurated stun of • 4 . •
woold hot throw good money after bad.—Q: Did he reading them, and the Committee ought to consider
£3550 is to lie given. (Signed) ever say he Would be up to her for what she had well whether they ought immediately to be received,
" Lieut.-Gen. CART*RICAIt:' done ?A. NO.—Q. Has his wife. and hint parted° without any further enquiry into their nature an 4
Copy of a Letter from Mrs. Leer SINCLAIR SUTNZRLAND to on the occasion of that letters or atiy other ? A. No. talitents;
his Royal Highness the Duke of YORK. Q. Has he in hit possession any letters belonging to Mil BERESFORD said, that they were not then
" I think your Royal Highness will readily comply with die Mrs. Clarke ?A. Yes.—Q. Has he any objectioi before a confessional, where the private crimes of it-
trowingirmiidg request: It is, that you will not accept the re
gnation of Major Turner till Marth next, as he has behaved to produce tkem ?A. I-should not wish to produce dividuals, not at all, perhaps, connected with the in-
very ill to a lady, and will no doubt secrete himself to avoid his them unless Isatisfied in what she . fie;' '
was
engagement. (Signed) " Luc? SINCLAIR Sumstitatrin." unless requested by the House. He disc roved in every point of -view, ef the House
Copy of a Letter to Colonel Go ano x from Major Tuart IR. Witness ordered to withdraw takng fbirmd cognizance of such an enormous bundle
" SIR-4 have just been favoured with a letter tram Lteute- The CHANC,ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER of lettert, containing Ilia, knew not what, and passing
nant-Colonel Monday, by which I leard that there have been
o sery ,that
some impediments to the acceptance of my . _:signation. I have b• ed if the letters were evidence in this between they knew not whom.
only to state, that lam nn* in my 40th year, oil ha4e never ease, the House would insist On their production, Mr. Secretera CANNING said, that it seemed to
hithefto had my honour tarnished till by Mrs. Sinclair. I am, but if not, they ought to pause before they took frbm be allowed oft all hands, that the Ccmmittee had got
Sir, yburs, Scc. " WYCII d T TURNRI."
ihilit ' • • .
. , eh, Nov 3, 1808. the witness any propetty which he consideted as im- into a difficulty with respect to those letters •; and te
.. . pounded for part of the debt clue to him. relieve them of that difficulty three distinctpropositioi:s
" Six—l am in poiscssion of facts by which I can prove that
Mrs. Sinclair's interference with the Commander in Chief pre- .
Mr. WHITBREAD said the property would not had been submitted ; as to the first, that of havin .t•
vented the acceptance of my resignation. .1 shall deem myself be_elestreyed, and .the letters ought to be prodticed, them all read, he did not think that a most exception-
justified in making an appeal to theputlic, but shall nee all innii. if Mt. Wardle could say they bore at all upon the able mode of proceeding. It rested upon no analog,
ble delicacy with respect to your name. stibject of their enquiry. , all that the House knew of the package of letters, way,
" I am, Sir, yours, &c. Wvcxev taastax." Mr. WARDLE Said, he would ask this question that they had been in possession of Mrs. Clarke; and he
TWo more letters were read, one from Col. Gordon, of the witness; who had read them. He would know did not think this a sufficient ground for reading thew.
requesting the Major to make any use he might think if they treated of the tale of coniniissions. As to another suggestion; for vesting the selection of
proper of-his name; The other nom Major Turnet;
informing Colonel Gordon that Mrs. Sinclair had in. Sir GEORGE HILL objected strongly to the those letters exclusitela With the on.H Gentleman,
vited him to join her in writing a pamphlet against production of these letters, and blamed the Committee who had the conduct of this inquiry, he could nut
the Duke, but that he had &dined it. for the course they were pursuing. They might con. think that this.either would prove satisfactory, not
min Mrs. Clarke's private amours for what they from the slightest doubt upon his mind of that Ho!
... Here the Committee, and particularly
Fitzpatrick, went into a long examination to spew General knew, and ought not to be heard, unless Mr. Wardle nourable Gentlenian'S disposition to cimdtitt. every
would state that he had good grounds for believing thing fairly to the House, for he was free tts say that
that no blame attached to that Honourable Gentle- they would throw light on hit charges. his conduct, throughout the present inquiry, had no.
man, in his late office; Secretary at War, which, as Mr. WARDLE said, he would explain all he thing in it that was not perfectly fair and honourable ;
nothing in the, pteceding examination gave a wend
for such a tharge, it seems unnecessary to detail.] knew on the subject. Mrs. Clatke had told him that but at the satire time, he thought it would be better to
; she was burninnumberof letters h appoint a Select Committees no matter how smalls
g.a
After the documents were read, Colonel Goanos matter* and had given those to Nichols andaxis wife which might be instructed to examine the letters, and
was called in and examined byLord FoutsroNi. to hum. A few ays ago it was discovered that part select such only as bore upon the present inquiry. •
Q. Does witness knoW Mrs. Sutherland ? A. Till
I saw the letter I never heard of her.--Q: Are Mrs: of the number was still in existence, and Mrs. Clarke This could net be attended With any.delay,fOr as it was
Sutherland and Mrs. Sinclair the same person ?A. I had applied for them. Nicholls at first had no ob- well understood that this wotild not be the last night
jecticn to deliVer thent to her receipt, but, on calling of this present inquiry, and that prObably, to-morrow
have heard so.—Q. Witness has said in his evidence, for them yeSterday, he refused, and said he hadlibeen might be octupied with it, they might go on with the
on a former occasion, that an application to the Duke adviseo not to part with them. examination of their witnesses, and the House might,
of York, to expedite an exchange would haVe been (The witness recalled.) Q. How came you by on its resuming, appoint a Select Committee fez :hat
futile; Would it be the same with a resignation ?A: these letters ? A. They were sent down by Mrs. purpose.
•
I beg pardon ; but I never said any such thing. I Clarke tolight the fire with,--Q. Did she not order Mr. BARHAM in explanation said, that his object
will explain What I did say:
, 1. them to be barnt ? A. No; they were left to light the .was not that all the letters indiscriminately shoulst be
After sortie conversation as to the proper mode of
fire, put into a closet, and taken out, by the maid- read, but that in the progress of this inquiry there
proceeding, it was determined that Lord Folkstone
servant as she wanted there.---Q: Have you read should be no appearance to the tonntty a a wish on
should go on with the case of Major Turner. . many of these letters ?A. Yes; since the present the part of that House to conceal any thing.
Q. if an exchange is in suspence in the Office,
..
on of the th Inquiry commenced.--Q. DO any of them relate to Mr; YORKE approved of the appointment of a
does witn,:ss mean to say that an expression
Commander in Chief to expedite it would have no ef- e subject now under investigation ? A. I think Select Committee.
they. do,-;.Q. Did you see Mrs. Clatke burn any ? Mr. DENNIS BROWNE said; that in answer to
feet whatever? A. No; I do not mean to say that ;but A. No.the question, " Do any of these letters relate to the
. .
if the Commander in Chief has signified his approba- [The witness produced an immense pile of letters, Inquiry now before the House ?" the answer of the
non on the Wednesday, and the matter is to be laid
before the King on the Friday or Saturday, his ex- which he was proceeding to deliVer to the Clerk, witness was—" some of them." Now this, lie thbught;
pressing a wish then to expedite it would not procure when ordered to withdraw, 61 the niotibn of Mr. decided the thing at once ; for it proved that all did
not, and of course the necessity of selection. He re-
its being sent in Separately On the Thursday, contrary .
to the routine Of office.—Q. Has he knOwn any other
Mr; YORKt observed, that at present the Corn- quired that that answer be read. (head, read !)
instance of interference like that of Mrs. Sinclair mittee knew nothing more about these letters than . The answer *at died referred to, and ori reading
Sutherland ? A. If that letter had been without a that they had been sent down to be burnt: It was, premed to be—a 1 think they do." —(A kagh.) -
besides, material to consider, whether the time of the Mr. ADAM proposed tor the better regulatioa of
signature and anonymous, the same course Would
ComMittee ought to be taken up in reading such a their proceedings, that Chi letters be laid up on the
have been followed.—Q: Had he any conversation
with the Commander in Chief on the subject of that bundle.; and also whether this man vi.ss a proper tables and then sealed up, and that the House either
letter ? A. I cannot say. The resignation wat •6f judge to decide, whether they contained matter rela- now or hereafter be resomed, and that a Select Corn-
the same date as the letter, and it was probable his tive to this inquiry. He therefore suggested the pro- Mittee be then appointed for the ptirpoiii Of examire;
Royal Highness had them both together: I recollect priety of submitting them to aCommatee, to examine in them,
whether they contained any thirig respecting the sub- . WHITBREAD coincided with his Honour;
his Royal Highness putting the letter in my hands; ject of this inquiry---(a cry of " No, no, no.")—There able .riend in the propriety of having-the letters scaled
and desiring me to make the enquiry...—Q: When was
that resignation accepted ? A. It was approved by might be many names mentioned in them, which it up, and taken into possession of thh House.
the King on the '23,1.—Q. Did the Duke of .York
might injure the feelings of many innecent indivi- . Lord PORCHESTER theught it much hetter that
duals to divtilge, while perhaps there might be only two persons should be appoltneo, for the purpose of
say to you that he knew Mrs; S. Sutherland ? A: three or four Of them of arty consequence with respect fixing upon such letters as enteri, might think calcu-
No, he did not.—Q. Did he say nothing about her ?to the present inquiry: laced to bear upon the p!-eSent inquiry • betause he
A. Nothing whatever:• • •
Mr. BARHAM asked, whether the Right Ho- thought it not fair that the Hon. Member, who aer-
EXAMINATION OF MIL NICHOLLS; nourable Gentleman had served his country Or the taint), should be one of those two conducting thatirt-
Mr. Nicholls being called in t 0 impeach the veracity Duke of York most materially, in allowing these lei- qtiiry, should be denied his right of bringing, before
of Mrs. Clarke, was examined by the Chancellor of ters to go out of the House? He would rejoice to see the House whatever in his opinion tended .th make
the Eachequer. the Duke of York cleared from all these- charges; bui out his case.
Q. Do you, hie at Hampstead ? A. Yes.--Q.
Did Mrs. Clerke lodge with you ?A. Yes.—Q.When this was not the Wp
arto do it. He was desirous that Mr. BRAND thOught it rather retnateire to take
they should not have gone out of the House, because
any proceedingt with respect to the letters, until they
;
did she come to your house ? A. In October 1807. whatever the Committee , might think; the public I were actually in possession of the tionse, which Or-
Q. How long did she stay ?A. Till the '2sth June might suppose that they would not come back Again I taitily they were not as yet.
following.—Q. When she came did she represent exactly in the sante state as before. (A cry of NO ! l Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST thought thi tut-
herself as it married woman or a widow? A. As a No! No!)
The Committee had the authority of the gettion niade by the Noble Lord (Porchester) the
widow.—Q. During her continuance there did she person who Poisessed the letters that they contained hest to obviate every objection.
represent herself under any other character ? A. As matter relative to this enquiry. In eiamining the •- Mr. Secretary CANNING observed, that the ob..
married to Mr. Dewlen—Q. Did Dowlen come to disgusting transactions that had been exposed at the jection of the Noble Lord to a Cornthittee, Was done
her ?A. Yes:—Q. On that occasion did the repro: Varithey had done a great many things that might i away by the ecnisideration, that the object of that
sent hersilf as his wife ?A. Yes.—Q. What reason injure the feelings of individuals ; and if we were to 1 Committee would be not to select what was proper,did she assign for retaining the name bf Clarke ?A: stop now upon such a pretence, the public would • but to discard whit was wholly. irreleiant.
She said, that if the Duke of York knew she was imagine that it was for no very proper reason: There , Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY was for the Chnnit-
Married to Mr. Dowler, he would send him abroad: was no alternative now but complete publicity ; and, tee, if it was so constituted that nothing in those let-
Q. Was Mr. Dowlet there frequently ? A. Yes, very it these letters were concealed, the circumstance would trs could be kept from the Hotae,thatzeny Member
frequently. . tell tenfold against him whin it might be intended to , oc that Committee was of opinion was relevant to the
Mr, WAnDLE riot being in his plate, the cross-era- protect.l pie ;eat inquiry:
mination was conchtcted by Lord FOLtESTONE. Mr. WHITBREAD said that it was incumbent 1 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUZR
Q. In what way did she represent herself .as a wi- upon the Committee to put his Honourable Friend then proposer', that a Ciinmittee should be appointed
clow, and when? A. Three months after the tame (Mx. Wardle) in the same situation as if he had got to examine these lettrtS, and select such as appear, tv
she told me her husband died three years ago.—Q. Vie letters upbti the receipt of Mrs. Clarke. In. that the Comthittee, or to any one of then, relevant to the
When did she tell you she Was married to Dowler ? case he would be enabled to ptodUce such as he found inquiry now beforg the House.
A. Soon after Dowler .carne to Hampstead ; soon material, and he certainly would not withhold any i Mr. WILLIAMS' WYNNE:and Mt. SANKES
after the expedition returned from Buenos Ayres., thing of that nature. The House *as bound to put I objected to any Committee so constituted; as being
Q. Did she go by the slime of Dowler ?A. No.— this confidence in him. I alt ether ut4xecedented, • , .
Q. Did yeu believe was wife ?A. Yes.-Q. . The c.kiAticgtejLolt. of the 4ECCIXTiQvgII,I,... bk: Ra4o;r4y, 44,.tliat it the COiiiinient
Did he always . sleep in Aka -helmet lies. Q• aservely tliat there was sio piObibirity *that aie Iv' iv: ol tfie‘chaYges now-hada thVnetttitt Wear siitatie
, ,

a n
47:cover to whom .5-t it;
.J that Mr. Hebden was•the
' ,
and, after some
::•iIl allow me to state My s
•
of this Gentleman, when t
,ccefted the money, hilt we
That is all that passed c
j eras M. Clarke never znenti
• this or any similar tram
•cnt 13
".llll‘. not.
Q: (By Mr. DieKENso.v.) 'Did
Duke of York the affair of H
A yes, I diu indeed, :and. to st
the advice of Counsel as to
take.—Q. What did the Du
you communicated this htisi
'care ti that I should scrutinize
; and, let the guilt fall on w
weuhl make an example of titer
•0. (Dy Mr. W. ARDLA. ) Do yi
the transaction, Mr. Frome I
Greenwood ? A. Ho. I c
7" An:.. hay
rc•pecting the
Colonel Brooke, one
.I.:.inote upon it. How did that
- Commidre indulge me with
Fad era --Oa looking over the Pape
cmtinued—As the papers are print
.intelligible to me. When I rec
flaid them before the Command,
ceiv,4 xis pleasure upon them. I
fiat not 2 in pencil was mane
Lorraine, can't be acceded to—l
dai not approve of the exchange
segnent to this, hoWever, inquirie
vices of Colonel Brooke were hi
of these ;ncrairies was such as to i
eve again before the Commander
on that occasion that the second v
.11,1 e.—Q. Is it usual to make
v.es, they are, sometimes made in
;ties in ink.
Q. (By Mr. WRITIiFIkAD.) V
with Mr. Frome, 'or did you kne
!ituatien he *as in previods to
!Lire mentioned ? A. I knew him
broker to a great extent, and ont
ct-ptrsons agaihst whom I wa.
JYd you, in conseQuence of that I
steps to prevent Mr. Frome frbtr
tnv transactions of agencies fc
don't understand that he was eve
sat: any business for the ainly, '
thing I could do, an army br
art-
By the CP_AI;4CELLOR of am
Q. Was it not in consequence
tr...,,,te by you, that the circular
the officers of the army, and .t 1
Sato the mutiny act ? A. The
written pre/ions to the transact;
alluded, but the introduction of
mutiny act was subsequent to
that co redress was otherwise to
;2. (By Mr. Willr.DLE.) Wa:
the exchange between Colonel:
vas not approved of by the C
A.. Certainly ; and a letter w;
Knight or Colonel Brooke, co:
cumstmce. Q. Through will
arpers in your office, was San
to zit rnsigncy in the 16th Foe
recommendation of Lietitenatit
Artillery. I have the lettet ivi
IL:c Colonel Goitnos: read I
" Royal Laboratort
" My it please your kwyal Highi
gccr Re7al Highness has ever testifi
tir :o make skis application. It is in
g•-1::h whom I have brought up to hi'
.I',lAy I be permitt'eti to solicit)
7.:7 be appointed to the first vacant I
tat ?resumr tic n to make this request
!rat :ny long wrviets will have son
F..ghnetz. i am, &c.
• " Your Royal S
Q. 1)3 you recollect when
tented ? A. I have here tlit
L ‘ST,ten, in answer to the .notif
March 29, 1804. Q. Does.
that Lieutenant SUtton is
lo,ked at these papetS, I (Ed
c..er in existence. I haVe ht
f it usual for young. /
veers oil the ComMander rn
it ar_ appOinted ? A. That di
::7Carn t lies.
.0 A ktter, dated 7th April,
0
stated, that the Corn
1,. t-.r in his power at that time
tt .Jmmendation of LieUtenani
s. n-17....c of Mr, Samuel Carte:
7S, Ate there many rccon
: there are, I d;
,j:!1 2e at present. Q. Was
ch ...7nitildation of Samtiel C
;cr. 4.itr notice whatever on the
tilt • t; When a tenttn:nenclatio:
. ::..necessary to repeat it, aft
•.
se; icy are generally followec]
p;::::.•)11 applying.
ieli Lord FOI. KESTON
tit',t 1r~rnitllsslnn? A.
en; •,.;
• -Ist Airch; 1804
()of
between Colonels Br
tea 1...74:nel Knight applied to
but t? A. Ye s.-._o, Art
:Atte p—atiou in the Office ? A. ,
;ply c;:t- witness hear the name
the R."•,_;:rntni, Hector Stray ?
u!,e, y means of asi.ertaitting i
yoU fl • r ir.,tnt ? A. Not here
?-- •. talc •
witness born
en-"t t; 1 have the hunt
iced ,t ,
rnly ( • ('1
a' • t Alderman CoN
7: litbd..in interfered,
after . PA:mastership ? A.
of.
I: nit for:ibly at the ti
ie 01 (_.tr. he produce the do
pollol- iit with great pleas
a
niler . • .. ordc: to that efrec
r )
ou-,:FtETARI
roll; 5 . coalition are Payma
"' L:unmended by the