now most solemnly do, that it was my intention to give to this hon. house the fullest and most direct testimony. The first question in which I find myself to have been mistaken was relative to any conversation which I ever had with Mrs. Clarke upon military promotions. I do assure this committee, that I understood from the interrogatory that personal communications were alone intended by that questiou, to the total exclusion of any epistolary correspondence. The second question was as to my opinion of the influence exercised by Mrs. C, for the promotion of other officers. I did give as my opinion that I knew not of such interference on her part, at the same time that I considered the question directed to others, and not at all to myself!

The letters produced by Mrs. Clarke as Gen. Clavering's were then handed to the witness, who admitted the hand-writing.

Examined by Mr. Ward.

Q. Did you in your former answer relative to the influence of Mrs. Clarke over his royal highness in the distributions of military promotions, conceive that its application in your own favour was excluded from your attention? A. Certainly I did.

By Mr. Whitbreud.

Q. Did you or did you not ask Mrs. Clarke to exert herself in your favour with the commander in chief? A. I did, -Q. Had it any effect? A. I believe not. -Q. Did you obtain what you wished? A. I beg leave to say that I had made two applications to Mrs. Clarke, the first she did not nor could not accomplish, the second I did obtain, but not through her influence.-Q. What was the second application which you obtained by other influence than that of Mrs. Clarke's to whom you originally applied? A. It was an application that could not be denied.-Q. Why then apply to Mrs. Clarke?-A. If permitted to state the particular circumstances the committee will best understand. In 1803, I was appointed an inspecting field officer; shortly after, by Brevet, I was, with others Gazetted a brigadier general. In a fort

night subsequent a notico issued from the war office, changing the appointcolonel, I did then write to Mrs. Clarke, ment from brigadier general to brigadier

to discover the reason of the alteration.

She replied, that it was a mistake, and I was soon after restored to my former appointment.-Q. How came you to apply to Mrs. Clarke for an interpretation of a war office regulation, and not at the office of the commander in chief?

sible situations in that office could not -A. I knew that persons holding ostenconsistently give the information which I wanted.-Q. What grounds had you for believing that, by an application to Mrs.Clarke, you would obtain, from that source, information which the osten

sible offers in the commander in chief's office would be reprehensible in granting? A. I did suppose she was informed of what passed at the war office, and I had reason to believe that she would afford it to me -Q. What was that reaSon?-A. I found her on all occasions

extremely communicative.-Q. From what source did she obtain the means of such communications ?-A. I suppose from the commander in chief!-Q. How can you reconcile your last answer with your previous statement, that you believed Mrs. Clarke had no influence over the mind of the commander in chief?-A: I believe my previous answer referred to the distribution of military promotions.-Q. Which of your two applications were successful, whether through Mrs. Clarke or any person?-A. Neither. -Q. What was the first application you ever made to Mrs. Clarke?-A. My first letter was to obtain leave from his royal highness to raise a regiment of such men as I could obtain voluntarily from the militia. Having heard of Mrs. Clarke's great influence in military promotions, I did

other

state to her that she should receive ONE THOUSAND POUNDS, upon effecting the appointment!-Q. Did you in point of fact obtain leave to raise that regiment?

A. No; Mrs. C. wrote me in answer, that his royal highness scouted the idea; and I from this communication doubted the extent of her influence on his mind.

Q. How came you when your first application was scouted, and when you were of opinion that Mrs. Clarke had no influence, to prefer a request through the same chanuel? A. I beg leave to revert to my former answer, that I believed she had no influence in the dis

tribution of military promotions, although I was aware that it was very probable to acquire correct military information from her.-Q. Would you, by applying to the ostensible officers on. the change in your appointment, have obtained the information you sought? A. I should not, I conceive, nor would I have applied, feeling it improper. -Q. Why then make applications to Mrs. Clarke, which the ostensible officers of the horse guards would not receive, and which you felt it improper to submit? A. There is, in my opinion, a great distinction between an application to a lady of the description of Mrs. Clarke, and one to officers placed in responsible situations.-Q. What is your reason for supposing that information communicated to Mrs. Clarke, which would have been refused to military officers?-A. I am of opinion that by her influence over the commander in chief, she could obtain any information! -Q. Did you, after the offer of 10001. make any other? A. Positively not.-Q. The witness has stated, in his previous evidence, that he was a voluntary witness-How can he reconcile it with his present statement, that to appear at the bar was the furthest thing from his wishes?-A. Mr. Lowten directed it urgently, and I at length ac

was

ceded to his wishes.-Q. Did Mr. Lowten state his reasons for putting you forward, instead of a summons in the usual way?-A. Nothing more than I have stated.-Q. Did you apply for that promotion directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clarke?-A. The first information I received of the brigadier generals being about to be appointed, was about a month before the Gazette, from her. -Q. Was it told you by her as a secret? A. She communicated it to me by letter, but no secrecy was required. The witness was ordered to withdraw. Mr. W. Wynne observed, that it was in the recollection of the house how anxious he felt to give the hon. General an opportunity of the fullest explanation. He had to regret that no such object had been pursued, but that the witness degraded his character by gross prevarication. Therefore, although a painful duty, he would not shrink from it, but conclude with moving, that General Clavering had been guilty of

racter.

After some conversation Mr. Wynne agreed to postpone his motion. Mr. Greenwood and Col. Gordon were again examined, as was Mr. Adam, who corroborated his former posed to be destroyed by Capt. Sanstatement respecting the note supdon.-The Duke of York said he had never written such a note. That he had never written to Mrs. Clarke on military matters at all.

Mr. Towne, the velvet painter, was then called in, and examined by Sir T. Turton and Lord Folke stone, when it was suggested that he had formerly passed under the name of Lyons; and several other circum. stances occurred, tending to invali date the testimony of the witness.

Mr. Parker, the pawnbroker, was questioned as to goods pawned by Mis. Clarke, and bills discounted; which he admitted, and said the bills were ultimately paid by a draft of the Duke of York.

Mr. Adam took occasion to call for the correction of a part of his evidence. He had stated that the Duke of York had said to him, that his royal highness had not recollec•

ted to have ever written to Mrs. C. upon military matters, and that if he did, it was very rarely! Omitting the last sentence, he observed that his testimony was correct.

Examined by Lord Folkestone.

Q. Did the Duke of York state to you that he never wrote to Mrs. C. upon military matters? A. His royal highness did certainly state to me, that he never wrote to her upon mihtary matters, unless in answer to some questions in a letter from her upon that subject! His royal highness said to me, that Mrs. Clarke did propose to him something with regard to military promotions, early after his acquaintance with her, but his royal highness told her that he could not listen to such a proposıtion, and he never afterwards heard any thing more of it.

In consequence of Mrs. Clarke's illness, the committee deferred its proceedings until Wednesday.

Tuesday, Feb. 21.

John Annesley Shee was ordered to be taken into custody of the Serjeant at Arms for prevaricating in his evidence before a select committee on India affairs.

Lord H. Petty rose to call the attention of the house to the late cam paign in Portugal. His lordship, in a speech of considerable length, and with no small portion of elegance, recapitulated the events which had taken place in that country down to the convention of Cintra, the whole blame of which he insisted rested upon ministers; and concluded with moving-1st. "That the armistice of the 30th of August, and convention of Sept. 1808, have disappointed the hopes and expectations of the nation:"-And 2dly, "That the conduct of ministers, as connected with them, was deserving of the censure of the house."-Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval replied. -General Tarleton, Mr. Windham, Mr. Whitbread, and Col. Hutchinson, supported the motion. Mr. Canning

spoke against the principle of the convention, and Mr. Yorke declared himself hostile to the resolutions.→→ The house then divided,-For the previous question 203; against it 153. Majority for ministers 50.

Wednesday, Feb. 22.

The house resolved itself into a committee of supply, to which the several estimates for the service of Ireland were referred.

The investigation of the Duke of York's conduct was then resumed. Col. Hamilton was first examined, but there was nothing material in his evidence. Being interrogated whether he believed the note found in the possession of Capt. Sandon to be the hand writing of the Duke of York, he answered to the best of his judgment it was.

Mrs. Clarke was called in, and being ill, a chair was ordered. Mr. Perceval desired a letter should be shewn to Mrs. Clarke, and asked if she recollected having received this letter from his royal highness. Having inquired if she might read the letter, and having afterwards perused it, she said she did not recollect any thing about it. She added I have been looking over my papers for the notes he sent me on that day, but could not find them. I know he sent me one himself, and one of Mr. Greenwood's writing. On being farther interrogated, the letter which she received from the Duke of York, she said, she understood was copied by his royal highness from Mr. Greenwood's writing. They had been dining together when they made out this letter. On being asked who told her that Mr. Greenwood wrote the letter, and that the Duke copied it ? She replied his royal highness's servants told her servants. That she believes she burnt the letter; that she afterwards saw his royal highuess, at his house, that night, but he ran away from her. She said she had burnt many of his letters, but had still many in reserve. On being

further interrogated, said she seldom kept any thing that was unpleasant. She was asked by Mr. Charles Adams as follows:-Q. The witness had said, that she was accustomed to pin a list of those who wanted promotion to her bed-curtain, that his royal highness might see it-Did she abide by that statement? A. Yes, she did. She had other applications, but never attended to any but those she had thus pinned up.-Q. How long was she wont to keep the list there? A. On the second morning his royal highness turned up the curtain, and read it, and afterwards put it in his pocket-book; and she saw it again when he opened the book to look at other promotions, and observed the names of such as had been attended to marked out with a pen.-Q. Did it remain there the whole morning, or was it taken down ? Was it seen by any other except his royal highness? A. Perhaps it might have been seen by the maids-but perhaps they might not have been able to read them.-Q. Was she quite sure they were read by his royal highness? A. Yes, quite sure. He afterwards said to her, that he would do them one by one, by degrees-but that some time must intervene between each.

The witness also stated incidentally, that Gen. Clavering had, a few days ago, called on Mr. W. Ogilvie, and requested him to come down, and speak against her character. She had known Ogilvie for six years, but said she never lived (kept) with any man but the Duke of York, and during her intimacy with Ogilvie was under his protection, though generally unknown.-On being interrogated by Mr. Whitbread, it appeared that the witness had received a variety of notes from the Duke of a date subsequent to that of their separation; some of them were dated and some of them not, One or two, she believed, might be signed, but the Duke never signed any thing unless necessarily required.

She had only one note with her of this description, which was read by the clerk as follows:

"I send you enclosed the money you wished for your journey. I do not know what you mean: I have never authorised any body to trouble you, and therefore you may keep yourself perfectly easy on my ac count."

The witness having stated, that she had love letters from the Duke in her possession; Mr. Thompson wished to know if the Duke introduced any military or ecclesiastical subjects in these letters ?-The wit ness answered, that she had produced several of the letters, and they would speak for themselves.

Mr. Whitbread here observed, that as several letters were delivered by the witness, which appeared not to bear upon the case before the house, it was quite unnecessary, be thought, to overload the minutes with their contents, and as the witness had stated there was but one other letter in her possession appertaining to the subject, and which letter was then at her house, he should submit that those delivered in should be returned to her, and a messenger just sent with her to her house for that which was deposited there; not a messenger in company with her, but merely to go thither and receive it from her, for the purpose of its being laid on the table.

Mrs. Clarke said, that she would not give the house trouble, for on her arrival at home she would instantly send it by a servant of her own.

On being interrogated by Sir T. Turton, whether ever any conversation upon military matters arose in the presence of Miss Taylor when the Duke of York was in her company at Gloucester-place ?-She said she could not speak particularly as to any military matters; but his Royal Highness did not mind what he said before Miss Taylor, he was very fond of her.-The witness was