TENTH DAY.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17.

List of Witnesses examined.

COLONEL GORDON.

GENERAL BROWNRIGG.

MR. ANDREW DICKIE.

MAJOR GEN, ALEX. HOPE (a Member.)

W. ADAM, Esq. (a member.)

MR. BENJAMIN TOWN,

MR. JAMES BREWER.

MRS. MARY ANN CLARKE.

CAPTAIN HUXLEY SANDON.

Mr. WHARTON in the Chair.

Mr. Adam said, that he wished some of the maids should be summoned who attended Mrs. Clarke in Gloucester-place, to prove whether they saw the list of recommendations of officers which Mrs. Clarke said she was in the habit of pinning up at the head of her bed, and which the Duke of York used to take down every morning. He thought they should, to be examined on this point.

Mr. Whitbread said it would be to no purpose, as no doubt the maids would say they never saw it in the morning, and Mrs. Clarke would say she never pinned it up till night.

Mr. Wharton stated to the Committee, that he, as their Chairman, had received a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Tucker on the subject of this inquiry, which he would be leave to read to the Committee:

SIRS

"Edinburgh.

"I have learned with extreme regret, that the name of my much lamented bro her has been introduced into the inquiry now pending before the House of Commons, as aving obtained his promotion in the army through the ndue influence of Mrs. Clarke. I have to state to you,

that my brother was advanced in consequence of his ser vices in India, under Lord Cornwallis, and obtained a brevet rank, by his exertions in the Egyptian expedition under Sir David Baird; he obtained an effective majority on account of his zeal at Corunna, ere he met his fate, I have no doubt there are many officers, members of the House, who both know and will speak to his merit. With respect to myself, I have to say, I have obtained all my commissions, except my Ensigncy and Lieutenancy, by gradual advancement. I have served in many expedi tions, and hope I have merited my Sovereign's favours by my services. You, Sir, will have the goodness to oblige me by giving this letter all the publicity in your power. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your's, &c. "G. TUCKER.”

Sir A. Wellesley rose for the purpose of paying a just tribute to the talents and services of the officer in question. He had known him particularly well in Portugal, and certainly esteemed him a very meritorious officer. He was the more willing to state this, as he had many communications with the officer's family; and he believed, that at the time Colonel Tucker was about to be promoted, several applications had been made to him offering him advancement, by money-brokers, which that officer spurned at with becoming contempt. He knew that Colonel Tucker got his promotions properly, and all by brevet rank. Hear!)

Lord Temple was happy to add his mite to the applause of the gallant General as to the brother who had fallen, and he was sure the same justice would be done to the living brother. He would move that the leter should be entered on the minutes,

Sir Thomas Turton objected to the letters being entered on the minutes, as it could not possibly be evidence.

Mr. Sturges Bourne said, that one serious charge (that of Colonel French) was entirely grounded on similar evidence.

Lord Temple thought that if the writing was first proved the difficulty would be done away.

This was deferred until some person was to be found who could prove the writing.

Mr. Wardle wished here to read a letter which he had received from Miss Taylor relative to her testimony:"Sir-Mrs. Hovenden has chosen to draw some inferences unfavourable to me in her evidence. I have only

to say, that she visited me once at Bayswater and once at Dalby Terrace. She has said she would not place her daughter under my care. I do not know whether she would do that or not: but I know she sent her niece, of the age of 14 years, on a visit to me.

(Signed) "ANNE TAYLOR."

Mr. Wardle did not desire this to be placed upon the minutes.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer wished now that some person should be called forward to prove the Duke of York's writing.

Lord Folkestone said, that he heard Mrs. Clarke had various letters now to produce with seal unbroken, similar to that which was appended to the private note of the Duke of York, which was found in the bureau of Captain Sandon.

Mr. Yorke said, the only reason why he had asked about the unbroken seal was, that if the writing had been forged, there would be no difficulty in forging the seal.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no objection, if it was thought necessary, to confirm the testimony of Mrs. Clarke.

Mr. W. Smith wished to know, whether the honourable member intended to found any proceeding upon the letter of Miss Taylor; he thought her case was a peculiarly hard one; he did not see why any shadow of disgrace should attach to her (cries of Hear! and Order!). Ishould imagine (said Mr. Smith) that when any man rises in this house to advocate the cause of an unprotected female, he should be suffered to proceed,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the honourable gentleman was proceeding in a disorderly course. If he thought Miss Taylor had been treated severely, he should have noticed it at the time, and not now, after such an interval: if this proceeding was allowed, the consequence would be, that those who were accused must defend themselves, and thus the time of the House would be wasted.

Mr. Smith thought that the time of Miss Taylor's letter being read was the most proper for him to make his remark on the subject, and he only wished to know whether any proceeding was intended to be founded on her letter: however, as the House did, not seem inclined to entertain the subject, he was not anxious to press it.

COLONEL GORDON was called-in, and examined by the Com mittee, as follows:

I need not ask you whether you are acquainted with the Duke of York's hand-writing? I certainly am.

Look at that paper, [the short note spoken to by Mrs, Clarke last night] the outside and the inside. [Colonel Gordon looked at the letter.] I have formed my opinion upon it.

State to the Committee your opinion. The utmost I can say is, that it bears a very strong resemblance to his Royal Highness's hand-writing; but whether it is or is not I cannot take upon myself to say.

You speak to the inside of the note, when you made that observation? To both inside and outside.

Have you any reason to doubt that it is the Duke's hand-writing? I donot think that I can, consistently with my own honour, give a stronger opinion than that which I have already given.

Are those letters the hand-writing of the Duke of York? I think that is the hand-writing of the Duke of York; a letter respecting General Clavering] I am of the same opinion with respect to the other.

I observe that you gave your opinion with respect to the first letter, on a comparison with other papers in your possession, and that you did not compare the two last letters that were shewn to you with those other papers; for what reason did you make the comparison in the one case and not in the other? The papers with which I compared the first scrap of writing, were letters that I have received from the Duke of York in 1804, 1803, 1806, 1807 and 1808, which convinced me that the Duke of York varies very little in his hand-writing; I thought it necessary to make a very accurate comparison of the first paper, when so small a scrap of writing was produced to ine, and I found that that scrap of writing, as I said before, bore a strong resemblance to the Duke of York's hand-writing; in looking over the two last letters, each of which contained two or three pages of writing, I thought it quite unnecessary to make any such comparison.

Was the opinion which you formed with respect to that writing on that scrap of paper, formed in consequence of your knowledge of the Duke of York's writing, or merely from the comparison which you made? From both.

If a letter of the same hand-writing, as that which you call the scrap of paper, had been addressed to you, and received by you, should you have hesitated to act upon it? I observe that scrap of paper had no signature affixed to it, I therefore would not act upon it.

If that scrap of paper had had the Duke of York's signature affixed to it, would you have acted upon it? If that scrap of paper had had the signature of the Duke of York affixed to it, I would have acted upon it.

If, in the same hand in which that scrap of paper is written, there had been the signature of Frederick, of the same hand-writing, would you have acted upon it? Unless I saw the hand-writing in which Frederick was written, I cannot possibly answer that question. [The witness was directed to withdraw.

General BROWNRICG was called in and examined by the Com mittee as follows:

Look at that paper which will be put into your hand, [the short note and say, whether your believe it to be the writing of the Duke of York. Have you formed any opinion of that hand-writing? I think it resembles the Duke of York's hand writing; but I cannot positively say it is his hand-writing. The letter respecting General Clavering being shewn to General Brownrigg] This is certainly like the Duke of York's hand-writing, that I have now looked at; but I do not think the address is; the address is not like his Royal Highness's 1 writing.

Do you believe it is his hand-writing? It is so like his hand-writing, that I should conclude it is; I speak of the letter, dated Sandgate, • August, 24, 1804. [The other letter produced by Mrs. Clarke was shewn to General Brownrigg] This letter is also like the Duke of York's writing.

What is your opinion upon it; do you believe that to be his writing? I do believe it to be his hand-writing; it is so like it, that I conclude it to be his writing; and this letter, dated the 4th of August, 1805, is not at all like his hand-writing; I should not suppose it is.

Look at the short note; look over leaf; what is your opinion of that; what do you believe respecting that? My opinion is, that it is not so like the Duke of York's hand-writing as the others; it does not resemble the Duke of York's hand-writing in the same degree that the others do; there certainly does appear to me a similarity between the Duke's writing and this; yet I cannot speak so positively as to its being his writing as I do to the others; I cannot speak so decidedly.

Is the direction of that note more or less like the Duke of York's hand-writing than the direction of the other notes you speak to I think it is more like it; I think the address appears to be written in the same hand as the inside; the address is written in a better hand, it is written fairer and more distinctly.

From your observation of the hand-writing of the short note do you or do you not believe it to be the hand-writing of his Royal Highness? I certainly do not believe it to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York, that is to say, I could not swear it was the Duke of York's hand-writing.

If the Duke of York's signature had been to that note, would you have acted upon it? I really think I should, looking at it cursorily, as I should in reading a short note from the Duke of York, and without having any suspicion that it could not be the Duke of York's handwriting, I'very probably should have acted upon it, if his signature had been to it.

In this case, what gave you any suspicion that that could not be the Duke of York's writing? Because I happened to be in the House of Commons last night, and heard this note inade a matter of question in the House: that is my reason.

Are the Committee to understand, that you do not believe that note to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York? I can only repeat what