of any one of them; but must, from merely viewing the signature, say positively whether they were her's or not. It would seem rather hard she should not have been allowed to see whether any alterations or interpolations had been made in any of them, but from solely the name at the bottom, should be obliged to allow they were her's. He knew very well the Committee had decided by their proceedings that they were not be confined within the strict rules respecting evidence, by which the courts of law regulated themselves; but having made this allowance to Colonel Gordon, he must throw it out for the con sideration of the Committee, whether having already committed impropriety would justify them in adding to those improprieties, by allowing a witness to be examined, who could only speak upon the writing of a person whom he had never seen write; a practice which certainly would not be allowed in the courts below. Under these circumstances, he wished the Committee to pause before they determined, for it seemed to him to be of such importance, that if a vote should take place on it, he should give his against the witness being admitted.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that this objection of the honourable gentleman ought to have been made when the subject was first introduced to the notice of the Committee; for when it had been decided that such evidence should be resorted to, it seemed rather hard that any opposition should now be made to it. He supposed, however, the honourable gentleman left the House the other night before the subject was mentioned in the Committee. In the course of the last night's discussion on this inquiry, an honourable member under the gallery had observed, that having carefully compared the note with the two letters which had been actually proved to be the Duke's hand-writing, the letters in the note appeared to him, from their formation, to be more like an imitation of letters than a regular hand-writing. On this it was thought necessary that the information should be attended to, and followed up as accurately as possible; and as it would be altogether out of the power of all the members of that House to examine the papers so minutely as to form a decision on the point, it was thought most adviseable to apply to four or five persons of the Post-office and the Bank, who were in the use and habit of investigating such points in cases of life and death. If these letters and

note were only to be submitted to a jury of twelve men, they might all of them examine all the letters so minutely, as to decide the point by themselves; but in so great a number as the members of that House, such an examination would be absolutely impossible. Such a proceeding had been allowed in a trial at bar by four judges, sitting in solemn decision in the Court of King's Bench; but in one case, that decision had been denied to be law by one judge at Nisi Prius. The present proceeding, as he observed before, had been adopted the other night; and though it might not fall in with the observations of the honourable gentleman on the subject, it was somewhat hard the witness should now be objected to, after it had previously been agreed upon that he should be examined, and that he had been sent for accordingly.

As to the observation of the honourable gentleman, viz. that it seemed as if the Committee were inclined to give indulgence on one side and not on the other, he thought it was by no means the case. In one instance a person was called to examine a hand-writing that was not his own, and in the other, a writing that was her own. If there had been any irregularity, it was in having admitted Colonel Gordon's evidence, but none in Mrs. Clarke's; for if any thing should arise in the course of the letters produced to the injury of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, she would be allowed to have an examination of such parts, and if any alterations and interpolations had been made, she would be able to detect and point them out. From the mode adopted by the Speaker, he was equally ignorant of the evidence this witness would give as the houourable gentlemen was or any other person whatever; but he thought as he had been called upon by the Committee to make the examination, and had done so, he ought to be permitted to give his evidence on the subject, be it whatever it might.

Mr. Whitbread said, he saw no difference between a jury and the members of that House, as he thought no member would give his judgment without having examined the papers carefully with his own eyes, and after he had so done, he believed there was not a member who would not give his opinion in preference to his own eyesight, before that of this witness, or any other who formed his judgment from the same basis.

Lord Folkestone said he came prepared to make the

same objection, in which he had been anticipated by the honourable gentleman below him; and he must observe generally, as to this kind of evidence, that whenever it had been resorted to, it was always in the case of its being the best evidence that could be obtained on the subject. Mrs. Clarke had given a direct testimony, and if gentlemen would seriously and carefully attend to the whole of her evidence, it would appear to be as correct, fair and honourable a testimony as could be given. Four gentlemen of honour had been examined on the point in question, who all agreed that it was so like the Duke of York's hand-writing, that they believed it to be his. (A cry of no! no!)

With respect to the doctrine of being allowed to prove any thing by a comparison of hands, the last case which had been determined on the subject, was at Maidstone. It was that of Jackson v. Cator, for a libel; and Mr. Garrow, for the plaintiff, called evidence such as this to prove that the libel was written in a feigned or suppo sitious hand, and that there was a similarity between this feigned hand and that of the defendant Cator. The noble Lord then read an extract from the speech of Lord Ellenborough, who was then Attorney-general, and counsel for the defendant, by which it appeared, that he said he was not desiring the court not to go the length of judges in the worst of times, but only the judges who were then administering the laws of the land. He referred to the case of Revett and Braham, which had been quoted by the right honourable gentleman opposite, being the trial at bar he had mentioned, and shewed that that case had afterwards been reversed by Lord Kenyon. The witness was asked whether he could say the libel was like the hand-writing of Cator, but Lord Kenyon would not allow him to answer the question, because, he said, that comparison of hands was no evidence. And in a similar case, which came to be heard before Mr. Justice Yates, that most upright and learned judge held expressly the same doctrine, and said he did not know any case where com parison of hands could be admitted. In an indictment. for forgery, a person who had seen the party write might be admitted to prove it, but not by a comparison on a similarity of hands. There was also submitted by Lord Ellenborough to the court, the case of the seven bishops, in which Chief Justice Jefferys and another judge were

willing to receive such evidence, and Mr. Justice Powell and another were against it, which shewed that the lawyers even of that day never thought it right to prove forgery by a comparison of hands, Mr. Baron Hotham's decision in the case of Jackson and Cator, and in which he rejected the doctrine laid down in Revett and Braham, was an authority which compelled him to acquiesce entirely in the opinion of that learned judge. The solicitor for the plaintiff, in the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to take down a host of inspectors from the Post-office, to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The defendant was prepared with another host of inspectors from the Bank, who would have proved the direct contrary. This statement had been made to him by the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of great hon pur and credit in his profession, and shewed how very great the difference of opinions was, with regard to the comparison of hands. He would therefore entreat the Committee to weigh well the matter, before they allowed such evidence to be called to the bar.

Mr. Beresford said a few words, in favour of the witness being called in.

Mr. W. Smith said, that having given his opinion in favour of the proceeding on the last night of the inquiry, he should certainly maintain it then, though in direct opposition to that of his hon. friend and the noble Lord, with whom he was generally in the habit of voting. The subject, indeed, divided itself into more branches than he was inclined to enter upon at that moment, but he could not help offering a few observations on it. He was sorry the mode of examining witnesses on oath had not been adopted, as he thought this House ought to examine on oath as well as the other, and he believed the custom had obtained in the other House from the circumstance of their being more frequently used to act in judicial capacity. As it was, the House must now proceed in the way that it set out with. There appeared to him great con fusion in the manner of arguing the subject. The first question in these cases, generally was, have you seen the party write? and in answering this the witness did not give his opinion on having seen the party write, but on what he had written, which is merely matter of opinion from comparison of the hand-writing. That this, how ever, was, after all, a very uncertain mode of proceeding

he was ready to admit. This had to him been strongly exemplified in a case which occurred in that House a few nights ago. An honourable gentleman had been examined as to the hand-writing of Sir Horace Mann, who had on that occasion said, that the first paper produced to him was the writing of Sir Horace, and the second was not. He (Mr. Smith) had carefully and minutely examined both, and though he had never seen Sir H. Mann write, from the first paper being allowed by the honourable member without any doubt, to be the hand-writing of Sir Horace Mann, he (Mr. Smith) should have felt no doubt the second was also; with no other difference, than that the one had been written with what is generally called a better pen. As to the gentlemen who had been called to prove the Duke of York's hand-writing, they had done themselves honour on the occasion, by the great caution with which they had given their evidence. If the House had strictly adhered to the rules adopted by the courts of law, he would allow they should confine themselves to it: but having once taken a greater latitude, they ought not to permit themselves to be circumscribed, and therefore he thought that Col. Gordon's comparison of hands was not liable to the objection his honourable friend had made to it. As to Mrs. Clarke, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had well observed, that if any alterations or interpolations had taken place, she might be allowed to correct them. He could not, therefore, but think it right that the witnesses should be examined as to the comparison of hands.

Mr. Bragge Bathurst said, that as this point had been objected to, it behoved them to look well to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought. They might set up technical or legal proofs to bar such a mode of proceeding; but this case was nothing like what is so called in courts of law. As to Mrs. Clarke, he should give no opinion on her evidence. He should not follow the example of the noble lord who had panegyrized the lady on the occasion, because he thought it was premature to do so at present. As to the others there was not one of them but General Brownrigg to whom a legal question had been put, and that question he had answered so as to deny that it was, in his opinion, the hand-writing of the Duke of York. So far, therefore, from the fact being absolutely prored, there is still a doubt, it stands at pre