Duke, I believe, had expressed a desire to Mr. Perceval, should be brought before the public, that I had a right to exercise my discretion, in conjunction with Mr. Perceval, to bring it before the public at the time that, according to that discretion, we should think the best, meaning honestly and distinctly at all times to bring it before the House.

You have stated, that you thought that the purposes of justice would be best answered by not bringing this fact before the House sooner than it was brought; will you explain how the purposes of justice were likely to be best answered by the delay in bringing forward the circumstances respecting this note? I can only state how I think the purposes of justice would be best answered; I cannot be so presumptuous as to say that the purposes of justice were best answered, but in my opinion they were, because it brought this particular feature of the case distinctly, clearly, and unembarrassed, before the House; that if it had been mixed up in cross-examination, or brought forward in that shape, it neither would have appeared so distinct, nor have appeared so clearly the determination of the persons bringing it forward.

The Right Honourable SPENCER PERCEVAL, attending in his place, was examined by the Committee, as follows:

Have you heard the statement of the honourable gentleman lately under examination, and do you wish to add any thing to that statement? I am not quite certain that I heard the whole. If it is wished that I should state the motives that influenced my mind, not in keeping this back, but in not bringing it forward beiore, I conceived the case that was to be made against the Royal Duke was closed. When the communication was made to me, I thought at the first it was a very extraordinary circumstance; and when I found that the note was, as the witness represented it, destroyed, coupled with the direct assertion of the Royal Duke, that this note was a forgery, I thought it to be a forgery, and I determined to act upon the supposition of its being such, and upon that impression, and with a view the better to detect it, if it were so, I thought it better that all the witnesses that could in any degree have been concerned in that transaction, should have told their own tale to the Committee, before they were in any degree informed, by me at least, or by the course that we took, of our being in possession of any fact, or inclined to make use of the information we had of any fact; it might break in upon their own plan of narrating it to the Committee; if it had been a single case, instead of a variety of cases, that were brought before the Coinmittee, I apprehend that there could be no question; that on the part of the defence to that charge, those who interested themselves in the defence could not be called upon to produce any part of the evidence which they thought material, till they had the whole of the case that was to be brought against them laid before the Court; and considering how the whole of these cases are, by means of the same witnesses, more or less, being brought forward upon them all; considering from that circumstance how they were all connected, I conceived it would be better that this information should not be given till it was closed.

Was the introduction of this evidence settled, upon the supposition that the note was actually destroyed? Certainly my impression was, that the note was actually destroyed, and it was after that impression was conveyed to me, that the note was actually destroyed, that I concurred with my honourable and learned friend in thinking that it was equally necessary that fact should be brought before the Committee; and perhaps I might be permitted to add, that, feeling there was a considerable degree of awkwardness in the appearance of being backward to bring forward at the earliest period a fact so importaut as this fact was, we did think that our own honour would hardly be safe, unless we made a communication, not only of the fact, but of our determination to produce it in the manner in which we did.

WILLIAM ADAM, Esq. in his place, made a statement,

as follows:

It becomes unnecessary for me to state any thing in confirmation of what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think it right to state to the Committee, that the whole course of our conduct rested on a thorough conviction that the note was destroyed.

Mr. BENJAMIN TOWN was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

State to the Committee your name. Benjamin Town.

I presume, then, you are of the Jewish persuasion? I am.

You have stated on a former occasion, that in your transactions with Mrs. Clarke, she told you she could forge the Duke of York's name; are you aware that that word is applicable only to fraudulent transactions? That I cannot say.

Did you use it in that sense? No, I did not.

Did you, then, when you mentioned the word forge, only mean the word imitate? Those were her words, that she could forge the Duke's name, and she has done it, and she shewed it me immediately on a piece of paper.

Did you understand that word forge to mean imitate? Those were the words that she expressed.

Had you, before you gave your evidence here on a former occasion, read in the newspaper that part of Mrs. Clarke's evidence, wherein she spoke of you as a Jew, and said, perhaps you might have stolen a letter or two from her? I never saw the paper, nor never heard of

it.

Did you say that Mrs. Clarke had forged the Duke's hand-writing? She said she could, and she has done it; that she has forged the Duke's name, and she shewed it me on a piece of paper.

What is your name? Benjamin Town.

How long have you had that name? My father's name is Town. Does your father go by the name of Town? Yes.

How long has he gone by the name of Town?

know.

Have you never known him by any other? No.
Recollect yourself, No, I have not.

What is your father? He is a Jew.

That I do not

What is his trade? He is an artist, he teaches velvet-painting.

How long has he taught velvet-painting? Many years.

Do you remember your father carrying on any other trade but that of velvet-painting? That I do not know, he might; ladies have now and then, I suppose, asked him to recommend some jewellery to them, and I think he has sent different jewelleries to the ladies.

Did you ever know him go by the name of Lyons? No, never. I understood you to say, that Mrs. Clarke told you she could forge the Duke of York's hand, and that she actually forged his hand in your presence? She said that she could, and she has done it, and she shewed it to me on a piece of paper, and I could not tell the difference between the two.

How could you tell it was the Duke of York's hand-writing? I did not know, only as she told me.

What do you mean by forging? I do not know; those were her words; I only tell you what she told me.

Did you appear as a witness at the sessions at Clerkenwell? Yes, I did; it is a considerable time back.

Do you know Mr. Alley, a barrister, and recollect any such barrister at those sessions? Yes; he was, I believe, Mr. Smith's counsel. State whether any thing particular happened at that sessions with re gard to your evidence? I do not recollect.

Endeavour to recollect whether Mr. Alley, in that court, used any strong expressions to you? I do not recollect any; he said that I was a Jew, and that all the Jews ought to be punished, or something of that kind; he made use of some language which I cannot recollect.

Is any indictment now hanging over your head for perjury? No. Do you know of any proceedings? I know there is a proceeding, but I do not know upon what grounds; it is not against me; it is not belonging to me.

Are you sure that you are in no way connected with that proce ding? I do not know whether it is my sister or brother; I cannot tell which.

Are you sure you are no way implicated in or connected with that proceeding? No, I am not.

What is the proceeding, and against whom? It is so long since, I camot tell; there have been so many, and Mr. Smith has lost them all, that I cannot recollect what he is doing, or what he intends doing.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

WILLIAM ADAM, Esquire, made the following statement in

his place:

In my examination this evening, I have been asked whether his Royal Highness stated to me, that he had not corresponded with Mrs. Clarke upon military matters; in answer to which, I said, that his Royal Highness did not recollect ever having corresponded with her upon military matters; or, if he had, very rarely. The latter part of that answer is erroneous, and without that addition, "very rarely," the answer is correct.

Did the Duke of York state to you, that he did not recollect ever having written to Mrs. Clarke about any military business whatever? The Duke of York certainly stated to me, that he did not recollect to have written to Mrs. Clarke upon any military matters whatever. He

afterwards said, that if he had ever written to Mrs. Clarke upon any military matters whatever, it must have been merely in answer to some question put in some letter of her's; and his Royal Highness said expressly, that when she once stated something to him, early in their acquaintance, respecting a promotion in the army, he said, that was business that he could not listen to, and he never heard any thing more of it afterwards.

JOHN MESSENGER was called in, and examined by the
Committee, as follows:

What is your situation in life? I live with Mr. Parker.

What is he? A goldsmith.

Does he receive goods in pledge? He does.

He is a pawnbroker? He is.

Did Mrs. Clarke ever pledge any goods with Mr. Parker ? she did.

Yes,

Did Mrs. Clarke ever apply to Mr. Parker to discount any bills? Yes, she did.

Among the bills so discounted, were there any drawn by Mr. Dowler upon Mrs. Farquhar? Yes, there was one.

State the date of that bill, and the amount. The bill was dated on the 11th of June 1805, at two months after date.

What did the bill purport to be? For 3631. drawn by Dowler and accepted by Farquhar.

What is the Christian name of Dowler? I do not know.

What is the Christian name of Farquhar? I do not know; Mrs. Clarke has credit by bill of Dowler on Farquhar.

Did Mr. Parker discount that bill? He did.

Was it paid when it became due; No, it was not.

Did Mr. Dowler draw any other bills? No, I believe not, not to my knowledge; I do not perceive any other bill drawn by Dowler. Is there no other bill drawn by the name of Farquhar ? None drawn by Farquhar; there are others drawn by Mrs. Clarke, and accepted by Mrs. Farquhar.

Were those bills paid? No, not the day they were due, there was one for 100/. which we discounted for her on the 13th July 1805.

That was not paid when due? No; another on the 19th of September, drawn by Clarke on Farquhar at two months.

Was that paid when due? No; on the 27th of September we discounted another drawn by Clarke on Farquhar the 27th of September, at two months, for 1007.

Was that paid when due? No, I believe it was not; that is the whole that we discounted.

How were those bills taken up? We received on the 19th September a draft of the Duke of York's, dated on the 18th of January 1800, for 400/. dated forwards three months; it was due on the 18th February.

How were the others taken up? On the 4th December, we have credited her with a bill of Bell on Pritchard, for 100/.; another drawn by Bell on Millard, for 100/.

Were any others taken up by any draft or check of the Duke of York's? We received on the 10th of February 1806, a promissory note, drawn by the Duke of York, payable to Parker, dated on the 8th of February, at four months, for 2301.

Had Mr. Parker jewels or other property of Mrs. Clarke's, in his possession, as a security for those advances? Yes.

Were there any bills in 1805? The one for 400l. was taken in 1805.

Does your book state what pledge was redeemed by that bill in September 1805? It was discounted; no pledge was redeemed in September.

Did Mrs. Clarke deposit any goods in pledge, in the year 1805? That I do not recollect.

Does not your book state that? No.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Miss Taylor was called, but was not in attendance. Mr. Beresford wished to ask some questions respecting the post marks of the correspondence on the table; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that they should all be printed with the letters.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said that there were two witnesses necessary to be examined again; Mrs. Clarke for the purpose of giving evidence as to all her correspondence with the Duke of York, to the time of her separation from him; but as she would not be likely to be in readiness for attendance for a day or two, he thought the Committee had better adjourn till Wednesday.

The Committee adjourned accordingly; and the House was resumed, and progress reported.

Mr. Williams Wynne said that as soon as the names on the list were disposed of, he should take an early oppor tunity of bringing forward the prevarication of General Clavering.

. Captain Sandon was ordered to be remanded to Newgate.

[The following entry was read from the Gazette of September 4,

1804.

"48th regiment of foot, Lieutenant William Fry French to be captain, without purchase, vice Colquhoun, promoted in the 14th Battalion of reserve."

[The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 6th of October, 1804:]

"25th regiment of foot, Eusign Henry Crotty, from the 48th foot, to be lieutenant, without purchase."

[The Chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.]