Wednesday, February 1, 1809.

Mr. Secretary Canning presented to the house, pursuant to their Address to his Majesty, the following

NO. I.— Letter from Mr. Secretary Canning to Mr. Pinkney; dated Feb. 22, 1808.

I have already had the honour of assuring you in conversation, of the disposition which is felt by the British government to give due weight to the observations which you have made to me, respecting the unfavourable impressions likely, in your opinion, to be excited in the United States, by the duty proposed to be levied upon cotton destined for the use of the enemy, but brought into the ports of this country conformably to the tenor of the Orders of Council of the 1lth Nov. last. —You are already apprized, that the principle upon which the whole of this measure has been framed, is that of refusing to the enemy those advantages of commerce which he has forbidden to this country. The simple method of enforcing this system of retaliation would have been, to follow the example of the enemy, by prohibiting altogether all commercial intercourse between him and other states.—It was from consideration of indulgence to neutral trade, that the more mitigated

measure of permitting intercourse under the restraints and regulations of a duty in transitu was adopted; and being adopted with this view, it was not immediately felt by the British government, that there might be a distinction taken by neutral states, with respect to articles the produce of their own soil; and that, while the commutation of prohibition into duty was acknowledged as an indulgence when applied to articles of foreign commerce, of which they were only the carriers, it might be considered as an invidious imposition when applied to their own productions. The moment that this distinction had been explained to the British government, they have been desirous of manifesting every attention to it; and if you, sir, had been possessed of the necessary authority from your government, there would have been no difficulty in entering into a specific agreement with you upon the subject. In order, however, to obviate this objection in a great degree, I have the honour to inform you, that it is intended to be proposed to parliament, that all cotton brought into this country, in conformity to the Orders of Council, should be absolutely prohibited from being exported to the territories of the enemy. But as you are not prepared to take upon yourself to say, that in no case the option would be acceptable, an option will still be left to the neutral owner, either to acquiesce in the total prohibition, or to re-export the article on the payment of such a duty as parliament may judge it expedient to impose.—1 flatter myself, sir, that this alteration in the legislative regulations, by which the Orders of Council are intended to be carried into execution, will be considered by you as a satisfactory evidence of the disposition of his majesty's government to consult the feelings, as well as the interests, of the United States, in any manner which may not impair the effect of that measure of commercial restriction, to which the necessity of repelling the injustice of his enemies has obliged his majesty reluctantly to have recourse. I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) GEORGE CANNING.

No. II.— Note from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Secretary Canning; dated Feb. 23, 1808.

Mr. Pinkney presents his compliments to his excellency Mr. Canning, and has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of his Note of yesterday, relative to an alteration on the subject of cotton in the legislative regulations, by which the late Orders in Council are intended to be carried into execution, which Mr. Pinkney will hasten to transmit to his government. Mr. Pinkney requests Mr. Canning to accept. &c.

No. III. Letter from Mr. Erskine to James Madison, esq.; dated Washington, Feb. 23d 1808.

Sir, I have herewith the honour to transmit to you the copies of certain Orders of Council which his Majesty has thought proper to issue, in consequence of the hostile conduct of France towards the navigation and commerce of Great Britain and of neutral states.—His majesty has been induced hitherto to forbear recurring to measures of this nature, by the expectation that the governments of the neutral? states, who have been the objects of the French Decrees, would have been awakened to a just sense of what they owe to their interests and to their own rights, and would have interposed with effect either to prevent the execution of the French Decrees, or to procure their abrogation.—But his majesty having been disappointed in this just expectation, and perceiving that the neutral nations, so far from opposing any effectual resistance, have submitted to whatever regulations France may have prescribed for giving effect to her Decrees, can no longer refrain from having recourse to such measures as, by retorting on the enemy the inconveniences and evils produced by his injustice and violence, may afford the only remaining chance of putting an end to a system, the perseverance in which is not more injurious to his majesty's dominions than to nations not parties to the war between G. Britain and France.—The principle upon which his majesty finds himself compelled to proceed would justify a complete and unqualified retaliation, on his part, of the system announced and acted upon by France in respect to his majesty's dominions; and his majesty might therefore have declared in a state of rigorous and unmitigated blockade all the coasts and colonies of France and her allies. Such a measure, the maritime power of G. Britain would have enabled his majesty to enforce. Nor would those nations which have acquiesced, without effectual remonstrance, in the French Decree of Blockade, have derived any right from the more perfect execution of a corresponding determination, on the part of his majesty, to complain of his majesty's enforcing that measure, which the enemy has executed imperfectly only from want of the means of execution.—His majesty, actuated, however, by the same sentiments of moderation by which his majesty's conduct has been uniformly governed, has been desirous of alleviating, as much as possible, the inconveniences necessarily brought upon neutral nations by a state of things so unfavourable to the commercial intercourse of the world; and has therefore anxiously considered what modifications it would be practicable to apply to the principle upon which he is compelled to act, which would not, at the same time that they might afford relief from the pressure of that principle upon neutral or friendly nations, impede or enfeeble its operation upon the enemy.—In pursuance of this desire, the Order in Council, which, if it had ended with the sixth paragraph, would have been no more than a strict and justifiable retaliation for the French Decree of November 1806, proceeds, as you will observe, sir, to provide mainy material exceptions, which are calculated to qualify the operation of the Order upon neutral nations in general, but which must be considered most peculiarly favourable to the particular interest of the United States—It will not escape you, sir, that by this Order in Council, thus modified and regulated, the direct intercourse of the United States with the colonies of the enemy is unrestrained; an indulgence which, when it is considered to be (as it really is) not only a mitigation of that principle of just reprisal upon which the order itself is framed, but a deviation; in favour of the United States, from that ancient and established principle of maritime law, by which the intercourse with the colonies of an enemy, in time of war, is limited to the extent which that enemy was accustomed in time of peace to prescribe for it, and which, by reference to the conduct of France in time of peace, would amount to a complete interdiction, cannot fail to afford to the American government a proof of the amicable disposition of his majesty towards the United States.—You will observe also, sir, that the transportation of the colonial produce of the enemy from the United States to Europe, instead of being altogether prohibited (which would have been the natural retaliation for the rigorous and universal prohibition of British produce and manufactures by France) is freely permitted to the ports of G. Britain, with the power of subsequently re-exporting it to any part of Europe under certain regulations. The object of these regulations will be, the establishment of such a protecting duty as shall prevent the enemy from obtaining the produce of his own colonies at a cheaper rate than that of the colonies of G. Britain. In this duty it is evident that America is no otherwise concerned than as being to make an advance to that amount, for which it is in her own power amply to indemnify herself at the expence of the foreign consumer —Another most important relaxation of the principles upon which his majesty's Orders proceed, is that which licenses the importation of all flour and meal, and all grain, tobacco and other articles, the produce of the soil of America, with the exception of cotton, through the ports of his majesty's dominions into those of his enemies, with out the payment of any duty on the transit. This, sir, is, I beg leave to observe, an instance in which his majesty has deprived this measure of its most efficacious and hurtful operation against the enemy, through motives of consideration forthe interests of America.—The reason why his majesty could not feel himself at liberty, consistent with what was necessary for the execution of his purpose in any to lerable degree, to allow this relaxation to apply to cotton, is to be found in the great extent to which France has pushed the manufacture of that article, and the consequent embarrassment upon her trade, which a heavy impost upon cotton, as it passes through Great Britain to France,must necessarily produce.—I cannot refrain from calling the attention of the government of the United States to the contrast between the different modes in which his majesty's Orders and those of France are carried into execution. By his majesty's, the utmost consideration is manifested for the interests of those nations, whose commerce he is reluctantly compelled to impede, and ample time allowed for their becoming acquainted with the new regulations, and conforming to them; whereas France, without any previous notice, and without any interval, applies her Orders to trade already entered upon in ignorance of any such Orders, and subjects to condemnation ships, whose voyages, when commenced, were in strict conformity to all the regulations at that time promulgated by France.—Even with these, and other modifications, his majesty is not unaware that a measure, extorted from him by the injustice of the enemy, must inevitably produce inconveniences to the neutral parties who are affected by its operation. —The right of his majesty to resort to retaliation cannot be questioned. The sufferings occasioned to neutral parties are incidental, and not of his majesty's seeking.—In the exercise of this undoubted right, his majesty has studiously endeavoured to avoid aggravating, unnecessarily, the inconveniences suffered by the neutral.—And I am commanded by his majesty especially to represent to the government of the United States, the earnest desire of his majesty to see the commerce of the world restored once more to that freedom, which is necessary for its prosperity; and his readiness to abandon the system, which has been forced upon him, whenever the enemy shall retract the principles whieh have rendered it necessary. —But his majesty entertains the conviction, upon which alone his present measures were founded, that it would be vain to hope for such a retraction until the enemy shall himself have been made to feel a portion of the evils which he has endeavoured to inflict upon others. I am, with great respect, &c. D. M. ERSKINE.

No. IV.— Letter from Mr. Madison to the hon. D. M. Erskine; dated Department of State, 25th March 1808.

Sir; Having laid before the President your letter of 23d of Feb. explaining the character of certain British Orders of Council, issued in November last, I proceed to communicate the observations and representations which will manifest to your government the sentiments of the President on so deep a violation of the Commerce and rights of the U. States.—These Orders interdict to neutral nations, or rather to the United States, now the only commercial nation in a state of neutrality, all commerce with the enemies of Great Britain, now nearly the whole commercial world, with certain exceptions only, and under certain regulations, but too evidently fashioned to the commercial, the manufacturing and the fiscal, policy of G. Britain, and on that account the more derogatory from the honour and independence of neutral nations.—The Orders are the more calculated to excite surprise in the U. States, as they have disregarded the remonstrances conveyed in my Letters of March 20th and 29th 1807, against another Order of Council, issued on a similar plea, in the month of Jan. 1807. To those just remonstrances, no answer was indeed ever given, whilst the Order has been continued in its pernicious operation against

the lawful commerce of the U. States; and we now find added to it others constituting still more ruinous depredations, without even the addition of any new pretext; and when, morecver, it is notorious, that the Order of January was of a nature greatly to overbalance in its effects any injuries to G. Britain that could be apprehended from the illegal operation of the French Decree, on which the Order was to retaliate, had that Decree, in its illegal operations, been actually applied to the U. States, and been acquiesced in by them.—The last Orders, like that of January, proceed on the most unsubstantial foundation. They assume for fact an acquiescence of the U. States in an unlawful application to them of the French Decree; and they assume for a principle, that the right of retaliation accruing to one belligerent against a neutral, through whom an injury is done by another belligerent, is not to have for its measure that of the injury received, but may be exercised in any extent, and under any modifications, which may suit the pleasure or policy of the complaining party.—The fact, sir, is unequivocally disowned. It is not tree that the U. States have acquiesced in an illegal operation of the French Decree. Nor is it even true that, at the date of the British Orders of Nov. 11th, a single application of that Decree to the commerce of the United States on the high seas, can be presumed to have been known to the British government—The French Decree in question has two distinct aspects; one clearly importing an intended operation within the territorial limits, as a local law; the other apparently importing an intended operation on the high seas.—Under the first aspect, the Decree, however otherwise objectionable, cannot be said to have violated the neutrality of the United States. If the governing powers on the continent of Europe choose to exclude from their ports British property or British productions, or neutral vessels proceeding from British ports, it is an act of sovereignty which the U. States have no right to controvert. The same sovereignty is exercised by Great Britain at all times, in peace as well as in war, towards her friends as her enemies. Her statute-book, presents a thousand illustrations.— It is only, therefore, under the other aspect of the Decree, that it can have violated neutral rights; and this would have resulted from its execution on the high seas, whether on the pretext of a

nominal blockade, or with the view to enforce a domestic regulation against foreign vessels, not within the domestic precincts, but under the authority and protection of the law of nations.—Had then the French Decree been executed on the high seas against the commerce of the U. States with G. Britain; and have the U. States acquiesced in the injurious and unlawful proceeding?—I state, sir, on undeniable authority, that the first instance in which that Decree was put in force against the neutral rights of the U. States, was that of the Horizon, an American ship bound from G. Britain to Lima, wrecked within the territorial jurisdiction of France, but condemned under an exposition of the Decree extending its operation to the high seas against neutrals. This judicial decision took place as late as the 30th of Oct. 1807; and was not officially known to the minister plenipotentiary of the U. States at Paris till some time in November. At the date, therefore, of the first Order of G. Britain, no injury whatever had been done to her, through an aggression on the commerce of the U. States; no presumption even had been sufficiently authorized, that the express stipulations in the Treaty of France with the U. States would not exempt their commerce at least from the operation of any edict incompatible with them. At the date even of the latter Orders of Nov. 1lth, it appears that the only aggression which had then occurred was, pretty certainly, unknown to the British government, and could therefore have had no share in producing this alledged retaliation.—To the fact, that the case of the ship Horizon was the first that occurred of an execution of the French Decree on the high seas, I am able to add, that as late as the 30th Nov., no other case had been brought into the French Court of Prizes. From accounts which have lately appeared, it is more than probable, that unlawful captures by French cruizers have since taken place; but it remains to be known, whether they are to be referred to the concurrence of the French government, in the judgment pronounced in the case of the Horizon, or not rather to a French Decree of the 17th Dec. last, purporting to be a retaliation on the British Orders of Nov. 11th.—I state with equal confidence, that at no time have the U. States acquiesced in violations of their neutral rights injurious to G. Britain, or any other belligerent nation; so far were

they in particular from acquiescing in the French Decree of Nov. 1806, that the moment it was known to their minister at Paris, he called for explanations of its meaning in relation to the U. States, which were favourable and uncontradicted by the actual operation of the Decree; that he steadily watched over the proceedings under it, with a readiness to interpose against any unlawful extension of them to the commerce of the U. States; that no time was lost, after the Decree came to the knowledge of the government here, in giving him proper instructions on the subject; that he was equally prompt, on receiving the decision of the court in the case of the Horizon, in presenting to the French government a remonstrance which can never be censured for want of energy; and that by the first opportunity after that decision reached the President, the particular instructions required by it were forwarded to that minister. Nor is it to be forgotten, that, previous to the British Orders of Nov., it had been explicitly communicated to the British government, by the American minister at London, that explanations, uncontradicted by any overt act, had been given to our minister at Paris, which justified a reliance, that the French Decree would not be put in force against the U. States; and that the communication was repeated to the British government, immediately on the publication of those Orders.—What more could have been required on the part of the U. States, to obviate retaliating pretensions of any sort on the part of G. Britain? Retaliations are measures of rigour in all cases, where they are to operate through a third and involuntary party. They will never be hastily resorted to by a magnanimous or just power, which will always allow to the third party its right to discuss the merits of the case, and will never permit itself to enforce its measures, without affording a reasonable time for the use of reasonable means for substituting another remedy. What would be the situation of neutral powers, if the first blow, levelled through them by one belligerent against another, was to leave them no choice, but between the retaliating vengeance of the latter and an instant declaration of war against the former?—Reason revolts against this as the sole alternative. The U. States could no more be bound to evade the British Orders by an immediate war with France, than they were bound to atone for the burning of the French ship of war

on the shore of North Carolina, by an immediate resort to arms against Great Britain.—With respect to the principle given in the British Orders, it is perfectly clear, that it could not justify them in the given to their operation, if the facts erroneously assumed could have been fully sustained.—Retaliation is a specific or equivalent return of injury for injury received; and where it is to operate through the interests of a third party, having no voluntary participation in the injury received, the return ought, as already observed, to be inflicted with the most forbearing hand.—This is the language of common sense, and the clearest equity. As the right to retaliate results from the wrongs suffered, it cannot, in the nature of things, extend beyond the extent of the suffering. There may often be a difficulty in applying this rule with exactness, and a reasonable latitude may be allowable on that consideration; but a manifest and extravagant departure from the rule can find no apology.—What then is the extent of the injury experienced by G. Britain from the measures of her enemies; so far as the operation of these measures, through the U. States, can render them in any sense responsible?—A mere declaration by a belligerent, without the intention or the means to carry it into effect, against the rights and obligations of a neutral nation, and thence against the interests of another belligerent, can afford no pretext to the latter to retaliate at the expence of the neutral. The declaration might give just offence to the neutral, but it would belong to him alone to decide on the course prescribed by the respect he owed to himself.—No real damage having accrued to the belligerent, no indemnity could accrue.—For the same reason, a declaration of a belligerent, which he. is known to be either not in a state, or not to intend to carry, but partially, into execution against a neutral, to the injury of another belligerent, could never give more than a right to a commensurate redress against the neutral. All remaining unexecuted, and evidently not to be executed, is merely ostensible, working no injury to any, unless it be in the disrespect to the neutral, to whom alone it belongs to resent or disregard it.—Bring the case before us to this plain and equitable test: the French Decree of Nov. 1800, undertook to declare the British Isles in a state of blockade, to be enforced, if you please, against the neutral commerce of

the U. States on the high seas, according to the faculty possessed for the purpose. As far as it was actually enforced, or an effect resulted from an apprehension that it could and would be enforced, it was an injury to G. Britain, for which, let it be supposed, the U. States were answerable. On the other hand, as far as it was not enforced, and evidently either would not or could not be enforced, no injury was experienced by G. Britain, and no remedy could lie against the U. States. Now, sir, it never was pretended that, at the date of the first British Order, issued in January 1807, any injury had occurred to, or was apprehended by, G. Britain, from the execution of the French Decree against the commerce of the U. States, on the theatre of their neutral rights; so far from it, that the Order stands self-condemned as a measure of retaliation, by expressly stating, that the fleets of France and her Allies, instead of being able to enforce the blockade of the British Isles, were themselves confined to their own ports by the entire superiority of the British Navy; converting thus, by the strangest of reasonings, the security of Great Britain against injury from the French Decree, into a title to commit injury on a neutral party. In the November Orders, also, whilst it is admitted that the French Decree could not be but imperfectly executed for want of means, it is asserted that the intention of the French Decree, and not the injury accruing from its operation through the commerce of the United States, is the scale by which the retaliating injury against them is to be measured. — Such are the pretexts, and such the principles, on which one great branch of the lawful commerce of this country became a victim to the first British Orders, and on which the last Orders are now sweeping from the ocean all its most, valuable remains.—Against such an unprecedented system of warfare on neutral rights and national independence, the common judgment, and common feelings of mankind, must for ever protest. — I touch, sir, with reluctance, the question, on which of the belligerent sides the invasion of neutral rights had its origin. As the U. States do not acquiesce in these by either, there could be no plea for involving them in the controversy; but as the British Orders have made the Decree of France, declaring, contrary to the law of nations, the British Islands in a state of blockade, the immediate foundation of their destructive warfare on our commerce,

it belongs to the subject to remind your government of the illegal interruptions and spoliations suffered, previous to that Decree, by the neutral commerce of the U. States, under the proceedings of British cruizers and courts, and for the most part in consequence of express orders of the government itself. Omitting proofs of inferior note, I refer to the extensive aggressions on the trade of the U. States, founded on the plea of blockades, never legally established according to received definitions, to the still more extensive violations of our commerce with the ports of her enemies, not pretended to be in a state of blockade, and to the British Order of Council issued near the commencement of the existing war.—This Order, besides its general interpolation against the established law of nations, is distinguished by a special ingredient, violating that law as recognized by the course of decisions in the British courts. It subjects to capture and condemnation all neutral vessels returning with lawful cargoes, on the sole consideration that they had, in their outward voyage, deposited contraband of war in an enemy's ports.—If the commerce of the U. States could therefore, in any case, be reasonably made the victim and the sport of mutual charges and reproaches between the belligerent parties, with respect to the priority of their aggressions on neutral commerce, G. Britain must look beyond the epoch she has chosen for illegal acts of her adversary, in support of the allegations on which she founds her retaliating edicts against our commerce.—But the U. States are given to understand, that the British government has, as a proof of its indulgent and amicable disposition towards them, mitigated the authorized rigour it might have given to its measures, by certain exceptions peculiarly favourably to the commercial interests of the U. States.—I forbear, sir, to express all the emotions with which such language, on such an occasion, is calculated to inspire a nation which cannot for a moment be unconscious of its rights, nor mistake, for an alleviation of wrongs, regulations, to admit the validity of which would be to assume badges of humiliation never worn by an independent power.—The first of these indulgences is a commercial intercourse with the dependencies of the enemies of G. Britain; and it is considered as being enhanced, by its being a deviation in favour of the U. States from the ancient and established principle of mari-

time law, prohibiting altogether such an intercourse in time of war.—Surely, sir, your government, in assuming this principle in such terms, in relation to the U. States, must have forgotten their repeated and formal protests against it, as these are to be found in the discussions and communications of their minister at London, as well as in explanations occasionally made on that subject to the British representative here. But permit me to ask more particularly, how it could have happened that the principle is characterized as an ancient and established one? I put the question the more freely, because it has never been denied that the principle, as asserted by the British government, was for the first time introduced during the war of 1756. It is in fact invariably cited and described, in all judicial and other official proceedings, as the rule of 1756. It can have no pretension to the title of an ancient rule. And instead of being an established rule or principle, it is well known that G. Britain is the only nation that has acted upon or otherwise given a sanction to it: nay, it is not even an established principle in the practice of G. Britain herself, when first applied in the war of 1756, the legality of a neutral trade with enemy's colonies was not contested by it. In certain cases only of the colonial trade, the allegation was, that the presumptive evidence arising from circumstances against the bonâ fide neutrality of the ownership, justified the condemnation, as of enemy's property. If the rule of condemnation was afterwards, during that war, converted into the principle now asserted, it could not possibly have been an operation, in its new shape, more than a very few years. During the succeeding war of 1773, it is admitted by every British authority, that the principle was never brought into operation; it may be regarded, in fact, as having been silently abandoned: and within the period of war, since its commencement in 1793, the planner in which the principle has been alternately contracted and extended, explained sometimes in one way, sometimes in another, rested now on this foundation, now on that, is no secret to those who have attended lo its history and progress in the British Orders of Council and the British Courts of Admiralty.—With the exception therefore of a period, the last in modem times from which authentic precedents of maritime law will be drawn, and throughout which the U. States, more in-

terested in the question than any other nation, have uniformly combated the innovation, the principle has not, in the British tribunals, been in operation for a longer time than three or four years, or five years, whilst in no others has it ever made its appearance, but to receive a decision protesting against it.—Such is the antiquity, and such the authority, of a principle, the deviations from which are held out as so many favours, consoling the U. States for the wide-spread destruction of their legitimate commerce.—What must be said as to the other exceptions, which seem to have been viewed as claims on the gratitude of the U. States? Is it an indulgence to them, in carrying on their trade with the whole continent of Europe, to be laid under the necessity of going first to a British port to accept a British licence, and to pay a tribute to the British exchequer, as if we had been reduced to the colonial situation which once imposed those monopolizing restraints? — What again must be said as to the other features, which we see blended on the face of these regulations? If the policy of them be to subject an enemy to privations, why are channels opened for a British trade with them, which are shut to a neutral trade? If in other cases the object be to admit a neutral trade with the enemy, why is it required that neutral vessels shall perform the ceremony of passing through a British port, when it can have no possible effect but the known and inevitable one of prohibiting the admission of the trade in the port of its destination?—I will not ask why a primary article of our productions and exports, Cotton Wool, is to be distinguished, in its transit, by a heavy impost not imposed on other articles; because it is frankly avowed in your explanation of the Orders, to be intended as an encouragement to British manufacturers, and a check to the rival ones of France. I suppress also, though without the same reason for it, the inquiry, why less rigorous restrictions are applied to the trade of the Barbary powers than are enforced against that of a nation such as the U. States, and in relations such as have existed between them and G. Britain.—I cannot pass without notice the very unwarrantable innovations contained in the two last of the Orders.—In one of them, a certificate of the local origin of a cargo, although permitted in the port of departure, and required in the port of destination, by regulations purely domestic in both, and strictly

analogous in principle to the regulations in the commercial code of G. Britain, is made a cause of capture on the high seas, and of condemnation in her maritime courts. In the other Order, the sale of a merchant ship by a belligerent owner to a neutral, although a transaction as legal, when fair, as a dealing in any other article, is condemned by a general rule, without an atom of proof or of presumption that the transfer in the particular case is fraudulent, and the property therefore left in an enemy.—In fine, sir, the President sees in the Edicts communicated by you, facts assumed which did not exist, principles asserted which never can be admitted, and, under the name of retaliation, measures transcending the limits reconcileable with facts and the principles, if both were as correct as they are unfounded. He sees, moreover, in the modification of this system, regulations violating equally our neutral rights and our national sovereignty. He persuades himself therefore that your government will see, in the justness of the observations now made, in addition to what I had the honour verbally to state to you in the first instance, that the U. States are well warranted in looking for a speedy revocation of a system which is every day augmenting the mass of injury, for which the United States have the best claims to redress.—I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) JAMES MADDISON.

No. V.— Circular Note from Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, announcing the Blockade of the Port of Copenhagen, and Ports of the Island of Zealand; dated May 4th, 1808.

Mr. Secretary Canning has the honour to inform Mr. Pinkney, that his majesty has judged it expedient to establish the most rigorous Blockade of the port of Copenhagen, and of all the other ports in the Island of Zealand. Mr. Pinkney is therefore requested to apprize the American consuls and merchants residing in England, that the entrances of all the ports above-mentioned are and must be considered as being in a state of Blockade; and that from this time all the measures authorized by the Law of Nations, and the respective Treaties between his majesty and the different neutral powers, will be adopted and executed with respect to all vessels attempting to violate the said Blockade after this notice. Mr. Secretary Canning requests, &c.

No. VI.— letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr.

Secretary Canning; dated Great Cumberland Place, August 23d, 1808.

Sir; I have had the honour, in consequence of the orders of the Presideut, to recall your attention, in the course of several recent interviews, to the British Orders in Council of the 7th of January and 11th of Nov. 1807, and to the various other Orders founded upon or in execution of them; and I now take the liberty to renew, in the mode which I have understood to be indispensable, my instances on that subject-—I need scarcely remind you, sir, that the government of the U. States has never ceased to consider these Orders as violating its rights, and affecting most destructively its best interests, upon grounds wholly inadmissible both in principle and fact.—The Letters of Mr. Madison to Mr. Erskine, of the 20th and 29th of March 1807, produced by the official communication of that minister of the Order of the 7th of Jan. and the Answer of Mr. Madison of the 25th of March 1808, to a like communication of the Orders of the 11th of November, contained the most direct remonstrances against the system which these Orders introduce and execute, and expressed the confident expectations of the President that it would not be persisted in.—That expectation has not yet been fulfilled; but it has, notwithstanding, not been relinquished. The President is still persuaded that its accomplishment will result from a careful review by his majesty's government, made in the spirit of moderation and equity, of the facts and considerations which belong to the occasion.—It is not my purpose to recapitulate in that Note the statements and reasonings contained in the above-mentioned Letters of Mr. Madison, in support of the claim of the government of the United States, that the British Orders be revoked: I content myself with referring to those Letters for proofs, which it is not necessary to repeat, and for arguments, which I could not hope to improve.—But there are explanations which those Letters do not contain; and which it is not proper for me now to make. Even these, however, may be very briefly given, since you have already been made acquainted, in our late conversations, with all their bearings and details.—These explanations go to shew, that while every motive of justice conspires to produce a disposition to recall the Orders of which my government complains, it is become apparent that even their professed object will be best attained by their revocation.—I had the honour to state to yon, sir, that it was the intention of the President, in case Great Britain repealed her Orders, as regarded the United States, to exercise the power vested in him by the Act of the last session of Congress, intitled, "an Act to authorize the President of the United States, under certain conditions, to suspend the operations of the Act laying an Embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbours of the United States, and the several supplementary acts thereto," by suspending the Embargo law and its supplements as regards Great Britain.— I am authorized to give you this assurance in the most formal manner; and I trust that, upon impartial enquiry, it will be found to leave no inducement to perseverance in the British Orders, while it creates the most powerful inducements of equity and policy to abandon them.—On the score of justice, it does not seem possible to mistake the footing upon which this overture places the subject; and I venture to believe that in any other view, there is as little room for doubt.—If, as I purpose, your Orders should be rescinded as to the United States, and our Embargo rescinded as to Great Britain, the effect of these concurrent acts, will be, that the commercial intercourse of the two countries will be immediately resumed; while, if France should adhere to maxims and conduct derogatory to the neutral rights of the United States, the Embargo, continuing as to her, will take the place of your Orders, and lead with an efficacy not merely equal to theirs, but probably much greater, to all the consequences that ought to result from them.—On the other hand, if France should concur in respecting those rights, and commerce should thus regain its fair immunities, and the law of nations its just dominion, all the alledged purposes of the British Orders will have been at once fulfilled.—If I forbear to pursue these ideas through all the illustrations of which they are susceptible, it is because the personal conferences to which I have before alluded, as well as the obvious nature of the ideas themselves, render it unnecessary.—I cannot conclude this Note without expressing my sincere wish, that what I have now suggested, in conformity with the liberal sentiments and enlightened views of the Pesident, may contribute not only to remove the more immediate obstacles to the ordinary intercourse of trade between your country and mine, in a manner consistent with the honour of both, but to prepare the way for a satisfactory adjustment of every question important to their future friendship.—I have the honour to be, &c.

(Signed) W. PINKNEY.

No. VII.— Mr. Secretary Canning's Note to Mr. Pinkney, of the 23rd September 1808.

The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, had the honour to receive the official Letter addressed to him by Mr. Pinkney, minister plenipotentiary of the U. States, respecting the Orders in Council issued by his majesty on the 7th Jan. and 11th Nov. 1807.—He has laid that Letter before the king; and he is commanded to assure Mr. Pinkney, that the answer to the proposal which Mr. Pinkney was instructed to bring forward has been deferred only in the hope that the renewed application, which was understood to have been recently made by the government of the U. States to that of France, might, in the new state of things which has arisen in Europe, have met with such reception in France as would have rendered the compliance of his majesty with that proposal consistent as much with his majesty's own dignity, and with the interests of his people, as it would have been with his majesty's disposition towards the U. States.—Unhappily there is now no longer any reason to believe that such a hope is likely to be realized; and the undersigned is therefore commanded to communicate to Mr. Pinkney the decision which, under the circumstances as they stand, his majesty feels himself compelled, however unwillingly, to adopt.— The mitigated measure of retaliation, announced by his majesty in the Order in Council of the 7th of Jan., and the further extension of that measure, (an extension in operation but not in principle,) by the Orders in Council of November, were founded (as has been already repeatedly avowed by his majesty) on the unquestionable right of his majesty to retort upon the enemy the evils of his own injustice, and upon the consideration, that if third parties incidentally suffered by these retaliatory measures, they were to seek their redress from the power by whose original aggression that retaliation was occasioned.—His majesty sees nothing in the Embargo, laid on by the President of the U. States of America, which varies this original and simple state of the question.—If considered as a measure of impartial hostility against both belligerents, the Embargo appears to his majesty to have been manifestly unjust—as, according to every principle of justice, that redress ought to have been first sought from the party originating the wrong; and his majesty cannot consent to buy off that hostility which America ought not to have extended to him, at the ex-pence of a concession made, not to America, but to France.—If, as it has more generally been represented by the government of the U. States, the Embargo is only to be considered as an innocent municipal regulation, which affects none but the U. States themselves, and with which no foreign state has any concern; viewed in this light, his majesty does not conceive that he has the right, or the pretension, to make any complaint of it; and he has made none. But in this light, there appears not only no reciprocity, but no assignable relation between the repeal, by the U. States, of a measure of voluntary self-restriction, and the surrender by his? majesty of his right of retaliation against his enemies.—The government of the U. States is not now to be informed, that the Berlin Decree of Nov. 21st, 1806, was the practical commencement of an attempt, not merely to check or impair the prosperity of G. Britain, but utterly to annihilate her political existence, through the ruin of her commercial prosperity; that, in this attempt, almost all the powers of the European continent have been compelled more or less to co-operate; and that the American Embargo, though most assuredly not intended to that end, (for America can have no real interest in the subversion of the British power, and her rulers are too enlightened to act, from any impulse, against the real interests of their country,) but by some unfortunate concurrence of circumstances, without any hostile intention, the American Embargo did come in aid of "the blockade of the European continent," precisely at the very moment when, if that blockade could have succeeded at all, this interposition of the American government would most effectually have contributed to its success.—To this universal combination, his majesty has opposed a temperate, but a determined retaliation upon the enemy; trusting that a firm resistance would defeat this project, but knowing that the smallest concession would infallibly encourage a perseverance in it.—The struggle has been viewed by other powers, not without an apprehension that it might be fatal to this country. The British government has not disguised from itself, that the trial of such an experiment might be arduous and long, though it has never doubted of the final issue. But if that issue, such as the British government confidently anticipated, has providentially arrived much sooner than could even have been hoped; if the blockade of the continent, as it has been triumphantly styled by the enemy, is raised even before it had been well established; and if that system, of which extent and continuity were the vital principles, is broken up into fragments utterly harmless and contemptible, it is nevertheless important, in the highest degree, to the reputation of this country, (a reputation which constitutes a great part of her power,) that this disappointment of the hopes of her enemies should not have been purchased by any concession; that not a doubt should remain to distant times of her determination, and of her ability, to have continued her resistance; and that no step which could even mistakenly be construed into concession, should be taken on her part, while the smallest link of the confederacy remains undissolved, or while it can be a question whether the plan devised for her destruction has or has not either completely failed, or been unequivocally abandoned.—These considerations compel his majesty to adhere to the principles on which the Orders in Council of the 7th Jan. and the 11th of Nov. are founded, so long as France adheres to that system by which his majesty's retaliatory measures were occasioned and justified.—It is not improbable indeed that some alterations may be made in the Orders in Council, as they are at present framed; alterations calculated not to abate their spirit or impair their principle, but to adapt them more exactly to the different state of things which has fortunately grown up in Europe, and to combine all practicable relief to neutrals with a more severe pressure upon the enemy.—But of alterations to be made with this view only, it would be uncandid to take any advantage in the present discussion; however it might be hoped, that, in their practical effect, they might prove beneficial to America, provided the operation of the Embargo were not to prevent her from reaping that benefit.—It remains for the undersigned to take notice of the last paragraph of Mr. Pinkney's Letter. There cannot exist, on the part of Mr. Piukney, a stronger wish than there does on that of the undersigned, and of the British government, for the adjustment of all the differences subsisting between the two countries. His majesty has no other disposition than to cultivate the most friendly intercourse with the U. States.— The undersigned is persuaded that Mr. Pinkney would be one of the last to imagine, what is often idly asserted, that the depression of any other country is necessary or serviceable to the prosperity of this. The prosperity of America is essentially the prosperity of G. Britain; and the strength and power of G. Britain are not for herself only, but for the world. When those adjustments shall take place, to which, though unfortunately not practicable at this moment, nor under the conditions prescribed by Mr. Pinkney, the undersigned nevertheless confidently looks forward, it will perhaps be no insecure pledge for the continuance of the good understanding between the two countries, that they will have learnt duly to appreciate each others friendship; and that it will not hereafter be imputed to G. Britain, either, on the one hand, that she envies American industry as prejudicial to British commerce, or, on the other hand, that she is compelled to court an intercourse with America as absolutely necessary to her own existence. —His majesty would not hesitate to contribute, in any manner in his power, to restore to the commerce of the U. States its wonted activity; and if it were possible to make any sacrifice for the repeal of the Embargo, without appearing to deprecate it as a measure of hostility, he would gladly have facilitated its removal as a measure of inconvenient restriction upon the American people.—The undersigned is commanded in conclusion to observe, that nothing is said in Mr. Pinkney's Letter of any intention to repeal the Proclamation, by which the ships of war of G. Britain are interdicted from all those right of hospitality in the ports of the U. States, which are freely allowed to the ships of his majesty's enemies.—The continuance of an interdiction which, under such circumstances, amounts so nearly to direct hostility, after the willingness professed and the attempt made by his majesty to remove the cause on which that measure had been originally founded, would afford but an inauspicious omen for the commencement of a system of mutual conciliation; and the omission of any notice of that measure, in the proposal which Mr. Pinkney has been instructed to bring forward, would have been of itself a ma- terial defect in the overture of the President.—But the undersigned is commanded no further to dwell upon this subject, than for the purpose of assuring Mr. Pinkney, that on this and every other point in discussion between the two governments, his majesty earnestly desires the restoration of a perfect good understanding, and that his majesty would decline no measure for the attainment of that object, which should be compatible with his own honour and just rights, and with the interests of his people. The undersigned requests of Mr. Pinkney to accept, &c. (Signed)

GEORCE CANNING.

Brigadier-General Henry Fane being come to the house, the Speaker acquainted him, that the house had, upon Wednesday last, resolved. That the Thanks of this House be given to him, for his skilful and gallant exertions against the enemy in the battles of Roleia and Vimiera, by which he reflected so much lustre on his majesty's arms; and the Speaker gave him the Thanks of the house accordingly, as followeth:

" Brig. Gen. Fane; Upon the late Expedition to Portugal, it was your fortune to hold a distinguished command in the British army which repeatedly gave battle to the forces of France. The event of such conflicts could not be doubtful; British valour and discipline triumphed; and those who commanded and directed their exertions were covered with glory.—Whenever the battles of Roleia and Vimiera shall be named (and they will be long and often named with exultation), your heart may glow with the conscious and honourable pride, that your sword upon those days was not drawn in vain; and although that gallant and accomplished officer, who, placed by your side, jointly with you, sustained the brunt of the day at Vimiera, has since been unhappily swept away by the course of human events beyond the reach of our Thanks, his brave brethren in arms may rest assured, that the name of general Anstruther will live, not unhonoured, in the sad and grateful remembrance of his country.—But, sir, in what concerns your exploits in Portugal, my present duty stops here; and I am, in the first place, to deliver to you the Thanks of this House, in the name of the Commons of this United Kingdom, for your skilful and gallant exertions against the enemy in the battles of Roleia and Vimiera, by which you reflected so much lustre on his majesty's arms."

Upon which Brigadier-General Fane said, "Mr. Speaker; Although I am unable to express, in adequate language, the very high sense I entertain of the honour conferred upon me, upon the present occasion, yet I trust the house will do me the justice to believe that I feel it as I ought. To you, sir, I have to offer my warmest thanks for the very flattering manner in which you have communicated the Vote of the House."

Lieut. Gen. Alexander Mackenzie Fraser being also come to the house, and Brig. Gen. Henry Fane being present, the Speaker acquainted them, that the house had, upon Wednesday last, resolved, That the Thanks of this House be given to them for their distinguished conduct and exemplary valour displayed in the Battle of Corunna, whereby the complete repulse and signal defeat of the enemy, on every point of attack, was effected, and the safe and unmolested embarkation of the array secured in the presence of a French army of superior force; and the Speaker gave them the Thanks of the House accordingly, as followeth;

"Lieut. Gen. Mackenzie Fraser, and Brigadier-Gen. Fane; The deep grief which this nation has felt, for the loss it has experienced by the death of that illustrious commander the late sir John Moore, in the memorable Battle of Corunna, has been mitigated in some degree, by the reflection, that it still numbers amongst its brave defenders, many gallant and distinguished officers, who, formed and tired by his great example, we may confidently expect, will emulate his glory. —In this honourable list your names stand inrolled. And this House, acknowledging with gratitude your important services upon that lamented but glorious day, has commanded me to deliver you its Thanks: and I do accordingly, in the name of the Commons of this United Kingdom, thank you for your distinguished conduct and exemplary valour displayed in the Battle of Corunna, whereby the complete repulse and signal defeat of the enemy, on every point of attack, was effected, and the safe and unmolested embarkation of the army secured in the presence of a French army of superior force."

Upon which Lieut. Gen. Fraser said, "Mr. Speaker; The high and distinguished honour conferred upon us by the House calls for our warmest acknowledgement and grati- tude, and will bean incitement to us, if any were wanting, to use every exertion in our power to add fresh lustre to his majesty's arms, whenever an opportunity offers. Permit me, sir, also to offer you my thanks for the handsome and flattering manner in which you have been pleased to convey to me the sentiments of the House."

Rear Admiral sir Samuel Hood being come to the House, the Speaker acquainted him, that the House, had, upon Wednesday last, resolved, That the Thanks of this House be given to him for his most effectual and able disposition of the ships and transports, and for his effectual exertions in accomplishing the embarkation of his majesty's troops at Corunna on the late memorable occasion; and the Speaker gave him the Thanks of the House accordingly, as followeth;

"Rear Admiral sir Samuel Hood; The various and brilliant services which have marked the splendid career of your naval glory have long since made you known to the recorded gratitude of parliament; and the memorable and difficult service which you have recently contributed to accomplish at Corunna has called forth this fresh tribute of its applause.—I do therefore now, by the command, and in the name, of the Commons of this United Kingdom, thank you for your most able disposition of the ships and transports, and for your effectual exertions in accomplishing the embarkation of his majesty's troops at Corunna on the late memorable occasion."

Upon which, rear admiral sir Samuel Hood said, "Mr. Speaker; I beg leave to offer my most sincere thanks for the honour conferred on me, by the Vote of this House; it affords me peculiar satisfaction that in the performance of my duty only, my services have met the approbation of the representatives of my countrymen, which I shall always endeavour to merit. For the very handsome manner, sir, you have been pleased to communicate this to me, I request you to accept my warmest acknowledgements."

On the motion of Mr. Wardle, the house resolved itself into a committee, to inquire into the Conduct of his royal highness the Duke of York, touching the disposal of commissions in the army, &c. Mr. R. Wharton in the Chair.

( By Mr. Wardle.)

Did you attend Mrs. Clarke, in your professional line, in July, 1805? I have attended Mrs. Clarke for the last 7 years: I do not recollect that it was in July, 1805, more than any other time. I have known her for 7 or 8 years, and in different situations; I have attended when she was ill.

Did you ever, by the desire of any person, apply to Mrs. C. respecting an exchange between lieut.-col. Knight and lieut.-col. Brooke? I have applied to Mrs. C. respecting the exchange of lieut.-col. Knight and lieut.-col. Brooke. The application I made was in consequence of an application made to me by an old and valuable friend, Mr. Robert Knight, the brother of the lieut.-colonel. He understood I was acquainted with Mrs. C, he begged I would speak to her to expedite the exchange: and I did speak to Mrs. C. upon the subject, and delivered her the message I got from Mr. Knight, and his brother, the lieut.-col., to whom I was then introduced.

What passed upon that subject between Mrs. C. and yourself? I was authorized to tell Mrs. C. that she would receive a certain sum of money; I specified the sum of 200 l.

For what was the sum specified; upon what event was that sum offered? It was offered for the purpose of inducing Mrs. C. to expedite the exchange. The exchange was to take place in the office in a certain length of time; it began in the office; some delays and impediments were expected, and, in order to remove those impediments and those delays, I was authorized to say that such a sum would be given to her, if she would exert herself to expedite this exchange.

Through what medium was it expected she should obtain that exchange? I am sure I cannot answer that question; I should suppose it was pretty well known that she was acquainted with a great personage at that time; I know nothing about that; I was desired to deliver a message, and I did nothing more than deliver a message, from an old friend to Mrs. C. to induce her to expedite an exchange between two officers.

Was it not under the consideration and conviction of her, at that time, being under the protection of the Commander in Chief, that such application was made to her? Of course, if Mrs. C. was not thought likely to expedite the thing, no application would have been made to her.

I understand you expressly to have stated that you offered her 200 l. for expediting this exchange; I wish to ask how many days, to the best of your recollection, there were between the application and the exchange being notified in the Gazette? I really cannot be accurate in that respect, for it made so little impression upon my mind, that I merely recollect having delivered the message. I was anxious

to oblige my friend, Mr. R. Knight, but it did not concern me, and I cannot bring my mind to tell the exact period between the application and the Gazette; but I believe, it was a good deal expedited by Mrs. C.

Do you think, to the best of your recollection, it occurred within a few days or a week? I protest I cannot bear it in mind; but, I believe, a fortnight or three weeks elapsed before it was done. I cannot speak positively to that; I had nothing to do with the transaction but barely to deliver that message, and that message made no impression whatever upon my mind.

Did Mrs. C. communicate to you the circumstance of the exchange being gazetted? Mrs. C. sent the Gazette to my house, in consequence of the message I delivered to her from Messrs. Knight; the moment I received the Gazette I sent it to the parties. No money ever passed through my hands. If Mrs. C. received money, she received it through some other quarter. I solemnly declare, that no money passed through my hands whatever. I sent the Gazette to the parties, and what they did with the Gazette I do not care.

Did Mr. R. Knight alone authorize you to offer the 200 l. or was lieut.-col. Knight a party to that offer? I was entirely influenced by Mr. R. Knight: his lady was an old patient of mine: he was always a great friend of mine. I had nothing to refuse Mr. R. Knight. Lieut.-col. Knight I knew little of at this time; I was introduced to him by his brother: but I was certainly influenced by Mr. R. Knight, and by nobody else.

Is the committee to understand, that lieut. col. Knight was present when this authority was given to you to offer the 200 l.? I am sure I cannot answer that: for I saw Mr. R. Knight at his own house, sometimes privately, and sometimes in the company of his brother: and the transaction made so little impression upon my mind, that, alter a lapse of 3 or 4 years, it is not possible for me to relate all the circumstances: but I was influenced by Mr. R. Knight, who, as a man, I have the greatest esteem and regard for to this hour.

( By Sir Francis Burdett.)

Did you request Mrs. C. to apply to the duke of York, for the purpose of expediting the exchange of lieut.-col. Knight, in consideration of the 200 l. she was to receive? I do not exactly understand the question: I beg it to be explained.

Whether you requested of Mrs. C. to apply to the D. of Y. to expedite this exchange between lieut.-col. Knight and col. Brooke, and in consequence of that application, told her she would receive the 200 l.? The thing is understood; I could not have applied, nor should not have applied to Mrs. C. unless she had the means of expediting the thing; it was understood at the time that she had the means.

How did you understand that Mrs. C. possessed the means of expediting that exchange? It was understood at the time that she had some influence.

Did you or not request Mrs. C. to apply to the D of Y. to expedite that exchange? I applied to Mrs. C. to beg of her to interest herself on behalf of lieut.-col. Knight, and to expedite the exchange.

Did you or not apply to Mrs. C. to request her to apply to the D. of Y. to expedite that exchange? Yes, I did so, I acknowledge that, if she had it in her power.

Was it for that purpose the 200 l. was offered to Mrs. C.? For that sole purpose.

In this conversation, was the D. of Y's name personally mentioned? I am sure I cannot recollect, I cannot take upon myself to say so. It is impossible for me to recollect every circumstance of a message delivered between 3 or 4 years ago.

Was your application to Mrs. C. merely to expedite the exchange without mentioning the manner in which it was to be expedited? Certainly, without mentioning the particular manner; it was to facilitate and to expedite the exchange.

Through what medium was it expected that she should obtain that exchange? I am sure I cannot answer that question; I should suppose it was pretty well known that she was acquainted with a great personage at that time. I know nothing about that. I was desired to deliver a message, and I did nothing more than deliver a message from an old friend to Mrs. C, to icduce her to expedite an exchange between two officers.

( By Sir James Hall.)

Who was that great personage? It was Understood the Commander in Chief.

( By Mr. Wardle.)

At the time you spoke of this exchange to Mrs. C, did you give the names in writing to Mrs. C.? I believe I did on a slip of paper; and on that paper I believe I wrote, 'Lieut.-col. 'Knight wishes to exchange with lieut.-col. 'Brooke; 'if I did not write it down myself, she wrote it: it was given in writing.

( By Sir Thomas Turton.)

Subsequent to your application to Mrs. C, did she at any time communicate to you, that she had used her influence, for the purpose expressed, with the D. of Y? I do not know that I had seen Airs. C. from the first communication till she had sent the Gazette to my house; that Gazette proved that the exchange was accomplished; that Gazette I sent to the parties; and that is all I had to do with the transaction.

When that Gazette was sent by Mrs. C., did she communicate to you, that it was by her

means the exchange had been obtained? Mrs. C. accompanied the Gazette with a note, to say that the exchange was accomplished, and that she was going out of town in a day or two, and that the 200 l. would be very convenient.

Are you certain that those were the whole contents of the note? That was the impression upon my mind at the time. This is a transaction between 3 and 4 years ago, and having thought so little about it, I cannot be supposed to know all the circumstances; but I recollect receiving a note, and I recollect, receiving a Gazette; the Gazette I sent to the parties: and I cannot recollect any thing more than I have stated.

Since that period, has Mrs. C. ever communicated to you, that it was by her means it was obtained? Mrs. C. never said any thing to me more than sending the Gazette; for, from my first application to the receipt of the Gazette, I do not recollect having seen Mrs. C.; or if I did see her, it was merely to enquire whether any progress was making in the exchange.

Has any communication of that kind been made since the sending the Gazette? I do not recollect having had any such communication; at the same time, I believe it was expedited by her means.

Have you preserved that note? No, I have not preserved it certainly; I considered the note as one not concerning me, and I sent it to the parties with the Gazette.

( By Mr. Croker.)

Had you any reason besides your own surmise, for believing that this exchange was expedited by the interference of Mrs. C? If I recollect right, I understood that the exchange would be obtained in the regular way, in the course of time; but Mr. Knight, whether from ill health, or what other reason I know not, was desirous of having it done expeditiously; and it was in consequence of that, and his brother's wish, that I applied to Mrs. C. in the first instance.

Have yon any reason but your own surmise, for believing, that this exchange was expedited by the interference of Mrs. C? No other reason on earth.

( By Mr. Wardle.)

When yon made this application, did you not know that Mrs. C. was living with the D. of Y. and immediately under his protection? it was so understood at the time.

Did you ever see the Commander in Chief at Mrs. C.'s? Never.

( By Mr. Fuller.)

Of your own knowledge, do you know of such a relative situation between those two parties? (a laugh) I never saw the D. of Y. there in my life.

( By Mr. Wilberforce.)

Do you recollect the manner in which the proposition was at first made, engaging Mrs. C.'s interest? When I first spoke to Mrs. C. she seemed to suppose there were some difficulties in the way, and she spoke a good deal about secrecy, and of the danger that she should run if this ever transpired.

( By the Chancellor of the. Exchequer.)

Do you recollect what words she used when she expressed that sentiment? It is impossible for me, at this length of time, to recollect the precise words, but the meaning I am clear in.

You have said that Mrs. C. expressed a great desire that it should be kept secret; did she mean secret from the D. of Y. as well as the rest of the world, That is a matter of surmise.

Did you not understand from Mr. Knight, that the exchange alluded to was in a train of being effected, previous to Mrs. C.'s interest being solicited? I understood the thing would have happened in the course of time. Mr. Knight wished to have the thing expedited, I know not from what motive? and it was to expedite it that he begged of me to speak to Mrs. C. The exchange was a simple, fair thing, as I supposed, and would have gone through the office in the regular way.

( By Mr. Wardle.)

Did you desire Dr. Thynne to use his influence with Mrs. C. to have an exchange between your brother lieut.-col. Knight, and lieut. col. Brooke, carried into effect? I did.

Did you authorize Dr. T. to hold out any personal temptation to Mrs. C. to induce her to carry the point? Yes.

To what amount did you authorize Dr. T. to offer Mrs. C.? 200 l.

After the exchange was effected, did you, by yourself or any other person, give any sum of money to Mrs. C.? Yes.

To what amount? 200 l.

Had col. Knight any positive promise from the Commander in Chief for this exchange with col. Brooke, prior to such application to Mrs. C.? My brother applied in the regular way to the D. of Y. and received the usual official answer on the subject, that whenever a proper successor could be found, there would be no objection to the exchange taking place.

Do you know of any positive promise of the Commander in Chief, prior to the application to Mrs. C. that that exchange should take place? No.

Where was the application made to Mrs. C.? There was some delay in the business, from what cause I do not know, and I stated that circumstance to Dr. Thynne, who happened to be attending my family at that time. He replied, that he thought he could be of service, by applying to a friend of his, Mrs. C. I told him I should be much obliged to him if he would apply to her, and that I should be happy to give 200 l.if the business could be carried into

effect, as my brother was in a very bad state of health at the time, and I was very desirous that he should exchange to infantry, for the purpose of going upon half pay, that he might recover his health. I believe he had served as long as any man in the country of his age, and suffered by it; he had served 23 years, and I believe he has been in every battle during the French revolution; and it was my anxiety to serve him, that has placed me in this distressing and painful situation.

How did you send the 200 l. to Mrs. C.? Under a blank cover, as far as my recollection serves me, by my servant. I do not think that I made any observation in the enclosure, but directed it simply to her.

( By Mr. Leach.)

Did you see Mrs. C. soon after the notice in the Gazette that the exchange was effected, and for what purpose did you see her? I saw her, I think, in the month of September, for the purpose of thanking her.

Upon that occasion did Mrs. C. desire you to be secret with respect to this transaction; and did she assign any, and what reason for that secrecy? She did intreat me to keep it a secret, lest it should come to the D. of Y.'s ears.

Have you seen Mrs. C. within the last month, and how did it happen that you saw her? She wrote, to beg that I would come to her, about a month ago; to which letter I made no reply. She wrote a second letter, as far as my recollection serves me, about ten days ago. I went to her, and she asked me the name of the officer who had exchanged with my brother; I told her. She made a number of complaints of her having been ill-treated by the D. of Y.'; that he had deserted her and left her in debt, I think to the amount of 2,000 l.; and that she was determined, unless she could bring him to terms, to expose him in the manner in which she is now endeavouring to do. I said that that was her affair, but that I trusted she would not introduce either me or my brother. She said, O good God! no, by no means, it is not my intention, you can have nothing at all to do with it. That passed in the drawing-room; and I took my leave, and heard nothing of her since; and I was very much surprized to hear of my name being mentioned in the way in which it has. I was thunderstruck at its being done without any notice.

Had col. Brooke's name been mentioned to the D. of Y. to exchange with your brother, previously to the application to Mrs. C.? I think I have already replied, that the application was made in the regular way. I do not know it; but by a reference to the office, the papers will speak for themselves. I cannot speak from my own knowledge to that.

You have stated, that your reason for applying to Mrs. C. was, that a delay existed in the exchange taking place; do you, of your own knowledge, know where those delays took place, in what office? In the D. of Y.'s office, I suppose.

Can you state in what department of the office? I fancy that col. Gordon was secretary at the tune.

( By My Adam.)

You have mentioned that you sent the bank notes in a cover by your servant; at what time of the day did you send those notes? I am pretty sure it was hi the former pan of the day, lather early in the morning.

( By the Attorney General.)

Were they bank notes that were sent? That I cannot charge my memory with

Was it one or two notes? Upon my word, I cannot venture to say, but I rather think in two hank notes.

Can you say from whom you received the bank notes? Upon my word I cannot, it is a long while ago, nearly four years.

How long was this before your brother was gazetted? The sending was after he was gazetted.

How long before your brother was gazetted did you speak to Dr. Thynne? I should think the negociation went on near a fortnight, or from a fortnight to three weeks, as far as my recollection serves me.

Did you ever receive any note from Mrs. C. with the Gazette? No, it was from Dr. T. I received the communication.

Did you receive any letter from Dr. Thynne? That I do not recollect.

From Mrs. C. to Dr. T.? No; I do not think that I saw any letter.

Did you ever receive any letter from Mrs. C, except what you have mentioned in your former evidence? I have received several letters from her, subsequent to the transaction.

Respecting this transaction? No: I do not think I received any from her respecting this transaction.

Did you receive any answer to the note transmitting the bank notes? None.

Did your brother, to your knowledge, ever apply to the commanding officer of the 56th regiment, to recommend the exchange to the Commander in Chief? I do not know, I believe he did; I am pretty sure that he did.

Do you recollect about what time? Upon my word, I do not.

Did you receive from Dr. T. the gazette containing the account of the exchange? It now occurs to me that I went to the office for the Gazette myself, somewhere about Chancery-lane; I got it myself from the Gazette office.

How long a time elapsed between the first application being made at the Commander in Chiefs office, and the second application to Mrs. C. through Dr. T.? I think, as I said before, about from a fortnight to three weeks.

How long a time elapsed between the first application being made at the Commander in Chiefs office, and the second application to Mrs. C. through Dr. T.? Upon my word, I cannot say exactly.

About what time? It might have been ten days; but I cannot speak accurately.

( By Lord Folkestone.)

You have stated, that you went to the Gazette office to fetch the Gazette; had you any reason to suppose that the exchange would be announced in that particular Gazette, or did you go upon every publication to fetch the Gazette, to see whether it was inserted? I think I went three times in the whole.

In point of fact, before this transaction took place, had you ever learned from Mrs. Clarke that she did apply to the Commander in Chief to expedite this exchange? I cannot tell; I did not become acquainted with her till after the exchange was notified in the Gazette; about sis weeks afterwards.

In the conversations you have since had with Mrs. Clarke, did you ever understand from her, that she had in fact applied to the Commander in Chief to expedite the exchange? Of course, she took credit to herself for expediting the business.

You have no reason for presuming it, but that she took that credit; you do not know that she actually applied? I am not bound to draw inferences.

Did you ever learn from Mrs. Clarke, that she actually applied? She told me she had applied, certainly, when I saw her in September.

To whom did she say she applied? To the Duke of York.

At the time she said she had applied to the D. of Y. were the D. of Y. and she living upon terms? I do not know that of my own knowledge.

When this conversation took place, did Mr.

C. reside in Gloucester place? Yes.

Was it after she said she had applied to the

D. of Y., that she requested the transaction might he kept secret? Yes, it was after, certainly.

In point of fact, did you send the 200 l. to Mrs. C. for any other reason than her interference in expediting the exchange? L certainly sent it her to do all in her power to accelerate the exchange.

( By sir F. Burdett.)

Did not Dr. Thynne transmit to you a Gazette, after the exchange had taken place between your brother and col. Brooke? I do not know but he might.

Was that accompanied with any note from Mrs. C. to Dr. T.? I do not remember that it was.

( By sir A. Piggott.)

Was it after you had sent the 200 l. to Mrs. C., that Mrs. C. expressed her desire that it should be kept secret? Certainly.

Was the fact which Mrs. C. desired should be kept secret from the D. of Y., the receipt of the 200 l. which you sent her? Yes.

Did she expressly desire you to conceal from the D. of Y. your having paid her 200 l.; did she use those words, or, as nearly as you can recollect, what words did she use? She requested that the whole business might be kept a secret.

Did she express herself particularly, during the conversation, as to the money, or was it one general conversation as to the transaction itself? As to the transaction itself.

Was that wish of Mrs. C., that the matter might be kept secret, at the last interview you had with her about ten days ago? No, it was in the month of Sept. 1805, subsequent to the transaction in question.

How long previously to that interview had the money been transmitted? It was the day after the transaction was; notified in the Gazette; I believe, the next morning.

Did Mrs. C, in expressing a wish that the transaction might he kept secret, express a wish that the D. of Y. might not know that you had any thing to do with it? Certainly.

Was not her wish expressed, "dial it might be kept a secret from the Public? From him, the D. of Y.

Repeat, as nearly as possible, the conversation that passed upon that subject? Upon my word, I do not see how I can exactly; it is a long while ago. It is impossible that I should repeat her words.

What expression did Mrs. C. use, that you now recollect, which enables you to slate that it was not from the public, but from the D. of Y. himself, that she wished it to be kept Secret? She begged it might be kept a secret from the D. of Y. I do not know how to shape my answer in any other way; it is impossible to recollect every word that passed four years ago.

Did she add to that request, or did she join with that request, that your having any thins; to do with it might he kept from the D. of Y.? She was anxious that the whole transaction might be kept from him.

Did she say, or give you to understand directly, that the D. of Y. would object to your being a party in the transaction, more, probably, than to any other person? No.

Do you know mat this exchange took place in consequence Of your application to Mrs. C? I cannot say that I know it; it is impossible that I can say that, for the application had been in the War-Office some time previous to the transaction with Mrs. C.; I should think it must have been in the Office from ten days to a fortnight, but I cannot speak exactly; hut that is a fact very easily got at by reference to the War-Office; the correspondence is to be found, no doubt.

Did you ever ask Mrs C. whether she applied to h. r. h. the D. of Y. to expedite that exchange? It does not occur to my mind that I asked her that question.

Did she ever say that she had applied to the D. of Y.? I understood that she had applied to the Duke, most certainly.

Did Mrs. C. appear more anxious that the transaction might be kept a secret from the D. of Y. than from the Public? The Public was never mentioned in the business.

Was the Gazette, which was transmitted to you from Dr: T;, transmitted in a blank cover, or with any letter from the Doctor? I do not remember.

When Mrs. C. told yon, that unless the D. of Y. made terms, she would expose him; did she state what measures she was taking to expose the D. of Y.? No.

Do you recollect the expressions that she made use of? She stated that she had been ill treated by him, and deserted by him, and left in debt; and that if he did not pay those debts (I understood her so, however), she certainly would expose him.

( By Mr. Croker.)

Do you recollect whether you or Dr. T. first mentioned the name of Mrs. C., in the conversation you had together? I think it was Dr. T.; I became acquainted with her through him.

Was the interview you had in Sept. 1805 the first personal interview you had with Mrs. C.? Yes; but I will not he positive as to its being Sept; it might have been the latter end of Aug; it was the latter end of the year.

That was the first interview you had with her? Yes, it was.

( By Mr. Wilberforce.)

Where did Mrs. C. reside when you sent the 200 l. to her? I have already stated, in Gloucester-place.

Had you any particular reason for sending the money early in the morning? No, no particular reason; I should have been sorry to have disturbed the family.

Upon this Mr. Fuller asked, Does the witness knew of his own knowledge whether this Lady lived next the Tabernacle or not? (Laughter.)

Mr. Wharton put it to the Committee, whether such a question should be asked. (Cries of No! No! mixed with a roar of laughter.)

Mr. Lascelles then observed, that an hon. genera!, a member of that house, commanded the regiment into which col. Knight exchanged. He should be glad to know whether the exchange met with his approbation.

General Norton said, "I cannot speak to the time, but col. Knight certainly applied to me, and explained himself very fully and very satisfactorily to me, or I should not have recommended the exchange which I did."

( By Mr. Wardle.)

Did you reside in Gloucester-place, in a house of the D. of Y.'s, in July 1805? Yes, I did.

Did you live under his protection? Yes, I did.

Do you recollect Dr. T. about that period attending you in ids professional line? He attended me, I believe. about that time.

Do you recollect that an application was made to you by Dr. T., to effect an exchange between lieut.-col. Knight and lieut-col. Brooke? Yes, I do.

Do you recollect that lie urged great dispatch? Yes.

Did he hold out any expectation of a pecuniary compliment, provided you effected the exchange? Certainly he did.

Do you recollect his mentioning any particular sum? Yes, I think he did say something about a couple of hundred pounds.

Do you recollect that Dr. T. told you, that col. K. had been long endeavouring to get the exchange? Yes, I do.

( By Mr. Wardle.)

Did you afterwards speak to the Commander in Chief upon the subject? Yes, I did.

How did you mention the business to him? I told him of it, and I gave him the slip of paper that Dr. T. gave me, with their names, just after dinner.

Did you at the same time slate to the Commander, in Chief, that you were to have any pecuniary advantage, provided the exchange took place? His royal highness asked me if I knew the parties, and I said I did not, that they would make me a compliment.

Did you state the amount of the compliment you were to have? I am not certain that I did.

Are you certain that you mentioned to the Commander in Chief, that you were to have any pecuniary compliment? I told h. r. h. that I did not know the men at all, and certainly they would make me some sort of compliment; I did not know them then.

When the exchange appeared in the Gazette, do you recollect sending it to Dr. T.? Yes, I do.

Do you recollect sending any note with that Gazette? Yes.

Do you recollect afterwards receiving any pecuniary consideration? Yes, I do.

How much? A 200 l. bank note was sent me. How was that 200 l. bank note sent you? It was sent me inclosed in a note, with Dr. T.'s compliments.

Do you mean to say that the person who brought it, brought compliments, or that there were any written compliments? I think it was written in the note.

After receiving the 200 l. do you recollect at any time making that circumstance known to the Commander in Chief? Yes, I do.

When did you mention it to him? The same day.

What passed upon the subject? I only merely said that they had kept their promise.

Did the Commander in Chief know from you the amount of the money you had received? He knew the amount, because I shewed him the note; and I think that I got one of his servants to get it exchanged for me through h r. h.

( By Mr. Beresford.)

Where were you immediately before you came to the Bar of this House? In some room about this place.

Did you see any, and what, people there whom you knew? I saw capt. Thomson there; I Mrs. Metcalfe, the wife of Dr. Metcalfe; Miss Clifford, the lady who was with me; Mr. Wardle came in for a minute; Dr. Thynne and his Son.

( By Mr. Windham.)

Did any, and what, conversation pass between you and Mr. Wardle? None.

Not a word? He asked me how I did, and spoke to a lady there.

No other conversation passed between yon and him? None.

Has any conversation passed between you and Dr. T., since he has been examined in this House? Yes, he has been silting with me nearly ever since.

To what purpose was that conversation between you? Not at all relative to this business, it has not been addressed to me, it has been addressed to the two ladies with me, entirely.

Repeat as much of that conversation as you can recollect? I could not repeat after Dr. T. if his character is known at all to tile gentlemen here, it would be very indelicate; he has merely been laughing at the gentlemen here.

( By sir Thomas Turton)

Do you know Mr. It. Knight, and how long have you known him? I know Mr. It. Knight; he took an opportunity of calling upon me, to thank me for getting his brother so quickly through the business, soon after I came to town, about a month or six weeks afterwards, in company with Mr. Biddulph.

Was it in the month of Sept.? I do not know exactly the month, it was soon after.

What was the conversation which passed between you at that meeting? It is so long since, it is impossible for me to recollect; but Mr. Knight thanked me for getting the exchange for his brother, as he had been trying some months before, and I did it so very quickly; and Mr. Biddulph had some favour to ask of me.

Did you, upon that occasion, desire Mr. It. Knight to keep secret this transaction? Yes; I should think that I did, certainly I should say that; I do not recollect saying it, but it is very likely that I did.

Do you recollect expressing a wish that it might be kept secret, lest it should come to the ears of h. r. h. the D. of Y.? O no, never.

Or any thing to that effect? Nothing like it.

Are you quite sure of that? Positive.

( By Mr Lyttlelon.)

When you mentioned to the D. of Y., that you were to receive a compliment for promoting the exchange of commissions between these officers, did h. r. h. make any remark upon that; and if he did, what was it? He told me that he knew the business very well, that they had been Irving at it some time, and that he thought one of them was rather a bad subject; but he would do it.

When you mentioned to the D. of Y., after the exchange had taken place, that you had received a compliment, and shewed him the note of which that compliment consisted, did h. r. h. then make any observation? Not that I recollect; it was finished.

( By the Attorney General.)

At what time was this application first made to yon? Two or three days before it took place, or a couple of days.

Was it not gazetted on the Saturday? I do not recollect.

Can you be sure it was not more than three days before it was gazetted, that the application was made to you? I do not think it was. I think I might guess at the time of the year.

What time of the year was it? His r. h. was going down to Weymouth on the night that I changed the note, which was the reason that; I got the note changed; my servants could not get it changed, and his servant got it changed for me. Lord Chesterfield's family was going down, and he was going to be godfather to lord Chesterfield's child: it was the end of July or the beginning of August.

When did you first mention this transaction to col. Wardle? I mentioned it to others before I ever mentioned it to him.

When did you first mention it to col. Wardle? I do not recollect.

About how long ago? It must have been very lately.

Why do you say that it must have been very lately? Because I speak from the fact.

How long ago did you first mention it to col. Wardle? I should think within a month; he had heard it from other quarters than from me, and attacked me upon it.

Had you any knowledge of col. Wardle before be attacked you upon it? Yes, I had.

What had led to your knowledge of col. Wardle before that time? Himself.

Are you speaking of a time before the attack he made upon you with respect to this transaction? Yes, I knew him before ever he attacked me upon this subject.

How long? I suppose six months.

Had you ever mentioned the transaction voluntarily to col Wardle, till he attacked you upon it? He asked me if it was true, and I told him yes.

Had you stated this voluntarily of your own consent to col. Wardle, or only in answer to his enquiries? When Mr. Wardle told me he bad heard of it, and mentioned the circumstance to me, I said yes, it was true; that was all I said; I did not think I should be brought here upon it, or I might have been very apt to deny it.

Would you willingly have concealed it? I concealed it from the beginning, it was not a public thing; certainly any thing which ought to be private, I have sense enough to keep as such. I believe Mr. Knight spoke of it himself— it had got round.

Who were those other persons that you spoke to of it, besides Mr. Wardle? A few of my friends, I do not recollect who; I am not without friends.

How came you to mention to a few of your friends, whom you cannot recollect, a transaction which you say ought to have been kept secret, and which you think came forward only from Mr. Knight's mentioning it? I did not say that I mentioned it, I said that my friends mentioned it, and that then I said it was ail very true.

When you mentioned this transaction to col. Wardle, did you give the same account of it which you have given to-day? No, I did not. Which was the true account? Both.

In what did the two accounts differ? I do not see that they differ at all; I did not enter so into detail as I do now.

Was the difference between your accounts, that you were shorter in the account you gave to col. Wardle, than in the account you have given to-day? Considerably.

Can you recollect the day on which Dr. Thynne applied to you? The day of the month or the day of the week?

Either? I do not, it was such a trifling affair.

Cannot you tax your recollection upon either one or the other? Not upon such a trifling occasion.

Have you not told col. Wardle on what day Dr. Thynne applied to you? No, I have not.

Did not you tell col. Wardle that the application was made to you on Thursday, and that it was gazetted on the Saturday? No, I did not; I might as well have said Tuesday as Thursday, I do not recollect any thing about days or dates.

Have you told the house now all that you told col. Wardle upon the subject? I have answered that before? I have told the house more than I have told him a great deal; I told them that I did not go into detail with him, and I have with the house.

Have you told the house every thing that you mentioned to him? Upon what subject?

Upon this subject? Yes, I have, and a great deal more.

What have you told the house to-day, which you have not told col. Wardle? I mentioned it but slightly to him, and I have told every thing here that I recollect, except a slight conversation between h. r. h. and myself, which I suppose it is not necessary to repeat.

On the requisition of Mr. Brand, the witness was ordered to withdraw, and the hon. gentleman then stated, that the tendency of the Attorney General's questions was to impeach the veracity of Mr. Wardle, which he did not consider a fair course of procedure towards his hon. friend.

( By the Attorney General.)

What circumstances have you mentioned to the house relative to this transaction, which you did not mention to col. Wardle? I did not mention to col. Wardle that I shewed the note to h. r. h. nor did I tell him that h. r. h. got change for it; it was for me that he got change, he was going out of town at one o'clock, and I at four, and I wanted the change, to leave some with my servants in town, and some I wanted with me. I did not enter into that detail with col. Wardle.

Is that the only circumstance that you have mentioned to the house and did not mention to col. Wardle? No, it is not.

State the other circumstances which you did not mention to col. Wardle.— I did not say much to col. Wardle at all, it was very trifling what I mentioned to him: he had heard it from other quarters, and asked me if it was true, and I said yes.

Had you any intention to have mentioned this, if col. Wardle had not asked you? It was in conversation it was mentioned.

Should you have mentioned this to col. Wardle, if he had not mentioned it to you? Perhaps I might, and perhaps I might not.

Had you any object in mentioning it either to him or to any other person? None, whatever.

Had you any end to accomplish by making this known? Certainly not.

Have you ever stated, that you had any ground of complaint against h. r. h.? All my friends know that I have.

Have you ever stated to any one, that you had grounds of complaint against h. r. h.? To many I have stated it.

Have you not stated, that if h. r. h. did not comply with your demands, you would expose him I told Mr. W. Adam, in a letter, that if he did not folfil his promises, and the Duke's, by paying me the annuity, for which Mr. Adam was the guarantee, and which Mr. Adam promised me should be regularly and punctually paid me, that I should be necessitated to expose h. r. h.'s letters; that was all.

Have you never said that if h. r. h. did not come to your terms, you would expose him? No, never in my life.

Never to any one? Never to any one whatever; nor is it willing at all in me now, I was very angry in that letter, and perhaps Mr. Adam will produce it: that goes to the worst part that ever I said or acted.

Is it only in one letter that you have threatened to expose h. r. h.? Two I have written to Mr. Adam; that is all, to any one.

Were there threats in both the letters They are not threats: I solicited.

Did you say in those letters, that you would expose h. r. h.? Mr. Adam, I suppose, has the letters; and, if he is in the house, will perhaps produce them.

Did you accompany your solicitations by saving, that if they were not complied with, you would expose the Duke? I do not recol- lect that I did, but you bad better ask for the letters.

Did you never make any declaration of that sort to any other person? No, never.

Did you never state to any other person, that if your terms were not complied with, you would expose the Duke, or use any terms to that effect? I have told you before, I did not.

Are you quite certain of that? Yes, quite.

Did you ever tell Mr. Wardle that you wanted this 200 l. for a particular purpose? No, I did not.

Did you not say to Mr. R. Knight, that if h. r. h. did not come into your terms, you would expose him? No, I did not.

Did you ever say any thing to that effect to Mr. R. Knight? No, I did not: I told him I was going to publish the Duke's letters, to pay the creditors, which h. r. h. had refused. R. r. h. had insisted, that I should plead my marriage to avoid the debts or that I might go to prison; that was his last message to me.

When was that message sent? I should think six weeks or two months since; my lawyer can tell, the message went to him.

Who is your lawyer? Mr. Comrie was my lawyer.

Who was your lawyer then? Mr. Stokes, who lives in Golden-square.

He was your lawyer when that message was sent? He received the message and came with it to me.

Who carried the message to him? A man in the employ of Mr. W. Adam, a sort of lawyer.

Did Mr. Knight come voluntarily to you, or did you. send for him? I was in the habit bf writing to Mr. K., since we had been intimate, after the affair of his brother. I wrote him one or two letters, and told him where I lived, and told him to call when he came to town; I dare say he has the letters, which will resolve the question at once.

Did you not write to him, to desire him to come, particularly upon the occasion when you told him you should publish the Duke's letters? No, certainly, I did not.

Did you not send to him, to desire that he would call upon you, and when he came, tell him, that you intended to publish the Duke's letters? I must refer you to the letters; it was only a common sort of letter that I am in the habit perhaps of writing to many more gentlemen, besides Mr. K.

Yon have mentioned, that you were advised to plead your marriage; are you married? It is of no consequence at all about my husband, that has nothing to do with it; Mr. Adam can tell who I am.

Are yon a married woman or not? You have no reason to doubt it. [The Witness was informed by the Chairman, that she must give a direct answer to the question.] I am a married woman; there is no question which I will not answer, though it may be unpleasant.

How long have you been married? I refer you to Mr. W. Adam, he has my certificate. [The Chairman informed the Witness she must give a direct answer to the question.]

How long have you been married? I believe 14 or 15 years.

Is your husband living? I do not know.

Have you not sworn yourself to be a widow? His royal highness, a very short time since, when I sent to him to ask him to send me a lew hundred pounds, sent me word, that ill dare speak against him, or write against him, he would put me into the pillory, or into the Bas-tile. He fancies that I swore myself to be a widow woman when I was examined at a Court Martial. But the Deputy Judge Advocate had more feeling than the gentleman who has examined me now; he told me I might say any thing out of the Court which it might, he unpleasant to me to swear to; I told him it would be very improper for me to say that I was a married woman, when I had been known to be living with the D. of Y. I did not swear that I was a widow, I said it out of Court, and it was put into the Court Martial Minutes as if I had sworn to it, but it was not so. The Judge Advocate, to whom I told it, is at the door, and I think he had better be called in. I know now what he is come for.

Who brought that message from the Duke to you? A very particular friend of the D. of Y.s. (a lapgh.)

Who? One Taylor, a shoemaker in Bond-street; very well known to Mr. Adam.

By whom did you send the request to the Duke for these few hundreds to which the Duke sent this answer by Taylor? By my own pen.

How did you send the letter? By this Ambassador of Morocco, (a laugh.)

What do you mean by this Ambassador of Morocco? The ladies shoemaker.

Was it a verbal answer that was brought to you, or a letter? A verbal answer, in Mr. Taylor's own language or the Duke's; I do not know which it was exactly, but those were the words that passed.

What is your husband's name? Clarke.

What is his Christian name? Joseph, I believe.

Where were you married to him? At Pan-eras; Mr. A. can tell you. [The Chairman stated to the Witness, that he felt it his duty to inform her, that her manner of giving her answers, was extremely indecent, and unbecoming the dignity of the House: and that, it persevered in, it would call for a Tory heavy censure.]

Have you not said, that you were married at Berkhampstead? I did when I was laughing at Mr. A.

Did you not persevere in that story over and over again? No, I did not, I merely laughed at it.

Was it true or not, that you were married at Berkhampstead? I tell you I told it him laughing; and I told the Duke I was making a tool of him when I said that; for which h. r. h. said he was very sorry, for that he was entirely in Mr. A.'s clutches.

Did you make Mr. A. believe that you were married at Berkhampstead? I do not know what I made him believe.

Did you not find, from subsequent conversations with Mr. A., that he had believed it, and acted upon it in some enquiries that he had made? He set a man of the name of Wilkinson to make some enquiries respecting me; so h. r. h. wrote me ill a letter; hut I believe that Mr. A., nor no one, will go to say there was anything improper in my conduct during the time I was undo the Duke's protection: nor will h. r. h. believe it, I am certain.

Did you not represent your husband as a nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke? He told me he was.

Did you believe that your husband was a nephew of Mr. Alderman C.? Yes, t did; he told me so.

Did you ever see Mr. Alderman C.? I never saw any of Mr. Clarke's relations, but two of his brothers, and his sister; I have seen the Alderman sometimes about, as any body else might have seen him.

Do you now believe that your husband is the nephew of Alderman C.? I have never taken any pains to ask any thing concerning him, as I have quitted him; he is nothing; to me, nor I to him; nor have I seen him nearly these three years, nor heard of him since he brought an action against the Duke, or threatened; I saw him about a mouth before that.

What is your husband? He is nothing—but a man.

What business? No business.

Was he never any business? No, his father was a builder: he lives at Kettering, in North-amptoushire.

Was not he a stone-mason? No, he was not; he lives at Kettering with his younger brother, who was brought up at Cambridge, and his brother's wife; that is all I know of him.

Did you ever live in Tavistock-place? Yes, I did.

When did you live there? I do not recollect; I lived there with my mother.

How many years ago? I do not recollect. When did you go to Gloucester-place? I do not recollect; I was with the Duke, in Park-lane, before.

When did you go to Park-lane? I do not recollect.

How long was it before you went to Park-lane, that you were in Tavistock-place? I do not recollect.

Did you live at any other place between the time of your living in Tavistock-place and in Park-lane? I do not know; the Duke knows if I did; T might have gone to some of his houses; I do not know.

How lung did you live in Tavistock-place? I do not recollect; I did not live long there; I was backwards and forwards.

Was not that before you knew the Duke? No, it was not.

Where did you live when first you knew the Duke? You will excuse me if I do not men- tion it. [The Chairman informed the Witness she must answer the question.] I do not recollect.

if you do not recollect, why did you desire to be excused from answering the question? Because I do not recollect it.

Was your only reason for desiring to be excused from answering the question, that you do not recollect it? Yes; because it would be seeming as if I could not answer many of the questions you put to me: I wish to be very fair and very honest.

Recollect yourself, and say positively whether you did not live in Tavistock-place before you knew the Duke? I knew the Duke many years before that. I do not think it is a fair question at all to put to me; you hear that I am a married woman, and I have a family of children, and I have a daughter grown up.

Did you not live in Tavistock-place before you were under the Duke's protection, as you expressed yourself? I was under his protection; I might have lived there: I lived under his protection there.

Do you mean to say, you were under his protection when first you went to Tavistock-place? No; I was under my mother's; but I knew him before.

Did you not live in Tavistock-place as a widow; did you not represent yourself as a widow? No, never at any place whatever; but at that court-martial lately I did; I thought it was saving myself and my family something: and I thought it was saving h. r. h. likewise, its tie was married also.

Do you mean to say that you never lived in Tavistock-place till you were under the protection of the Duke? No; I say I was there with my mother and my children; I knew h. r. h. previous to that, but I did not live with him.

Did you not represent to the trades-people who furnished your house there, that you were a widow? Never to any one whatever.

Have you not threatened the Duke, that if he would not come into the terms you proposed, and pay you what you required of him, you would put the letters into the hands of persons who would pay you? Would pay me what?

That which you required the Duke to pay you? What is that? will you be so good as to state what I wanted him to do.

Have you not stated, that you had put upon paper, or would put upon paper, the transactions for the last 14 or 15 years, and that if ha did not comply with your demand, that you would put that memoir into the hands of persons who would publish it? No, I have not; I cannot recollect what I said, but I must beg for the letter, and that will convince at once.

You have stated, that you Have mentioned this transaction to some other persons besides col. Wardle; who are those persons? Indeed I do not recollect; my acquaintances; it might have been in a slight sort of way; I did not make a talk of it myself.

How long ago was it that you first mentioned it to Col. Wardle? That must have been since I wrote that letter to Mr. Adam; I did not know col. Wardle at that time: Mr. Adam sent a messenger to me, but I would not see him.

Who has been present beside? col. Wardle, when you have ever mentioned this transaction to him? I do not know of any body but my children, or a young lady now and then; nobody of any consequence—no man.

To what man have you ever mentioned this, except to col. Wardle? To many gentlemen; to my acquaintances; I do not recollect; I do not know.

Do you know major Hogan? Not at all; I never saw him in my life, nor ever heard of him till I read a pamphlet. Mr. Greenwood sent a message a little time since by this same man, Taylor, to say that he was very sorry to hear that I was acquainted with a Mr. Finnerty. I never saw the man in my life. I believe about eight or nine years ago, at Margate, they said there was some newspaper men there, and he was there; that is all that I know. I never saw him since. And there is another man who writes, who says he is very intimate with me; I never saw him but once, and that was when h. r. h. was with me: that was at my mother's.

( By Mr. Croker.)

Do you recollect the particulars of the last conversation which you had with Mr. R. Knight? Yes; he asked me who bad taken the house I was in, and if the Duke and I were upon intimate terms now; it was a sort of general conversation; and then the Subject of the letters came up, and he asked me whether h. r. h. had paid me my annuity; I told him no; that h. r. h. had not taken any further notice of me nor of the debts; that he had forgotten the annuity, and indeed that he had sent me word that he had never made any; that the trades-people were daily harrassing me for the debts I had run into when I was under his protection, and it was impossible for me to plead my marriage to them all, the people not being contented, and that I would publish his letters, and give the money among the trades-people. Mr. R. Knight then desired me, if I was going to publish any sort of memoir, that I would be sure to spare his brother. That was the heads of the conversation that passed between us.

Was there any other notice taken, in that conversation, of the business that is at present under discussion, except Mr. R. Knight requesting you generally to spare his brother? No, certainly not.

Did you make any inquiries of Mr. R. Knight, concerning the business now under discussion? Mr. Knight told me, I believe, as well as I can recollect: "Ah, by the bye, you got very well over the difficulty that my brother could not;" and then I asked him the name of the other man, but I knew it before, and what sort of looking man he was; he said he was an Irishman.

I understand you to have said, in the former part of your examination, that col. Wardle had mentioned the circumstances to you; and that; all the information you had given to him, was generally, that the circumstances he had SO mentioned, were true: do you still abide by that answer? Yes.

Have you ever had any more than one conversation with col. Wardle upon this matter under discussion? No, I have not; and I hope I shall never hear of it any more.

Are you in the habit of seeing col. Wardle, or have you seen him more frequently than that occasion when he came to inquire into those circumstances? O dear, yes.

Do you recollect how long ago it was that that conversation relating to this business took place between you and col. Wardle? I have said before, it could not have been long since.

Has the only conversation you had with col. Wardle, upon this subject, taken place within these three days? No.

Has it taken place since Friday last? Indeed I do not know; I do not recollect: I do not think that it has.

Did that conversation take place since Friday last? No; to the best of my recollection not.

Did you see col. Wardle on Saturday last? I see him very often; I think I saw him at the Opera on Saturday.

Did you see him any where else but at the Opera on Saturday? lie frequently calls upon me.

Did you know, and when did yon know, that col. Wardle had, in this house, stated the present transaction, and mentioned his intention of calling upon you as a witness? When. I saw the newspaper. He called upon me soon afterwards, and I certainly was very angry with him; and we had some words, as he had made very free with a friend's name of mine, Mr. Donovan, without my authority, depreciating his services and abilities. Mr. Donovan has been wounded in the service of his country, and has not been in bed for these 20 years; and he is only a lieutenant in some garrison battalion. Mr. Wardle, one morning when he was calling upon me, took a parcel of letters away from me without my giving him my sanction: and that has led more to the business than any thing, and I have never been able to get them back since. He laughed it off, saying, that he should get into my love-secrets. They were letters between friends and myself.

Do you not now recollect, that it was on Saturday last that you saw the newspaper that gave you this information? I do not recollect the day at all.

Did you not see col. Wardle on Saturday last? I see him almost every day; sometimes every other day, or twice a week—I do not recollect—I dare say I did—I am in the habits of seeing him often; but I did not know he was going to bring this thing forward; and I told him I would get out of town; and he told me, that if they caught me airy where they would put me in prison, and I must not show contempt to a summons from the house of commons.

Did you see col. Wardle yesterday? I think I did.

Have you any doubt; are you not certain that you saw him yesterday? No, I did not see him yesterday.

Are you certain now that you did not see him yesterday? I think that I am; I do not think I was at home all day.

Did you see col. Wardle on the forenoon of this day? Yes, f did, two or three times.

Do you still adhere to your former answer, that you have not, within these three days or since Friday last, had any conversation with Col. Wardle, relative to the subject at present under discussion? To day he told me that I must come here and obey that summons; and one day last week, a few days ago, he told me I must abide by what be bad done, and speak the truth, and if I did not the house would commit me for contempt; that if I prevaricated at all, and did not speak the truth, the house would commit me, and send me where they had sent some sheriffs before.

You have stated, that h. r. h. the Commander in Chief must have known you had received a pecuniary compliment for the service you had done to col. Knight, because he had seen a note; did you shew the Commander in Chief that note before or at any other time, except when you asked him to exchange it for your own convenience, for the distribution of money among your servants? I shewed it him after dinner one day, when I was going out of town in the morning, and h. r. h. at night: I never shewed it him, but that once, and it was changed on that night.

By when was the message concerning Finnerty conveyed? By Taylor; be told me that he bad just left Mr. Greenwood, who had been just reading one of Slogan's pamphlets to him, and that Mr. Greenwood told him that he had been told by several people, that I was concerned with all the pamphlet writers, and among the rest, was very intimate with one Finnerty, which I denied, as I do now.

Soon after you bad received the 200 l. Mr. R. Knight and Mr. Biddulph called upon you? Yes, I do not know exactly how soon alter. I went out of town the night after I had received the 200 l. and staid perhaps a fortnight or three weeks, and they called after that time. He introduced Mr. Biddulph to me.

Did Mr. H. Knight, after that, ever call upon you alone at any time, soon after you had received the 200 l.? Many times alone.

Did you ever at any time, in conversation with Mr. It. Knight, cither when Mr. R. Knight was alone with you, or when any person was with you, ever say to him, that you were desirous that the transaction that had happened should be concealed from h. r. h.? Never in my life; I never said that, and I have so stated before.

Then, if any body has ever said that you said so, that accusation is false? Certainly

( By Lord Folkestone.)

You have stated, that you sent the Gazette, containing the exchange which took place, in a note to Dr. T.; do you recollect what was said in that note? No, I do not; very little, I dare say, as I sent the Gazette with the note.

You have likewise stated, that the 200 l. was brought to you in a note, with Dr. T.'s compliments; are you certain as to that fact? Yes, I think I can say positively to that, because I told my own maid to co down and give the man who brought the letter a guinea.

Was the compliments a verbal message, or inserted in the note? I am certain the note was inclosed in an envelope; I never recollected to speak certain as to there being a note on the paper, because I thought there was a finish of the thing, and that nobody would ever call upon me about it, but I think I read Dr. T.'s compliments.

Do you know who brought that note to your house? No, it was a man servant, and I considered it to be Dr. T.'s servant, as he had spoken to me.

Do you recollect at what time of day it was received? In the middle of the day.

You have stated in a former part of your examination, that the exchange was effected within a very few days alter the application was made for the exchange; do you allude to the application made by Dr. T. to you, or the application made by you to the Commander in Chief? I spoke to h. r. h. the same day at dinner.

And the exchange was effected within a few days? Yes, two or three days.

Do you recollect how soon after that it appeared in the Gazette? The same day as it was effected it was in the Gazette.

Had you any reason to desire to conceal from the Commander in Chief Mr. R. Knight's visits to you; did you ever desire him to conceal his visits from the Commander in Chief? I never concealed his visits, or those of any gentleman who ever visited me, from the Commander in Chief.

( By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Were those letters you referred to, taken away before the time that col. Wardle had the conversation first with you upon the subject of this inquiry? Yes, I should think they were, because it is some time since.

Do you recollect how long since? No, I do not; but there was nothing of Mr. Knight's business in those letters.

Had you any conversation with col. Wardle, upon the su1ject of thrive letters, before he took them away? No, I bad not.

How happened they to be lying in his way? Because I was looking over my papers, going into a new house: I bad removed from my mother's in Bedford-place, to West bourn-place, and he took up those Utters, and said he would take away the packet of love-letters; and he ran away with them.

Do yon mean seriously to state that col. Wardle took away those letters without your leave, and without your authority? Yes, he did; but he had run away with many others, which I suppose had induced him to take those nonsensical little notes he had run away with before, and then he told me he would give me those back again, if I wished it; that they were on a different subject to what he imagined them to be; that he was very sorry for it; but he should take care to read them before he gave them me back.

Were those letters, letters from h. r. h. to you? No, there might have been one or two of his interspersed; but they were Mr. Donovan's letters, and others.

Do you mean to say they were not the D. of Y.'s letters that were taken away by Mr. Wardle? No, they were not; he has not let me see them once.

How came you to state, that the greatest part of this business has principally been occasioned by those letters having got into the possession of col. Wardle? Because he has read them.

Whose were those letters, that he had read, which led to this inquiry? There are more letters than I could really mention or recollect; they are from different friends of mine, and on different subjects, which I suppose led him to make such free use of Mr. Donovan's name.

Do you recollect ever having been offered any money for the delivery of any letters from h. r. h., or from Mr. Donovan? Never.

Did you ever place any letters in the hands of any body, with intent to forward and facilitate any negotiation of your own? No, I have not.

Have you never so said to, any body? Except to Mr. Adam, who was the confidential friend of h. r. h.

Have you never stated, that you had put letters in the hands of any one, for the purpose of facilitating some negociation of your own? No, I have not, except that once or twice that I wrote to Mr. Adam, I never did nor never said it to any one.

Have you ever in point of fact, put any letter into the hands of any one, for the purpose of facilitating any negociation of your's? No, I? have not.

Have you never written to any one, to say that you had so done? To no one but Mr. Adam.

What is the name of the Deputy Judge Advocate, to whom you have referred? His name is Sutton.

At the time when you received the 200 l. was the D.of Y. present in the room? No, he was not.

How soon afterwards did you state to the D. of Y., that Mr. K night had fulfilled his promise? The same day.

Was it on the same day that you desired h. r. h. to get that note changed for you? I did nor desire h. r. h. to get it changed for me; he wished it himself, as I could not do it.

What was the name of the servant by whom that note was changed? I do not know, I am sure; it is a very unusual thing to ask servants their names.

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. a Member of the House, was then examined in his place as follows:

( By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

You have heard the account which the last Witness has given of the part you took in this transaction; will you give your own account of it? I wish to stale to the Committee, in answer to the question put to me by the hon. and learned gent, that I believe in the year 1789 I was first desired by b. r. h. the D. of Y. to look into some concerns of his. From that time to the present period I have continued my attention to those concerns, and I have continued it upon the ground that I staled the other night to the House; namely, that it is not professional, that it is not attended with any emolument whatever, but it has been perfectly gratuitous on my part. I felt it a duty, when engaged in it, to discharge all of it, and every part of it, with as much fidelity and accuracy and attention as I could. It came to my knowledge, late in the year 1805, that the husband of the person who has been examined at the bar, threatened au action for crim. con. against the D. of Y.: it was necessary to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and it fell to my lot, from the communications which I had upon other subjects with h. r. h., and from the intercourse which had constantly and invariably subsisted (if I may use the expression) between h. r. h. and myself, that I should give directions for those inquiries. In the course of these direc-

tions, and in the matter that was laid before me in consequence of the investigation, I had reason to believe that the conduct of the person who has been examined at the bar had not been so correct as it ought to have been, and that it had a tendency to prejudice h. r. h.'s interests, not his character in a military point of view or in a public capacity, but his interests and his name with regard to money: This led to further inquiry; and I con ceived it to he my duty to intimate the result of these things to the D. of Y.: I found the Duke not inclined to believe that there could be any thing wrong in that quarter, and that he continued of that opinion almost to the last, till the very close of the Connection; and that the connection, as the facts will shew, closed in consequence of his conviction that that investigation had disclosed the character of the person who has just been examined. The transactions of a pecuniary nature, which as I have stated, bad no relation to any tiling like the subject of this inquiry: these transactions came to be brought more directly home to h. r. h.'s attention by a fact which I could state, if it were (it according to the rules of evidence; but it would be stating hearsay evidence, and that, hearsay evidence of the party whose conduct is the subject of inquiry: I state it merely to make my evidence intelligible. I then directed the inquiry more at large, and had an accurate investigation made by employing Mr. Lowton, an eminent Solicitor, who employed Mr. Wilkinson, as the person that he generally gets to superintend business until it is brought forward in proper shape, he not having leisure for those parts of his business. By Mr. Wilkinson, to whom the person at the bar alluded, these investigations were completed; and when they were completed, they were, I think, either upon the 6th, 7th, or 8th of May 1806, submitted in detail and in writing to h. r. h., accompanied with the proofs: it was an unpleasant task, because it is not pleasant to state to any person that which is contrary to their inclinations and their feelings; but it was a thing that I thought I was bound, in the discharge of my duly to the Duke, to do exactly in the manner in which I had received the information. This information was considered. In the course of it, h. r. h. wished that I should have an interview with the person who has just been examined; I accordingly agreed to have that interview, because I considered that no unpleasantness that might afterwards, or at the time, arise to myself, should prevent me from following up the business, and extricating that royal person from the person with whom he was at that time connected. Upon the score of those representations, I had this interview: it was an interview not of very long duration; but, of course, I conducted the conversation to those points which led me to discover how far, with perfect accuracy, there was truth or falsehood in the information which I had obtained in the manner I have stated. It had been represented to we hat this person had defended

an action as a married woman, having obtained the property for which the action was brought in the character of a widow. Investigation was made with regard to the place of her marriage, and it was found she was married a minor at Pancras. She had represented, at different times, that her mother was of a family of the name of Mackenzie; that her lather was named Farquhar; that they lived in the neighbourhood of Berkhampstead, and that accounts would he had of the family there. The Berkhampstead Register had been examined with that view, and it was examined with accuracy for forty years back. In the course of the conversation I had with her in the first interview, I took occasion to ask her, where she was married; and she stated to me, seriously and distinctly, that she was married at Berkhampstead. I then took occasion to put some questions with regard to the register of Pancras; and I took occasion likewise to state what I knew with respect to the registers of births, burials, and marriages at Berkhampstead; and, from the impression it made, I came away with a conviction in my mind, that those facts which have been stated to me upon the investigation I had directed, were correct and true; because, no doubt remained upon my mind, from her demeanour and conduct upon that occasion. She stated seriously that her marriage was at Berkhampstead. She likewise stated, in that conversation, that her husband was a nephew of Mr. Alderman Clarke, now the chamberlain of London. I know, from the same investigation, that that was equally incorrect with the other. In a few days after this, h. r. h.'s mind being made up to separate himself from this person, I was again asked by h. r. h., whether I had any difficulty in undertaking the communicating to her his determination. My being to wait upon her was announced in a short letter from the Duke to her; and I, accordingly, from the same motive which I have already stated, and, feeling it to be a duty, as I had commenced the transaction which was to lead to this, not to flinch from any personal inconvenience, or any unpleasantness which might arise at the time, or in future, to make the communication, I made the communication, and I accompanied it with this declaration, That the Duke thought; it his duty, if her conduct was correct, to give her an annuity of 400 l.a year, to be paid quarterly; that he could enter into no obligation in writing, by bond or otherwise, that it must rest entirely upon his word, to be performed, according to her behaviour, and that he might therefore have it in his power to withdraw the annuity in case her behaviour was such as to, make him consider that it was unfit it should be paid. That was the nature of the proposition which I made, and no other. The conversation lasted for a very short time. I left the lady, and I have not seen her from that time to the present moment. These circumstances seem to me in the narration, all that is necessary to he stated with respect to that part of the transaction in which my name has been so frequently

used There are, however, two other matters, the one in which my name was used when it was first introduced, and the other respecting a particular person, upon which I wish to state the facts to the Committee. I did at some time in the year 1808, receive a letter, I think the 11th of June; I will not be quite sure about the date, but I think it is marked in my own hand 11th of June 1808, which is the letter which has been alluded to. I am not in possession of the letter, I gave it into the same custody that had the papers which constituted the investigation I have stated; that letter I shall state nothing of the contents of; I only mean to say that letter is in a situation to be produced, and I suppose from what has passed there will be no necessity for any thing more. The other fact to which I wish to speak, is with respect to the persons whom I employed. With respect to Mr. Wilkinson, the Committee have already heard the manner in which he has been employed, and those who know him, know his capacity for that employment. With regard to the other person, of the name of Taylor, I can only say that I never happened to see that person in the whole course of my life. If, in what I have stated, in which the facts only can he considered as evidence, but which I have endeavoured to make intelligible by connecting circumstances, any tiling has arisen for any question to be put to me, I am most anxious that all or any gentlemen in the House should call upon me to answer it. The separation took place upon the 11th of May 1806; the transaction which has been examined took place in July 1305.

( By the Attorney General.)

Did you guarantee this annuity? Never, I Staled that it was to depend entirely upon her I behaviour, and not to be guaranteed, because the Duke was to be at liberty to withdraw it, in case of her behaviour rendering it proper so to do.

( By Lord Folkestone.)

Was the promise, whatever it was, made to her in a letter written by you? That was what I stated in conversation.

When you announced the separation, it was not by a conversation, but by a short letter written to her? I did not state that the short letter was written by me, hut that the short Utter was written by the Duke. On subjects of this kind, not having had any opportunity of refreshing my memory, I may not have been perfectly correct in trilling particulars, but now I can state, that the only letter I ever wrote to her was a very short note, that I was coming to wait upon her in consequence of the Duke's wishes that I should do so.

( By the Attorney General.)

Did Mrs. C. appear exasperated at the separation? She appeared, very much surprised at the communication; she did not appear exasperated, but she declared her detemination to see the Duke again; and I collected from what she said, that she expected to be able to prevail upon him to receive her again under his protection.

Did she know that you had been active in explaining the nature of her conduct to the Duke? I had every reason to believe so; I do not know it of my own knowledge.

GWYLLYM LLOYD WARDLE, esq. a Member of the House, was then examined in his place, as follows:

( By the Attorney General.)

Had you only one short conversation with Mrs. C. upon the subject of to-night's inquiry? That is a difficult question to answer exactly, there are such a vast variety of cases I have talked over with her from time to time. I do not know exactly the time when I talked this case over with her; I had heard of it before, and, in short, got out of her more than she told me voluntarily. She attacked me very warmly with respect to another case which I mentioned, and I believe she spoke generally of the whole. When the matter was talked over between us, I took my pen and ink, and entered every thing which passed in a book. I do not believe that I have altered any part of what I entered. I believe I never had but one pointed conversation on this case; whether, in speaking of other cases, I have touched upon that, I cannot say; the case, has remained in that book ever since; and I took a copy the other day, from that book, of what I had written.

What you stated to the House, was what you had collected from Mrs. C.? What in part I had collected from Mrs. C, and in part from other quarters.

Did you state to the House any thing as having passed between Mrs. C. and those persons who were immediate agents in this transaction, except what you collected from her? I fancy a good deal. I know some points; hut I believe a good deal of the main points were stated from the book which I had written when I had conversed with her upon the subject.

Did she state to you that this passed on the 25th of July? No, she did not, certainly. I do not think she was at all aware of the positive date. I remember, at the time of the conversation, she mentioned the circumstance of lord Chesterfield's christening, and seemed guided by that: that h. r. h. was going down to that christening; and, by that, she made out the period to be in July, when the transaction took place.

Upon what authority did you state with particularity, that this took place on Thursday the 25th of July; this agreement for the 200 l.? She, upon taking note of that christening, and taking note of the Gazette also, was positive then in her assertion (I remember perfectly well) that the thing was proposed on the Thursday, and done on the Saturday: that was

her positive assertion, from the first to the last; and that it was that led me to state it

I understand you to have stated, that she did not state it to be on the 25th? She did not, in the first instance; the Gazette was found, and the moment it was looked into, she was so positive as to the Thursday and the Saturday, that no doubt remained upon her mind.

Have you a particular recollection, that it? was at last brought to the Thursday, the 25th of July? I have really no further recollection: I have no other guide.

Do you remember that it was the Thursday preceding the Saturday on which the Gazette was published? I do not know how to make the matter clearer: these were the two points that guided me in my assertion: if I was wrong in my assertion, it was a blunder arising from that.

Is the Committee to understand, that while Mrs. C. and yourself were seeking to fix the day on which this transaction took place, the Gazette was found; and, that finding the date of that, and considering the time which had preceded it, you fixed the date on which the offer was made to be on the Thursday preceding? I mean merely to assert, that from the evidence Mrs. C. gave me, and from the information I got from the Gazette, I fixed that it must be on the very day I mentioned; I had no other guide to go by of one description or another; and I do not see that I am to stand here, however willing I may be, alter the very heavy examination which that Witness has gone through, which, I believe, many gentlemen think with myself must tire any gentleman; I do not feel disposed to submit to the same sort of discipline; she never did, to the best of my recollection, give me any other date than that I have mentioned, the christening of my lord Chesterfield; and I remember her stating, that the thing was petitioned on the Thursday, and done on the Saturday; more than that I really do not recollect on the subject. Any question which I can answer, I shall be willing to answer, but I do not know how further to answer that I afterwards enquired, and ascertained when that christening was; and, from that and the Gazette, I mentioned the date, which I thought was correct; whether it was or not, I cannot state.

( By the Attorney General.)

The Gazette was referred to as a medium of proof at the time? No, I referred to the Gazette since.

Was that in the presence of Mrs. C.? No, it was not.

Was that circumstance communicated to her? Not by me; I do not know that it was.

I understood you to have said, that you and Mrs. C, upon referring to the Gazette, and other circumstances which occurred to you, fixed, that the time must have been about Thursday the 25th of July? Then I said what I did not mean; the conversation was respecting the christening; I made enquiry when the christening was of a friend or two of my own; and I mentioned it from that: whether between that period and this I may have named the date to her, or she got it from another quarter, I cannot say; that of the three days was all the information that I obtained from her as to the date.

Is it true that you took away some papers from Mrs. C. against her will, and without her consent? I certainly did take some letters away from Mrs. C, which I did not believe she exactly approved at the moment; I did it in that sort of way, there was no force in the business; but amongst papers, she was in the habit of giving me letters respecting the cases; and she gave me one or two of Mr. Donovan's; there were one or two of Mr. D.'s, and one or two of light moment from another quarter on the table. I said, I will take this away; and she said, those are horn a friend of mine, and he must not he touched; that made me curious about the letters; and they were certainly letters of very great moment: I have had them in my possession ever since.

Mrs. C. had been in the habit of communicating letters to you upon this subject before that time? One or two letters, not relative to this case; but one or two letters much about that time, just about that period, she communicated to me.

Relative to the D. of Y.? No; that had nothing at all to do with this business.

Why was it that he was not to be touched? It was Mr, Donovan.

( By Mr. Canning.)

Did Mrs. C. ever state to you, that she had stated to h. r. h. her wishes to go into the country, and that those wishes might be gratified without any expence to h. r. h., as an opportunity had occurred to her of obtaining the sum of 200 l.? No; she stated tome, to the best of my recollection, that she wanted to go into the country; that she told h. r. h. that there was 200 l. could be had for that exchange, and that she got it, and went in consequence. I do not recollect any thing further.

Did she inform you that she had stated this to h. r. h., previous to the receiving the 200 l. and with a view to obtain h. r. h.'s consent so to receive it? I understood that she had stated, three days before the occurrence took place, that she should have a pecuniary consideration; that that pecuniary consideration was 200 l. and that she went into the country immediately after she received it. I understood her, that she had told h. r. h. that a pecuniary consideration was to be given for the exchange, and that that pecuniary consideration proved to be 200 l.; that that was told him on the day when the application was made, which I understood from her was three days before it took place.

Three days before the person was gazetted, or three days before the 200 l. was received? Three days before the person was gazetted; I understood the person was gazetted, and the money was received, on the same day or the next day.

Did Mrs. C. state to you, that she had stated to h. r. h., previously to her actual acceptance of the offer of 200 l. that such an offer, in fact, had been made to her, and that the acceptance of it would enable her to go into the country, which she desired to do? I understood from her, that when she made the request to the Commander in Chief, she had mentioned to him that she was to receive a pecuniary consideration; as to the going out of town, that was a fixed thing before, they were both going out, as I understood; but in justice to her I will state what I this moment recollect, that a few days ago, after my motion, she stated, that I had been very incorrect, if the papers stated truly what I said, and whether it was that, or what other circumstance, I will not undertake to say; but to the best of my recollection, I understood from her, that on the day she made the application, she gave the Commander in Chief to understand, that a pecuniary consideration was forthcoming for the exchange.

Did you receive any other information from any other person than those who have been examined here to night, and col. Knight, as to this point, upon which you founded the statement which you made to the House? I had, as I before stated to the House, had other information from other quarters; it will not become me to state to the House who those persons were; that I conceive would be very indecorous.

( By Mr. Wilberforce.)

Did that expression which Mrs. C. used as to a particular person, who was not to be touched, imply that there were some proceedings to be instituted concerning some other persons? I have no reason to think that she meant any more than exactly what she said, that when I got hold of those letters, she knew I was possessed of facts that would touch Mr. Donovan: I do not think she connected any other matter with it.

With respect to these letters which you carried away from Mrs. C.'s, has Mrs. C. since made frequent application to you for those letters? Yes, she has; and was very much enraged with me, particularly for having said what I did respecting Mr. Donovan.

Was the conversation which took place on Saturday, the conversation to which you alluded, in which you received the information upon which you proceeded? That was subsequent to my motion.

( By Mr. Croker.)

Did you see Mrs. C. yesterday? I was at her house late last night, about nine o'clock; I was in the drawing-room for a few moments, there was company with her.

Did you see Mrs. C yesterday? Yes, as I have said before, I was in her drawing-room, when she had company last night.

She was in that drawing-room? Yes, certainly.

Is it possible that she should not have seen you in the drawing-room at that time? No, it is totally impossible.

( By Mr. Canning.)

I understand you to say, that being informed that the gazetting took place within two or three days after the original order, you provided yourself with the Gazette of Saturday, in which that appointment appeared, and so, calculating backwards, fixed Thursday as the day on which the proposition had been made? I understood from the first, that it was on the Thursday that the exchange had been applied for, and that the business was completed on the Saturday; that is entered in my book in the first conversation, that she understood it was gazetted on the Saturday, or in two or three days.

The Gazette in which this is announced is dated on the Tuesday? Yes, I am perfectly aware of that fact; that is a blunder of her's, but I never heard anyone thing to make me doubt that it was so till to-night.

( By Mr. Croker.)

Being asked whether you were not at Mrs. C.'s yesterday, you answered that you had been there about nine o'clock in the evening; were you not at Mrs. C.'s house at any prior hour of yesterday? I called at Mrs. C.'s yesterday morning, she was not at home; I returned in the evening, and had a conversation with her for a few minutes.

Did you merely call at Mrs. C.'s house; did you not go into it, and wait a very considerable time at Mrs. C.'s house? I was up in Mrs. C.'s drawing-room for some time in the morning, I did not see her then, but I saw her in the afternoon.

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. was again examined in his place, as follows:

( By Mr. Wilberforce.)

Having mentioned the annuity which was conditionally promised, can you state whether that annuity was actually paid; and, if so, for how long? I can state nothing respecting the payment; I had nothing at all to do with it; I never heard any thing of it from the time when I had the second and last interview.

You have stated, that the annuity was to be continued so long as Mrs. C.'s conduct was correct; will you have the goodness to explain that term? The term I used I meant in this sense; that her conduct was to be such as not to have any reference to any pecuniary transactions, such as I stated to hare been the cause of the investigation, and the subject of the subsequent communication to her by me, that the D. of Y. was to have no further connection with her; and I stated in my evidence, that at that time, nor at any time till recently, had I any notion that there were any transactions of this kind in which she had been in any way concerned: Those pecuniary concerns to which I alluded, were the use of the D. of Y.'s name for the purpose of raising money, so as to involve his credit and character, but not by the sale of commissions.

( By Mr. Beresford.)

Do you mean by getting in debt with tradesmen, and borrowing money? Any mode by which she could raise money.

Did you continue, from the year 1806, to have the management of h. r. h.'s finances, and his money concerns? I had not; properly speaking, the management of any part of h. r. h.'s. But I wish to mention this to the House; the D. of Y., from causes which it is unnecessary to refer to, found his circumstances embarrassed; at a very early period, he applied to me to look into them, and to get matters arranged: he appropriated to that arrangement, as soon as his income was such as to enable him to afford it, a very large sum of money, annually, 12,000 l. a-year, that was put under the administration of Mr. Coutts and myself, as trustees for the creditors, to settle

the payments. From the circumstance of the D. of Y. being a mere annuitant, and from other causes, which I should be extremely glad, to explain, to render my evidence intelligible, particularly from one cause, that in the arrangement of his estates he had cast upon him the expence of a large inclosure, which by Act of Parliament he was bound to see executed, which took a great deal of money, and his being under the necessity of buying tithes to a large amount, together with the property tax coming on him, we were not enabled to operate the redemption of the debts by the payment of 12,000 l. a year, it was therefore the D. of Y.'s wish to appropriate a larger sum; this was done and it is still to go to a greater extent in the hands of Mr. Coutts and myself, for the same purposes. These are the monies which come within my management, and no other. I know nothing about the D. of Y.'s private expenditure; I know nothing about the pension he pays to any one, but only the fund raised for the payment of debts, and also that for the reduction of the debt he owes to the Public, a sum lent to him from the Civil List, when Mr. Pitt was Minister, and which Air. Pitt and other Ministers suspended the payment of to a certain time, and which was last year begun to be paid: a fund was vested in me for the payment of 4,000 l. a year of that; this will extend to the sum of from 26 to 30,000 l. a year; and when it is considered that the income tax falls upon that, as well as the whole of his other property, I believe that h. r. h. will he found to give up as large a sum of money as his present circumstances will afford. These are the only funds which fall under my knowledge; and therefore it is impossible for me to know whether a pension is paid to this or that person, and it is not correct to suppose that I am in the administration of his affairs further than I have stated.

Did Mrs. C. apply to you at any time since 1806 for payment of this pension? It is extremely difficult for me to state positively that she did not, but I believe the two letters which she mentions are the only letters I have ever received from her. I cannot undertake to say, in the variety of transactions I have, that there were no others; the prominent letter was that of the 11th June 1808, which I immediately indorsed, and delivered over to Mr. Wilkinson.

( By the Attorney General.)

Do you hold any office under the Commander in Chief? Yes, I do.

What is it? His Military or Public Secretary.

Does the business of exchanging commissions pass through your office? It does.

Can any transaction of that nature pass without your knowledge? It is quite impossible.

Do all the documents by which the persons, who apply to exchange, are recommended, pass through your office? They do.

Do they pass first under your examination and consideration? Generally; I might almost say always.

Do you report the result to the Commander in Chief? Most undoubtedly, without fail.

How long have you held the office that you do at present? About four years and a half.

Did you hold it in 1805? I did.

When any exchange has obtained the approbation of the Commander in Chief, is there a minute made of it? Always.

After that are the commissions made out pursuant to that minute? After an exchange, or any commission has obtained the approbation of the Commander in Chief, it is immediately submitted to the consideration of his Majesty; after his Majesty's approbation and signature has been affixed to the paper so submitted, it is sent to the Secretary at War, for the purpose of having commissions made out corresponding to the name placed in that paper previously submitted to the King, and then to be put in the Gazette.

Are the commissions also signed by his Majesty before they are gazetted? No, perhaps I should explain, that they are made out in the ' war-office after the gazetting; the gazetting is the immediate act following the signature of the King, a notification to the army, that his Majesty has approved of those appointments, and he desires his Secretary at War to prepare the commissions accordingly: they are made out more at leisure.

You will see mentioned in the Gazette the exchange between col. Knight and col. Brooke; when did that exchange receive the approbation of the Commander in Chief? On the 23d of July 1805.

When you say that that approbation took place on the 23rd of July 1805, you refer to some document in your hand; is that any memorandum made in your office? It is.

Is it the course of your office, that, when the approbation of the Commander in Chief is signified, there should be a memorandum made of it? I think I may say invariably.

Was the approbation of the Commander in Chief to this exchange finally obtained on the 23rd of July? It was.

Do you keep records in the office, of all the applications that are made for promotions or exchanges? Yes, I do, very carefully; and every paper of every kind, and every sort, that somes into that office, I preserve with the greatest possible care.

Is that paper which you hold in your hand, the original document which is brought from your office? Yes, it is.

That which you hold in your hand being the Original document which you brought from the office, is it also the document to which you just looked, and declared that the approbation of the Commander in Chief was obtained on the 33d? Yes; it is the only paper I have looked at since I entered this House, except the Gazette.

You stated, that you keep an account of all the applications that are made for promotion, or for exchange, and that that is preserved in the office? I did state so.

Could you, upon any other occasion, with reference to any other exchange, as you have with reference to this, find the memorandum which denoted the time at which the approbation of the Commander in Chief was procured? Yes, I think I could, with the same facility with which I have put my hand upon this.

Are you able to state who recommended col. K. and col. B. for that exchange? This paper, with your permission, I will read; it will speak for itself.

Col. Gordon read, and then delivered in, a Letter from Messrs. Greenwood and Cox to himself, dated Craig's-court, July 1st, 1805 ( a.)

Is it your course, upon a recommendation of this sort being put in, to inquire into the merits of the applicants? Most undoubtedly, in every case; but particularly in the case of field officers of regiments.

Is it your course to report to the Commander in Chief the result of those inquiries? Invariably.

When the Commander in Chief has ever drawn a different conclusion upon the facts stated, than that which you have drawn, has it always been his course to assign to you a reason

Sir; By direction of gen. Norton, we have the honour to inclose a form, signed by brevet lieut. col. Brooke of the 56th reg. to exchange with brevet lieut. col. Knight of the 5th dragoon guards, together with a copy of a letter from lieut. col. Knight, stating that he is satisfied with the security given for payment of the regulated difference between the value of the two commissions; and being informed the counterpart of the exchange has been sent in through the Agents of the 5th Dragoon Guards, you will be pleased to submit the same to field marshal h. r. h. the duke of York.—We have the honour to be, &c.

GRFENWOOD &cox.

Craig's-court, 1st July 1805.

L' col. Gordon, &c.

^* The words in Italics are in Pencil-Mark in the Original

for that? I think he has; but if he did not, I should most undoubtedly have take the liberty to have asked him,

Where, in such a case, no reason has been assigned, are you certain that you have always asked him? Most undoubtedly.

In this case, have you any doubt that you made the necessary inquiries upon the representations made to you by this memorial? None, whatever; I am quite positive that I did do so.

Was the ultimate approbation of this exchange the result of those inquiries? I firmly believe so.

Do you firmly believe that it was in consequence of your report to h. r. h.? Yes, most decidedly I do.

If b. r. h., in approving this exchange, had acied otherwise than according to your report, is it possible that that fact could have escaped your memory? It is some time since this exchange took place; but I am much in the habit of transacting business of this kind, and I do not think that it could have escaped my memory.

Would it have struck you as an extraordinary and unusual transaction, if the Commander in Chief had acted contrary to the result that was drawn from the communications made by you, without assigning any reason for it? Unless h. r. h. had assigned a reason for it, it certainly would have struck me as very extraordinary.

Have you any doubt, upon refreshing your memory as well as you can, by all the papers yon have, and recalling the facts to your recollection, that the approbation of h. r. b. was gained to this exchange, as the result of the memorial presented to you and the inquiries made by yourself, and communicated to h. r. b.? I cannot doubt it for a moment.

This representation, I observe, is made on the 1st of July, and it is not completed till the 23d; do you find that there was any delay in bringing the business to a conclusion, and that it was at first stopped? Yes, there was; and it was stopped.

Are you now able to state, from your recollection, upon what ground it was at first stop-

I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me his majesty's permission to exchange with brevet I col. Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards.

In case his majesty shall be graciously pleased to permit me to make the said exchange, I do hereby declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that I will not, either now or at any future time, give, by any mean or in any shape whatever, directly or indirectly, any more than the regulated.difference.—I have the honour to be, &c.

W BROOKE.—B L col. & Major 56 f

To the colonel, or commanding officer, of the 5G regiment.

I approve of the above exchange, and, I verily believe, no clandestine bargain subsists between the patties concerned.

C. NORTON. Colonel.

ped? To the best of mv recollection, it was stopped upon this ground; upon referring to the services of the respective officers, as is invariably the practice, I found that the services of lieut. col. Brooke, for the last seven years, had been upon the hall-pay; consequently, it became necessary to make more than usual inquiries respecting col. Brooke, before he could be recommended for the situation of Major to a regiment of cavalry; when those inquiries were made, and I was satisfied that col. Brooke was a fit and proper person, I made that report to the Commander in Chief; and as I have said before, I believe it was upon my report so made, that the Commander in Chief acceded to the exchange.

Are you quite sure that there was no difficulty or rub on the part of col. Knight? I am perfectly sure; if the house will permit me I will read my answer to col. Knight upon this subject.

"Horse Guards, 21 June 1305.

"Sir; Having laid before the Commander "in Chief your letter of the 19 instant, am "directed to acquaint you that h. r. h. has no "objection to your exchanging to the Infantry, "receiving the difference; and when an eligible successor can be recommended, your request will he taken into consideration, &c. I am "(Signed) J. W GORDON.

"B L col. Knight. 5 Dgn Gds"

The eligibility, therefore, must have depended upon col. Brooke.

Then I am to understand from you that col. Knight had made an application to exchange, previous to this memorial presented by Greenwood and Cox, in the name of general Norton? Yes, he had.

And that by this letter of the 21st of June, it was signified to him, that his proposal was accepted; that is that the exchange so far as regarded him was accepted, if an eligible successor was found? Certainly.

You are satisfied that the delay arose from the doubt with respect to col. Brooke? I have so stated it.

Have you any doubt that you pursued the necessary inquiries for clearing up that difficulty? None, whatever.

Have you any doubt that the approbation of the Commander in Chief was ultimately obtained, it consequence of those inquiries having cleared up the difficulty? None, whatever; I understood that I had stated that before.

Was there any greater delay in this case, than was necessary for the purpose of prosecuting such inquiries? None, whatever; similar delays occur in similar transactions, almost every week.

Was there any thing, from the beginning to the end of this transaction, which distinguishes it from other transactions of the same sort, relative to the same kind of exchanges? Certainly not; I was much surprised when I heard of the difficulty first started in this honourable house, about three nights ago.

In any conversation that you have had upon the subject of this exchange, with the Commander in Chief, do you recollect a wish being expressed, that the conclusion of the exchange might be expedited? No, certainly not; the expression of such a wish would have been very futile, for it would not have expedited the exchange one half instant; it would have gone on in the usual course.

( By Mr. Adam.)

Do you recollect instances upon the part of the Commander in Chief, since you have been in office, fending to create a greater expedition than the necessary course of office business permits? Never in the current business of the office. I beg to explain to the house; the common business of army promotions is laid before the King once a week, and never twice a week, when any expedition is fitted out, and that officers are suddenly appointed to such expeditions; then and then only a separate paper is submitted to his Majesty, with their names exclusively, and they are not included in the common weekly paper.

Are the committee to understand, that, in the ordinary course of military promotion or exchange, the office always permitted to take its course? Invariably; I never recollect an instance to the contrary.

You have stated that col. B. had been for seven years on half-pay; in proportion to the length of time that an officer has been upon half-pay, and consequently been moved out of sight from ordinary military observation, is it not necessary that there should be a much longer period of inquiry to discover what his conduct has been? Perhaps it may be so, but I cannot exactly say that, as I am in the habit of seeing 20, 30 and 40 officers in the army almost every day in my life; and generally, from some of those, I can ascertain particulars respecting any officer I choose, and that without letting them know the purpose for which I require it.

Was the period of time required for this exchange beyond the ordinary period in such cases? Certainly not.

( By the Attorney General.)

Did the Commander in Chief ever state to you, or did you ever hear that he thought that one of these persons, either col. K. or col. B. was a bad subject? I never heard him express any such thing.

Can you take upon yourself to say, that no opinion of the Commander in Chiefs, that one of these was a bad subject, was the occasion of any delay in the completing this exchange? Yes, I certainly can; the Commander in Chief is very cautious in expressing himself so strongly on the conduct of any officer: if the Commander in Chief was to express himself so strongly upon the conduct of any officer, I should conceive that there was something in the conduct of that officer that required more than common inquiry.

Then are the Committee to understand, that no more nor further delay took place, than that which was necessary to complete the inquiries, which you thought it your duty to make? Certainly.

As you were in office at that time, supposing the negotiation between col. K. and col. B. to have gone off in consequence of the objection made to col. B., or from any other cause; was it probable that col. K. might have had to wait some time before he might have had another eligible opportunity of making an exchange? Yes, I think he might.

What day of the week is it that the lists are generally sent in to the King? They are commonly submitted by me to the Commander in Chief on Wednesday; they are submitted to the King on Thursday; and if they come back on Friday (which nine times in ten they do) they are gazetted on Saturday; if they do not come back in time on Friday, they' are gazetted on the following Tuesday.

Did you keep any memorandum of the inquiries you made respecting the exchange between col. K. and col. B.? None, whatever.

You have stated that the application to the Commander in Chief for this exchange was communicated on the 23d of July; when was that application to the Commander in Chief submitted for his Majesty's approbation? The date is accurately marked upon the original paper: it was submitted to the King upon the 4th, as you will find, by reference to the paper on the table.

When did it appear in the Gazette? The Gazette is dated July 30th.

Then the approbation of the Commander in Chief was signified seven days before it appeared in the Gazette? Allow me to mark this distinction: the approbation of the Commander in Chief is never signified to any body, until the king's pleasure has been subsequently obtained upon it.

I understood the Commander in Chief consented to this exchange on the 23d; that on the 23d it was known to you; that you then prepared the proper communication to be laid before his Majesty, but that communication was submitted to his Majesty on the 24th; that on the 24th his Majesty signified his approbation, and that it did not appear in the Gazette till the 30th, being seven days after the Commander in Chief had given his consent, and six days after his Majesty had confirmed that consent? Exactly: I beg it may be understood, that after his Majesty's signature is affixed to a paper of promotions, it is part of my duty to make such of them public as may be necessary. The Gazette is a notification, but it is not a rafication; the thing is finally done before it pears in the Gazette.

You have stated, that being in the habit of seeing twenty, thirty, or more different officers, every day, you take a proper opportunity of collecting from them the character and conduct of those whom you see occasion to inquire into; is it your habit to make minutes of the result of those enquiries? There scarcely a day passes over my head that I have not occasion to obtain information of that nature; but to make a minute of it would be absolutely impossible, I mean to any extent: I Could not carry on the business.

Between the first of July, when the application was made on behalf of col. B., and the 23d, when it received the sanction of the Commander in Chief, did any conversation pass between yourself and the Commander in Chief, otherwise than that which originated in your addressing yourself to the Duke upon the subject in the ordinary course of office? To the best of my recollection, certainly not; I speak more decidedly upon this point, because I am in the habit of laying numbers of papers before the Commander in Chief, and of confining my conversation strictly and exclusively to the matter before us.

If his Majesty's approbation was received on Wednesday, why was it not notified in the Saturday's Gazette? I think I have said before, that if the papers were returned from his Majesty in time, it would have been gazetted on the next day; I take for granted, therefore, that they were not returned in time.

What space of time was there between your making your report of the inquiries made by you respecting col. B., and the D. of Y.'s directing you to make out the necessary papers for the king's inspection? I think I have stated that I received the expression of the Commander in Chief's pleasure on the 23d; the papers were made out for his Majesty on the 24th.

What time elapsed between your making the report of the inquiries respecting col. B. to the Commander in Chief, and the Commander in Chief giving his consent? A reference to the paper on the table will explain the dates.

Did you make your report on the same morning that the Commander in Chief gave his consent, and directed you to make out the necessary papers? I beg pardon, but I do not comprehend that question.

When did you state the result of your inquiries respecting col. B.? I have already stated, that I made my report to the Commander in Chief on the 23d, and received his pleasure upon it.

Upon casting your eye over the Tuesday's Gazette, can you tell whether there are any promotions or exchanges in the Tuesday's Gazette which received his Majesty's approbation at the same time as the exchange in question? I beg to state, that I firmly believe it is the usual practice, at least, that every exchange, and promotion, and appointment, went in the same paper before the King.

Colonel Gordon's examination here concluded.