ceived a letter from General Clavering, stating that there is a seeming inconsistency in his evidence, and expressing a wish that he might again be called before the Committee in order that he might explain it. [4 cry of read! read!]

Lord Temple moved, that the letter mentioned by the Chairman to have been received by him from General Clavering, he read.

Sir M. W. Ridley spoke a few words from under the gallery, but in so low a tone, that we could not hear what he said.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if General Clavering wished to correct any thing which appeared to be inconsistent or contradictory in his evidence, let him be summoned, or let him attend if he was there; but he saw no reason why his letter should be read.

Lord Temple answered, that as he understood General Clavering was then attending, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion.

Mr. Johnson was then called in as a witness.

Mr. Whitbread rose, and the witness was desired to withdraw. The honourable gentleman then said be apprehended the Committee had already examined several persons who were deemed the most competent to know the Duke of York's hand-writing. It would seem from what he had been given to understand, that this gentleman, who has then produced as a witness, knew nothing of the writing of his Royal Highness; and it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that the Committee should now resort to an evidence not nearly so strong as that of those witnesses who had already been examined. Such a rule as that which the Committee was now about to pursue had once obtained, he believed, in courts of justice, in cases of capital offences, but it had for some time been discontinued. If that were really the case, he begged the House to consider seriously what must be the effect of calling this witness before they agreed to admit him to the bar; for however inclined they might be, to give every indulgence in their power to the royal personage* who was accused, yet they should well weigh in their minds whether any other person would, if standing betore them on the same or similar charges, be allowed an equal degree of favour. In his opinion, they had given latitude to Colonel Gordon, in permitting him to take a paper VOL. II.-1809. I

from his pocket, and compare it with the note which he was called upon to say, whether it was, in his opinion, the Duke of York's hand-writing; yet almost immediately afterwards forty letters were shewn to Mrs. Clarke, and she was told that she must not read any one or any part of any one of them; but must, from merely viewing the signature, say positively whether they were her's or not. > It would seem rather hard she should not have been allowed to see whether any alterations or interpolations had been made in any of them, but from solely the name at the bottom, should be obliged to allow they were her's... He knew very well the Committee had decided by their proceedings that they were not be confined within the strict rules respecting evidence, by which the courts of law regulated themselves; but having made this allow ance to Colonel Gordon, he must throw it out for the consideration of the Committee, whether having already com mitted impropriety would justify them in adding to those improprieties, by allowing a witness to be examined, who could only speak upon the writing of a person whom he had never seen write; a practice which certainly would not be allowed in the courts below. Under these circum stances, he wished the Committee to pause before they determined, for it seemed to him to be of such importance, that if a vote should take place on it, he should give his against the witness being admitted.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that this objection of the honourable gentleman ought to have been made when the subject was first introduced to the notice of the Committee; for when it had been decided that such evidence should be resorted to, it seemed rather hard: that any opposition should now be made to it. He sup posed, however, the honourable gentleman left the House the other night before the subject was mentioned in the Committee. In the course of the last night's discussion on. this inquiry, an honourable member under the gallery, had observed, that having carefully compared the note with the two letters which had been actually proved to be the Duke's hand-writing, the letters in the note appeared to him, from their formation, to be more like an imitation of letters than a regular hand-writing. On this, it was thought necessary that the information should be attended to, and followed up as accurately as possible; and as it would be altogether out of the power of all the members;

of that House to examine the papers so minutely as to form a decision on the point, it was thought most adviseable to apply to four or five persons of the Post-office and the Bank, who were in the use and habit of investigating such points in cases of life and death. If these letters and note were only to be submitted to a jury of twelve men, they might all of them examine all the letters so minutely, as to decide the point by themselves; but in so great a mumber as the members of that House, such an examthation would be absolutely impossible. Such a proceeding had been allowed in a trial at bar by four judges, sitting in solemn decision in the Court of King's Bench; but in one case, that decision had been denied to be law by one judge at Nisi Prius. The present proceeding, as he observed before, had been adopted the other night; and though it might not fall in with the observations of the honourable gentleman on the subject, it was somewhat hard the witness should now be objected to, after it had previously been agreed upon that he should be examined, and that he had been sent for accordingly.

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

Mr. Whitbread said, he saw no difference between a jury and the members of that House, as he thought no member would give his judgment without having examined the papers carefully with his own eyes, and after

he had so done, he believed there was not a member who would not give his opinion in preference to his own eyesight, before that of this witness, or any other who formed his judgment from the same basis.

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

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

for forgery, a person who had seen the party write might be admitted to prove it, but not by a comparison on a similarity of hands. There was also submitted by Lord Ellenborough to the court, the case of the seven bishops, in which Chief Justice Jefferys and another judge were willing to receive such evidence, and Mr. Justice Powell and another were against it, which shewed that the lawyers even of that day never thought it right to prove forgery by a comparison of hands. Mr. Baron Hotham's decision in the case of Jackson and Cator, and in which he rejected the doctrine laid down in Revett and Braham, was an authority which compelled him to acquiesce entirely in the opinion of that learned judge. The so licitor for the plaintiff, in the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to take down a host of inspectors from the Post-office, to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The defendant was prepared with another host of inspec tors from the bank, who would have proved the direct contrary. This statement had been made to him by the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of great honour and credit in his profession, and shewed how very great the difference of opinions was, with regard to the comparison of bands. He would therefore entreat the Committee to weigh well the matter, before they allowed such evidence to be called to the bar.

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

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