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

Mr. Bragge Bathurst said, that as this point had been objected to, it behoved them to look well to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought. They might set up technical or legal proofs to bar such a mode of proceed ing; but this case was nothing like what is so called in "courts of law. As to Mrs. Clarke, he should give no opinion on her evidence. He should not follow the example of the noble lord who had panegyrized the lady on the occasion, because he thought it was premature to do so at present. As to the others there was not re

them but General Brownrigg to whom a legal question. had been put, and that question he had answered so as to deny that it was, in his opinion, the hand-writing of the Duke of York. So far, therefore, from the fact being absolutely proved, there is still a doubt, it stands at present in equilibrio; and the question now was, whether the House might not apply to persons who are adequate to speak on the subject; and for his own part, he saw no rea◄ son why they should not endeavour to obtain as much information in it as they could. A case had been adduced, where a person was asked, whether a libel was in the genuine hand-writing of the plaintiff, and that was allowed. The person's hand-writing was then shewn, and he was asked whether that and the libel were not the same, That

was a comparison of hands, and was objected to. The inspector was asked whether the writing shewn him was a feigned hand, and that he was allowed to answer. The House ought therefore to go as far at least as the courts of law, and that is what is wanted to ask of this witness from the Post-office. Because the Duke's hand-writing, as to this note, is not proved at all, it is desirable to know whe ther it is likely to be a real or a feigned hand. He was therefore of opinion the witness ought to be examined.

Mr. Brand was decidedly of opinion that the witness ought to be examined.

Sir Samuel Romilly said, the question appeared to him to be of such high importance that he thought the Com mittee should not determine on it before they were in pos session of more information. The object was very differ ent from that of courts of justice, and therefore the House could not be bound by the same ties. The right honourable gentleman opposite had not stated the matter fairly, when he merely talked of a decision at bar, and one at Nisi Prius. The fact was, that in the case of Revett and Braham, which was a trial at bar, the decision was so contrary to the established principles of law, and gave so universal and great an alarm to the whole bar, that on the subsequent occasion in the case nisi prius, Mr. Baron Hotham, who was well known to be a judge very diffident of his own opinion, took on himself to reverse the law held on the other case, of the trial at bar; and it was very evident, and perfectly well known, that he, a single judge sitting at Nisi Prius, never would have undertaken to overturn that decision of the court, had he

not been well aware that it had been highly and loudly condemned by the universal opinion of the whole bar. There was no question of law so nice, as that of saying whether any certain piece of writing is that of any one particular person or not; the property, the liberties, and the lives, of all the subjects of this realm, were deeply interested in it; and it ought never to be forgotten in that, House, in particular, that Algernon Sydney lost his life by admitting a comparison of hand-writing, and as Lord Ellenborough had so lately argued the case most seriously, the House ought well to consider whether this was really law or not. He should be sorry to take up the time of the Committee, by going deeply into the reason of this case, but he had really heard nothing to convince him in what had been advanced that night on the subject. If the House were to judge by what had fallen from the honourable gentleman below him (Mr. W. Smith), a comparison of hands was unquestionably better than seeing a person write; that argument, it seemed to him, went too far, for it proved the comparison to be the best, which was a doctrine long since exploded. The right honourable gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bathurst) had said that the House had examined four gentlemen, but had not put the proper questions to them. Then why not put these questions to them? They were still to be called before the House, and it was much better to put these questions to them in such a manner as the right honourable gentleman should point out as a proper one, than to admit evidence so very alarming as this appeared to him to be. He begged the Committee to recollect that the evidence to be produced was to decide the point by a comparison of hands; that this was deemed contrary to the established law of the land; and is it, said he, the evidence of those persons which shall be allowed to determine this positively to be the hand-writing of the Duke of York? He thought it ought not, and should therefore object to the witness being called to the bar.

Mr. Beresford said a few words explanatory of what he said before.

The Attorney General said his right honourable and learned friend who had just sat down, could not more highly respect the judicial opinion of Lord Ellenborough than he himself did; but when he considered that in the case alluded to he went to Maidstone as counsel for the defendant, all the law he had then held on the subject

was merely that of an advocate, doing the most he could for the cause of his client, but was by no means to be considered in the light of a judicial opinion. He could not allow the reason given by his right honourable and learned friend for Baron Hotham's overruling the decision of the court, because it was the universal opinion of the bar that that decision was contrary to law. In the case of Revett and Braham, the point was, whether the hand-writing was feigned or real; and this was to be determined by persons from public offices, who acted as inspectors. In the trial before Baron Hotham, the inspectors from the Post office were asked whether the hand-writing of the defendant Cator was a feigned hand: so far it agreed with the case of Revett and Braham; but it went further, and having proved the opinion that the hand-writing was feigned, they proceeded to ask whether it had been feigned by the person who wrote the libel, and this was to be done by shewing the defendant's writing, and then comparing it with the libel; this was refused; but so far as whether the hand was a feigned hand, Baron Hotham, in the case of Jackson and Cator, supported the doctrine in Revett and Braham. The question, however, then was, whether, as the Committee has hitherto proceeded, these witnesses should be allowed to be called, and whether the Committee shall receive any further assistance towards proving the hand-writing. The Committee had already exceeded the strict rules of legal justice, and were then only asked to admit the evidence of persons who have been accustomed to examine, and to say whether certain handwriting, submitted to their inspection, be feigned or real, and whether they will not be better able to judge, from persons of such experience, than by their own only; on that ground, he should apprehend the Committee would come to a decision.

The question was then put, and the witness was allowed to be called in without a division.

THOMAS METCALFE, M. D. was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

You are a Physician? I am.

Are you Mrs. Clarke's medical attendant? I am.

Have you seen Mrs. Clarke in the course of this day? Yes.

Is her state of health such as to prevent her attending to give evidence to-day? I think totally so.

Can you form any opinion when Mrs. Clarke's health will permit her to attend? I should think in the course of two days.

[The witness was directed to withdraw..

[It was noved and seconded, that the evidence to handwriting about to be produced, be not received; which being put, passed in the negative, without a division.]

Mr. SAMUEL JOHNSON was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

What are you? Inspector of Franks at the general Post-office. ...How long have you been in that situation? I have been in the office about thirteen years, or rather more; in that situation about six years; I think it was in 1802 I was appointed to the franks.

In that situation, is it your particular duty to look at hand-writing, and observe its different variation? It is our duty to perceive that no franks pass either from the House of Peers or the House of Commons, but franks by the Peers or the members themselves.

In the course of that duty, it is necessary for you to be very particular in your examination of hand-writing? As much so as our time will permit.

[The two letters and the note being shewn to the witness.] You have seen these papers before, in the room of the House of Commons? d have.

The paper to which particularly I wish to direct your attention is the small paper; in your opinion, is that smaller paper the same handwriting as the larger papers? It resembles it so nearly, that I should think it was.

In point of fact have you occasionally, from inspection only, detected false or feigned signatures? Yes.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.,

Mr. ROBERT SEARLES was called in and examined by the Committee, as follows:"

What are you? A deputy inspector of franks.

How long have you been in that situation? About eighteen months. [The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] You have seen these papers before? I have.

Look at them, and tell me whether you think they are all the same hand-writing? I think they are.

[The witness was directed to withdraw. '

Mr THOMAS NESBITT was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

What is your employment? I am in the service of the Bank.

In what department of the Bank are you? Principal of the letter of attorney office.

In that office are you in the habit of examining hand-writings, that are suspected to be forgeries? Yes, constantly so.

How long have you been in that employment? Between thirty and forty years, in the daily habit.

Are you in the habit of examining writings that you so suspect, by