no scruple in doing it, for I had mentioned it to a thousand persons before.

Are you sure you did not mention it to Mr. Lowten-I think I did not.

Were you appointed a brigadier-general in a district, after having been inspecting field officer of a district?-I was continued in the district to which I was originally appointed.

Had you the rank of brigadier-general, after having been colonel or lieutenant-colonel inspecting field officer?I was promoted in common with all the officers of the same rank with myself at the same time.

Did you apply to Mrs. Clarke upon the subject of that promotion, directly or directly, by letter or in conversation?-I am quite certain that I did not apply to her upon it; and I am the more certain, because I recollect that the first information I received of any of the bri gadier-generals being to be appointed, was about a month before it became public, and that was from her.

Was that information communicated to you privately as a secret?— It was communicated by letter, but no secrecy enjoined, to the best of my opinion.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Charles W. Wynne rose to discharge a painful duty; but painful as it may be, it was a duty, and he should not shrink from the discharge of it. The Committee must be aware of the nature of the testimony given by the witness who had just withdrawn, and as he had been warned that he was to give his evidence at his own peril, and had exposed himself to the animadversion of the House, he should move that General Clavaring has prevaricated in his evidence.

General Mathew contended, that no prevarication whatever had taken place; and that the witness at the bar was incapable of prevaricating.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that an allowance was to be made for person not accustomed to, be examined at such a tribunal. But at all events it was not sufficient for any member to move that a witness had prevaricated, without shewing the grounds of the mo

tion.

Mr. C. W. Wynne then explained the various parts of the General's evidence, which he charged as contradictory and prevaricating.

Mr. N. Calvert declared, that he had not heard the evidence distinctly, and if he was to be called upon for a vote, be should inove that the short-hand writer should. read the whole of the evidence.

Mr. Yorke observed, that General Clavering had come

to the bar to explain his former evidence, and that it was not therefore a trifling variation that was to be considered prevarication. He thought that it would be better to put off any consideration of such points, unless in the case of gross and wilful prevarication, till the investigation should be concluded. The day of reckoning would come, when the House ought to take up the consideration of the va rious acts of corruption, imposition, and swindling, which had come out in the course of this inquiry.

Sir Thomas Turton argued, that as the witness had come to the bar to contradict or correct his former testimony, he could not be said to have prevaricated.

The Secretary at War thought, that as General Clavering had on a former night given evidence in which he found he had been mistaken, he had no other course but to come down and explain the mistake. However contradictory this statement had been to the former, there was no prevarication in what he stated to-night, as he had concealed nothing, but told of his offer to Mrs. Clarke of 1000% for her influence to get him a regiment.

Mr. Wilberforce said, that if he were absolutely called upon to pronounce an opinion, it must be in favour of the motion, as the contradiction was so very strong. If General Clavering had, upon reading his evidence, and finding that it conveyed a false impression, come down without delay, and explained it the next day, it would have had a very different aspect; but he had waited eight or nine days before he thought proper to make, this explanation. Under all the circumstances, however, he considered that the best course would be to adjourn the discussion on the proposed resolution.

Mr. Wynne said, that he had felt the case so strong, that he did not apprehend any doubt; but as there was a doubt, he should very readily agree to postpone the dis

cussion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that in case of prevarication, he thought the House should proceed immediately to the punishment of the witness. In case, however, of a witness contradicting a statement he had before made, he thought it would be much the best way to go through the whole of the case, and afterwards consider what course should be taken with the witnesses who had contradicted themselves. He thought, therefore, the honourable gentleman would do best to withdraw his motion

for the present, and bear the matter in his mind till that. time should arrive.

Mr. Wynne, on this suggestion, consented to withdraw his motion.

CHARLES GREENWOOD, Esq. was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

Is there any part of your evidence, respecting the appointment of Mr. Elderton, which you now wish to correct?—Yes.

State what that part of your evidence is.--I there mentioned some unfavourable reports which I had heard of him, as having heard of them before the appointment took place; it now appears, upon referring to the transactions of that period, that those reports were not received till after the appointment had taken place.

Is there any other part of your evidence on that subject which you. wish to correct?—No.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Colonel GORDON was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

Do you recollect the date of Colonel Clinton's leaving the office of public secretary to his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, and of your succeeding to him?-It was on the 26th of July 1804.

On the 26th of July, had the name of Captain Tonyn been sent in to his Majesty for promotion to a majority No, it had not.

Then, if any person could state at that time that Captain Tonyn would appear in the Gazette of the following Saturday, that person must have been either entirely ignorant of the course of office, or must have intended to deceive the person to whom such information was given?-I should suppose so.

In point of fact, would it have been possible in the course of office, between the Thursday and the Saturday, to have received his Majesty's pleasure respecting that promotion? It would certainly have been possible to have received his majesty's pleasure on the Thursday or the Friday, supposing the thing to have been so settled.

In the usual course of office could that have taken place-Suppos ing the thing to have been settled, it might certainly have been so.

On what day was Captain Tonyn's name sent in to the King for promotion?-I have not got the documents with me, but I think, upon recollection, it was the 9th of August.

Then he did not appear in the Gazette either of Saturday the 28th, or of the Saturday following?—No, I think not, but I have not got the documents at hand.

[The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 18th August 1804, page 999 :

31st Regiment of foot, Captain Alexander Leith, to be Major. Captain George Augustus Tonyn, from the 48th foot, to be Major."

You will observe that Major Leith's commission is dated the 1st of August, and Captain Tonyn's the 2d; can you state the reason of

Major Leith's being dated the day preceding? They were both propromoted at the same time, and Major Leith had been the eldest Captain.

You have stated, that the King's approbation to Major Tonyn's promotion was obtained on the 9th of August, he appears in the Ga zette of the 18th; in case the Commander in Chief had thought it right on the 16th of August to stop the publication of Major Tonyn's promotion in the Gazette of Saturday the 18th, he could have done it? Yes, he might.

Is there any instance, in point of fact, of the Commander in Chiefdirecting the publication of promotions in the Gazette to be stopped, after they have received the approbation of his Majesty? Yes, very frequently casualties happen between the periods of gazetting, and the periods of submitting them to the King; consequently such appointments are not gazetted.

Then if the Commander in Chief had sent an order on the 16th, to you or the proper department, to stop the publication of Major Tonyn's promotion, it would not have appeared in the Gazette of the 18th? If the Commander in Chief had sent such an order, it probably would have been suspended.

In point of fact, do you know whether any such order was sent ? I think it was impossible, I should have had some recollection of it, and I cannot find any trace of such a thing.

And it was not suspended? It was not, it was gazetted among other promotions.

Do you know where the Commander in Chief was on Thursday the 16th of August, 1804? I cannot take upon myself to say positively where he was, but the 16th of August is his birth-day, and he commonly passes it at Oatlands.

Do you know whether he was at the Horse-Guards on the following day, the 17th of August? I cannot take upon myself to say, but it is a point very easily ascertained by reference to the dates; I have not the papers at hand to answer so precisely as that.

Do you recollect the Commander in Chief applying to you, either verbally or in writing, between the 16th and the 18th of August, to ask you whether he was in time to stop the publication of Major Tonyn's promotion? No, I have no such recollection...

Can you inform the Committee, whether any officer of the name of Aslett is to be found in the army list for that time? I have caused reference to be made to the army list, and no such person's name could be found in the list of the army.

Was there any major of the name of Bligh promoted about that time? I have caused a similar reference to be made to the army list, and I can find no such person.

Do you know whether an officer of the name of Bligh was removed about that time from the half pay of the 54th foot, to be lieutenant colonel of the 14th? On inquiry, the c e only officer of the name of Bligh who was removed about that time, was the honourable Colonel Bligh, who was removed from the half-pay to a regiment of foot.

What was his standing as lieutenant-colonel in the army? I really do not know, but a reference to the army list will point it out at

once.

and no major of the name of Bligh, promoted or removed about that period? None that I know of.

Do you know of any officer of the name of Bacon, in the army? There is a Captain Bacon in the army, but I have no knowledge of him whatever.

Did he apply for promotion about the period of July, August, or September, 1804? Not that I know of.

Do you know any thing of an officer of the name of Spedding? I find upon inquiry there was a Captain Spedding in the 48th regiment at that period.

Are there any documents in your office, respecting this officer's. applications for promotion? I think I have the documents here. It ap pears he applied for promotion, and was refused; and he then applied to go upon the half-pay, which was granted, and he is now, I think, upon the half-pay.

[Colonel Gordon delivered in the papers.]

"In August 1804, Captain Spedding of the 48th regiment applied for promotion (No. 1), and as he was known to Sir Alured Clarke, an application was made to the latter for the character of Captain Spedding, by whose answer (No. 2), it appears that Sir Alured Clarke does not recollect such anofficer.

"In Nov. 1804, Capt. Spedding applied to be placed upon pay (No. 4), on account of a large family, and an intricacy which had recently occurred in his private affairs.

Not to be noted until a fair report shall be received from the Regt. "To his Royal Highness Field Marshal the Duke of York, Commander in Chief.

"The memorial of John Spedding, Captain in the 48th regiment of foot.

"Humbly sheweth,

"That your memorialist is a captain of 1798-has served the greatest part of his military life in the West Indies, and was never absent during the whole period from duty.

Your memolialist most humbly prays that your Royal Highness may be graciously pleased to grant him promotion. "And your Royal Highness's memorialist,

"August 28th, 1804."

as in duty bound,

will ever pray."

"Inquire of Sir Alured Clarke of the character of this
officer, to whom it is understood he is known."

No. 2.

62.