was. the army; I expressed some surprize at this, | Carter was reputed to be the natural son of having had some previous acquaintance with capt. Sutton? I always understood that he him, and told him, I think, that he had better consider of it before he took so decided a step. I think Major Turner told ine, he had got into some unfortunate scrape with a woman, and it was necessary for him to quit the service; the exact words I do not recollect, but that was the tenor of the conversation that passed between us. There was very little more or less. Did he state the nature of the scrape? No, he certainly did not; but I have some recollection, that he was about to do it, and that I stopped him, as my custom is, not wishing to enter into the private affairs of, officers more than is necessary. Did he state the name of the lady? I am pretty confident he did not. When the application was made for the exchange between col. Knight and col. Pleydell, were the usual inquiries made, and were they acted upon? This is rather an embarrassing question. I should answer it in this way; that the Commander in Chief did not think col. Pleydell a proper officer to be placed at the head of a regiment of cavalry. (By Mr. Creevey.) Did he live with him as such? He lived with him as such, as it appeared to me. You knew captain Sutton? Very well. He brought him up as his son? Yes, he did, to the best of my knowledge. Did he give him a good education? I believe the best education he could; he was very capable of educating him himself, and I believe he took a great deal of pains with the boy. Was he in the habit of dining at capt. Sutton's table? I cannot tell; I never dined with capt. Sutton at his house. When did capt. Sutton die? I cannot exactly say; two or three years ago, I believe. [The witness was directed to withdraw. Lord Folkestone stated, that Duff, one of the parties whom he had that evening mentioned to the house, as having papers in his possession, which came into his hands through the medium of one Kennett, in the city,had, since he addressed the house, called him into the lobby, and informed him, that he was willing to deliver up the papers. He had seen some of them, which he had communicated to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who concurred with him in thinking they were worthy the observation of the house. The person who had them, having mentioned it would be inconvenient to him to attend that even Is it your belief, that upon a complaint made from any quarter against any officer who was soliciting either for exchange or resignation, that complaint being, that the officer had behaved dishonourably by a lady, that would lead to an inquiry on the part of the Commander in Chief? That would depend very much upon the mode in which the complaint was made; the complaint in question stated, that the geing, he had dispensed with his further atneral knew all about it; inquiry was therefore made of the general before any decision was given upon it. Did it ever come within your knowledge that any resignation had been stopped, or any proceeding taken at the Commander in Chief's office, in consequence of an anonymous letter? I cannot exactly say that a resignation had been stopped; but this I can say, that all anonymous letters are invariably attended to. tendance. He had accordingly promised to bring him the papers to-morrow morning, and he would call the attention of the Committee to them at their next meeting. The house being resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again to-morrow, which was ordered. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, February 16. Is it not the invariable practice of the Commander in Chief to forward all anonymous letters, conveying complaints or any circumstan- [SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.] Earl Darnley ces attached to the army, to the generals com- called their lordships' attention to the submanding the districts or the officers command-ject of the late campaign in Spain and ing regiments, concerning which complaints may be conveyed in those anonymous letters? I have already said that anonymous letters are always attended to, and are sent for inquiry in their proper course; they happen almost daily. [The witness was directed to withdraw. General ROCHFORT was called in, and examined. (By the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) Do you recollect a person of the name of Sam. Carter, that lived with capt. Sutton? I do. Do you happen to know whether Samuel Portugal. Impressed as he was, with a deep sense of the misconduct of ministers, and recollecting that they professed a disposition to put the house in possession of every information that might be requisite to enable parliament and the country to decide. upon their measures, he felt it his duty to move for several returns, calculated to attain that object. He understood that the Spanish Juntas particularly solicited the assistance of a respectable body of cavalry. This was precisely that description of force which we could have best spared, as our cavalry establishment greatly exceeded what could at any time be requisite for the purposes of internal defence. But among the various features of the misconduct of ministers, one of the most striking was their tardiness in complying with the request of the Spaniards, and the very limited extent to which it was at last gratified. The official dispatches bore testimony to the injurious consequences of a deficiency of cavalry in the battle of Vimiera. He concluded with moving for a Return of the effective Cavalry in Great Britain on the 1st of July 1808, a Return of the Cavalry engaged in the battle of Vimiera, and a Return of the total of the British Cavalry in Spain, at the moment of the junction of the several divisions of the troops under sir John Moore. The Earl of Liverpool assured the noble lord and the house, that ministers felt not the least wish to oppose the motion just made. On the contrary, it had their hearty concurrence. He only wished to amend the motion, so as to include a return of the various arrivals of cavalry in Portugal subsequent to the battle of Vimiera, and up to the time of sir John Moore's march into Spain. With the view of still further promoting the purpose of fair and impartial inquiry into the conduct of ministers, he should move for additional papers as soon as the noble lord's motion was disposed of. Earl Durnley had no objection to the amendment proposed by the noble secretary, provided the date of the various arrivals of cavalry in Portugal were added. This suggestion being acceded to, the motion was put and agreed to. The Earl of Liverpool then said, that in order to explain, in the most ample manner, the line of conduct adopted by ministers in reference to Spain and Portugal, he felt it necessary to move for copies of the Instructions sent to our commanders in those countries, and the communications from them to ministers, with the exception of such parts as it might be injurious to the public service to publish. He wished noble lords to understand, that the passages he alluded to were such as related to services still depending. As to services completed, there was no intention of withholding any documents that, in the slightest degree, bore upon the discussion of their merits. All that he requested was, that nothing should be done to prejudge the question of what had been the conduct of ministers; and that whatever proceeding was adopted after the Papers were laid on the table should be such as would afford them a fair opportunity of explaining every part of their conduct; and this course being pursued, they felt not the least apprehension in submitting to the candid decision of the house. The instructions to sir T. Dyer and his communications to sir A. Wellesley, would, he thought, be found in the papers relative to the Convention of Cintra already moved for; if not, they might be called for on a future day. In answer to a question across the table from lord Darnley, his lordship said, that it was an admitted fact, that the Junta of Oviedo had made an application of the nature previously alluded to by the noble lord, and that sir T. Dyer communicated the same to sir A. Wellesley. The Duke of Norfolk wished to know whether measures had been taken to prevent the French and Spanish fleets in Cadiz harbour from falling into the hands of the enemy. We had now here an ambassador from Spain, who held a high official situation, in that country and one of the most important points to be arranged with him, was, in his conception, that of securing those fleets, by stipulating that they should be sent to Buenos Ayres, Minorca, or any other place for safety. When he looked to the rapidity of operation that characterized the man who was at the head of the French armies, he was not without apprehensions on this subject. His grace further expressed his hopes that ministers, whatever assistance they might continue to give the Spaniards, in money and supplies, would not rashly put to hazard any considerable portion of our military force. No answer was given to the noble Duke, and the motion of lord Liverpool was put and agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, February 16. [CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.] Lord Folkestone moved the order of the day for the house to resolve into a Committee on the inquiry respecting the Conduct of h. r. h. the Commander in Chief.-The house resolved accordingly. Lord H. Petty said, that at the request of a very respectable solicitor resident in Lincoln's-inn-fields, named Tyndale, he felt it necessary to state, that he was not the same who had been examined at the bar in the course of this inquiry, and he was ap prehensive that without such explanation his name might be confounded with that of a man with whom he had no interference nor connection whatever, and that he was ready and desirous to verify the fact at the bar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he saw no danger of mistaking the gentleman for the other, who stated himself to live at Chelsea. Lord Folkestone now rose, and said, that before he proceeded to call in the witnesses, it might be deemed convenient to put the Committee in possession of the particular subject to which he meant to examine the first witness, Mr. Duff, the solicitor, who attended in consequence of the order of the house yesterday, with some papers he had to produce. Those papers, he understood, came into the hands of Mr. Duff, in the year 1804, in consequence of his being solicitor to the statute of bankruptcy, against a man named Robert Kennett, who had formerly been an upholsterer in Bond-street, and afterwards lived in Lincoln's-inn-fields, in the profession of a tooth-ach curer. A proposition was set on foot by h. r. h. the D. of Y. to raise for his use the sum of 70,000l. or 80,000l. by way of annuity, and this Mr. Kennett undertook to forward the views of h. r. h., in consideration of provision being made for him by a respectable situation under government; upon the success of his undertaking, was to depend the success of the negociation for the loan. Accordingly, application was made by h. r. h. to Mr. Pitt, to earl Camden, and others, to procure Mr. Kennett a situation at home or abroad, and particularly one which happened just then to be vacant in the West Indies. A secretary to the D. of Y. acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Kennett's letter, proposing the terms of this negociation, the receipt of which he acknowledges in another letter, but in this he expressed no disapprobation of Mr. Kennett's proposal; and it would appear upon the face of the letter, that the success of the D. of Y., in obtaining the situation, would depend upon the loan. He should adduce the letters before the Committee, and particularly that of col. Taylor, to which he alluded. He then moved that Mr. Duff' be called to the bar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean to oppose the motion of the noble lord; but at the same time it did not appear to him that the evidence, or the papers now proposed to be produced, had VOL. XII. any connexion with the subject, respecting which the Coinmittee were instructed to inquire, namely, the conduct of h. r. h. in his capacity of Commander in Chief. They had no relevancy whatever to the manoeuvres of Mrs. Clarke, or the stories with them connected, nor any relation to military business. However, he had no wish that any paper should be withheld that in any degree might throw light upon the general case; and he therefore abstained from any resistance of the noble lord's motion, rather from a wish not to be thought desirous of stifling any information respecting the whole subject in agita tion, than from any relevancy the motion had to the question before the Committee. Lord Folkestone could not exactly understand the right hon. gent.'s meaning by his phrase, the manoeuvres of Mrs. C.; but if the suggestion he (lord F.) had offered to the house last night, had beenadopted, namely, an additional instruction to the Committee to enlarge their inquiry into the general conduct of the D. of Y. in other respects, the Papers now moved for would be highly relevant. Mr. Creevey stated, as there might be some doubt to which of the baroness Nolleken's sons the evidence of Mrs. C. given at the bar yesterday applied, he had been requested by Mr. Le Maitre, her son by the first marriage, to state that he had no intimacy whatever with Mrs. C. He was in waiting, if the house chose to examine him on this point.-This the house did not think necessary. Mr. ARCHIBALD DUFF was called in, and examined. (By Lord Folkes!one.) What are you? A Solicitor. Do you know any thing of Robert Kennett? I am a solicitor to the commission of bankruptcy against him. place? Some time in the year 1803. At what time did that bankruptcy take In consequence of being solicitor to that commission of bankruptcy, have certain papers relative to this inquiry come into your possession? In consequence of the bankrupt's papers having been seized by the messenger under the commission, I have become possessed of cer tain letters, which I have now in my pocket. Produce those Papers. [The witness produced them.] When did those papers come into your possession? I cannot ascertain the time; sometime, I think, about the latter end of 1805, or sometime in 1806. 22 Have they been in your possession ever since? They have. Are those all the papers in your possession relative to this business? They are all the papers which I have been able to find among the bankrupt's papers, in which, in any manner, the name of b. r. h. the D. of Y. is mentioned. Did you at any time state that you believed there was a paper in your possession which you could not readily put your hand upon? I stated last night to lord Folkestone, while I was in attendance at this house, that I believed there was a paper which I could not readily put my hand upon; but to-day I communicated to lord Folkestone that I had every reason to believe that that paper was not in my possession, and that the recollection of that paper must have arisen from one of the bankrupt's letters, which is now in the clerk's hand. Do you mean by not being in your possession, that that paper did not exist, that there was no such paper? I stated to lord Folkestone then, as I now do, that I believed there was no such paper. Are you acquainted with the hand-writing of Kennett? Perfectly well. Look at those papers, and see whether any of them are the hand-writing of the bankrupt Kennett? No. 2 is his hand-writing. Look at No. 12; is that the hand-writing of Kennett? No. 12 contains two papers; one is Kennett's hand-writing, and the other is not. What are those papers? They appear to be respecting appointments at Surinam, which have resulted from the surrender of that colony. Is that the paper which is Kennett's handwriting? Yes. Do you know whose hand-writing the other is? I do not. Is No. 14 in the hand-writing of Kennett? It is. Is No. 17 in the hand-writing of Kennett? No. 17 contains two papers; one is not in the hand-writing of Kennett, the other is. What is the paper which is in the handwriting of Kennett? That which is in the hand-writing of Kennett appears to be an application from him to Mr. Greenwood, for Mr. Adam's address in Scotland. Do you know whose hand-writing the other paper is? No. Is No. 18 the hand-writing of Kennett? Yes, it is. (By Mr. N. Vansittart.) You have stated, that there was a paper which you have not in your possession, and which you believe not to exist; to your knowledge, was such a paper ever in existence? I was led to believe that such a paper had existed, from a distant recollection of having read the paper some time ago; but upon referring to the papers again to-day, and the place in which I found them, namely, the bankrupt's desk, I am satisfied that no such paper ever was in my possession, and that the only circumstance which could have led me to that belief, was the bankrupt's letter, No. 18, and so I stated to lord Folkestone to-day. Is the Committee to understand that you be lieve that paper never to have been in existence? I believe it never did exist. (By Lord Folkestone.) · What business was Kennett? Kennett was formerly an upholsterer in Bond-street; he was, at the time when the commission was issued against him, living in Lincoln's-inn-fields, and carried on, or pretended to carry on, the business of tooth-ach curer, curing the tooth-ach by smelling a bottle. Did he ever obtain his certificate under that commission? Certainly not. Did he pass his last examination under that commission? He did, after a vast number of examinations, and numerous delays. Do you know what is become of Kennett now? I know not; I saw him about a month ago. Do you know any thing particular that has occurred to Kennett since the commission of bankruptcy? I know what his lordship alludes to, but I wish the question was more particular, and not so general. Did he ever stand in the pillory? He was prosecuted by order of the lord chancellor, at the instance of his majesty's attorney-general, for a conspiracy to defeat that commission, and cheat his creditors; under that prosecu tion he was found guilty and put into the pillory. Had he been a bankrupt before the bankruptcy to which commission you were solicitor? He was. State the dates of both bankruptcies. I cannot with precision. Can you state the date of the second bankruptcy with precision? To the best of my recollection, the 23d of April, 1803. Can you state in what year the first bankruptcy took place? I think (but I cannot charge my memory with precision) in the month of January, 1801. [The witness was directed to withdraw. WILLIAM ADAM, esq. attending in his place, was examined, as follows: Look at No. 4, is that your hand-writing? Yes. No. 5 It is not my hand-writing; but it was written at my dictation. No. 19? This is my hand-writing. The right hon. CHARLES LONG, attending in his place, was examined, as follows: Have you ever seen Mr. Adams, once private secretary to Mr. Pitt, write? I have. Can you speak to Mr. Adams's hand-writing? I can. Look at No. 11. That is not his handwriting, it purports to be a copy. Is No. 15 your hand-writing? No. 15 is my hand-writing; No. 16 I cannot speak to. WILLIAM HUSKISSON, esq. attending in his place, was examined by the Committee as follows: Will you look at No. 21? I have frequently seen Mr. Chapman write, and, to the best of my belief, this is his hand-writing. [The following Papers were read:] No. 2. "The principal sum of 70,000l. to he "advanced to h. r. h. the Duke of York, by way of annuity, (at ten per cent.) either in one or two parts, as shall be approved by h. "r. h., in the following manner, viz. "The said sum or sums to be charged on the "Oatlands, and all the adjoining estates, manors, &c. 46 "The purchaser to nominate any two lives "(in order to save insurance.) "His r. h. to be at liberty to pay off the 66 principal sum or sums any time after three 66 years, (in the usual way) either by giving "six months notice, or paying six months in "advance. "The annuity to be payable quarterly, either "by an assignment of the exchequer order, or an undertaking from the trustees of the said "order to pay the same." 66 No. 6. Lieut.-col. Taylor presents his "compliments to Mr. Robert Kennett, and "begs to acquaint him that h. r. h. the D. of "Y. has not any objection to writing to Mr. "Pitt respecting the application which sir Ho"race Mann has made in his favour. "Oatlands, Sunday, 22d July, 1804." No. 3. "Lieut.-col. Taylor presents his "compliments to Mr. Kennett, and is directed HENRY SWAN, esq. a Member of the House, attending in his place, was examined as follows: Have you ever seen sir Horace Mann write? I have seen sir Horace Mann write very often. Will you look at No. 7, and state whether it is sir Horace Mann's writing? I will cerhand-writing of the hon. baronet; but though tainly admit that it very much resembles the it does so resemble it, it is not the usual mode of that hon. baronet's signing his name, for it is signed " II. Mann," and I very frequently correspond with him: he signs "Hor. Mann." Do you believe that to be the hand-writing of sir Horace Mann? It has something of the character of the hand-writing of sir Horace Maun. Do you or not believe that to be sir Horace Mann's hand-writing? I certainly believe it is. Will you look at No. 16; is that sir IIorace Mann's hand-writing? I do not think it is; I believe it is not. The [The following Papers were read.] No. 7. "I shall rejoice sincerely at your "success, if it can be an object with you to ob"tain a situation in such a climate. "channel you mention may be more efficacious "than the exertion of my interest, which I will strenuously renew if it is necessary, when I see a prospect of success. "Your's faithfully. |