ciple of it had been fully discussed in the course of last session. Whatever difference of opinion might prevail respecting past events, there was one point on which they were all agreed, namely, that it would be necessary to keep up a large efficient force. The regular army at this moment consisted of upwards of 210,000 infantry and 27,000 cavalry. The infantry was disposed in 126 first battalions, averaging 902 men each, and 56 second battalions, of which the average was about 400 men each. The object of the bill on the table was to render these second battalions complete. To carry this into effect, it was deemed expedient to allow a certain proportion of the Militia to enlist into the regular army. This measure was resorted to in the last session, and had been found most effectual.

Viscount Sidmouth briefly reviewed the effects of the mode of recruiting the army, contained in the Bill before their lordships, since it was first adopted in 1799. At that period it was a measure of imperious necessity. The necessity, fortunately, was not so strong at this moment, though still sufficiently so, he must admit, to justify the present measure. He had many objections to the measure. Its object was to provide for the augmentation of the disposable force at the expence of the Militia. He could not approve of the practice of enlisting men for one species of service, and afterwards seducing them into another. He regretted that ministers had not availed themselves of the popular enthusiasm in favour of Spain to procure recruits for the army. Had they done so, he was persuaded the present measure would have been wholly unnecessary. However, as he heard of no other expedient from any quarter for keeping up the army to that efficient establishment which was universally admitted to be necessary, he would not, for that reason, and the extraordinary emergency of the moment, oppose the bill.

The bill was then read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, February 20. [ARMY ESTIMATES.] On the motion of the Secretary at War the house went into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates for the current year were referred.

The Secretary at War observed, that notwithstanding the order of the house was

given on Friday se'nnight, the Army Estimates had not been printed till this afternoon. As soon as he was acquainted with the circumstance, he pressed the printer as much as possible to expedite the business; but owing to the great mass of papers relating to the Inquiry into the Conduct of the Commander in Chief, it was not in his power to procure the Estimates sooner. However late they were ready, he trusted the house would have no objection to go into them to-day, as it would be a matter of great convenience to the regular army, the militia, and foreign corps.-Indeed, he could anticipate no objection, as the Estimates were nearly the same as those of last year, with the exception of 200,000l. arising from the actual increase of the establishment, which would be ascertained, by comparing the Estimates now offered with the last year's accounts. The establishment had stood very high last year, but, by this comparison, it would be seen, that it had now reached much nearer the complete number of effectives. The Militia was nearly in the same state, and the Foreign Corps had rather increased. Another cause of the increase on the Estimate, was, from the additional expence in some things, which had before been voted among the extraordinaries of the army, but which were now introduced into the regular accounts.-It had been recommended by the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, to put every possible annual account into the Estimate; and agreeing in the expediency of this mode, he had adopted their recommendation. The Estimate for the present year was also higher, on account of the last year's expences exceeding the Estimate of that year. Another nominal addition also appeared on the face of the Estimate, namely, that of the allowance of a second Lieutenant-Colonel in regiments of cavalry, who, though they had formerly been borne, yet never appeared in these calculations. With regard to the number of effectives, which had been brought up so near the establishment, he could not now give a certain account, owing to the return of men lost in the Spanish Campaign not having been deducted. As for the non-effectives which appeared on the Estimate, that was very necessary, as the recruiting service was solely provided for out of that fund. Before he moved the several Estimates, he begged leave to notice, that in the course of the present session he should have to

propose some measure, for the benefit of Colonels of regiments, commensurate to the losses they sustained, in consequence of many late acts, which bore hard upon their accustomed profits.

General Gascoyne then explained the nature of these losses, and the hardship it was upon Colonels of regiments to pay at the rate of 35 per cent. as duties on necessaries exported for his majesty's service. From this, and other taxes upon their profits, they were now 60 per cent. less than they were formerly. He was glad therefore to hear from the Secretary at War, that in consequence of the Sixth Report of Military Inquiry, some relief was intended to be afforded them in the course of this Session.

The Secretary at War said, that he had only waited till the whole Reports of that Committee were brought forward, and would immediately proceed on this subject. Mr. Calcraft would be glad to be informed what was the cause of the increase, he observed from the Estimate on the Public Department; and also how it happened after so many Volunteers had gone into the Local Militia, that the expence for that species of force was the same as last year.

The Secretary at War said, as there was no vote for either of these asked this day, it might perhaps be as well not to enter upon the subject, till it came regularly before them, when there would be sufficient opportunity for explanation.

Mr. Long observed, that although these matters were not absolutely before them, he would be happy to give the hon. gent. a short answer to his question relative to the Public Department, which was this year estimated at nearly 30,000l. more than it was last. This was not an increase of expence but of estimate. Agreeing with the Committee of Military Inquiry, and his right hon. friend the Secretary at War, that every expence which could be brought within the Annual Estimates ought to appear there, he had added to this the Contingencies of Deputies abroad, amounting to 15,000l.; Exchequer Fees 5,8011; Deputies to the army under sir John Moore, that under general Spencer, and the deputies at Madeira and at Lisbon, making in all the amount of increase now charged.

The Secretary at War then moved: 1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 133,922 effective men, commissioned and non-commissioned officers in

cluded, be employed in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.-2. That a sum, not exceeding 7,582,3781. 16s. 11d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the Charge of his majesty's Land Forces at home and abroad (excepting the regiments in the East Indies, the foreign corps in British pay, and the embodied Militia) including the charge of pay and daily allowance of commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers, and private men, the charge of cloathing for non-commissioned officers and private men, the charge of agency, and the charge of annual allowances to be made to field officers, captains, and riding masters, and the extra allowance for farriery, as also certain Miscellaneous Charges on account of the said Forces, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.-3. That a sum, not exceeding 29,322. 10s. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the charge of five troops of dragoons, and 15 companies of foot, stationed in Great Britain for the purpose of recruiting the corps serving in East India, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.-4. That a sum, not exceeding 3,048,6477. 19s. 5d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the Charge of the Embodied Militia of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Royal Corps of Miners of Devon and Cornwall, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809.-5. That a sum not exceeding 933,6541. 6s. 10d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the charge of Foreign Corps in the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th of Dec. 1808 to the 24th of Dec. 1809."

The Resolutions were severally agreed to, and the Chairman was ordered to report to-morrow.

[CONDUCT OF THE DUKE OF YORK.] Mr. Wardle moved the order of the day for going into a Committee for inquiring further into the Conduct of his royal highness the Duke of York.

Sir Thomas Turton wished, previously, to ask a question of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the statement made by him the other day, relative to the sums of money that appeared to have been transmitted from h. r. h. to Mrs. Clarke. Many of these sums were very considerable; and, therefore, he wished to know whether the right hon. gent. meant to examine any evidence on the subject, in

were her's. He knew very well the Committee had decided by their proceedings that they were not to be confined within the strict rules respecting evidence by which the courts of law regulated them

Earl Temple answered, that as he understood gen. 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 hon. gent. then said he apprehended the Committee had already examined several persons who were deemed the most competent to know the D. of York's hand-writing. It would seem, from what he had been given to understand, that this gent., who was 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 person would, if standing before them on the same or similar charges, be allowed an equal degree of favour. In his opinion, they had given latitude to col. Gordon, in permitting him to take a paper 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 40 letters were shewn to Mrs. C., 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 that 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 he bottom, should be obliged to allow they

col. Gordon, he must throw it out for the consideration of the Committee, whether having already committed an impropriety would justify them in adding to that impropriety 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 circumstances, 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 hon. gent. 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 supposed, however, the hon. gent. 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 hon. 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 12 men, they might all of them examine all the 1 tters so minutely, as to decide the point by themselves; but in so great a number as the members of that house, such an examination 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 hon. gent. 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 hon. gent., 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 admitted col. Gordon's evidence, but none in Mrs. C.'s; for if any thing should arise in the course of the letters produced to the injury of Mrs. | C.'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 hon. gent. 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 eye-sight, 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 he had been anticipated by the hon. gent. 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. C. had given a direct testimony, and if gentlemen would seriously and carefully attend to the whole of her VOL. XII.

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.-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 suppositious 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 Attorneygeneral, 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 hon. gent. 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 comparison 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 solicitor for the plaintiff, in 3 Ι