ance for General Clavering, but under such circumstances
as these no excuse could be admissible. If any member
of that House could possibly think, after reading the evi-
dence, that General Clavering either did not recollect the
circumstances, or that he answered under a misunder
standing of the questions, that member of course would
not vote for the motion: yet, how that was possible, after
the evidence to the contrary under his own hand, he was
at a loss to conceive: but the General, after hearing
every where the conversation his first testimony excited
-after seeing the evidence published in all the newspa-
pers-never came forward to correct his testimony until
after a lapse of ten days, when he again solicits to be
heard, contradicts his former testimony, and again pre-
varicates worse than before. His first testimony might
have passed without notice; for it was not until his sc-
cond voluntary appearance that it became impossible to
suffer him to escape.
He did not till then avow the let-
ters which afford the direct proofs of his former misstate
ments. Upon these grounds it became necessary for the
House to separate the General's case from those of any
other witnesses who may have appeared to incur the
charge of prevarication. If from a man of General Cla-
vering's education, character, rank, and honourable sta
tion, the House could not extract the whole truth, from
whom could they expect it? If such a person was suf
fered with impunity to impose on the House of Commons
by wilful prevarication, falsehood, or concealment of the
truth, they never after could expect fair testimony from
witnesses of inferior condition, who would think, as they
were not giving evidence upon oath, that although falsc
hood might in some degree injure their characters, yet
it might serve their purpose, and the House of Commons
would not punish them. If this case were passed over,
not only the dignity and character of the House would be
forfeited, but one of its most valuable privileges, that of
inquiring into every branch of the public service, rendered
ineffectual. The honourable member concluded by mov•
ing a resolution, "That Brigadier-general Clavering, in
his evidence before the Committee of that House, on
the 10th and 20th of February, had been guilty of pre-
varication."

Sir Matthew Ridley said, that he did not rise to justify
General Clavering, who certainly did appear to be guilty

of some contradictions in his testimony. He was sure, however, that General was always himself impressed with the opinion that he had given no answer that was contrary to the truth. The business had been the subject of conversation of a club to which they both belonged; and when General Clavering understood that his conduct had been a subject of general reprehension he begged him to request of the House that he might be called to explain his former testimony. So fully was General Clavering impressed with the idea that his answers had been correct, that he said at the club to his Grace the Duke of Argyle, "I think it very extraordinary that I have been examined by all the acuteness and ability of the House, and yet nobody thought of putting me a question relative to myself." Now, when a gentleman of General Clavering's birth, rank, and character, did certainly state what was not consonant to the fact, he could not bring his mind to believe that it was a premeditated falsehood. He thought General Clavering should throw himself, in a manner, upon the mercy of the House; and he hoped they would make some allowances for a man whose education was military, and who had been in the army since the age of 14, for some incorrectness in his testimony, when he was examined before the combined wisdom and talent of England. He had only to mention that the Duke of Argyle would be glad to be examined as to the conversation he bad mentioned; and Earl Moira would wish to bear tes timony to the general character and honour of General Clavering.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer regretted that he had not been in the House yesterday at the time the honourable gentleman gave notice that he would bring forward the present motion, as he should have endeavoured to have persuaded him to postpone it until the discussion respecting the Duke of York was over. He had supposed that the sense of the House had been expressed, that it was better not to select the case of a single witness until the main discussion was over, and he thought that it was out of compliance to that feeling that the honourable gentleman had originally desisted from pressing his motion on the day it was first mentioned. It was for this reason that the notice had originally been fixed for that day, when it was supposed that the main question would have been VOL. II.-1809.

2N

decided sooner; but as the discussion of the main question was postponed, he thought that this question should be postponed also. The House expressed a similar opinion very decidedly with respect to another witness, Mr. Donovan. It was not by any means that they intended to pass it over, but that they thought there would appear something of partiality in selecting one witness for punishment, whichever way the bearing of his testimony might incline. He would agree with the hon. gentleman, that whenever the House should go into the consideration of the question, their decision must not be founded on the comparative demerits of different witnesses, but upon the particular case brought before them. He would agree with him, that the House might punish not only the witness who prevaricated, but the witness who spoke falsely at their bar, and who was flatly contradicted either by himself or others. He would even go farther than the honourable gentleman, and say he could easily conceive a case, where even the positive demerit of one witness in his testimony might be somewhat less than that of another; and yet if he was in that rank or station from which truth. ought rather to be expected, he might be more deserving the punishment of the House than an individual of inferior education and situation. He wished, on the present occasion, to avoid all discussion of the particular case, because he hoped the honourable gentleman would be persuaded to postpone it till after the discussion on the Duke of York. He must say, however, that the case was by no means as clear as that of Captain Sandon, who prevaricated so grossly, that hardly any two of his answers agreed. He could not think that the evidence of General Clavering was so immaterial that it might be struck out of the minutes. On the contrary, he thought part of his evidence bore on one side the case, and part on the other. He agreed perfectly with the honourable gentleman, that the House should feel its dignity concerned in punishing those who had prevaricated, or those who had been guilty of impudent falsehoods. He by no means wished to be understood as desiring to throw a shield over the guilty, but he wished to avoid the appearance of making any partial selection of what witnesses were most deserying of punishment, as the circumstances might make an improper impression on the public mind. He declared that for his own part he had not studied the case suffici

ently to be prepared to discuss it this night; from the other reasons however which he had suggested, he should hope that the honourable gentleman might be persuaded to postpone his motion.

Mr. Wilberforce differed from his right honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), although he was sure that they both agreed in one cominon object, to have the main question decided as fairly as possible. He thought this case ought to be decided on its own mcrits, and not left at all to be considered in common with other cases. He would entirely disapprove of his disposing the question by any sort of compromise, or saying "If you will spare this witness, we will spare that other." General Clavering's case ought to be determined by his own veracity, and not by the demerits of others. If his evidence should be at all material in the main point, it would then appear as if he had been proceeded against, or protected, from the bearing of his testimony. He therefore thought his case should now be determined on its own merits.

Mr. C. Smith could not see what inconvenience could arise from determining on the case of General Clavering. After Captain Huxley Sandon had been committed to Newgate for prevarication, he was brought up again and examined. The House should not only hold the scales of justice even, but they should appear to the world to do so. General Clavering was a witness, who voluntarily came into court for the express purpose of invalidating the testimony of another witness. It therefore behoved him more particularly to come into court with clean hands.

Mr. Whitbread thought, that it would be the best way to adjourn the present debate until some day subsequent, to the main discussion. He could not see that the case of Captain Sandon was a much stronger case than that of General Clavering. It was impossible to contradict the General on the first day that he was examined, and be. probably then thought that there was no document in existence by which he could be contradicted. If his letters had been destroyed at Hampstead, and the Duke of York's letters had not been produced, his evidence would have been unimpeachable, and the House would have been. completely imposed on by it. If his letters could have been produced on the same night that he was first examined, the House could not have a moment's hesitation

on the course to be taken. If General Clavering was now, to be punished, his testimony, like that of Captain Sandon, would still remain on the minutes, and receive what attention it was worth, whichever way it bore. Certainly no decision of the House about his punishment could add to, or take away from, the credit of his testimony. He concluded by recommending that the debate should be adjourned, which it was, till Tuesday se'nnight.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,

Mr. Ashley Cooper presented some estimates on account of the ordnance. The first sum he should mention was, 200,0007. in liquidation of the navy debt. The next item was 600,000l. for saltpetre, and although this appeared a large sum, yet it must be considered, that there might be a very extraordinary demand for that article in the present year. The next item was 200,000/. for the depots of arms and ammunition, which was a small sum, when it was considered that the depots of this country might, within the year, become the general depot for supplying ammunition and ordnance to all Europe. The estimate of the ordnance for Great Britain was 20,000l. Icss than in the former year, that of Ireland was 70,000l. higher, and the principal reason of this increase was the expence of 123,000l. for the coast defences of Ireland. He concluded by moving for a grant of 453,000l. to defray those expences unprovided by parliament, for the service of Great Britain.

General Tarleton began by expressing a wish to know whether the depots in the interior of the country were in a state of forwardness. As the Committee was on a subject connected with our military establishments, he thought it was a fair opportunity for him to consider the course of the military operations of his majesty's ministers for the last twelve months. He first wished to put a plain question to the right honourable Secretary at War-wby was the 21st regiment of dragoons sent to the Cape of Good Hope, and left there, and why were the 17th sent over their heads directly to India? The 21st was one of the finest regiments in the service. It consisted of about 700 men, and had in it about 600 from 20 to 30 years of age. When this fine regiment was seasoned to the