You having stated that you had been occupied one hour in examining all the papers, inclusive of Mrs. Clarke's letters, what time did you devote to the examination of the three letters now in question? I think it is probable that I might have been from half an hour to three quarters on the one, and the rest of the time on the various letters of Mrs. Clarke, and so on.

Might not the short note and the two letters have been the handwriting of the same person, supposing the short note written in the morning, and the letters after dinner, or vice verså? I think that might possibly have been the case, but then that written in the afternoon would have been much worse than that written in the morning. '

If two powers of attorney had been presented to you for your examination, one in the hand of the letter which was acknowledged to be the hand-writing of the party who presented it, and the other in the handwriting of the short note, with your observation would you officially have refused the acceptance of that latter power of attorney? If there had been no other circumstances as collateral evidence in favour of it, I certainly should have demurred to the signature.

Have you not said, that writings differing as much as these, have ultimately turned out to be genuine? If I have not, I am persuaded they have done so.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

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

In what business are you? In the service of the Bank of England. In what deparment? My employment is the examining powers of attorney, in the first place as to the accuracy of them, and then examining their signatures.

[The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] Have you examined those two letters and that note, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person or not? I have.

How long have you been employed in the department in which you now are? Nearly twenty years.

You are still in that situation? I am.

You state, that you have examined these two letters and that note, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person? I have.

Look at them now, and tell me whether they were in your judgment written by the same person? I think there is a very correspondent similarity.

In your judgment, is the note written by the same person as these letters were written by? I can only say that there is a very marked similarity.

Upon examining these letters and the note, have you any reason I have not to think they were not written by the same person? any reason to think they were not; I have no reason at all that upon subject.

Upon examining those letters and the note, have you any reason to think they were not written by the same person? After what I have said, I think I cannot answer that question but in the way I have answered it.

If two powers of attorney came before you, signed, one in the cha

racter of the note, and the other in the character of the letters, would you have passed them both as written by the same person? I think I should.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

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

What is your employment! One of the Investigators of the Bank of England.

What is your business in that department? To examine and inspect into forged notes.

How long have you been in that situation? About fifteen years. Is it your business to discover whether the signatures to those notes are or are not genuine? It is.

Do you examine any thing but the signatures to those notes? The whole of the notes; every writing on the note; it, leads to many other things, the paper, the writing, the engraving, and the whole of the notes.

Do you examine any writing upon the notes, except the signature? Yes, very frequently.

What part of those bills which you examine is written, except the signature? The date and number.

Do you examine Bank Post Bills as well as Bank-notes? No.

Then there is nothing of writing upon those bills you examine, but the dates, the numbers and the signatures? Nothing else, except it might be writing by the public, at times, upon the notes.

[The two letters and the note were shewn to the witness.] Have you examined the two letters and the note now put into your hand, for the purpose of discovering whether they are written by the same person or not? I have.

According to the best judgment you can form, are they or are they not written by the same person? I should suppose they were.

Have you any doubt upon that subject at all? From letters that I saw afterwards, I have some doubt; but if I had not seen any other letters, from the appearance of those I should have had no doubt.

What letters did you see afterwards? I saw different letters on the table where I examined these, that I was desired to look at, from, I believe, No. 31 to 40 or 41.

Is the Committee to understand, that, from the observation you have made upon the letters and the note you have just seen, you have no doubt but they were written by the same person? I did not say I had no doubt, I said I thought they were.

Have you or have you not any doubt upon that subject, alluding to the three letters you have just seen? From the letters that I saw since, many of them seeming to differ, I have some doubt of it.

Have you or have you not any doubt upon that subject, alluding to the three letters you have just seen? From the examination of the three letters, which I looked at as carefully as possible, I thought they were all of one hand-writing.

Whose letters do you imagine those were that you saw besides? There were papers numbered as far as 40 upon the table; I went in at a late hour; only one being allowed to go in at a time, I looked only VOL. 1.-1809.

at ten, from 30 to 40 or 41; and I understood from those letters they were written by Mrs. Clarke.

Explain how the comparison of Mrs. Clarke's letters induced you to doubt about the similarity of the three others? After I had been desired to look at two letters, and the other, to compare the hand-writing, I was desired to look at the other letters, and compare them with the first two letters also.

How did that comparison alter the opinion you had before formed? Because, though they were writtten by one person, yet they differed in the writing; there were some very plain to read, and some more difficult to read; some written rather larger, and some rather smaller.

I understand you to have stated, that the two letters and the note appeared to you at first to be of the same writing? I did say so. Therefore, though these were written at different times, there appeared no great difference in the writing? There did not.

How was that opinion altered by tinding that another person did at different times write different hands? From the difference of that hand-writing; some of them I compared, in some measure bore a semblance to the arst two letters; if I had seen no others than the first two and the note produced to me, I should have been clearly of opinion, without any doubt, that they had been the same person's writing; but I explain now from the ultimate judgment of what I looked at, which impressed upon me this, that the letters that I saw, though they were one person's writing, the writing differed materially, some very small and some larger, and from the very tree easy running hand, some seen so exactly alike, and some different, that it would be doubtful to judge of that person's writing at all times, whether it was her writing or not. Is it from those letters differing amongst themselves, or from some of them agreeing with the two letters now shewn to you, that your doubt arises? It is from some of those letters being differently written of themselves, and some of them having a small semblance of the other writing.

: Did those letters most resemble the two letters or the note? One or two of the letters resembled the two letters and the note.

Is it from that resemblance that you doubt now that the two letters and the note were of the same hand-writing? The difference amongst themselves would be the only reason that would create any doubt in my mind.

You have said, that some of those letters were in a large and some in a small hand, and yet you suppose them to be the writing of the same person? I understood that they were the writing, and thought that they were the writing of the same person.

Is not the note in a smaller hand than the letters? I think, as near as possible, the major part of it is the same size as the letters.

Did you perceive any similarity between the hand-writing of any of the letters last shewn you from 30 to 40, and the note? There were one or two of the letters that I thought bore a semblance of the two Jetters and the note.

Is that the circumstance which led you to doubt at last whether the two letters and the note were written by the same person? It certainly

was.

The witness was directed to withdraw.

Brigadier General CLAVERING having sent a letter to

the Chairman, requesting that he might be called to explain his evidence; he was called in, and examined by the Committee, as follows:

What part of the evidence which you gave on a former night, do you now wish to explain? There is a part of the evidence that I gave on a former night, that I wish to explain. But I request permission, before I explain it, to state why I requested to come forward this evening: It was intimated to me yesterday, by a friend of mine, and other members of the Committee, that an idea had gone forth, that part of the evidence I gave on a former evening was not correct; I certainly started at the idea, having been thoroughly satisfied in any own mind that it was my intention to state every thing to the very best of my knowledge. Yesterday, however, I referred to the minutes, which before I had not seen, and it did certainly appear to me that the answers I had given to the questions, were not perfectly such as I would have given, had I clearly comprehended those questions; and however extraordinary this may appear to the Committee, I pledge my sacred honour and word the mistake was perfectly involuntary on my "part, and it was my entire intention, as well as my wish, to give every information in my power, and I should feel myself particularly ho noured and flattered by as many questions as the Committee shall think it proper to put to me upon this occasion. With the permission of the Committee I will now refer to the questions put to me on the former occasion. In page 153, the question was; "Had you any communication whatever on the subject of army promotions with Mrs. Clarke My reply was, "I never proposed any conversation of that kind, nor do I recollect any ever having existed, except at the period I before alluded to, when she requested I would recommend to the consideration of the Duke of York, Lieutenant Sumner of the 20th regiment." It is perfectly clear now to me, that by the addition of the word whatever' after communication,' an epistolary correspondence was intended, but I certainly understood it to be a personal commnunication or conversation, for, in the two preceding questions, the idea of conversation, and conversation only, had been included; and in the following question likewise it appears also evident to me, that that was in the idea of the honourable member who proposed it, that he meant conversation, for the question is, "Had you any incidental conversation with Mrs. Clarke upon that subject?" and my reply was, “A period of so many years having elapsed since that time, it is impossible to speak positively and accurately to a question so close as that, but, to the best of my belief, I do not think I had." The next question, and the reply, which I wish to advert to, is this:-" Do you, of your own knowledge, know that Mrs. Clarke used her influence in favour of any person whatever in the army with the Commander in Chief?" My reply was, "I do not." I certainly did misunderstand that question altogether, and that I did misunderstand it, I have the most positive proof for stating to the Committee: one of the first conversations [ had, after withdrawing from this bar, was with a noble relative of mine, a Peer of the Upper House, in which I stated (and he has authorised me to say, if it is necessary, he will confirm the same) that my surprise was, that a question had been put to me which I conceived concerned others, and that my regret was, that the question had not been put which did immediately concern myself, for if it had, I should have

given that reply which, in my own mind, conveyed a thorough convic tion that Mrs. Clarke never possessed that influence over the mind of his Royal Highness which it is supposed that she possessed. I have nothing further to add upon that immediate head.

[The five letters delivered in by Mrs. Clarke on the 13th instant, were shewn to General Clavering.] General Clavering. They are my hand-writing,

On the former examination, you were asked whether you had ever known' of any person who had asked Mrs. Clarke to use her influence with the Commander in Chief; to which you answered positively, that you had not. When you were asked whether you knew of any transaction of that nature, you say you understood that any transaction in which you might have been engaged was excluded in the intention of the person asking that question? I certainly did, both to that question and to the following one, for I conceived that my answer to the third question from the bottom, was an answer which applied equally to the

two last.

Did you or did you not ever, in writing or otherwise, ask Mrs. Clarke to use her influence in your behalf with the Commander in Chief? I did.

Had it any effect? I believe not.

Did you obtain what you asked for? I made two applications; I did not obtain the first, and I believe that what was granted me in the second, was not through her influence.

Was it granted to you? Will you permit me to answer that question not immediately directly; it was granted, but it must equally have been granted, and it could not have been denied me, if such application had not been made.

Why then did you apply through Mrs. Clarke? Were I permitted to state the circumstances, I believe it would be better understood than by any other answer. In the year 1803, I was placed upon the Staff as an Inspecting field officer, as colonel. In the year 1804; the government thought proper to raise all the officers of the rank of colonel to that of brigadier-general: I received a notification from the War-Office, that I was appointed a brigadier-general, and about 'a fortnight afterwards I received a second notification, to say, that my appointment was not to be that of brigadier-general but brigadiercolonel. The circumstance appeared to me so extraordinary, that I wrote upon that occasion to Mis. Clarke, to know if she could discover why the alteration was made from brigadier-general to brigadier-colonel; she replied to me, that upon inquiry it was found to be a mistake, and that all the brigadier generals who had been previously appointed and afterwards removed, were to be restored to their first appointments of brigadier-generals; and the reason was evident, it was supposed that the militia and the volunteers might possibly be assembled to act together by the militia act, no colonel in the army can command a colonel of militia, consequently, our appointment to the situation of brigadier-colonels would not have had the effect it was intended to have had; therefore we were again appointed to our original situation, that of brigadier-generals.

How came you to apply for an interpretation of any mistake, or any extraordinary circumstance, to Mrs. Clarke, and not to the office of the Commander in Chief? Because, according to the custom of all offices, the persons holding the ostensible situations could not have given

1