the case of Jackson and Cator, was prepared to take down a host of inspectors from the Post-office, to prove the libel was in a feigned hand. The defendant was prepared with another host of inspectors from the Bank, who would have proved the direct contrary. This statement had been made to him by the defendant's solicitor, who was a gentleman of great honour and credit in his profession, and shewed how very great the difference of opinions was, with regard to the comparison of hands. He would therefore intreat the Committee to weigh well the matter, before they allowed such evidence to be called to the bar.

Mr. Beresford said a few words in favour of the witness being called in.

out any doubt, to be the hand-writing of sir H. Mann, he (Mr. Smith) should have felt no doubt the second was also; with no other difference, than that the one had been written with what is generally called a better pen. As to the gentlemen who had been called to prove the duke of York's hand-writing, they had done themselves honour on the occasion, by the great caution with which they had given their evidence. If the house had strictly adhered to the rules adopted by the courts of law, he would allow they should confine themselves to it: but having once taken a greater latitude, they ought not to permit themselves to be circumscribed, and therefore he thought that col. Gordon's comparison of hands was not liable to the objection his hon. friend had made to it. He could not, therefore, but think it right that the witnesses should be examined, as to the comparison of hands.

Mr. Bathurst said, that as this point had been objected to, it behoved them to look well to the case, to see if they were doing what they ought. They might set up technical or legal proofs to bar such a mode of proceeding; but this case was nothing like what was so called in courts of law. As to Mrs. Clarke, he should give no opinion on her evidence. He should not follow the example of the noble lord who had penegyrised the lady on the occasion, because he thought it was premature to do so at present. As to the others, there was not one of them, but gen. Brownrigg, to whom a legal question had been put, and that question he had answer

Mr. W. Smith said, that having given his opinion in favour of the proceeding on the last night of the Inquiry, he should certainly maintain it then, though in direct opposition to that of his hon. friend and the noble lord, with whom he was generally in the habit of voting. The subject, indeed, divided itself into more branches than he was inclined to enter upon at that moment, but he could not help offering a few observations on it. He was sorry the mode of examining witnesses ou oath had not been adopted, as he thought this house ought to examine on oath as well as the other, and he believed the custom had obtained in the other house from the circumstance of their being more frequently used to act in judicial capacity. As it was, the house must now proceed in the way that it set out with. There appeared to him great confusion in the manner of argued so as to deny that it was, in his opinion, ing the subject. The first question in these cases generally was, Have you seen the party write? and in answering this the witness did not give his opinion on having seen the party write, but on what he had written, which was merely matter of opinion from comparison of the hand-writing. That this, however, was, after all, a very uncertain mode of proceeding, he was ready to admit. This had to him been strongly exemplified in a case which occurred in that house a few nights ago. An hon. gent. had been examined as to the hand-writing of sir Horace Mann, who had on that occasion said, that the first paper produced to him was the writing of sir Horace, and the second was not. He (Mr. Smith) had carefully and minutely examined both, and though he had never seen sir H. Mann write, from the first paper being allowed by the hon. member with

the hand-writing of the duke of York. So far, therefore,. from the fact being ab solutely proved, there is still a doubt, it stands at present in equilibrio; and the question now was, whether the house might not apply to persons who were adequate to speak on the subject; and for his own part, he saw no reason why they should not endeavour to obtain as much information in it as they could. A case had been adduced, where a person was asked, whether a libel was in the genuine handwriting of the plaintiff, and that was allowed. The person's hand-writing was then shewn, and he was asked whether that and the libel were not the same. That, was a comparison of hands, and was objected to. The Inspector was asked whether the writing shewn him was a feigned hand, and that he was allowed to answer. The house ought therefore to go as far at least

as the courts of law, and that was what was wanted to ask of this witness from the Post-office. Because the Duke's handwriting, as to this Note, had not been proved at all, it was desirable to know, whether it was likely to be a real or a feigned hand. He was therefore of opinion the witness ought to be examined.

Mr. Brand expressed his surprise that any objections should be made to the examination of the proposed witnesses, and observed, that those who made it their business to mark and compare different hands might reasonably be considered as more competent to judge of such affairs than others.

to convince him in what had been ad-
vanced that night on the subject. If the
house were to judge by what had fallen
from the hon. gent. below him (Mr. W.
Smith), a comparison of hands was unques-
tionably better than seeing a person write;
that argument, it seemed to him, went too
far, for it proved the comparison to be the
best, which was a doctrine long since ex-
ploded. The right hon. gent, on the floor
(Mr. Bathurst) had said, that the house had
examined four gentlemen, but had not. put
the proper questions to them. Then why
not put these questions to them? They
were still to be called before the house,
and it was much better to put these ques-
tions to them in such a manner as the right
hon. gent. should point out as a proper one,
than to admit evidence so very alarming as
this appeared to him to be.
He begged
the Committee to recollect that the evi-
dence to be produced was to decide the
point by a comparison of hands; that this
was deemed contrary to the established
law of the land; and is it, said he, the evi-
dence of those persons which shall be al-
lowed to determine this positively to be
the hand-writing of the D. of Y.? He
thought it ought not, and should there-
fore object to the witness being called to
the bar.

Sir Samuel Romilly said, the question appeared to him to be of such high importance that he thought the Committee should not determine on it before they were in possession of more information. The object was very different from that of courts of justice, and therefore the house could not be bound by the same ties. The right hon. gent. opposite had not stated the matter fairly, when he merely talked of a decision at bar, and one at Nisi Prius. The fact was, that in the case of Revett and Braham, which was a trial at bar, the decision was so contrary to the established principles of law, and gave so universal and great an alarm to the whole bar, that on the subsequent occasion in the case of Nisi Prius, Mr. Baron Hotham, who was well known to be a judge very diffident of his own opinion, took on himself to reverse the law held on the other case, of the trial at bar and it was very evident, and perfectly well known, that he, a single judge sitting at Nisi Prius, never would have undertaken to overturn that decision of the court, had he not been well aware that it had been highly and loudly condemned by the universal opinion of the whole bar. There was no question of law so nice, as that of saying whether any certain piece of writing was that of any one particular person or not; the property, the liberties, and the lives, of all the subjects of this of Revett and Braham, the point was, wherealm, were deeply interested in it; and ther the hand-writing was feigned or real; it ought never to be forgotten in that and this was to be determined by persons house, in particular, that Algernon Sydney from public offices, who acted as inspectlost his life by admitting a comparison of ors. In the trial before baron Hotham, hand-writing, and as lord Ellenborough the inspectors from the Post-office were had so lately argued the case most seriously, asked whether the hand-writing of the dethe house ought well to consider whether fendant Cator was a feigned hand: so far this was really law or not. He should be it agreed with the case of Revett and Brasorry to take up the time of the Commit-ham; but it went further, and having tee, by going deeply into the reason of proved the opinion that the hand-writing this case, but he had really heard nothing was feigned, they proceeded to ask, whe

The Attorney General said his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, could not more highly respect the judicial opi nion of lord Ellenborough than he himself did; but when he considered that in the case alluded to he went to Maidstone as counsel for the defendant, all the law he had then held on the subject was merely that of an advocate, doing the most he could for the cause of his client, but was by no means to be considered in the light of a judicial opinion. He could not allow the reason given by his hon. and learned friend for baron Hotham's over-ruling the decision of the court, because it was the universal opinion of the bar that that decision was contrary to law. In the case

Look at them, and tell me whether you think THOMAS METCALFE, M. D. was called they are all the same hand-writing? I think

In what department of the Bank are you? Principal of the Letter of Attorney Office. In that office are you in the habit of examin[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]ing hand-writings that are suspected to be for[It was moved and seconded, that the evi- geries? Yes, constantly so. dence to hand-writing about to be produced, be not received; which being put, passed in the negative, without a division.]

the Witness.] Have you seen these papers before? have.

By a close inspection of the hand writing of the Letters, do you perceive any difference in the turns of any one compared with the others -(A cry of oh! oh! oh!) [The Witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Bathurst rose to order :-He thought the proper course of examination was that which had been pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not understand the objection of his hon. friend on the opposite side. His hon. friend behind him (Mr. Beresford) having formed his own judgment by an attention to the formation of the letters, wished to direct the attention of the witness to the particular circumstances which had weighed with himself before he asked him the general question. This he thought perfectly proper; and as his hon. friend had been in a situation where he himself had been in the habit of comparing hands, he had given up the examination of this witness to him.

Mr. Bathurst contended that the examination ought to be confined to the general question; for as to a trifling difference in a word or a letter, the hand-writing of each of the members of the house might so far vary at different times. But the point was, whether, on a view of the whole the witness was of opinion that the writings were the same. The question he thought the more improper, as the hon. gent. had founded it on an opinion of his

own.

cided that these witnesses should be called,
and therefore he had nothing to say on
that point; but he was very anxious that
it should not go forth to the public that
there was any thing like an attempt to
lead the witness. The object was to get
at the truth. The question had a mani-
fest tendency to lead the evidence.
would not serve the cause of truth; and
on that account his feeling was strong
against it.

This

Mr. Beresford stated, that having been himself in the habit of examining handwritings with a view to detect forgeries, he had looked at the Note and the other Letters, and had made observations which appeared to several gentlemen to whom he mentioned them to have weight. He' had refrained from asking any questions of the two first witnesses, as he might from the circumstance have a prejudice in his mind that might lead him to ask an improper question.—(A laugh). But the gentlemen around him seemed to think there was no impropriety in his asking questions, and pointing out the particulars to which he wished the witness to attend before he gave the general answer. But he would be sorry to press any question which might be thought improper, and if there was any objection to his last question, he would abandon it.

Mr. Wilberforce thought the question. very improper in the peculiar circumstances under which these witnesses came before the committee. They had already examined the papers, and of course had attended to the necessary particulars, and Mr. Elliot was sorry to interpose, but he it was quite needless now to lead their athad an objection to state different from tention to them. They ought first to be that of his right hon. friend, who had just asked, whether they believed the handsat down. He thought it of great im- writing to be the same, and if they anportance that the house and the commit-swered in the affirmative, they might then tee should be consistent. A witness had been before rejected because he could speak only from signatures, and this witness stood in the same situation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that the witnesses now called were not called with a view to prove the handwriting of the D. of Y., but to say whether the two papers shewn then were in the same hand-writing. The question, he contended, was in substance unobjectionable; for it was proper and important to direct the attention of the witness to the materials upon which he was to judge; and this he supposed was the object of his hon.

friend.

Mr. Ellison said, that the house had de

with perfect propriety be asked why they thought so. But upon the principle of the last question a witness might be asked 500 preliminary questions, so as to fritter away his opinion before he gave it. The same course ought to be followed with respect to this witness, that had been adopted with respect to the two former, otherwise it might be imagined that the gentlemen who examined the witnesses, resorted to this circuitous method from the dread of an opinion contrary to their wishes.

Mr. Beresford moved that the question be expunged, which was accordingly done.

[The Witness was again called in.]

(By Mr. Beresford.)

State whether you think these several papers were all written by the same person, looking

both at the directions and the inside of the Letters? I have looked very attentively at the Note particularly, and compared it with these two Letters, and after a great deal of attention and care in looking at almost every letter in the Note, I am of opinion that it was not written by

the same hand.

On what circumstances in that Note do you ground your opinion? Because I perceive a neatness through almost every letter of the Note, which is not, I think, to be found in the Letters; and the whole of the writing in the Note appears to me to be of a smaller character than a

the Letters in general are; I think I perceive stiffness in several of the letters in the Note, which I do not perceive in the two Letters dated Sandgate and Weymouth.

Have you any further observation to make? I will just add, that in the two Letters dated Sandgate and Weymouth, there appears to me to be a general freedom I do not perceive in the Note.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

You state that you perceive in the formation of the letters of the Note a neatness of character which you do not perceive in the Letters; do you not conceive that difference may arise from the difference of the pens and ink used in the writing? That circumstance has not escaped my mind, but after looking at that also, I am stilt of opinion that it was not the same writing.

You stated, that you are principal Inspector of the Letter of Attorney ollice; in examining letters of attorney in that office, is it not your principal business to look at the signature? It is.

Is that your only business? No, surely not; that is the principal business.

ed that there are no dots to the i's in that note ?
I have not.

dots to the i's in the two letters? I think I
Have you observed whether there are any
have observed dots in some parts of the letters.
that circumstance. [The Witness looked over
Look over the letters again, with a view to
the letters]-I do not observe several, but I do
that is the letter dated from Weymouth.
find, in the first letter I have looked into, one;

letters, with the dot over it? I have not ob-
Have you observed but one i, in these two

served more.

Having adverted to that circumstance, do you remain of the same opinion with regard to the hand-writing? I do not think that should change my opinion, because I think that the ensemble of the note appears to me altogether a different kind of hand.

You have stated to the Committee, that you looked over these letters and the note with great attention; how did it happen that so remarkable a circumstance as that escaped your attention? I do not at all wonder that such a circumstance as that should escape my attention, it is the first time I have ever been called upon in this house, however, and surrounded as I was by gentlemen on every side at the time I was examining into the letters, as far as my time and attention would allow, I do not wonder that that circumstance escaped my attention.

How long a time were these letters under your inspection in the Committee-room above stairs? I think about an hour; but in the course of that time, I had a great variety of letters to look over, of Mrs. C.'s and other persons, which I was directed to look at, and which I did look at, and observed the characters with some attention.

Do you remember an instance of a person endeavouring to forge or imitate the hand-writing of another who did not put dots to the i's, who in that forged or imitated paper was acWhat other part of the hand-writing are you customed to put dots? I do not exactly recolaccustomed to examine, besides the signature; collect any circumstance about dots of i's, It is necessary for me to read over the whole of but I have refused signatures, and perthe letter of attorney, to see that it is correct in haps daily do that, which turn out to be forgeall its parts, and when so done, to compare the❘ries, though generally innocent ones, but not signature with any former signature, and if it agrees, of course it is admitted; if it does not agree, we have other modes of proof, such as looking at other signatures, comparing the hand-writing of the witnesses, and still other proofs.

Is it expected that the hand-writing in the body of the letter of attorney should be written by the person who signs his name at the bottom? The letters of attorney are almost universally filled up by the clerks in the office over which I preside; the body of the letter of attorney is uniformly filled up by them.

Then is not the comparison of writings to which alone your attention is directed, altogether a comparison of signatures? It is.

(By Mr. C. Adams.)

Have you, in looking over the Note, observ

actually the signature of the parties that should be there.

Does the circumstance of there being no dots to the i's in the note before you, make any difference in your opinion? It certainly was a circumstance that I did not advert to, and therefore, as far as that goes, I certainly think it is of weight, but not sufficient to alter my opinion.

(By Mr. Thompson.)

In the course of examining the signature of powers of attorney, have you not observed that the signature of the same person varies considerably in a short period of time? I certainly have, and that may arise from a variety of circumstances, such as ill health; a signature made before or after dinner has frequently been very materially different, and indeed a variety