my motives and reasons for that conduct; that was what influenced me in the opinion I gave in consultation with Mr. Perceval upon that subject. I mentioned that I did not see the D. of Y. again till three or four o'clock on Sunday; at one o'clock on Sunday I was informed, by col. Hamilton, of Sandon's having declared the note to be destroyed. Between three and four o'clock on Sunday I informed the D. of Y. of that fact. I think it right to state that as a material fact in the case.

You have stated, that one motive which you had for keeping back the mention of this note to so late a period, was, lest you should embarrass the gentleman who brought forward this inquiry, by the premature disclosure of the note; explain to the committee how that disclosure would have embarrassed him more than the cross-examinations which took place, when the witnesses appeared at the bar? I considered this note, and the transaction respecting it, the disclosure respecting its destruction, to form one of the most extraordinary features that I had ever known of in any case. If I had been in the course of examining witnesses much in this proceeding, I should have avoided cross-examining to that fact, thinking the mode that was adopted a more satisfactory means of bringing it forward; and I believe it will be found, that there was no cross-examination of Sandon to that fact, nor any thing that could lead to it; and therefore, answering to the motive, and not to the fact, I can only say it does not strike me that this stands upon the same footing as the ordinary cross-examination of witnesses, according to my conception.

Why should its being an extraordinary feature, prevent its being presented at an early period; is it usual for extraordinary features to be kept back in evidence in Courts of Justice, when they relate to the evidence that witnesses examined in chief, are given to the Court? I conceive, that being possessed of a fact of this sort, which I found it my bounden duty, in conjunction with Mr. Peceval, to bring before the public, whatever its consequences might be, and which the royal Duke, I believe, had expressed a desire to Mr. Perceval, should be brought before the public, that I had a right to exercise my discretion, in conjunction with Mr. Perceval, to bring it before the public at the time that, according to that discretion, we should think the best, meaning honestly and distinctly at all times to bring it before the house.

You have stated, that you thought that the purposes of justice would be best answered by not bringing this fact before the house sooner than it was brought; will you explain how the purposes of justice were likely to be best answered by the delay in bringing forward the circumstances respecting this note? I can only state how I think the purposes of justice would be best answered; I cannot be so presumptuous as to say that the purposes of justice were best answered, but in my opinion they were, because it brought this particular feature of

the case distinctly, clearly, and unembarrassed, before the house; that if it had been mixed up in cross-examination, or brought forward in that shape, it neither would have appeared so distinct, or have appeared so clearly the determination of the persons bringing it forward.

The right honourable SPENCER PERCEVAL, attending in his place, was examined.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Have you heard the statement of the hon. gent. lately under examination, and do you wish to add any thing to that statement? I an not quite certain that I heard the whole. If it is wished that I should state the motives that influenced my mind not in keeping this back, but in not bringing it forward before, I conceived the case that was to be made against the royal Duke was closed. When the communication was made to me, I thought at the first it was a very extraordinary circumstance; and when I found that the note was, as the witness represented it, destroyed, coupled with the direct assertion of the royal Duke, that this note was a forgery, I thought it to be a forgery, and I determined to act upon the supposition of its being such, and upon that impression, and with a view the better to detect it, if it were so, I thought it better that all the witnesses that could in any degree have been concerned in that transaction, should have told their own tale to the Committee, before they were in any degree informed, by me at least, or by the course that we took, of our being in possession of any fact, or inclined to make use of the information we had of any fact; it might break in upon their own plan of narrating it to the Committee; if it had been a single case, instead of a variety of cases, that were brought before the Committee, I apprehend that there could be no question; that on the part of the defence to that charge, those who interested themselves in the defence could not be called upon to produce any part of the evidence which they thought material, till they had the whole of the case that was to be brought against them laid before the Court; and considering how the whole of these cases are, by means of the same witnesses, more or less, being brought forward upon them all; considering from that circumstance how they were all connected, I conceived it would be better that this information should not be given till it was closed

(By Mr. Brand.)

Was the introduction of this evidence settled upon the supposition that the note was actually destroyed? Certainly my impression was, that the note was actually destroyed, and it was after that impression was conveyed to me, that the note was actually destroyed, that I concurred with my hon. and learned friend in thinking that it was equally necessary that fact should be brought before the Committee; and perhaps I might be permitted to add, that, feel

ing there was a considerable degree of aukwardness in the appearance of being backward to bring forward at the earliest period a fact so important as this fact was, we did think that our own honour would hardly be safe, unless we made a communication not only of the fact, but of our determination to produce it in the manner in which we did.

WILLIAM ADAM, esq. in his place, made a Statement, as follows:

It becomes unnecessary for me to state any thing in confirmation of what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think it right to state to the Committee, that the whole course of our conduct rested on a thorough conviction that the note was detroyed.

Mr. Whitbread and gen. Fitzpatrick bore testimony to the correctness of the hon. and learned gent.'s (Mr. Adam's) state

ment.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

What is your name? Benjamin Town. How long have you had that name? My father's name is Town.

Does your father go by the name of Town? Yes.

How long has he gone by the name of Town? That I do not know:

Have you ever known him by any other? No.

Recollect yourself.-No, I have not. What is your father? He is a Jew. What is his trade? He is an artist, he teaches velvet-painting.

How long has he taught velvet-painting? Many years.

Do you remember your father carrying on any other trade but that of velvet-painting? That I do not know, he might; ladies have now and then, I suppose, asked him to recommend some jewellery to them, and I think he has sent different jewelleries to the ladies.

Did you ever know him go by the name of Lyons? No never.

(By Sir T. Turton.)

You have stated on a former occasion, that in your transactions with Mrs. C. she told you she could forge the D. of Y.'s name; are you aware that that word is applicable only to fraudulent transactions? That I cannot say.

Did you use it in that sense? No, I did not. Did you, then, when you mentioned the word forge, only mean the word imitate? Those were her words, that she could forge the Duke's name, and she has done it, and she shewed it me immediately on a piece of paper.

Did you understand that word forge to mean imitate? Those were the words that she expressed.

Had you, before you gave your evidence here on a former occasion, read in the newspaper that part of Mrs. C.'s evidence, wherein she spoke of you as a Jew, and said, perhaps you might have stolen a letter or two from her?" I never saw the paper, nor never heard of it..

Did you say that Mrs. C. had forged the Duke's hand-writing? She said she could, and she has done it; that she has forged the Duke's name, and she shewed it me on a piece of f paper.

How could you tell it was the D. of Y.'s hand-writing? I did not know, only as she told

me.

What do you mean by forging? I do not know; those were her words; I only tell you what she told me.

(By Mr. Wardle.}.

Did you appear as a witness at the sessions at Clerkenwell? Yes, I did; it is a considerable time back.

Do you know Mr. Alley, a barrister, and recollect any such barrister at those sessions? Yes; he was, I believe, Mr. Smith's counsel.

State whether any thing in particular happened at that sessions with regard to your evidence? I do not recollect.

Endeavour to recollect whether Mr. Alley, in that court, used any strong expressions to you? I do not recollect any; he said that I was a Jew, and that all the Jews ought to be punished, or something of that kind; he made use of some language which I cannot recollect. Is any indictment now hanging over your head for perjury? No.

(By Mr. Barham.)

Do you know of any proceedings? I know there is a proceeding, but I do not know upon what grounds; it is not against me; it is not belonging to me.

Are you sure that you are in no way collnected with that proceeding? I do not know

Are you sure you are no way implicated in or connected with that proceeding? No, I am

not.

What is the proceeding, and against whom? It is so long since, I cannot tell; there have been so many, and Mr. Smith has lost them all, that I cannot recollect what he is doing, or what he intends doing.

[The witness was directed to withdraw.

Did Mr. Parker discount that bill? He did. Was it paid when it became due? No, it was

not.

Did Mr. Dowler draw any other bills? No, I believe not, not to my knowledge; I do not perceive any other bill drawn by Dowler.

Is there no other bill drawn in the name of Farquhar? None drawn by Farquhar; there are others drawn by Mrs. C., and accepted by Mrs. Farquhar.

Statement in his place.

In my examination this evening, I have been asked whether b. r. h. stated to me, that he had not corresponded with Mrs. C. upon military matters; in answer to which, I said, that h. r. h. did not recollect ever having corresponded with her upon military matters; or, if he had, very rarely. The latter part of that answer is erroneous, and without that addition, of " very rarely," the answer is correct.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Did the D. of Y. state to you, that he did not recollect ever having written to Mrs. C. about any military business whatever? The D. of Y. certainly stated to me, that he did not recollect to have written to Mrs. C. upon any military matters whatever. He afterwards said, that if he had ever written to Mrs. C. upon any military matters whatever, it must have been merely in answer to some question put in some letter of her's; and h. r. h. said expressly, that when she once stated something to him, early in their acquaintance, respecting a promotion in the army, he said, that was business that he could not listen to, and he never heard any thing more of it afterwards.

JOHN MESSENGER was called in, and exa

mined.

(By Mr. Huskisson.)

discounted for her on the 13th July 1805.

That was not paid when due? No; another on the 19th of September, drawn by Clarke on. Farquhar at two months.

Was that paid when due? No; on the 27th Clarke on Farquhar the 27th of Sept. at two of Sept. we discounted another, drawn by months, for 100l.

Was that paid when due? No, I believe it was not; that is the whole that we discounted.

How were those bills taken up? We received on the 19th Sept. a draft of the D. of Y.'s, dated on the 18th Jan. 1806, for 4001. dated forwards three months; it was due on the 18th February.

How were the others taken up? On the 4th Dec., we have credited her with a bill of Bell. on Pritchard, for 100l.; another drawn by Bell on Millard, for 100l.

Were any others taken up by any draft or check of the D. of Y.'s? We received on the 10th of Feb. 1806, a promissory note, drawn by the D. of Y., payable to Parker, dated on the 8th of February at four months, for 2301.

(By Lord Folkestone.)

Had Mr. Parker jewels or other property of Mrs. C.'s, in his possession, as a security for those advances? Yes.

Were there any bills in 1805? The one for 4001, was taken in 1805.

Does your book state what pledge was redeemed by that bill in Sept. 1805? It was dis

What is he? A goldsmith.

Does he receive goods in pledge? He does. He is a pawnbroker? He is.

Did Mrs. C. ever pledge any goods with Mr. Parker? Yes, she did.

Did Mrs. C. ever apply to Mr. Parker to discount any bills? Yes, she did.

Among the bills so discounted, were there any drawn by Mr. Dowler upon Mrs. Farquhar? Yes, there was one.

State the date of that bill, and the amount. -The bill was dated on the 11th of June 1805, at two months after date.

What did the bill purport to be? For 3631. drawn by Dowler and accepted by Farquhar. What is the Christian name of Dowler? I do not know.

Did Mrs. C. deposit any goods in pledge, in the year 1805? That I do not recollect. Does not your book state that? No.

[The witness was directed to withdraw. [The following entry was read from the Gazette of Sept. 4, 1804 :]

"48th regt. of foot, Lieut. Wm. Fry French "to be Captain, without purchase, vice Col"quhoun, promoted in the 14th Battalion of "Reserve."

[The following entry was read from the Gazette of the 6th Oct. 1804.]

"25th regt, of foot, ensign Henry Crotty, "from the 48th foot, to be Lieutenant, without "purchase."

ing forward the prevarication of general Clavering.-Adjourned at three o'clock on Tuesday morning.

HOUSE OF COMMON3.

Tuesday, February 21.

[CONVENTION OF CINTRA.] Lord Henry Petty rose and spoke as follows:-I rise, Sir, in pursuance of the notice I gave on the second day of the session, to call the attention of the house to the Campaign in Portugal; and, in so doing, I feel all the difficulty under which I labour, in consequence of the long and arduous Inquiry, in which the house has, for some time past, been engaged. An Inquiry which has entirely occupied all its attention, and engrossed all the public interest during the whole course of its proceeding; and I am sure that I do not, in any degree, undervalue the delicacy and importance of that Inquiry, or wish to dissemble the solemnity of the duty imposed upon the house in every step of the investigation. Yet I do think that the circumstances to which it relates, unfortunate as they are, would be rendered infinitely more unfortunate, if they should induce this house to suspend, for any time, its attention to the external situation of the country, to prevent its inquiry into the state of our affairs abroad, and, above all, into the application and direction of that military force, on which we' must rest the permanent security of that army with respect to the constitution and government of which we are now inquiring, as the means by which we may be enabled to restore it to its purity, if it has Been sullied; and not only to restore and improve it, but to transmit it, and the spirit which animates it, unimpaired to posterity. I hope that, whatever may have passed this session, this house cannot have relinquished the idea of giving its attention to the momentous and instructive transactions of the last Campaign in Portugal; to those events, the dawn of which were dressed in such brilliant and glowing colours; which in their progress, opened so many pleasing, yet delusive hopes, but which closed upon us in darkness and brought us, wearied, disappointed, dispirited, and dejected to the situation in which we find ourselves at this day. I therefore hope, that I shall be allowed to occupy the attention of the house, and to draw it to VOL. XII.

that in this house it will not be thought that any form of inquiry, that has passed already, or any thing that has borne the name of Inquiry, has been of a nature to preclude the expediency and necessity of this house taking up the inquiry itself; because,with whatever respect I may view the individual and military characters of the persons who composed the Board of Inquiry assembled by his majesty's command, I must say, that constituted as that Board was, and directed as its functions were, that Board was a tribunal more incompetent to give satisfaction to the country, more irreconcilable with all the known and received principles of law and equity in this country, than any that has ever existed. And in order that I may be able to state that my opinion is in conformity with the best authorities on this subject, I shall, without detaining this house by going into any discussion of those authorities, state the opinions which they have held. I hold in my hand the opinion delivered by my lord Woodhouselee, on the subject of Courts of Inquiry. It is here asserted by that able authority, that although there is in his majesty a power inherent to convene such boards as Courts of Advice, yet still that their decisions have no binding effects on the party accused. And though it has happened, that persons suspected have been examined by them, the call was not founded in justice, nor can persons be compelled to obey them. In this opinion Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Adey, two gentlemen who have also written on this subject, concur. But, sir, these are not the only authorities to which I can appeal, in order to support the validity of the opinion which I have given, There is in our history a memorable instance, in which the reference to such a court was pregnant with evils; yet will it be believed, that this very instance, which had proved in its operation so mischievous, and in its consequences so pregnant with evil, was the very identical precedent on which the servants of the crown recommended to their sovereign the formation of the late Court of Inquiry! I allude to the case of sir John Mordaunt, whose conduct was first submitted to a Board of Inquiry, which next sent him to a Court Martial, where he was acquitted upon the ground that the only evidence against him arose from his own 3 M

answers tending to criminate himself.Such an example is of itself sufficient to satisfy the house of the inconvenience and disadvantages arising from that particular mode of inquiry. I therefore do think myself justified in asserting, that a Court of Inquiry held as this has been, opening its doors to the public, calling upon the very parties to give their testimony, and drawing from them information by which they were to be subjected to criminal prosecution, was a tribunal calculated rather to defeat than to promote the ends of justice, or to give satisfaction to the public. Even by the constitution of the Court itself, it was impossible for it to inquire into any demerits beyond those of the officers. The result of the opinion of that Court has been, that no further proceedings are ne cessary; but that opinion of the Court leaves it open to this house to consider what has been the origin of the transactions by which, in the eyes of the public, though whether in the eyes of his majesty's Ministers I know not, the principal object of the expedition to Spain and Portugal has, notwithstanding the victory, valour, and success of British arms, been completely lost in disappointment and disgrace. I do sincerely hope that the duty we owe the dearest interests of our country, and our regard for our own immediate character, will not allow us to acquiesce in so discreditable a determination. It is necessary to call to the attention of the house, that in the month of May last an insurrection broke out at Madrid-that insurrection was followed by insurrections in the southern provinces, and those soon after by insurrections in the northern provinces of Spain. It is not my intention to discuss the extent of these insurrections, the information received, or degree of satisfaction that could have been obtained respecting them, by the government of this country, and which it might have been expedient for the government to act upon; but this I must say, that if, from the circumstance of these insurrections breaking out, any room was afforded for great military exertions on the part of the government of this empire, it could not have been found more fortunately situated with regard to military means than it was. There was, at that time, a considerable military expedition prepared under the command of a gallant military officer. It was prepared for distant service; but not only was this expedition so prepared, but government had other bodies of dispose

able troops immediately applicable for service on any favourable emergency. There was a considerable military force in the Mediterranean, under the command of general Spencer, which had been ori ginally sent out from this country to take possession of Ceuta; but when the expedition arrived for the completion of its object, the attack upon Ceuta was found im practicable. (Hear, hear!). A short time afterwards a new prospect of vigorous exertion opened upon the view of the noble lord opposite (Castlereagh); and a third army was sent upon a voyage of discovery and observation to look for an expedition in the Baltic. (Hear! hear!). Thus, by the course of unexpected events, his majesty's government, at the moment when called upon by circumstances for co-operation with Spain, had in actual readiness three distinct masses of disposable force. The noble lord (Castlereagh) was actually rich in his own failures (Hear! hear!). Every expedition that he had dispatched had so failed, that every distinct portion of our military force was perfectly disposable, and, in the aggregate, consti. tuted such a mass of force, that if any ob ject required the aid of the whole of that force the whole was applicable to it. I

must think that the force under sir Arthur Wellesley was that which, at the time, was most disposable, because it was an expedition then nearly prepared, and ready for foreign service. Upon the information that was received by government, of the occurrences in Spain, an intention was conceived of affording the aid of a large force to that country; and to command the expedition that gallant officer sir A. Wellesley was appointed; and I will say that it makes no part of the complaint which I shall urge to-night, nor do I believe that it ever will be a part of the complaint urged by any man, that the appointment of that gallant officer was not perfectly satisfactory to the public at large, or that it was not an appointment which was calculated to promote the glory and interest of the country. Well, then, sir A. Wellesley was appointed, and the ultimate destination of the expedition was Portugal. And here it is necessary to pause and consider what the grounds were which could have ultimately led to the destination of the expedition to that part of the peninsula. There was nothing in the possession of Portugal itself; nothing in the possession of the port of Lisbon, as a source of immediate succour to the