for

Having mentioned the annuity which was conditionally promised, can you state whether that annuity was actually paid; and, if so, how long? I can state nothing respecting the -payment; I had nothing at all to do with it; I never heard any thing of it from the time when I had the second and last interview.

You have stated, that the annuity was to be continued so long as Mrs. C.'s conduct was correct; will you have the goodness to explain that term? The term I used I meant in this sense; that her conduct was to be such as not to have any reference to any pecuniary transactions, such as I stated to have been the cause of the investigation, and the subject of the subsequent communication to her by me, that the D. of Y. was to have no further connection with her; and I stated in my evidence, that at that time, nor at any time till recently, had I any notion that there were any transactions of this kind in which she had been in any way concerned: Those pecuniary concerns to which I alluded, were the use of the D. of Y.'s name for the purpose of raising money, so as to involve his credit and character, but not by the sale of commissions.

(By Mr. Beresford.)

Do you mean by getting in debt with tradesmen, and borrowing money? Any mode by which she could raise money.

Did you continue, from the year 1806, to have the management of h. r. h.'s finances, and his money concerns? I had not, properly speaking, the management of any part of h. r. h.'s. But I wish to mention this to the House; the D. of Y., from causes which it is unnecessary to refer to, found his circumstances embarrassed; at a very early period, he applied to me to look into them, and to get matters arranged he appropriated to that arrangement, as soon as his income was such as to enable him to afford it, a very large sum of money, annually, 12,000l. a-year, that was put ander the administration of Mr. Coutts and myself, as trustees for the creditors, to settle

:

the payments. From the circumstance of the D. of Y. being a mere annuitant, and from other causes, which I should be extremely glad to explain, to render my evidence intelligible, particularly from one cause, that in the arrangement of his estates he had cast upon him the expence of a large inclosure, which by Act of Parliament he was bound to see executed, which took a great deal of money, and his being under the necessity of buying tithes to a large amount, together with the property tax coming on him, we were not enabled to operate the redemption of the debts by the payment of 12,000l. a year, it was therefore the D. of Y.'s wish to appropriate a larger sum; this was done and it is still to go to a greater extent in the hands of Mr. Coutts and myself, for the same purposes. These are the monies which come within my management, and no other. I know nothing about the D. of Y.'s private expenditure; I know nothing about the pension he pays to any one, but only the fund raised for the payment of debts, and also that for the reduction of the debt he owes to the Public, a sum lent to him from the Civil List, when Mr. Pitt was Minister, and which Mr. Pitt and other Ministers suspended the payment of to a certain time, and which was last year begun to be paid: a fund was vested in me for the payment of 4,000l. a year of that; this will extend to the sum of from 26 to 30,000l. a year; and when it is considered that the income tax falls upon that, as well as the whole of his other property, I believe that b. r. h. will be found to give up as large a sum of money as his present circumstances will afford. These are the only funds which fall under my knowledge; and therefore it is impossible for me to know whether a pension is paid to this or that person, and it is not correct to suppose that I am in the administration of his affairs further than I have stated.

Did Mrs. C. apply to you at any time since 1806 for payment of this pension? It is extremely difficult for me to state positively that she did not, but I believe the two letters which she mentions are the only letters I have ever received from her. I cannot undertake to say, in the variety of transactions I have, that there were no others; the prominent letter was that of the 11th June 1308, which I immediately indorsed, and delivered over to Mr. Wilkinson. EXAMINATION OF COLONEL GORDON. (By the Attorney General.)

Do you hold any office under the Commander in Chief? Yes, I do.

What is it? His Military or Public Secretary.

Does the business of exchanging commissions pass through your office? It does.

Can any transaction of that nature pass without your knowledge? It is quite impossible.

Do all the documents by which the persons, who apply to exchange, are recommended, pass through your office? They do.

for that? I think he has; but if he did not, I should most undoubtedly have taken the liberty to have asked him.

Where, in such a case, no reason has been assigned, are you certain that you have always asked him? Most undoubtedly.

In this case, have you any doubt that you made the necessary inquiries upon the representations made to you by this memorial? None, whatever; I am quite positive that I did do so. Was the ultimate approbation of this exchange the result of those inquiries? I firmly believe so.

Do you firmly believe that it was in consequence of your report to h. r. h.? Yes, most decidedly I do.

If h. r. h., in approving this exchange, had acted otherwise than according to your report, is it possible that that fact could have escaped your memory? It is some time since this exchange took place; but I am much in the habit of transacting business of this kind, and I do not think that it could have escaped my memory. Would it have struck you as an extraordinary and unusual transaction, if the Commander in Chief had acted contrary to the result that was drawn from the communications made by you, without assigning any reason for it? Unless b. r. h. had assigned a reason for it, it certainly would have struck me as very extraordinary.

Have you any doubt, upon refreshing your memory as well as you can, by all the papers you have, and recalling the facts to your recollection, that the approbation of h. r. h. was gained to this exchange, as the result of the inemorial presented to you and the inquiries made by yourself, and communicated to h. r. h.? I cannot doubt it for a moment.

This representation, I observe, is made on the 1st of July, and it is not completed till the 23d; do you find that there was any delay in bringing the business to a conclusion, and that it was at first stopped? Yes, there was; and it was stopped.

Are you now able to state, from your recollection, upon what ground it was at first stop

I beg you will be pleased to obtain for me his majesty's permission to exchange with brevet col. Knight of the 5th Dragoon Guards.

In case his majesty shall be graciou-ly pleased to permit me to make the said exchange, I do hereby declare and certify, upon the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that, I will not, either now or at any future time, give, by any means or in any shape whatever, directly or indirectly, any more than the regulated difference.-I have the honour to be, &c.

W. BROOKE.-B Lt col. & Major 56 ft. To the colonel, or commanding officer, of the 56 regiment.

I approve of the above exchange, and, I verily believe, no clandestine bargain subsists between the parties concerned.

VOL. XII.

C. NORTON, Colonel,

ped? To the best of my recollection, it was stopped upon this ground; upon referring to the services of the respective officers, as is invariably the practice, I found that the services of lieut. col. Brooke, for the last seven years, had been upon the half-pay; consequently, it became necessary to make more than usual inquiries respecting col. Brooke, before he could be recommended for the situation of Major to a regiment of cavalry; when those inquiries were made, and I was satisfied that col. Brooke was a fit and proper person, I made that report to the Commander in Chief; and as I have said before, I believe it was upon my report so made, that the Commander in Chief acceded to the exchange.

Are you quite sure that there was no difficulty or rub on the part of col. Knight? I am perfectly sure; if the hou-e will permit me I will read my answer to col. Knight upon this subject.

[Col. Gordon read, and then delivered in, a letter from himself to col. Knight, dated the 21st June 1805-viz.]

"Horse Guards, 21 June 1805. "Sir; Having laid before the Commander "in Chief your letter of the 19 instant, I am "directed to acquaint you that h. r. b. has no "objection to your exchanging to the Infantry, "receiving the difference; and when an eligi "ble successor can be recommended, your re'quest will be taken into consideration, &c. I am "(Signed) J. W. GORDON. "B Lt col. Knight. 5 Dg" Gds." The eligibility, therefore, must have depended upon col. Brooke.

Then I am to understand from you that col. Knight had made an application to exchange, previous to this memorial presented by Greenwood and Cox, in the name of general Norton? Yes, he had.

And that by this letter of the 21st of June, it was signified to him, that his proposal was accepted; that is that the exchange so far as regarded him was accepted, if an eligible successor was found? Certainly.

You are satisfied that the delay arose from the doubt with respect to col. Brooke? I have so stated it.

Have you any doubt that you pursued the necessary inquiries for clearing up that difficulty? None, whatever.

Have you any doubt that the approbation of the Commander in Chief was ultimately obtained, in consequence of those inquiries having I understood that I had stated that before. up the difficulty? None, whatever;

cleared

Was there any greater delay in this case, than was necessary for the purpose of prosecuting such inquiries? None, whatever; similar delays occur in similar transactions, almost every week.

Was there any thing, from the beginning to the end of this transaction, which distinguishes it from other transactions of the same sort, relative to the same kind of exchanges? Certainly not; I was much surprised when I heard

of the difficulty first started in this honourable house, about three nights ago.

In any conversation that you have had, upon the subject of this exchange, with the Commander in Chief, do you recollect a wish being expressed, that the conclusion of the exchange might be expedited? No, certainly not; the expression of such a wish would have been very futile, for it would not have expedited the exchange one half instant; it would have gone on in the usual course.

(By Mr. Adam.)

Do you recollect instances upon the part of the Commander in Chief, since you have been in office, tending to create a greater expedition than the necessary course of official business permits? Never in the current business of the office. I beg to explain to the house; the common business of army promotions is laid before the King once a week, and never twice a week, when any expedition is fitted out, and that officers are suddenly appointed to such expeditions; then and then only a separate paper is submitted to his Majesty, with their names exclusively, and they are not included in the common weekly paper.

Are the committee to understand, that, in the ordinary course of military promotion or exchange, the office is always permitted to take its course? Invariably; I never recollect an instance to the contrary.

You have stated that col. B. had been for seven years on half-pay; in proportion to the length of time that an officer has been upon half-pay, and consequently been moved out of sight from ordinary military observation, is it not necessary that there should be a much longer period of inquiry to discover what his conduct has been? Perhaps it may be so, but I cannot exactly say that, as I am in the habit of seeing 20, 30 and 40 officers in the army almost every day in my life; and generally, from some of those, I can ascertain particulars respecting any officer I choose, and that without letting them know the purpose for which I require it.

Was the period of time required for this exchange beyond the ordinary period in such cases? Certainly not.

(By the Attorney General.)

Did the Commander in Chief ever state to you, or did you ever bear that he thought that one of these persons, either col. K. or col. B. was a bad subject? I never heard him express any such thing.

Can you take upon yourself to say, that no opinion of the Commander in Chief's, that one of these was a bad subject, was the occasion of any delay in the completing this exchange? Yes, I certainly can; the Commander in Chief is very cautious in expressing himself so strongly on the conduct of any officer: if the Commander in Chief was to express himself so strongly npon the conduct of any officer, 1 should coneive that there was something in the conduct

of that officer that required more than common inquiry.

Then are the Committee to understand, that no more nor further delay took place, than that which was necessary to complete the inquiries, which you thought it your duty to make? Certainly.

As you were in office at that time, supposing the negotiation between col. K. and col. B. to have gone off in consequence of the objection made to col. B., or from any other cause; was it probable that col. K. might have had to wait some time before he might have had another eligible opportunity of making an exchange ? Yes, I think he might.

What day of the week is it that the lists are generally sent in to the King? They are coinmonly submitted by me to the Commander in Chief on Wednesday; they are submitted to the King on Thursday; and if they come back on Friday (which nine times in ten they do) they are gazetted on Saturday; if they do not come back in time on Friday, they are gazetted on the following Tuesday.

Did you keep any memorandum of the inquiries you made respecting the exchange between col. K. and col. B.? None, whatever.

You have stated that the application to the Commander in Chief for this exchange was communicated on the 23d of July; when was that application to the Commander in Chief submitted for his Majesty's approbation? The date is accurately marked upon the original paper: it was submitted to the King upon the 24th, as you will find, by reference to the paper on the table.

When did it appear in the Gazette? The Gazette is dated July 30th.

Then the approbation of the Commander in Chief was signified seven days before it appeared in the Gazette? Allow me to mark this distinction: the approbation of the Commander in Chief is never signified to any body, until the king's pleasure has been subsequently obtained upon it.

I understood the Commander in Chief consented to this exchange on the 23d; that on the 23d it was known to you; that you then prepared the proper communication to be laid before his Majesty, but that communication was submitted to his Majesty on the 24th; that on the 24th his Majesty signified his approbation, and that it did not appear in the Gazette till the 30th, being seven days after the Commander in Chief had given his consent, and six days after his Majesty had confirmed that consent? Exactly: I beg it may be understood, that after his Majesty's signature is affixed to a paper of promotions, it is part of my duty to make such of them public as may be necessary. The Gazette is a notification, but it is not a rafication; the thing is finally done before it pears in the Gazette.

You have stated, that being in the habit of seeing twenty, thirty, or more different officers, every day, you take a proper opportunity of collecting from them the character and conduet