The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-18 00:00:00

COMBINATION LAWS.

COUNTY COURTS BILL.

'DUTIES ON LEATHER-

')

A petition was presented by 3lr. SYKES, from the town of
Lwds, praying for a repeal of the Combination Laws.—Laid on
ite table.

General GASCASVNI: presenied a pet itlonfrUm the borough of
Liverpool, against the County Courts Laid on the table.
SALMON FISHERIES.

Sit R. FERGUSON presented s petition from Dundee, against
the .isinson Fishery 11411.7-Laill sin the table._

Ale. ELLIS presented a petition from the tanners of Dublin,
quasi( the duty on leather.—Laid on the table.
.Ur. ELLIS moved for a return of the number of voyages mail.
by the Holyhead Post-office packe:s during the years 1822 and 1823.
—Ordered.
Sir R. IFERCMON " moved for a return of the duties paid
O) whalebone imported La 11664 whalemaia 1913.—thised.
CASE OF M. R. PSEROTT. _ _

• Mt. HUME presented a petition from a person of the name of
Ponca, which stated the following particulars:—The petitioner
esiepted the navy twenty-five years ago, fourteen of which he spent
,en etallismal service ; was present at the taking of SOO ships was
diiittista times employed in cutting out vessels, with considerable
danger and difficulty ; and seven of these vessels were commanded
by him. He also performed an arduous duty at Boulogne, for
which he bad received public thanks. In the Pherbe frigate he had
bun wounded, and lost his arm, and, consequently, was disabled
Isom getting hid livelihood in any other nay. Petitioner further
•rated that he had saved the lives of a number of individuals, and
that up to the year 1816 he had received a pension fur his wound.
witch he lust by the natural course of things, when lie obtained
his Lieutenancy. It appeared that a man of the name of Bullet,
•was introduced to Mr. Perrott, by another person, who described
kites as a Captain of a merchant vessel ; the object of this man
was to procure a protection from impressment; and an in.
**latent was afterwards preferred against Mr. Pcrrott fur,
baying obtained money from him under false pretences
It was tore *hitt certain memorandums were cutout among
Huila's papers, which might be said to bear on the subject, but
the quesnms was did Mr.Perrott receive money for the protection or
did he no ? lir. Peered was tried under this charge. found guilty,
and committed to paean. Three days afterward*, Ld. MMelville caused
'hie name to be struck out of the nary list. Jt might be that the peti-
tame had been too free, it was certain that he had been in dela, and
that his friends were unalde tourist him. It was sometime therefore
• before he was able to procure money to have the case inquired into.
At length he succeeded, and the Court reversed the decree, and
ordered him to be restored to all the rights he enjoyed before the trial.
It dine circumstances were true, and if the Court had done this, he
t,Wr. Hume) thought in common justice be should also be re-
stored to his former situation in the navy, where he had so distin.
swished himself, and lost his arm. It certainly appeared from all
. the affidavits which he (Mr. Home) held in his hand, that the
charges originated in a foul conspiracy ; but even if they were
true, he thought some mercy should be shown to the peti.
tamer, who should not be allowed to starve after his ser.
. vices. As a last resource he now petitioned for justice fturn the
It was necessary to ease that he bad been tried by
Court-martial-neat, for going on shore after sunset, to tight a duel;
2d, far disobedience of orders. On these tap charger he was ho-
: courably acquitted ; but on a third be was found guilty. Peti-
tioner row prayed, duo in consequence of his services and 'round.
by eagle be reinstated in his situation, or be given some assistance
to parent ).:,n from starvation.
' Sir 0. Ct iCKIIURN observed, that if the Hon. Member had
merely breught tip the petition he should not have noticed it; but
as he had gore so far into the subject, it was his duty to say • few
words. Toe Fawn who now petitioned the House had been
accused of taking matey under false pretences, from a poor
weenan who wiahrd to procure • "Inaction for her husband.
When lit bad got from her all that he could get, be ob.
Load ha to borrow mere, and se took- from has
the furniture of a house which she sessed, under the pretest.
• sion that more money was to be paid fur the protection. The wbolle
altar was at length brought before the Admiralty, and the evidence
• was ma* clamor the subject. He was therefore dismissed. After
hr had been some time in prison, a flaw was discovered in the in.
i?•.settnest, and on that principle, and that only, he was discharged.
The Admiralty imniediately sent to the Law Officers, to ascertain
is there VMS any other cause, and found nothing to induce them to
alter .air decroe. He (Sir H. Cockburn) had no objection to the
pention being brought up, bat he should certaitly object to its
nee.
?dr. HUME observed, thnt by denying all that was said by pi-
tireuer, any Case might be made out against him: but his eme do.
pezded not on his Own assertions, but un the affidavits of others.
Ile (Mr. Flume) had been requested by Sir Edward Perrot', the
Luther ci the petitioner, to bring forward his petition.
glt G. CLERK contended, that the case against the petitioner was
an eleinly supported by evidence, that the Admiralty. could not, in
Justice to the chancier of the navy, allow the petitioner to be re-
stored. He had not avoided the punishment of his offence, because
the grace and favour of the Criwn had heen extended to him on
a. 1 V review of the n tits of his case. but had escaped simply
thiough some technical defects, which left the moral guilt as fully
droved eating him as ever. No man who looked over the evidence
on the trial, and the subsequent affidavits, could entertain a doubt
as to the pentioner's ;,hilt. The saidavits on his behalf were all
turt.le, it aliould be noticed, by persons who could have been ca-
nalised in Court, as witnesses fur the defence, but who, fur some
r van or other, were kept bark from the scrutiny of crose-exansi-
UAIM (Hltarthear..)

Sir I. e.:OFFiN spied if the Admiralty could be considered so
' inhuman. *het if they disbelieved this officer to be guilty, they
iiikkuLl refuse to restore him 7 If, on examination, they believed
bon guilty, la the House recollect that he was considered to be
guilty of the disvraceful Gana of defrauding a poor woman, on
pretext d getting her husband out of the service. With such an
opinion of him, could the Admiralty restore him to the rank he
had so jvial:y forfeited'

Mr. (...31.0kE1l said that no reasonable doubt could exist es to
toe peddeaer's guilt. Application was made at the Admiralty for
a protection fee -Holten, and at Perrotes lodgings a forged protec-
tion eon found. The names of the Clerks of the Admiralty, sub-
is:riblid to this protection, were wholly fictitious, with a view, he
t Mr. Croker) sugpused, to avoid the higher penalty, to which Per.'
suit itengined c:ie forgery of :he actual names would hare subjected
tem. His ilecharge was solely owing to the fart, that an averment
tu the pleadings was not set forth with technical accuracy.
Mr. A. ELLIS entwined of the conduct of the Admiralty.
Me. Secretary PIM!. wished the Heave to consider what would
be the einurquenecs if the precedent were to be established of an
appeal to that House front the decisions of a Court of Justice.
(Haar, Leer.) The complaint of the petitioner was, that having
S eet convicted by n Jury, he was neverthelt es innocent.
Mr. HUME vn.ross the house).—hl is conviction was done away
by the Court of Kitty's Bench.
Mr. Secretary PEEL isas aware that in point of law the convie-
non wag iyarnornad, Weds* preitioner was not suffering say penalty
It 01E1111 in Coll(4ClllUttlre of his sentence under that conviction. He
had escaped punishment through the technical defects of the pr0..4,111r1
..4,111r1 against him. With
i respect to the affidavits in favour of
Eta p.rhtioner, be (Mr. Pee!) could nforn• the House that in four
uu: of every tive rases that canoe to his offlce for mitigation of pu-
noslimeit or pardon, he generally received affidavits without end •
but i.e was idiom disputed to pay much attention to them whet:
procreded from persons who !night have appear: t! on the trial,
but who preferred to avoid the risk of cross-examination, and evade
the penalties ptrjory (hear, len). He suggested that the peti-
tion ahould be withdraws. lf it were not, as the best alterr.ativc
he would oppooc I. being read.
Mr. HUME said, titer in point of law no conviction bed taken
place. If the petitioner's nEdarits were true, his ease was com-
pletely made cot, end it woo dear that the charge of fraud had
onginatesl in a ams:insey. It teas contrary to Justice, therefore,
ti at he should he removed Mini the service in which he had been
wounded, and left to starve, because a verdict had been mime-
tmsly obtained agaiest him. As to the petition, however, after
what bad passed. he (Mr. Hume) would either follow the sugges-
tion of the Hight Hoe. lisritlemuy or press it, as the House aught
rho proper.
Xr. Set emery PEEL eaplained.
Mr. CALI ;RA re said, he had the honour aiming acquainted
with the worthy ltlagitstrate impugned in the petition, Ea he had
!say, understood that his character was that act a most respect-
Lahr man. . .

r 0 Cl► advised ists• !lon. Friend to withdraw the petition.
'The petition was then withdrawn.
WINDOW TAX.

Mr. F. PALlthlt presennA a petition from Reading against
the duty on windows.--Ordertd to lie on the table.
SLAVERY.
stoil a petition from Chtsbunt agaillst

LAW AT WESTMINSTER.

c, that WCwadito. murro more for
grant fur building the new Courts of
ig on the subject. thus early, in order to
gnarled on. He had ascertained that the
dorm stone buildings was for one parti.
Bench), am: as it w.-s row only can.

) MANNINO Npriese:finPt
elavery.
NEW COURTS OF 1
I Mr. 11A N EL..; gave antic.
a Committee renpettu:g them
Jettke. tie intended to bring
pret,nt the work from being('
eneztAcenee beyond the nails
13411 W Cant only (the King's