The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-26 00:00:00

/lever before heard of Solomon Alexander, or of the cir-
cumstance mentioned in the Admiralty letter. What could
he say otherwise ? In about a month after, he received
another letter from the Admiralty, desiring to know if his
signatures to the documents in question were forgeries or
not? To this Mr. Milner, referring to his former answer,
replied, that he was equally ignorant with regard to the
signatures affixed to the documents alluded to, as to the
whole transaction. Upon receipt of which reply, he was
further informed that the Admiralty " had been pleased
to strike his name from the list of Lieutenants of the Royal
Navy." Now, this arbitrary proceeding not only concerns
the individual complaining, but is important to the whole
Naval profession, and shows the treatment to which we are
peculiarly exposed. According to the Articles of War for
governing the Navy, four years is the limit for bringing any
charge of even the most serious crimes included in those
laws. This is intended as a protection for the person ac-
cused; and I now call upon Hon. Members to contemplate
the cruelty and injustice of this summary proceeding, seven
years beyond the limited period, of which Mr. Milner now
complains. Upon Mr. Milner finding, this sentence passed
on him, and that the charge included a part of the time
when he was on full pay and subject to the Articles of
War, he demanded to be placed before a Court-martial.
What was the answer? That limitation was given against
him, a ground of refusal, which ought to have been his
protection. He then pleaded his being deprived of the
means of seeking redress against Alexander in a Court of
Justice, as his fair claim that the Admiralty themselves
would take that mode of bringing both him and his accu-
sers face to face on oath, as the fittest mode of proving
his guilt or innocence. But to this also the Board of Ad-
miralty were pleased to give him an unceremonious refusal!
Well, Sir, as for every crime there must be some motive,
let us consider what motive could have disposed Mr. Mil-
ner to commit the crime wipi which he is charged. The
Admiralty letter attributes to him a wishsto borrow of this
Solomon Alexander, the slopseller of Portsea, the sum of
10/. on the security of his half-pay then due. Why, Sir,
the presentation of his affidavit for the period for which he
had half-pay then due would at once have produced him
no less than 431. And be it observed, the presentation of
such an affidavit as that mentioned in the Admiralty let-
ter, must at once have led to an inquiry. What then is the
conclusion to be drawn by a fair examination into the cir-
cumstances of this case ? why, that the affidavit is a fqr-
gery, and that it was never presented all, in fear of disco-
very. As my justification in saying this, I may inform
the House, that I have this very affidavit, as well as tile
Power of attorney, in my pocket ; and that I will readily
produce them before the House, or any Hon. Gentleman
who may wish to examine them, with every other paper to
which I have referred ; not wishing any Hon. Member to rely
merely on what I have said without offering the documents
by which it is substantiated. I say then, that the power
of attorney and affidavit arc both forgeries. And to show
that forgeries of this sort are not unusual, I will instance
the case, which I also have in my pocket ready to pro-
duce, of a Surgeon's Assistant in the West Indies about
the year 1833, where the forged bills were regularly paid,
and upon the real quarterly bill being presented. an inquiry
took place, by which it was discovered that the names of
the Surgeon's Assistant and all the other signing officers
were forgeries, in consequence of which the real bill was
paid at once ; and I must here remark, that a pecuniary
fraud was on this occasioa inflicted on the Government,
whilst in the case of Mr. Milner no such pecuniary loss
has been sustained.
I will now beg leave to mention a circumstance that fur-
ther corroborates the conviction of Mr. Milner's signature
being a forgery. Captain Wilson, of the Navy, a friend of
Mr. Milner's, and then in command of the Perseus frigate,
anchored off the Tower, being persuaded in his mind, from
particular circumstances, that Alexander did not know Mr.
Milner personally, although he had assumed an intimate
knowledge of him, contrived to arrange a meeting between
them, without either being aware of his purpose. Alexan-
der was seated in the cabin with Captain Wilson when Mr.
Milner came in. Captain Wilson addressed him with
" How d'ye do, Milner ?" Alexander, quite taken by sur-
prise, asked, " Is that Mr. Milner ?" Captain Wilson said, •
" What ! don't you know him ?" Upon which Alaxander
observed, that that was not the gentleman who signed the
power and the affidavit. In continuation, Captain Wilson • reminding Alexander that he said he knew Mr.,Milner well, asked where he had known him ; which, produced from
Alexander the answer, that he knew him when he was
Lieutenant of the _Diadem, which ship he had been fre-
quently on board of', selling slops. Upon being then•asked
the names of the Captain and First Lieutenant,. he gave
the names of both erroneously.
I should further inform the House, that this case was
formerly investigated by Mr. Sheriff Parkins, who not only
found out the pretended witness to Mr. Milner's signa-
ture, Henry Braham alias Abraham Henry, but procured
an admission from him, that he had no recollection of
Mr. Milner whatever, and that the affidavit was all in his
handwriting, as he was in the habit of doing such things
for his. master! And who does the House think can be
the subscribing witness to this power of attorney ? Why,
Sir, it was Alexander's own daughter Every circnin_
stance of this case shows evidence of forgery. And even-
tually these forged papers were given up to Mr. Parkins,
upon certain conditions. And what were these condi.
tions ? That they should be burnt or destroyed, so that
they should never be used against him—Alexander!
I believe, according to the practice of our Courts of
Law, in the case of an accuser coming forward at the
trial and acknowledging his charge to be unfoundetl, that
the accuser receives an immediate acquittal, even it there •
is strong . presumptive , reason for thinking birct guilty.
Surely, then, Mr. Milner, who has met with_ such
arbi-
trary punishment, should not be refused the same indul-
gence.
And I now inform the House, that I have in
my Pocket, ready to be produced, with, other papers to
which 1 have referred, Alexander's own disavowal of the
charge. I have also a letter of Mr. Parkins, in which
lie says, that upon showing Alexander the note of Mr.
Smith, the Paymaster, he trembled with fear, and said
ho must have been imposed upon by some one else, and
that he was ready to give up all the papers, provided
Mr. Parkins would not use them against him.
Hon. Members will see that but for the fear of detec-
tion, this Soloman Alexander might, by the presentation
of the affidavit, have amply remunerated himself for the
alleged loan of 12/.
In conclusion, I will recal the attention of the House
to the simple fact, that the charge made by the Admi-
ralty Solicitor, of Mr. Milner having personally received
half-pay due in 1810, before he 'went abroad on service,
is directly contradicted by the declaration of the Pay-
master himself--that no half-pay •was sworn to or paid
on Mr. Milner's account until May, 1811, when he had.
returned from abroad, invalided. ,

THE MARKETS.

COUNTRY CORN MARKETS,

1 Wheat. i Barley.

Oats. 1 Beans.

Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. s. to s.
Boston 62 66 29 30 19 23
Gainsborough — 66 31 23
Grantham
Grimsby
Horncastle 43 70 32 37 20 24
Lincoln
Spalding
Stamford 4B 7,l 28 33 21 25
York 5O 70 26 34 24 26

Pease.

I. to a.
39 41
44
38 46
38 40
36 42
40 44 S

S. s.

- ,
30 82 '

36 44
al it

IEC. 21