The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-08 00:00:00

KIDDERMINSTER.

The Law Agent of the Corporation was the first witness
examined. The last charter of incorporation passed the
Great Seal in 1828. It was applied for in consequence of the
insufficiency of the number of magistrates under the preced-
ing Charter.
It was here suggested that as no petition had been presented
from the Corporation, evidence could not be given. The wit-
ness accordingly withdrew.
Sir C. WETHERELL then intimated that he was not that
evening prepared to go on with any other case. He expected
by the mail to-morrow a supply of witnesses.
Counsel were then ordered to withdraw.
The Marquis of SALISBURY thought it now became im-
portant they should know at what period a stop was likely to
be put to the present inquiry. It appeared that no case was
ready for that evening, but a fresh edition was promised for
the morrow. Now, where was the inquiry to terminate? It
appeared to him that so much doubt had been already thrown
upon the Report of the Commissioners, and so much stated in
direct contradiction of their statements, that it was scarcely
worth while going further with the inquiry, unless they were
prepared to go through the entire list of boroughs.—( Hear.)
He certainly would be glad to know to what length the in-
quiry was to be carried.

Cord L YND H UR ST said that the delay was not sought for
the purpose of extending the evidence to other cases not now
before the House, but for the purpose of allowing time for the
arrival of witnesses. The Noble Lord seemed to labour under
a misapprehension, for the only absent witnesses remaining to
be heard were some in support of petitions which their Lord-
ships had already determined upon hearing.
Lord BROUGHAM rather took the same view of the matter
as the Noble Marquis, who said that he was perfectly satisfied
with the case against the Report on the evidence as it at pre-
sent stood. He ( Lord Brougham) was entirely satisfied with
the evidence, but the conclusions which he drew from it were,
be feared, directly opposite to those of the Noble Marquis.
The evidence ought now to be closed, and if the Noble Mar-
quis would make a motion to that effect, he (Lord Brougham)
would most cordially second it.
The Earl of FALMOUTH thought their Lordships had
decided, on last Monday night, upon hearing evidence in sup.
port of certain petitions before the House, and if that were
the case, witnesses ought certainly to be-allowed sufficient time
to arrive.

After an observation from Lord BROUGHAM and the
Markiuis of- SA LISBUR-Y,
Tho Da* of WELLINGTON said that as it was abso.

lutely necessary that the Bill itself should be as speedily u
possible taken into consideration and decided, he entreated
their Lordships not to expend their time in hearing more evi-
dence than was essentially necessary. The Counsel might
conclude their evidence at an early hour to-morrow, and that
would give time for the House to see what further proceedings
should be taken on the Bill. If the inquiry were now extended
it would occasion a very great loss of time, by delaying to the
close of the Session the consideration of the Bill in the Com-
mittee.

The Earl of HAREWO OD thought one of the objects of
hearing evidence had been to show the House that there was a
great variety of interests in the different boroughs. That had
already been shown, and was of itself quite sufficient to pre-
clude the necessity of an examination of the state of every bo-
rough in the kingdom. It was sufficient if it had been shown
that there was such a variety of interests as would render this
Bill extremely difficult in its working.
The Earl of MANSFIELD apprehended that the question
of bearing evidence was only decided from a sense of justice
towards the petitioners. The case having been once opened,
to stop it now would occasion great difficulty ; but as the in-
quiry would in all probability be interminable if every case
were examined it now became necessary for the House to in-
terfere. The petitioners had been fully heard to the extent
allowed by the House, viz., against the principle of the Bill as
it would affect them.

Lord EL LENB ORO UG H apprehended that their Lord-
ships were bound to abide by their own order. They had
agreed to hear evidence, and if Counsel thought fit to produce
that evidence the House was bound to receive it. It would
be a totally different thing if the House were asked to renew
its order. He thought that sufficient evidence had been laid
before their Lordships to induce them to make some altera-
tion in the clauses respecting proprietory rights, but it would
certainly be unjust to prevent the evidence from proceeding.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the House was certainly
bound by its order, and all those persons who had presented
petitions were undoubtedly entitled to be heard. There were
now five cases remaining to be disposed of, and he asked Sir
Charles Wetherell whether he would be able to proceed with
them to morrow ?

Sir C. WETHERELL said that there was the case of Liver•
pool and five others, which the House could proceed with.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock tii
to-morrow (this day) at Eleven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 28.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at four o'clock.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD presented a petition from Birming-
ham, in favour of the Polish refugees. Also, one from Lieute-
nant Perrott, which he considered of very great importance.
He considered the case as one of great injustice and cruelty.
The petitioner, who before he was 23 years of age, had served
in 25 battles, had commanded on several occasions—who
was wounded seven times—who in 1806, lost his arm by
the bursting of a gun, and who had received testimonials of
character from all his Captains, was charged with defrauding
the seamen, and with forgery. This had been called a trum-
pery affair, but this was a great man, for in the last ses-
sion of Parliament the Admiralty had offered him 700/.,
which was the arrear of pay up to 1825 ; yet this great man,
who was struggling with the greatest poverty, refused the of-
fer of what would have been a fortune to him, because he wa3
required as a condition to withdraw his petition to this House,
and to acknowledge the justice of his most iniquitous sen-
tence. This he refused to do ; and he (Mr. A.) thought the
present Board would do a most meritorious and humane act
if they would fulfil the intention without the condition. Was
a man to be called trumpery who could act in such a manner ?

Admiral ADAM cod(' assure the Hon. Gentleman, that if
he alluded to him, he had never made use of the expression.
Mr. ATTWOOD had great pleasure in hearing the state-
ment of the Gallant Admiral, and had not the slightest doubt
that his recollection wus erroneous. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving, that the petition be printed.
Mr. C. WOOD did not see that this petition brought for-
ward any new argument in addition to what had been advanced
last year, nor did it in any way shake the statement that was
then made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. With regard
to the prejudice said to exist against this individual, he saw no
proof of it. lie must say, that it could answer no purpose to
make assertions of which the party making them could have to
knowledge. It was stated that Sir J. Graham bad made an
offer to this individual to pay the arrears of his pension—he
was not aware of this. He would not trouble the House by
entering into details ; the facts of the case were well known.
This individual had been tried for disorderly and disgraceful
conduct, and had been expelled the service. He did
not think that there was any hardship in this case.
It was known that the individual had been convicted of a very
disgraceful offence, that of extorting money from poor peopha
under false pretences. He was also found guilty of obtaining
a pension under false representations—that he had lost his
arm in his Majesty's service, although the fact was that
he had lost it while on a shooting expedition for his
private amusement. That alone would have been sufficient
ground to have him turned out of the service. lie was sur-
prised, therefore, that this individual could be called an ill-used
roan, for he was enjoying a pension to which he had no claim,
and which many mere deserving persons did not enjoy.
Admiral ADA M agreed fully in the observations of his

• .
the Secretary of the Admiralty, and he
thought the Admiralty would have disgraced its character if it
had entertairA again the case of this individual.

Sir E. CODRINGTON supported the prayer of the
petition. What he wanted was to see the papets—the facts
of the case. The House or the country should not take every
thing that was said of these individuals behind the curtain as
true. Why had not this person been tried by court-martial ? It
was well known that many persons were scratchedoffthe list, and
deprived of their miserable pensions, without any investiga-
tion. A case was that day stated to him, of a poor man, up-
wards of seventy years old, who was thus scratched off aid
deprived of his half-pay, without nay ground being alleged.
It was for these reasons, that he would persevere in the mo-
tion of aiiieh he givca noCce.
After a few words from Mr. RoanucK,

Sir G. CLARK cwroborated the statement made by t!:e
Secretary of the Admiralty relative to whir petition, m.d
defended the conduct of the Admiralty in thin and other casts
of a similar nature. No case was ever mere minutely inquired
into, or more impartially disposed of than this.
. . .

Mr. Il U3l E had seer. cif the papers, and examined the in-
dividuaL,, and the convil2tion on his mind was, that LieutenalA
Duadas Perrott was struck off on account of a verdict
against him, for giving a protection for the purpose of
getting money by it.--( Hear.) But subsequent proceedins
were instituted, and the man who had given evideice
against him acknowledged that the whole was a fabricatio.!.
Now the Admiralty had already offered to allow him 2s. 6,i ;
but while he advised Mr. Perrott to take it, he contended th,t
if he was entitled to 2s. 6d. per day, he was entitled to his full
allowance. He did not, however, claim that, but the allowance
of 2s. 6d. per day from the time he was struck off, and that
was a fair and reasonable claim.

Mr. RUT H VEN said this was an important case, not ca
account of the injustice to the individual, but because of the
evil practice which it exposed.
Sir T. TROWBRIDGE vindicated the character of Sir
J. Harvey, and believed him incapable of giving such certificates
as those attributed to him. Never was there a worse case
than this brought before the House of Commons; it had al-
ready been canvassed to the fullest extent ; and be was sur-
prised, after what had transpired before the. House on the last
occasion, that it was again brought forward.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD replied, and the petition was ordered
to Re on the table.

Mr. CHISHOLM presented a petition from the Parochial
Schoolmasters of Inverness, praying for a better allowance
for their laborious duties.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—ARREST OF A
WITNESS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that Alexander Dean
be called to the Bar. The witness having been brought
up, stated, in answer to the Speaker, that he was sure_
moiled from Cork to give evidence before the Committee upon
the timber duties—that he arrived in London on the 30th of
July, and was examined before the Committee on the 31st--
that on Wednesday the sth instant he received from the clerk
a calculation of his expenses, from which he considered he was
discharged—that he was arrested on the morning of the 6:11
inst., and was now in custody. He delivered in the summons
and some other papers.
By Mr. O'CONNELL.—Had not been paid his expenses
when he was arrested.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
William Thomson examined—ls an officer to the Sheriff of
Middlesex. Arrested Alexander Dean on the 6th inst. Mr.
Dean represented that he was in attendance on a Committee
of that House. Went to his solicitors, who stated that they did
not consider Mr. Dean privileged, as he had been discharged by
the Committee. The witness concluded by stating that if he
had done wrong it was through ignorance, and ho humbly
begged the pardon of the House.

Mr. CALLAGHAN then moved that Alexander Dean be
discharged.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—There could be no
doubt that Mr. Dean was entitled to his discharge. He was
privileged in coming, staying, and returning. He thought
that after complying with the motion, the ends of justice would
be completely answered.
The Sheriff's officer was then called to the bar, and ordered
by the SPEAKER to discharge Mr. Dean.