Star.
London, England, 1828-06-19 00:00:00

CAPTAIN PRESCOTT'S CASE.

Sir C. FORBES said, be wished to draw the attention
of the Court to the case of Captain Prescott, which he
considered to be one of very great hardship. He did
not mean to find fault with any of the proceedings
which had been taken by the Court of Directors with
reference to Captain Prescott : on the contrary, he con-
ceived that they were bound to adopt the measures
which trey had resorted to and they would have failed
in their duty to themselves and to the public if they
had not instituted an inquiry into the facts of the case.
But Captain Prescott having been brought to trial and
acquitted by a special Jury of his country, after a
most full and patient investigation, be conceived that
he ought to be considered, at this moment, as free'
'from all imputation'. If Captain Prescott had been
guilty of want of 4ue caution, and want of due pru-
dence, in some of his proceedings, GOD fiirbid that they
should be disposed to punish him on that. account.—
It appeared to him that Captain Prescott had been most
severely punished. If he had been found guilty of all
that was laid to his charge, it was impossible that he
could have been more severely punished. He under-
stood that Captain Prescott, not by an agreement of the
Court of Directors generally, but by a resolution of the
Committee of Correspondence, had been deprived of
the privilege, at least for a time, of participating in
the Company's patronage. Now, for his own port,
he thought the Court of Directors would have been
'justified, after Captain Prescott's acquittal on the charge
of having used this patronage corruptly, if they had
gone no farther. After all the suffering which Captain
Prescott bad endured, it was an act of humanity to
rescue him from his present unpleasant situation. Capt.
P. having been acquitted,
should, in his opinion, be re-
stored to all his rights and privileges. He could speak

of his own knowledge-of the acts of benevolence and
kindness which bad been performed by Captain Pres-
cott in the disposal of his patronage. The Directors
' generally were, he believed, actuated by liberal motives
in the distribution of their patronage ; bit be believed
that no member of the Court ever acted mote liberally
or disinterestedly than Captain Prescott in bestowing
his portion of patronage. He had known him for SO
years. and he believed a more honnut able or a more
kind-hearted man did not exist. The Hon. Baronet
concluded by moving,
" That the Court of Proprietors fully approve of the measures
adopted by the Court of Directors in bringing the recent case of
abuse of patronage before a legal tribunal; and although Captain
Prescott appears to have acteJ incautiously and imprudently, yet,
having been acquitted by the verdict of a Jury of the charge of de-
linquency preferred against him, and the Proprietors biting satisfied
that he acted from ma corrupt motives, they are not disposed to
withdraw their confidence front him as a Member of the Executive
Body."
Captain MAXFIELD said, he had read the papers, and
felt perfectly juqifie.l in seconding the motion.
The Hon. D. KINNAIRD inquired whether Captain
Pr escott's patronage was :till withheld from him?
The CHAIRMAN said, that the conduct which had
been pursued with respect V.) the patronage was not
founded on a resolution of the Committee of Correspon-
dence, but arose front the circumstance that a certain
number of Directors had declared, pending the trial,
that if a question as to the disposal of patronage by
Captain Prescott came before them, they would oppose
it. This was communicated in the most kind and
friendly manner.
' The Hon. D. KINNAIRD was of opinion that. Captain
Prescott had been acquitted of every thing but weak-
ness. He called. on. the Proprietors, by agreeing to this
motion, to rescue the Directors horn the unpleasant
situation in which they were placed.
Mr. POYNDIIR said he had not read the papers, -and
therefore he could not vote for a proposition which went
positively to acquit Captain Prescott. • •
Mr. It. JACKSON said he never knew a resolution,
even remotely approaching to this in importance, to
have been brought forward without due notice. • He
could • not agree to a resolution of this nature, which
implied some degree of controul over the Directors,
without reading the documents. The Honourable
Baronet had told them that Captain Prescott had' nil
touched one fragment 'of • this- polluted bribe ; but,
though this Gentleman was, so far incorrupt, -yet he
(Mr. Jackson) could not accede to .a proposition of
the kind now before the Court. without imputing
some degree cf blame to Captain-Prescott. There was
in one of thoseletters an avowal of Captain Prescott,
which had very great weight with him ; and though t'm
tenderest feelings might have led Captain Prescott to a
dereliction of tiis duty) yet he (Mr. Jackso4 would not
be acting a manly part if, when the subject came fairly
before the Court, he did not -state that there was such a
letter as that to which he alluded. He would blame
Captain PI CSCOtt as gently as could ; but he would
not stiffer himself to be betrayed into this wholesale kind
of acquittal.
_ _

The CHAIRMAN observed, that as this was a Quarterly Geiteral
Court, it was competent for any Gentleman to bring /inward "-
motion at it, without giving previous notice.
Mr. StzwART supported the resolution.
Mr. GAHAGAN thought the Hon. Baronet would best consult the'
object he bad in view by postponing his motion to a future day.--
The solemnity of the occasion required it—when a man's charasmil,
was involved, it would be wrong if he gut ►is acquittal per. MOM., ‘•
Mr. Fassarmua was also desirous that the motion should be .
postponed.
Mr. Paryzatnt moved," That this debate be adjourned
Wednesday fortnight."
After a few words from Sir C. VOZII4I and the Hbooursble D.
Ks/want., the motion for adjourning the debate was agreed 'to. •
end the Court broke op.
r--