Education Committee of the House of Commons. 



1817.] 



Did you speak to the clergyman of 

 {lie pat isli ? — I iiiqiiiiod of many house- 

 keepers in the street where he lived, but 

 not of the clergyman. 



Did you enquire of the housekeepers 

 who lived next door to liini? — I hclicve 

 I inquired of the person who succeeded 

 to liis trade in the very house ; and all 

 that 1 could collect was, that he was a 

 veiy penurious man, and close as to the 

 situation of his property. 



But yon did not inquire of the two 

 people who lived next door to him ? — I 

 think I did; also of a gentleman wlio 

 had many years resided there, a tenant 

 of the hospital's, in tiic hope of his be- 

 ing able to give me information, but he 

 could not. 



How long after Mr. Penn's death did 

 you go to Rochester ? — When the bill 

 was filed in 1811. 



When did he die?— Tn 1808. 



Did the governors put in an answer to 

 the before-mentioned affidavit? — I be- 

 lieve Ihey did. 



Are you aware of wliat answer they 

 made to this complaint respecling 

 Penr! .' — I have not a copy of the bill 

 and answer. 



Are you aware of what evidence was 

 produced to rebut the .accusation con- 

 tained in the affidavit which has been 

 rcad?^ — There was no other opportunity 

 that we had, but producing the presenta- 

 tions themselves. 



What were the ohjeetions made to 

 Young's two chiltlren ? — They had left 

 the hospital before tlie proceeding look 

 place, but the ulFidaNits in Chancery 

 went to shew that Young, the father, 

 died worth somewhere about 5000/. sub- 

 ject to debts ; he was known to have 

 been a shopkeeper in no flourishing cir- 

 cumstances; tiicre was an adidavit, also, 

 of Mr. Young's brother, stating that 

 Young's income did not in his life-time 

 amount to more than 300/., or there- 

 abouts, and that his circumstances were 

 in 110 degree better, but rather worse at 

 the lime of the child's admission ; and 

 that he verily believes tliat what he left, 

 after paying his debts, would not afford 

 an income of more than 200/. a-year ; 

 he also states the freehold estate at 

 1335/., instead of 1.521/., which the other 

 affidavit made it ; and that, during his 

 Kfe-tirne, he was much afflicted with the 

 Btone, which rendered him incapable of 

 any active employment. 



Was there any evidence as to 

 Bridges? — There was an affidavit of 

 John Wyatt Lee, esq. of Mundcn-hall, 

 pear Maklcn, slating generally, that he 



533 



was informed, and believed, that Bridges 

 was in opulent circumstances, without 

 staling any particulars. 



A^ hat were the objections stated to 

 Mr. Warren's case ? — IMr. Warren, I 

 tiiink, attended at the hearing in tlie 

 Court of Cliancery, to answer any ques- 

 tions, but, I believe, lie declined making 

 an affidavit ; there was an affidavit of 

 John Merrington, who had been church- 

 warden and overseer of the poor in his 

 parish, and had resided twenty-five years 

 in it, slating Mr. Warren's income, 

 from his own knowledge of the particu- 

 lars of il, as amounting in the whole to 

 1200/. a-ycar. 



Relate what took place, to the best of 

 your recollection, with llie assistance of 

 the minutes, at tlie admission of War- 

 ren? — At liis admission eleven members 

 of the committee were present, and some 

 conversation of considerable extent 

 arose, because a member considered 

 Mr. A\'arren had too large an income to 

 ask for the admission of his son: it was 

 put to the vote wliether he was a fit ob- 

 ject or not, and his admission was order- 

 ed by a small majority; then afterwards 

 the question came before the committee 

 of ahnoners, upon the 18th of March, 

 1809, when a long letter was read from 

 the i^cv. Dawson Warren, the lather, 

 upon his case ; he states, at the bottom 

 of his letter, thus : " W hen I attended 

 the committee, on the admission of my 

 boy, I considered that my income, on 

 the average of my whole residence at 

 Edmonton, had been 710/. per atmum ; 

 on the average ot tlie three years then 

 expired, 850/. If I now consider it up 

 to last Christmas, I should call it 860/. 



That is the close of a long slatement 

 he made respecting his circumstances? 

 — It is : the committee thereupon re- 

 solved, that the president should be re- 

 ijuestcd to submit that letter to the con- 

 sideration of the general court, and to 

 order that notice thereof should be given 

 in the summons. 



Did the general court take it up in 

 7)ursuance of that Jiotice ? — They did; 

 they met the 4th of March, pursuant to 

 the notice in the summons, to consider 

 the case of the boy Dawson Warren. 



AVhat proceeding then took place? — 

 I will read the n'.inute of the court, 

 whicli is as follows: — " After some de- 

 bate, it was moved and seconded, that 

 the said child should be sent home to 

 his fatiier ; upon which an amendment 

 was proposed, but, after some linther 

 debate, withdrawn ; the question was 

 thcu put upou tlie original motion, Mhich 



the 



