The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-23 00:00:00

THAMES.

A VERY BAD DAUGHTER.—Sarah Ann Gilbert, a girl
about 17 years of age, was brought before Mr. Woolrych
charged with robbing her father.

Martin Gilbert, a carman of No. 2, Sharp's-buildings,
Minories, said his daughter had repeatedly plunder, d him
and all attempts to reclaim her had been made in vain
She took money out of her mother's portemonaie and
squandered it among idle and dissolute girls. She cut up
blankets and sold them at rag shops for a tenth part of
their value. There was a sum of 4s. 10d in his pocket
when he went to bed last night, and when he got up this
morning it was gone. She ran out of the house when he
missed his money. He went after her and overtook her,
but he did not find any money. He was quite certain
the money was taken by his daughter and she
did not deny it. The girl had for a long time
given him much trouble, and his losses by her de-
predations were very considerable. She was never ill used.
Her mother, sister, and aunt had tried to reform her, and
were unsuccessful. A lady at Dalston had kindly and hu-
manely taken the girl under her protection, and given her
good advice, and endeavoured to make a better girl of her.
The prisoner was obdurate, and would not promise to
amend. He was very sorry to prosecute his child, and he
only did so in the belief it would save her from absolute
ruin.

Mr. Wool rych asked the prisoner if she had any answer
to make to the serious darges against her.
She made no reply, and appeared very sullen.

The Magistrate said this was a very sad case, and re-
manded the prisoner to the Clerkenwell House of Detention

for a week.

SHAMEFUL PLUNDER OP A SAlLOR.—Daniel Tenison
a porter, was brought before Mr. Woolrych, charged with
stealing £ll from a sailor named James Thompson.
The prosecutor's account of the transaction was some-
what confused. He was paid off 17 or 18 days ago, and re-
ceived £l2 12s. 5d., consisting of a £lO Bank of England
note, two sovereigns, 12s. in silver, and sd. in copper. He
saw the prisoner and another outside the Shipping-office,
and they said to him, " Have, you been settled with ?"
He answered " Yes, I have." They told him not to
mind the tailors and landlords, of whom he had clothes,
board and lodging, and led him into a carriage, the door of
which was open. He hesitated about going into the car-
riage. They pushed him in, and he was taken to various
places, and had drinks on the way. He became
insensible, and when he picked himself up he found that
he had been bruised, kicked, and stripped of all his money
and some of his clothes.

In cross-examination by Mr. Gomm for the prisoner, the
seaman said he did not know where the prisoner left him.
He was in half a dozen houses. He had no boots, no hat,
no coat whin he came to himself. He could not retain
anything on his slomach, and was ill for three days and
three nights after he was robbed. He changed a £lO note
in a respectable house. He owed a man named Gilbert
money, but did not pay him. He asked the prisoner to
procure him a nice girl. He was not then aware he was
going to be robbed and half murdered.
A police constable said the sailor bad been beaten most
awfully by some one.
The sailor—l say the prisoner and another beat me and
robbed me. Yesterday I met the prisoner and he asked me
to drink with him and how I got on, and when I met with
a policeman gave him into custody.
Mr. Gomm elicited from the prosecutor that he had no
recbllection of what had taken place after he bccame intoxi-
cated.

Mr. Woolrych said the unfortunate sailor had been
plundered of all his hard earnings and scandalously ill-
used. He wished he could ascertain by clear evidence the
perpetrators of such an atrocious outrage. It was a pity
that mariners did not avail themselves of such excellent
institutions as the Sailors' Homes in West-street and the
East India-road, instead of trusting themselves to crimps,
touters, and other harpies. There was not evidence enough
to justify him in committing the prisoner, and he must be
discharged. The police could take him again if additional
testimony could be obtained.

MARKETS—This Day.

HAY MARKETS.

SMITHFIELD.—Meadow hay, £3 Os to £4 10s ; clover
do,, £4 Os to £5 15s; and straw, £1 lOs to £1 16s per load.
Trade dull.

UUMBERLAND.--Mea4OW hay, £3 Os to £4 lOs ; clover
d0.,"£4 Os to £5 15s; and straw, £1 10s to £1 16s per load.
A slow demand.

WHITECHAPEL —Meadow hay, £3 Os to £4'108; clover
do , £4 Os to £5 15s ; and straw, £1 10s to £1 Ms per
,load.
Supply moderate; trade dull.

COLONIAL.

TEA—Business has been very dull and prices have shown
no material alteration.
SUGAR—The market has been inactive, only a few bar-
gains in the better descriptions of West India having been
reported at about previous prices. In the refined market
there has been little change of importance.
COFFEE The operations have been of an unimportant
character, and prices have remained without material varia-
tion.
RICE—The demand lately experienced has fallen off, and
only a limited business has been reported, prices, however,
are generally firm.
TALLow—The state of political affairs in Poland has
created a heavy tone in the tallow market ; holders, how-
ever, exhibit little disposition to adopt lower rates. P.Y..C,
on the spot is quoted 42s 9d, 43s ; and for last three months'
delivery, 46s CAI is the current quotation.

COAL .5
Prices of Coal per Ton a

.A.RKET.
the olose of the market.

s. d.
Cowpen Hartley 15 0
Davison's West Hart-

s. 5.
Walls End.
Tieugh Hall 16 0
Hartlepool.. l6 6
East Hartlepool 16 6
South Hartlepool 15 9
s Trimdon Hartlepool 16 6
Hetton 17 0
South Hetton..... 17 0
Russel's Hetton 15 9
Braddyll's Hetton 16 9
K elloe
!South Kelloe 16 0
Haswell .. .. l7 3
Tunstall ......
Trimdon Thornley l5 6
st, 93 ; sold, 70.

ley 15 0
Holywell 15 6
Wylam 15 6
Carway and Duffryn
Malting l9 6
Eden l5 6
Byass's Bebside West
Hartley ...15 0
Tarifield Moor 13 3
Tanfield Moor Butes l3 .3
Lambert's West Hart-

ley 14 91
alker Primrose 12E 9
West Hartley 15 0
Ships at marke

COUNTRY MARKETS.

.....

GLOUCESTER-JUNE 20.

The show of wheat to-day was an average one, and a fair
demand, with late rates supported. Foreign, dub, but no
change in value. Barley firm. Beans and oats were very
dull,

COLCHESTER,-JUNE 13.

Wheat, white. 45s 52s Beans,Mazagan —3os 33i
red 423 47s middle & 5ma11.358 42s
Barley
Oats

Lord Campbell's Speech, Last Evening, on
the Amendment of Oaths.

The following is a fuller report than is given
elsewhere, from our Third Edition of yesterday, of
the excellent speech delivered last evening, in the
House of Peers, by Lord Campbell :
The NOBLE LORD said that the difficulty of engaging
the attention of the house to the subject of his notice, after
the much more interesting topics they had recently debated,
was so great that nothing but a sense of duty would have
led him for a moment to attempt it. To guard himself in
some degree against the charge of rashness and presump-
tion, he might mention that since the general election of
1847, which had forced the question of the oaths on the
public and on Parliament, his attention had happened to le
very much directed to it, He should ask the house to read
a bill for the first time, and give, as rapidly as possible, an
explanatory statement tf its objects, having no intention or
desire to proceed to any further stage during the session,
The uncertainty of being able at any future time to offer
such an explanation alone induced him now to trespass on
the goodness of their lordships. There were only
three points on which it was essential that
he should gain the concurrence of the house—
first the necessity of revising and amending the arrange-
ment of the oaths formed in 18.58, where they were last
adjusted; secondly, on the principle which oughtito govern
such revision and amendment ; thirdly, on the safest and
the most convenient application of the principle. And it
was only on the first of these three points that it was re-
quisite to.dweil, not with length, indeed, but with anxiety.
If a clear and obvious case for further legislation was estabe
lished, an imperfect and erroneous scheme would not be re-
ceived with harshness or severity ; if co sufficient reasons
were advanced for agitation of the subject, a bill, however
perfect it might seem in principle and detail, would very
justly be resented by their lordships, inasmuch, as the
great and the established principle of quiete non novere
would then have been improperly departed from. It was
difficult for noble lords to summon the year 1858 to their
memory, intercepted as it was by the size and splendour of
the object which had since then demanded the attention of
the world. But if we had irungination to revive it, if noble
lords could suddenly transport themselves into its discus-
sions and its conflicts, no argument would be necessary
to show that the conclusion then arrived at on the oaths
was temporary and provisional. What was the arrenge-
ment P Two Acts of Parliament were carried by Lord J.
Russell and Lord Lucan. The first created a new oath
with a profession of Christianity appended to it. The
second gave both houses of Parliament the discretionary
power to exempt Jewish members (no one else) from mak-
ing the profession appended to that oath, but not to any
other. The arrangement was substantially unchanged,
although two further Acts of Parliament—one in 1859, one
in 1860—had imreaterially modified it. How did it arise?
Lord J. Russell carried through the House of Commons a
bill by which Jews would have become admissable to Par-
liament. The House of Lords amended it in such a way
as to exclude them. Much controversy arose between the
houses, and much excitement in the country. Mr. T.
Duncombe, suddenly relying on a precedent, persuaded the
House of Commons that Baron Rothschild might sit upon
committees without subscribing to the oaths. So great
was the perplexity that a solution then appeared to be es-
sential, no matter how crude, or hurried, or anomalous,
provided it would give at once and for a reason to compel
the discord of the legislature, Lord Lyndhurst and Lord
Lucan both came forward with proposals. That of Lord
Lyndhurst was withdrawn, that of Lord Lucan was
amended, and in a great degree transformed at the request
of the noble earl who then led the Government. The bill
which the Commons had sent up and that which their
lordships had originated were at last so interwoven as to be
essential to each other, and in that way reached the statute-
book. He had given the outline of what took place in
1858, in order to explain that the result did not represent
the mind or judgment of any one who took part in the dis-
cussion in Parliament or out of it. It was not the plan of
Lord J. Russell or Lord Lyndhurst, or Lord Lucan, or the
Opposition, or the Government. It was rather a fortuitous
conclusion emerging from a multiplicity of counsellors, an
exuberance of profits,a rivalry of objects,and a chaos of ideas,
and from such elements of birth it was not to be expected
that a sound or final system would present itself. But
what language was employed by those who gave their sanc-
tion to it. It was one of reservation an.: of protest. Every
one accepted it as a temporary exit from a difficult emer-
gency. Every one condemned it as a lasting settlement of
a long agitated problem. He would not quote the Parlia-
mentary debates, but he would refer to what might he re-
garded in the light of history, the fact, namely, that Lord
Palmerston on one side, Mr. S. Walpole on the other, both
clearly intimated, in assenting to it, that the question could
not be considered as disposed of, and that further legisla-
tion was inevitable. What defects did it contain to bring
about that general conviction of its being inadequate and
temporary? To give a special class exemption from a
statute by resolutions or by standing order, by many
had been deemed unconstitutional, and by all was said
to be invidious. It was a dispensing power such as the
Crown had not formerly pretended to. The peremptory
power established by Lord Lucan's bill was confined to the
oath established in Lord J. Russell's bill. Lord J. Russell
had declared that that oath contained some things which
ought not to be there, or at least ought not to be perpetu-
ated. But in order to correct it Baron Rothschild must be
driven out of Parliament, and all the former agitation
brought again into existence, since the discretionary power
to admit him vanished with that simple oath. So long as
the scheme of 1858 remained there would always be a dis-
position in the House of Commons to amend it, and bills
might reach the House of Lords which they were not in-
clined to accept. In 1860 this had happened. But far
more grave was the objection that debates in the House of
Commons may occur at any moment on the standing
order by which the Jewish members were admit.
ted. And they inevitably would arise if parties
happened to be evenly divided. For the last 20 years
we had not seen the results of a c ntention between two
parties of equal strength and equal aspiration. Let
anyone recall the close of Sir R. Walpole's Government
about 1740, when the sick and dying were brought down to
the floor of the House of Commons to divide, and ask him-
self whether at such moments no attempt would have been
made to rescind a standing order which gave half a dozen
votes to one party or the other. Let anyone recall the time
when Mr. Pitt came in a second time about 1805, when, on
the impeachment of Lord Melville, 216 voted for, and 216
against him, and the Speaker took a quarter of an hour to
decide his casting vote and consider whether at the begin-
ning of the Parliament no attempt would have been made
to rescind a standing order which might give to Opposition
or to Government the triumph each was eagerly pursuing.
Or, if those illustrations were too distant, let anyone recall
the latter years of Lord Melbourne's Government, when
power turned on a majority of two or three, and
ask himself whether, at that time, the standing order
would not have been questioned by whichever
party it might injure. Whenever, therefore, a condition
always possible arose, the whole question would revive
which in 1858 men felt so anxious to get rid of. It would
be admitted on the grounds that the legislation of that year
required to be amended. On what principle, however, was
a juster settlement attainable ? Lord Campbell:was anxious
to repudiate the principle which belonged to the bill of 1858
when it just left the Commons, and was first presented to
their lordships. A profession of Christianity appended to
the oath clearly had no value unless universal in the obli-
gation to subscribe to it. It could not be a test if those
who disbelieved in Christianity, were exempted from the
action it would have upon them ; nor oould it stamp the
character and colour of that faith, upon Parliament, when
only taken by a portion. On the contrary, in such a case
it would exhibit and define the case that Parliamen', on
that vital question, was divided. So far from adding a new
sanction to, it disparaged to some extent the daily service by
which, in both Houses, business was preceded—revealing
with the practice and solemnity of the law the fact that a
class of members differed from the faith implied in such a
mode of worship,. They were thus naturally led to the
alternative, viz., that the oaths should be so framed as to
be available for all whom the law admitted in Parliament,
if no necessity exist for the exemptions of the privileges by
which an action was enabled to avoid the forms imposed on
the remeinder of the legislature. Lord Campbell then dis-
cussed the different forms in which that principle was ap-
plicable. The oath of 1829, passed for Roman Catholics.
contained no phrases or positions which could debar the
Protestant or Jewish members from subscribing to it. If
adopted as the single oath religious lines of demarcation
would vanish from the legislature. In the judgment of
Lord Campbell, as expressed in 1858, they ought to do so.
The oath of ,1829, however, was modern in its character
—and the value of such forms depended in some degree on
that duration of ambiguity. The Roman Consul, who
when Corinth fell into his power, and when rare and valu-
able sculpture had to be transmitted to his country, explained
to the contractors for its passage, that should damage take
place new figures would be rigorously called for, illustrated
the type of intellect which overlooks vital truth—viz., that
no modern form of words can have the solemnity and,dignity
of those who have already linked ages, generations, and par-
liaments together. The proposition he had ventured to
embody in the Bill was, leaving the oath of abjuration in
the grave to which it had been sentenced, to re-enact the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy to supersede that of 1854.
These oaths of allegiance and supremacy were established
in the first Act of William and Mary; again in the Bth
Act of William and Mary; again in the Bill of Rights,
meant as an eternal monument of freedom,--were never
altered or disturbed till 1858 , were then altered and dis-
turbed for no purpose except to remove the complication on
Jewish questions which existed, The complication which yet
remains will disappear if we re-enact them. They are
known to be available for all members of the Legislature,
whether Protestant or Jewish, and Roman Catholics will
still continue to subscribe the oath of 1829. Lord Campbell
then referred to a bill which Lord Lyndhurst had introduced
in 1855 to repeal the oath of abjuration, and which, had it
been carried, would have led to the exact position which his
bill designed to accomplish. He had the shelter, therefore, I
of that venerable lord, as well as of the Bill of Rights and
the innumerable Parliaments in which the oaths ho wished
to re-enact had been accepted. The clauses were so framed
as to supersede the oath of 1858, to revive the oaths he had
referred to, and to maintain in the House of Lords it in-

disputable right to determine upon which Testament oaths
should be administered, so that no Jewish peer could take
his seat in that house without their formal sanction should
the Crown ever give existence to the question. While,
therefore, the position of the House of Lords would be un-
altered and inviolate, no member of the Jewish faith, without
its fiat could ever mingle in its councils, the difficulties
which will arise from the imperfect system of 1858 would
pass away. No collision on the oaths could take place
between the housed, no debates on the standing order
could arise in the Commons, The anomalous and unbe-
coming demarkation of the Legislature with the opponents
of our faith would be avoided, and the solemnities intended
to be permanent in the bill of rights would be restored.
But, if such a mode of acting does not seem to be desirable,
I appeal to the present, to the late Government, and that
right rev, bench which `aas so clear a right to influence the
question that they may gradually mature a safer and
happier solution. Two things seem to be indisputable,
that the Legislature of 1858 cannot be accepted as endur-
ing, and that nothing would tend more to the dignity and
credit of the House of Lords, clouded in the eyes of some
by their long, although sincere resistance to the claims of
Baron Rothschild, than that the settlement we still re-
quire should be accomplished by its labour. The noble
lord moved the first reading of a bill to re-enact the oaths
of allegiance and supremacy in place of the oath of 1858.

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The House of Commons has postponed the de-
bate on the affairs of Poland by an act so sudden and so un-
expected that it would hardly become us to find fault with
the gentlemen who took the other side. All was prepared.
Lord Palmerston had agreed to pave the way for Mr. Hen-
nessy to deliver the fervid harangue with which, no doubt,
he was charged. If there was any delicacy due to pending
negotiations and to hopes in the bud, but not yet blighted,
the Minister was the man to feel it, and he had stood up to
move, in effect, that the debate be proceeded with. But
the house itself interfered. That house, so regardless of
Ministerial scruples and difficulties, so ready always to talk
and leave on others the responsibility of action, stepped in
to protect the Minister who asked for no protection, and
and negatived Lord Palmerston 's motion for the postpone-
ment of the orders of the day. This it did by a majority so
gcod, just three to two, that the dissentients had nothing
to do but to protest and complain. They had prepared good
speeches, and found themselves suddenly put off to next
Thursday, which may be a good way off yet. Nothing could
be more expeditious than the operation which sends these
gentlemen "into next week." Mr. S. Beaumont made the
appeal, Mr. Kinglake seconded it, and Lord Enfield cor-
dially endorsed it, whereupon there ensued a division, and
the thing was done. Mr. Hennessy did not resist, and Lord
Palmerston did not reply. But when all was over, and no-
thing remained but to pass on to some very domestic ques-
tions, then Mr. Horsraan woke up, and Lord R. Cecil re•
covered his self-possession, and several other gentlemen
could say a good deal more or less to the purpose. A feeble
attempt, indeed, W€.B made to undo what had been done. It
was quietly proposed to Lord Palmerston that he should use
his influence with those who had notices on the list to in-
duce them to do spontaneously what the house had just
positively refused to do for them, and so allow Mr. Hen-
nessy'a motion to come round again. This, however, as
was observed, would hardly have been respectful to the
majority of the house. The substantial result was one to
which the most ardent friends of Poland can hardly
demur. Lord Palmerston, expressing his opinion that
any strong declaration by the House of Commons
would stop negotiations altogether, and explaining
that it would not be proper to lay before the
house the very words of the communication just made
to the Court of St. Petersburg till the answer could be pub-
lished with it, proceeded to give the substance of that com-
munication, Together with France, and with the modified
agreement of Austria, England had proposed to Russia-1.
A complete and general amnesty; 2. National representa-
tion according to the Constitution granted by Alexander I.
in 1815 ; 3, Nomination in Poland of a separate and na-
tional administration having the confidence of the country ;
4. Full and entire liberty of conscience, and repeal of the
restrictions on Catholic worship ; 5. The Polish language
to be acknowledged in the Kingdom as the official language
for administration, law, and education ; 6. A regular and
legal system of recruiting ; and a suspension of hostilities,
as the only good basis for negotiation. When this impor-
tant explanation had been made, it was asked, and, indeed
it was natural to ask, why, when so much could be told,
and Lord Palmerston had shown himself ready to proceed
with the debate, he nevertheless acquiesced in a postpone-
ment which may be for a very long day. The reply is ob-
vious. Even if the delay of a few days tells the house no
more than it knows now, it will have had those few days to
consider the actual propositions made to the Russian Go-
vernment. The gentlemen who came down late with their
speeches prepared, and, perhaps, as unready as English-
men usually are to address themselves to the new state of
things, will have had leisure to change their front, and
make speeches to the purpose and matter before the house
That is the useful result of a postponement which some
speakers describe as an unparalleled surprise, an outrage on
the traditions of the house. and one of them even as a valid
reason why a man should never be believed again. On the
principle that the public good overrules all conventional
scruples, we congratulate the British public on last night's
decision. It certainly would have been disrespectful to
send Russia a civil remonstrance, and, before she could
send her reply, to overwhelm her with abuse, and attempt
to bully her into compliance. We may do either one or the
other, either reason or threaten, but we must not do both.
POST.—Pending the present negotiations, and whilst the
exact tenor of the notes addressed to Russia by the three
Powers, with the replies which they will elicit, are still
unpublished, the House of Commons showed a wise discre
tion in postponing what necessarily would have proved an
objectless debate upon the affairs of Poland. The motion
for postponing the orders of the day, in order to afford Mr.
Hennessy an opportunity for bringing forward his motion
on Poland, was negatived on a division, but the delay which
is thus occasioned will enable that hon. member to raise
some tangible issue when he submits that motion to the
consideration of the house. A few evenings since the
Foreign Secretary made a statement in the House of Lords
which gave universal satisfaction, and which in no small
degree contributed to the decision arrived at last evening.
Earl Russell, when announcing that separate notes had been
despatched to Sr. Petersburg by the three Powers, stated
that, without waiting for the reply of the Russian Govern.
ment, he would lay on the table of the House of Lords a
copy of the communication transmitted by her Majesty's
Government. Pending therefore the brief interval which
will elapse before the publication of that despatch, it would,
as Mr. Kinglake rightly observed, have been a profitless
occupation of time to speculate on what course of action the
Government were bound to take. It is not just of Mr. Hors-
man to say that the Government broke faith with Mr. Hen-
nessy, or were parties to what he termed "a surprise" upon
the house. Consistently with his promise, Lord Palmerston
moved the postponement of the orders of the day, but it was
perfectly competent for the house to reject his motion. The
Ministry can have no object in stifling a debate on Polish
affairs, but they may feel, as did a large majority of the
House of Commons last evening, that at the present juncture
a purposeless discussion would not only be id• timed, but
absolutely hurtful to the interests which its introducer would
have been most anxious to serve. Whilst diplomatists are
cudgelling their brains in attempts to discover a solution of
the Polish question, the insurrection continues to spread,
and the instances of Russian enormities become daily more
numerous. Mr. Hennessy would, therefore, have needed
no special justification for again bringing the affairs of
Poland under the consideration of the House of Commons.
A fortnight since, in the House of Lords, the Earl of
Ellenborough, when inquiring into the present state of
negotiations with respect to Poland, took occasion to review
the condition of the belligerents, and to inculcate the neces-
sity in the interests of humanity of sparing no efforts to
bring to a close what must, if proceeded with, become a war
of extermination. Since then matters have undergone but
little modification. The relative positions of the Russian
forces and the insurgents remain the same. The diplomatic
negotiations have, however, been advanced one step. The
three Powers have transmitted separate, but in all practical
respects similar proposals to the Cabinet at St. Petersburg.
The answers previously given by the Russian Government
to the notes addressed to it by Austria, France, and Eng-
land, although in many respects differing from each other
in details, agreed in throwing upon those Powers the onus
of making such suggestions as would be considered con-
ducive to the restoration of tranquillity in Poland. It was
therefore, necessary that the three Governments should
confer upon the proposals to be made, and for this purpose
confidential communications were interchanged between
them. They have new agreed upon and transmitted their
communications to the Russian Government; and it may
be sufficient for the present to say that these communica-
tions are based upon the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna.
But although the intervening Powers may have agreed
upon their course of action, the d!fficulties with which the
solution of the Polish question is beset are net one whit
diminished. England, France, and Austria may settle be-
tween themselves the nature of their demands, but it will
still remain with Russia to determine whether she will ac •
cept or reject them. Earl Russell was very far from san-
guine when referring in the House of Lords some days
since to fee probable issue of the present negotiations ; nor,
considering the manifest unwillingness of the intervening
Powers to make the refusal of Russia to comply s ith their
proposals a cams Belli, it is surprising that the Foreign
Secretary should have been despondent of such an issue
Powers
as would satisfy the requirements of the European
and the just demands of the Polish people. Itmttaoyn b
oen
as Earl Russell observed, that an armed intenr enothing
but
behalf of the Poles would be productiv_eas7bfility
of such
calamity and contusion ; but ifthteh:
ack-ground, one
an intervention does not appear in
us s
aon
may well feel diffident of the result olef daipt
tiations in favour of the Polish peop , lotmheatille ne -
Court.

Full benefit of reduced duty obtained by pur-
chasing Hop:iimants pure Tea; very choice at 3s. 4d. and
40. "High Standard "at 4s. 4d. (formerly 4s. Bd.), is the
strongest and most delicious imported. Agents in every
town supply it in packets.