The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-26 00:00:00

LANGPOHT UNION.

Mr. ESCOTT wished to ask the Secretary for the
Home Department whether he had any objection to pro-
duce certain documents respecting the management o
this union?

Sir G. GREY replied that he had not, as soon as the
charges at present in course of investigation were
brought to a termination.
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.

Mr. 0. STANLEY wished to ask the Secretary of the
Admiralty if it was the intention of the Government to
reconsider the plan respecting Holyhead harbour, not
withstanding the interested representation of the cit)
of Dublin.

Mr. WARD said many grave objections had beet.
urged against the plan ; and it was thought ad
visablo to well consider the matter before the;
consented to spend a million of money upoi
the undertaking, so that the Government might
be satisfied that the money would be satifactorily and
usefully expended. It was still under the attention 01
the Government.
ARREST OF FOUR PERSONS AT BRIGHTON.
Cap!an PECHELL wished to call the attention of tin
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for tht
Home Department to the arrest of four persons al
Brighton (from whom lie had presented a petition to
day). They complained that they had been taken u;
on suspicion of having committed a robbery, that the)
were taken before a magisti-ate, from whom they ob
tained their discharge, the charge not having been mad,
They complained that during the intervening period
they were not allowed to instruct counsel except in tilt.
presence of a police-constable. Ile wished to know
whether the Hon. Gentleman had had his attention
called to the case, and whether he intended to take an)
steps to prevent a similar occurrence s
Sir G. GREY said the case had been brought under
his attention. He, however, would make an inquiry
into the matter.
CUSTOMS' DUTIES BILL.

On the order of the day being read for going into
Committee on this Bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose
and said he thought it necessary, in justice to his Noble
Friend opposite (Lord G. Bentinek), to state the course
which he intended to pursue with respect to this Bill.
He believed his Noble Friend intended to state hi:
case against the Bill, in bringing forward his motion
that the subject be referred to a Select Committee,
instead of arguing his case in Committee. On
bringing forward his financial statement he stater
that he proposed a duty upon colonial rum,
of 6d. higher than that imposed on British spirit/. Since
that time he had bad the opinion of distillers and others,
who urged that that duty would not be athluate as
protecting duty. Although his opinion was unchanged,
he had been induced to reconsider his decision
He had said at the time that it was impossible to fix a
precise amount, and therefore, he had been anxious to
adopt as moderate a duty as possible. It was, there-
fore, his intention in the Committee on this B‘ll to pro-
pose that colonial spirits should be charged a duty of 9d.
per gallon higher than the home spirit. He would not
now go into the reasons one way or the other;
but he would assign these in answer to the
statement of his Noble Friend opposite. He
had thought it fair thus to apprise his Noble Friend of
the course he intended to adopt.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said -that he would
require the especial indulgence of the House on this
occasion, for of all the dry subjects—(Laughter)—that
could possibly be devised, and which it had ever been his
misfortune to bring forward, this was the most tedious,
and ho feared that neither wit, talent, or ingenuity
would suffice to make it agreeable. lie believed that
the Right Hon. Baronet desired by his measure to do
justice to all parties, but he (Lord G. Bentinck)
believed also that the Right Hon. Gentleman was en-
tirely in error in the result at which he had arrived. He
was compelled to say that this question was not one of
pounds and shillings; but one of pence, half pence, aye,
and one of the twentieth parts of farthings, and it was
for that very reason that it was of such universal app.
cation, and it would be better entertained in a Select Com-
mittee up stairs than in a Committee of the whole House.
One part of-the Irish case differed from the other part
of the Irish case, and one part of the Scotch case dif-
fered from the remainder. If he were justified in ask
ing for a Select Committee—if he were justified when
he gave notice of the motion—he was so fur from
being dissuaded from it by the annoucement
made by his Right Lion. Friend, that ho was still
further encouraged to persevere from the very reason
that the mind of the Right lion. Gentleman was not
made up upon this subject. Whilst up to the
present time he had thought that the dif-
ferential duty should be sixpence, he had now
consented to give way; and, though he did
not acknowledge that his mind was changed, still In.
h's.l '2Ull;ed tun, tli:,...snre r f tne (4,‘v‘ rwmcnt,
assuto the Right lion. uehtlenhniu that if he were pan
upon that Committee, so little was he prejudiced upon
the subject, so little was his desire to give any advantage

p alp use.

to the British distiller over the colonial producer of rum,
that if it could be proved to him that there was a neces-
sity for 9d. instead of 6d., or that there should be no
differential duty at all, he would be the first man to pro- I
pose such a measure to the Committee. It was not
very long ago since an Act was passed relating
to the differential duties between the Channel Islands
and Great Britain. That Act was the 65th xec. of the
8, and 9 Vict. In that Act it was stated that
Is. 2d. was the amount of the countervailing duty be-
tween the spirits from the Channel Islands and
the agricultural produce of Great Britain.
He had, therefore, a right to assume that the sum of Is.,
or at least 114 d., was a just assessment as between rum
and British spirits, because the Act of which he was
speaking recited in its preamble, that the object of the
13111 was to determine what was, the extent of the Ex-
cise. restrictions, and the house by passing that Bill
had decided that the extent of the Excise restrictions-
amounted to is. 2d. The excise laws were altered in
1823, not for the advantage of the distiller, but for the
better collection of the excise duties. The result was
that every distiller was forbidden to distil and brew at
the same time, and to brew and distil on th 4 same pre-
mises. Every distiller was consequently obliged to
double his plant, to increase the size of his premises,
and to increase the number and size of his coppers. The
effect of which was. that a distiller, whose business
could be carried on for 40,0001. required a
capital of 80,0001.—(Hear.) He was putting the
Irish part of the case first. Now it was given in evidence
before a Committee which sat in 1823, that an Irish
distiller, who produced 60,000 gallons of whisky in his
business, and who previously required but 5,000/. as
his capital, was in consequence of these new re-
strictions obliged to increase his plant, and :to lay
out 5,0001. more in order to conduct his business.
10/. per cent would be the result, or 5001. a year,
which would have to he charged against 60,000 gallons.
600/. divided over 60,000 gallons, would give exactly the
result. The next item was the loss of material
arising out of these restrictions. These re-
.strictions obliged the distiller to brew at a.
certain gravity—to give as many days notice of his in-
tendon to brew, and so many hours notice of any
removements he makes. Thus he was sometimes
obliged to stop his works fur twelve hours—to
allow his furnaces to become extinguished causing a
waste which was estimated at one-twelfth of the
whole produce. The Irish distillers estimated the loss
in this way at 2d. a gallon. Then there was the loss in
wares, because it was necessary to pay the workmen
during these temporary stoppages : in fact it was
necessary for the distiller to increase the num-
ber of persons in his employment, to expend
double time, and to pay double wages.—(Hear.) Irish
listillers put them at ls. 2d. per gallon (as we under-
stood). Then again with respect to yeast.—(clear,
hear.) In making *tits, owing to the restriction, it
was necessary to use fresh yeast at every brewing, which
would not be necessary if the restrictions were removed.
It was a fact that under the operation of the Excise laws
he distillers wore obliged to let their yeast run down
the gutter, and to purchase. the same from other parties.
The distillers of Galway, of Belfast, and of Drogheda,
were thus obliged to come to the London mar-
ket in order to purchase 'yeast, while they them-
selves were obliged to waste., :The expense of yeast,
to the gallon was a penny. There were 26,000,000 of
gallons of spirits distilled in England and Ireland, which,
at Id , would give an amount of 100,0001. of wale turned
.own the gutter, under the operation of the Excise law.
That made sid. They then came to the malt duty. He
was now speaking of Ireland. In what was
ealled the raw corn spirit, about two-thir-
-eentha of the corn was malted ; therefore,
if they charged an amount equalling two-thirteenths
on the whole quantity employed, the malt duty being
Is. 4d. a gallon, it would give a duty of 21d. per gallon
for malt duty alone. A high authority in these matters
n former times—he meant the late Mr. Huskisson—
naintained that the whole malt duty was in itself a
aeavy charge, but that the restrictions on malt added
one-half to the amount of duty to the real
eest of malt for the same restriction that applied
:o spirits applied also to the making of malt.
En cold weather the barley required more than forty
lours for its proper steeping, but in warm weather less.
Die Excise laws would not, however, change the hour,
aid in many instances in warm we eller the barley
sprouted and was spoil, d. The loss in this way was
2s. 61. per quarter. He then came to ,another subject,
vhich is as called in the language of distillers, the
I creases. In 'England the duty was charged upon
B i ish spirits as they left the worm head, but it was
eiarged upon rum not as it left the East and West Indies,
✓ arrived in this country, brit as it came out of bond.
le found- by a return ordered by that House, on the
29% May last, that the allowance made to the rum pro-
lucers was—in England, three six-tenths of a penny ;
n Ireland, seved seven-hundredths of a penny ; and in
is eland, eight five-tenths of a penny, upon each
;Anon. In England, out of 2,411,001 gallons
imported, 76,794 had been allowed, the money tor
vhich was returned for deficiency and leakage
vas 36,2481. In Ireland 737 gallon were allowed,
it a sum of 3471. upon 30,770 gallons introduced, and
n Scotland the sum of 1,534/. was allowed for 3,287
gallons, out of 43,135 gallons imported. He would now
'alculate what would be the amount of drawback (if
Such it might be called) to 'the rum producers of Eng-
and, Ireland, and Scotland. - He found that the
lrawbeck to the rum producers of England would
Je three 4 10ths of a penny ; Ireland two 1-81hs;
,nd Scotland. four 3 10ths of a penny.—(Hear, hear.)
Che result of all these disadvantages, as tar as the dis-
illers were concerned, was that it would take 'lid. and
of a penny to put them on a par with the colonial
instillers, whereas it was only proposed to take off 9d.
per gallon. In addition to this the distillers had to con-
t•?nd with many other disadvantages. Another example
if the same kind was the removal of the glass duties.
For that measure the country was indebted to the Hon.
Baronet the Membr for Tamworth. Although his (Sir
it. Peel's( anguine expectations had not been realised
vet the result was perfectly surprising. By a return laid
in the table; of thel House last year, it appeared, that
owing to the increase for sheet and plate
;lass' the manufacturers had increased their
works. New works had been erected in Dublin,
Belfast, Hull, and other places. The want of
,kilful hands were much felt—in fact, so much was this
scarcity felt that the workmen who could be obtained
mid forced their employers to allow them higher wages,
and they had been increased in consequence 301. per cent.
—as they seceived from 4/. to Si. a week. He thought
in the case of glass he had shown a very strong example
sf what the removal of excise would accomplish, for it
uust be borne in mind that as regarded the glass duties,
:,he removal of the excise-duties upon it had not led to any
increased exportation of the article. The increase was
:treated at home, as shortly after the repeal of the duties
in this country the duties on foreign glass were re-
pealed, so that English and foreign glass came et once
nto competition, and they competed on equal terms.
lie was justified from the increase of the home con-
sumption in these articles, to suppose, that if the excise
luties were amended, and greater facilities given to
to the distillers in their manufacture an enormous
increase would be the result. As regarded the
case of Ireland, there was another conside-
ration which the House was bound to consider.
whiskey was the great drink of Ireland, but a
eery small proportion of that whiskey was
Dade from malted corn. The advantage which
arose from the malting of barley was that
,t was deprived of its poisonous qualities. As only
100,000 gallons were distilled from barley so prepared,
't followed of course that the mass of the Irish popula-
tion drink a poisonous instead of a wholesome liquor.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Two brothers, named George and Phiko Reeves, were
trought before Mr. Alderman Johnson for final exa-
mination, charged with stealing about 801. in notes
and gold, the property of William John Baynham, who
keeps a coffee-shop and lodging-house in Poppin's-court,
Fleet street.
At the previous hearing it was shown that on the 25th
of November Mr. Baynham drew out a deposit of 100/.
from the London and Westminster Bank. The 50/. note,
No. 2,242 B. N., was amongst the notes. The two pri-
soners, who had been lodging at his house about three
weeks, absconded on the following day, and it was im-
mediately discovered that a cash-box within a trunk in
the landlord's room had been opened, and the 50/. note,
and other monies and notes stolen. After the lapse of
three months Mr. Baynham acciCentally met the two
runaway lodgers in Great George-street, Westminster.
they ran different ways, but he followed and secured
'olio of them, the prisoner George. At the station-house
he admitted the crime, and said he had secreted the
50/. note in the hollow of a pendulum of a clock which
stood in the kitchen of a puddler at Tipton-hill-top,
near Wolverhampton. He said they had changed the
two 101. notes. _ _ _

Ephraim Joseph, an apprentice to Mr. Roseley, a
jeweller at Southampton, now identified Philip as having
tendered the 501. note produced two days after it was
stolen. The prisoner agreed to give 121. 10s. for a watch,
and offered the note in payment, saying his name was
Philip Hughes, residing at the 'White Horse, Brighton,
but staying at the White Hart, Southampton. Witness
wrote this addretss on the back of the note, at the pri-
soner's dictation. The prisoner said he was nervous,
hut was afterwards persuaded to try his hand at writing,
and wrote the word Philip, but would write no more.
['hey declined taking the note, and said he had better
send his father, to whom he said the note belonged.
Daniel Oliver deposed that on the 2d of December he
was in the service of Mr. Holford, a jeweller, at Wolver-
hampton, and on that day he changed the 50/. note pro-
duced for the prisoner, in payment for some rings and
a brooch. The prisoner Philip was accompanied by a
woman older than himself. When he took the note he
supposed it was a 5/., and his master sant him to Fryer's
Bank to get change. He there trend it was a 50/. note,
and wrote his master's name on the back of it.
The prisoners denied the charge, but did not attempt
to explain their sudden disappearance from the coffee-
shop, or their running away when they met him acci-
dentally.
Mr. Alderman JOUNSON committed them for trial.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A respectable-looking couple, each about 30, were
' charged with creating a disturbance, and causing a mob
to assemble in the public street.
Constable 37 G said be was on duty in the City-road
about six o'clock on the previous evening, when he ob-
served the defendants surrounded by about two hundred
persons—mrn, women, and children. The male defend-
ant held in his arms an infant, the possession of which,
however, was being resolutely disputed by the female,
a ho, he learned, was his " better half," and who, it
bfld 4),•en him

The husband, on being asked what he had to say to
;he charge, replied that a short time since he bad a

disagreement with his wife, and proposed to her a separa-
tion, he undertaking the charge of the children, four in
number, which was agreed upon ; and having been pro-
mised a situation in London; he came up to town, bring-
ing with him the three elder children. He, however,
returned to Norwich, and having got possession of the
infant, got into the railway train, and again proceeded
to London ; but on his arrival at the London termintis,
to his amazement, he was suddenly accosted by his wife,
who he learnt had come up by the same train in another
carriage ; and this was the origin of the complaint made
by the constable.
The infant here exercised its lungs, which manifestly
were of the stentorian order, and,

The MAGISTRATE desired that it should be at once
given to the mother.
The rather reluctantly complied.
Mr. Hermitage, on the part of the wife, said he was
instructed that the husband now cohabited with other
women, and all that the wile required of him was that
he would let her have the childrk n, as her friends would
assist her in their maintenance and education, and he
might then go where he pleased. lie had sold all their
furniture, and taken lodgings in London, where the other
children were ; but in what part could not be ascertained.
The husband said he certainly would tut consent to
give up the other children, unless compelled to du so
by law.
Mr. ARNOLD replied that be had no 'power to compel
him to do so. He had, however, behaved extremely ill,
end all he could do in the matter was, to bind over both
husband and wife to hz.ep the peace towards each other.
The parties. were then accordingly bound in the sum
of 204 each for that purpose.

-7f7AMES.
Five lads, apprentices on board the ships Favourite
and Autumnus, were charged with stealing thirteen
pints of brandy from a cask lying in a quay in the Lon-
don Dock.

From the evidence of White, one of the Thames po-
lice, and Dix, a constable, it appeared that the prisoners
had abstracted the brandy in a mode which is technically
termed " working the pony." It seems that on the pre-
vious day one of then, named Sykes, took one of the
ship's bucl:ets and placed it under the cask. He then
bored a hole in the cask with a gimlet, two of the others,
Furman and Johnston, in the interim keeping a good
look-out in opposite directions for the police. They then
put a spike in the gimlet-hole, and carried the brandy on
board the ship Favourite. The trick was discovered by
White observing the cask breaking, and on examining
it he soon found the spike was not such as a cooper
would use. On searching the ships, part of the brandy
was found concealed in each. The prisoners admitted
the fact; one observing, when called on for his defence,
" I only bored the hole," and the others said, "We did
nothing but look out for the police." They were all
committed for trial on the charge.
HAMMERSMITH.
John Chandler, aged 22, son of a boat-builder near
the High Bridge, Hammersmith, was charged with
having violated Elizabeth Sarah Perriam, a girl of weak
intellect, 17 years cf age.
Mr. Pelham, the solicitor, attended on behalf .of the
prisoner.
The evidence of the girl in question and other-wit-
nesses was conclusive as to the commission of the's°.
fence, the witnesses all stating that the evidence of the
girl was precisely to them what she had stated st the
court.
The prisoner, who by the advice of his solicitor de-,
clined saying anything, was fully committed to Newgate
for trial en the capital charge.

GREENWICH.
Edward Cook and Henry Cook, of No. 31, Piccadilly,
Esqrs., officers in the Scotch Fusilier Guards, were
charged with assaulting James White, constable
No. 18 of the railway police; Beaumont Hotharn, Esq.,
of Hertford-street, May-fair, an officer of the Grenadier
Guards, was charged with assaulting Mr. William Casey,
railway inspector;. and the Hon. Spencer Lyttelton, of
17, St. James's-place, St. James's, with assaulting the
raid Inspector Casey, of the Greenwich branch of the
South Eastern Railway, while jn the execution of his
duty.
Constable White, No. 18 of the railway police.
deposed that he was on duty at the Greenwich terminus
on Wednesday evening, at twenty minutes to fed
o'clock. He vitas standing at the second-class turn-
stile; saw the two first named prisoners, with pre°
other persons, go up to the first-class turnstile, swore
of whom passed through, but one of them, J;lenrf
Cook, jumped over the turnstile, and on being called
upon to return, deliver up his ticket, and pass through.
as others did, he refused to comply. Witness followed
prisoner, and urged him to return and pass through id
a proper manner. Prisoner said he had a ticket, but did
not show it. Witness receiveel much abuse, was hustled.
and Edward Cook struck him violently in the face several
times, which caused much pain for several hours after.
He took him into custody with much difficulty, the other
prisoner trying to rescue him by passing his arms across
the neck of a itness, and holding him down. There
was a vast number of passengers waiting to go by the
trains, two of which went off without filling, owing to
the great confusion that ensued, witness and the other
officers being prevented from doing their duty.
Witnesses having been examined,
The defendants called the Hon. Mr. Littelton (who
%No stood charged in the same transaction) as a witness'
who stated that himself and friends had been dining in
Greenwich—had return-tickets. They went to the first'
class station—he headed the party, presented his ticket:
and went in. A dispute arose between the Cooks add
the check-taker. Saw Henry Cook collared by White
the constable—a scuffle ensued—could not speak to blocs
—seemed general and indiscriminate confusion.
Edward Cock said he had no evidence to offer in
defel-ice.

Mr. TRAILL said the original offence appeared to havo
been committed by H. Cook. The conduct of both
Cooks appearing inexcusable, he should fine each in the
full penalty of 5/. for the assaults. If the advice of the
police-sergeant had been followed all would have been
well.
Beaumont Hotham, Esq., and the Hon. Mr. Lyttelton
were next charged with assaulting Mr. Inspector Casey,
of the Railway Police, while in the discharge of his duty.
After hearing evidence
Mr. TRAILL said there was nothing against Mr. Lit"
telton if he had not mixed himself up with the case ;
should dismiss the charge as against him, but shoulu
fine Mr. Hotham 40s.
The fines being paid the prisoners bowed and retired*