The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-18 00:00:00

the consumer was not at all interested in a gentility of '
rum hi n
g home pre icntti roonde ucoedn i nthleiecuonotfraaryrtahnetiitnytroota spiritseti
(oiff
a more seductive and deleterious spirit, instead of being
d u
an advanta;e to the consumer, would have altogether an
opposite tendency. He should not object to see the dis-
tilling interest of this country diminished by the spread
of temperance, or by the duty being raised so high as to
lessen the consumption of spirits. In 1846 the consump-
tion of rum in Ireland was only 74,000 gallons; last year,
with a differential duty of 9d., it was 176,000 gallons.
It was gradually increasing; and, should this measure
become law, the people in Ireland would acquire a
taste for that spirit, to their manifest injury. The
Irish distiller, in particular, had great cause for com-
plaint, when he saw that his interest as a manufac-
turer was sacrificed to the carrying of a measure pro-
peunded by Government, which had not given Satisfac-
tion to any party—sacrificed, too, in the teeth of the
leaders and friends of the West Indi eparty, whose
opinions were decidedly against the Government mea-
sure. If the measure were one of a comprehensive na-
ture, carrying out the principles of free trade and
.theapening an article of consumption, it should have
his decided support ; but when he found that a measure
which had been universally condemned in the House and
out of it was to be made the pretext for ruining the
distillers—for such he believed would be its effect—he
must oppose such a measure. There had been something
like a breach of faith with the distillers, for last year
the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that a protec-
tive duty of 6d. a gallon.would only be a fair one. Not•
withstanding this, after receiving various representations
from the distillers, he had made the differential duty
equal to 9d., and the distillers looked upon that as
a settlement.—(Hear, hear.) The distillers were
ready to carry out the principles of free trade in refe-
rence to their own trade as well as others ; and Mr.
Currie, an eminent distiller of the metropolis,
whose evidence the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed
to have overlooked, had stated that in his manufactory
40,000 quarters of grain were annually worked up into
800,000 gallons of British spirits ; but that if the Excise
restrictions were removed he could work up annually
96,000 quarters of grain, and produce his spirits at Is.
tkl. per gallon, the average price, according to the Right
Hon. Gentleman, being 2s. Hence, the restrictions were
equivalent to an increase of 6d. a gallon in the price.
He and other Irish representatives had been much dis-
appointed in the course taken by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman : he therefore felt it his duty to oppose this mo-
tion. It was proposed, in the first place, to make an al-
lowance for the malt duty paid by the distillers ; but it
should be known that scarcely any malt spirits were
manufactured in Ireland, malt was little used in the dia-
-1 tilleries except in Scotland. In Ireland the quantity of
malt used by the raw grain distiller was nearly double
that used by the raw grain distillers in this country ;
and 2iq. a .gallon would be more like an
equivalent for it than the lid. proposed by the
Right Honourable Gentleman. Atter a careful exami-
nation of the various calculations placed before the
West India Committee, he found the allowance of a penny
a gallon for plant was a fair one; and that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had entirely overlooked. For the alter-
ations between distilling and brewing which now neces-
sarily took place, and the consequent loss of saccharine
matter, an allowance of 2d. per gallon at least ought to
be made. As to the rectification, he believed the dis-

for their production, in accordance with the additional
P_ thee of the commodity from which it was manufac-
tured. He did not admit these claims to increased pro-
tection on the ground of their adoption of the
system of rectifying their spirits. That extra
expense in England would not exceed 21d. per gallon;
and further consideration convinced him that he was
right in the rejection of these ,claims on that ground.
In the same way he had resisted the claim of the raw
grain distillers on account of the alteration of the corn
clutY• With respect to the malt duty, they claimed be-
cause a certain quantity of malt was indispensably ne-
cessary to enable them to distil from raw grain ; the
proportion was 1-11th of malt to .11-11ths of raw grain.
To that extent they were entitled to some allowance, in
consideration of the duty paid on the malt so indispen-
sably used. They claimed lid. per gallon, but lid. per
gallon was a little more that' they were actually en-
titled to. The next claim rested on the decreases, for
which they asked 3i-d. per gallon; and this was the
amount put by, Mr. Kaley in his evidence before the
Select Committee—the same amount as was allowed on
rums; but a Parliamentary paper to which that gentle-
man had referred showed .that in Ireland the deficiency
allowedduty on spirits warehoused in Iredlan had only
been equal to one farthing 15.100ths per gallon, while
on that warehoused, in Scotland the allowance was
56-looths of a farthing per gallon. These figures dif-
fered in a very, degree from the statement he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made in 1847. That
Statement gave,33-100ths of ld. for Scotland, and for
Irelandaxactljilhe same—a farthing and 15-100ths of a
penny. With regard to England there was not the
same means of drawing an accurate conclusion ; but it
was evident that if an allowance per gallon were made
equal to :what he had stated, it would to an equivalent
for-the whole loss from decreases to which spirits were
subject in the 'warehouse. He had been very anxious to
allow the duty to be.levied on the spirits coming out of
the warehouse instead of at the worm's end, as at pre-
sent ; but he• was sorry to [say the risk to the revenue
Would be to such an amount that he should not now be
justified in-incurring it. As between the distiller and
the revenue this alteration would incur the risk of losing
100,000/. of duty, which amount would be sacrificed
by only levying the duty when .the spirit came out of
bond, instead- of. levying it at the worm's end.
So far as protection against colonial spirits was
concerned, if he gave the British distiller id.
a gallon—the utmost they themselves asked—this
would be more than an ample protection for any loss
they might incur by paying the duty at the worm's
end. Taking lid. as an equivalent tor the malt duty,
and fd. as an equivalent for what they would gain by
being allowed to pay duty on the spirit coming out of
the warehouse—this would be infinitely more advanta-
geous to them than au alteration in the mode of levying
the duty ; for in. that .case there, would clearly be no
reason whatever for putting an .additional duty on colo-
nial rum. As in England spirits were not warehoused
at all, as.s,- large, quantity of . Scotch spirits, and about
three-fourths of the. Irish, were. sent into this country
without being warehoused, it was, quite clear that a
greater benefit would be conferred on, the home distiller
by giving him this protection than by altering the mode
of levying the duty. He now came to the last item, the
excise restrictions. A most formidable list of those re-
strictions had been .made out by the Noble Lord oppo-
site (Lord G. Bentinck) in his resolutions ; but, viewing
them in the intelligible, business-like way of pounds,
ahillings,tand pence, they did. not run up to an amount
which -need alarm the distiller.—(hear.) Various
documente Stated the cost of. manufacturing British
spirits et about 2s. the gallon, before the duty was paid ;
of this, Is. 6d. was the cost of the raw material, and 6d.
the cost .of the manufacture. He did not deny that the
excise restrictions .interfered with the manufacture to
some extent, but it was to an extent much less than was
commonly believed ; and, in some instances, that inter-
ference had not been without utility for the protection of
the distiller himself. Be that as it might, the supposition
that out of the cost of manufacture, 6d. the gallon, more
than one-third, was due to excise restrictions, was a sup-
position that no one acquainted with the expenses of
production would readily receive. But that calculation
was not borne cut by the information before the House.
'Gentlemen in stating their own case always took the
Most favourable view of it ; and there were some remark-
able instances of this in the ese of the distillers' claims.
To estimate • the decreasaes at 34d. per gallon,
when he had shown that they did not amount to
id., was a pretty. strong proof of the partial view which
gentlemen took of their own case. Two years ago a
statement was put into his hand in which the distillers
themselves estimated the expenses of rectification at 6d.;
but by their statement given before the Committee this
year the estimate had dwindled down to 3d. Two or
three • years before, their estimates had been 10d. then
Ed. Hence, he was warranted in saying that statements
made for the purpose of making out a
case wee hoot
made with all the accuracy that was desir.ld
in 'his hand a statement of a claim made on the Board of
Excise for loss by decreases on four casks of spirits im
ported into this country from Leith, on the 27th March
• last ;• and the amount claimed was id. and 53-000ths of
s farthing per gallon. The Chairman of Excise was a
littleeastonished at this, and was led to expect that the
instance was rather a singular one. He accordingly
• took the quantities of decrease on certain other casks
' imported by the same parties (Messrs. Frisk, Browning,
and Co.) about the same time; and he found that upon
• twenty casks of Scotch spirits imported from Leith on
the 23d of March, four days before the other, the actual
loss amounted to 19-100ths of a farthing per gallon;
and. upon twenty casks imported four days later, the 31st
March, the his, calculated in the same way, was
43-100ths of a farthing—in both cases infinitely less
than the average as estimated by the chairman of Ex-
cise.- That estimate had been formed on 9,591 casks of
Sioneh and .Irish.spirits imported into London from the
April;.lB47, to the sth April, 1848, and amounted to
id. and 42-100ths per gallon-50-100ths less than the
average formerly stated by the ehai, man of the excise.
He did not deny that the loss might be as stated on the
four casks imported on the 27th March, as there were
particular circumstances connected with that importa-
tion; but it showed how little single statements could be
relied on for forming a general average.
Lord G. BENTINCK—Hear, hear. Especially with
the excise.
Thee HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
estimat of the chairman of excise had been more than
borne out by the fact ; he had not stated the case so
he might
favourably to his own views as
have done.
The proper course was to take a sufficient number of facts
whereon to found anainduction, induction, and then the conclusion
wciuld probably be right.—(Hear, hear.) In this way
the Noble Lord opposite would have and that the con-
' elusion he had drawn from .that single cargo con
t
borneeout by the general average. No man could sup-
pose that, of the whole cost of the manufacture of spirits
• —6d. a gallon—more than one-third was due to excise
restrictions. But Mr. Patrick Chambers, a distiller, of
Wishaw, had sent in a statement, which appeared at
page 83 of the report of the Noble Lord's Committee ;
he was a highly respectable man, to whose statement
'credence might be given.
Mr. FAGAN--Hear, hear.
The CHANCELLOR of. the EXCHEQUER was
glad to. bear his Hon. Friend behind him bear testimony
• ' to the character of ,Mr. Chambers, whose statement was
- the more entitled to reliance in this case, because it had
• been put in for another purpose. He stated the quan-
tity of barley consumed, the quantity of proof spirits pro-
- duced, the whole items of the expense of manufacturing
spirits, anti the result of his calculation was that the net
- charge, including the expense of making malt, amounted
to lid. per gallon. He had no motive for exaggerating
that statement either on one side or the other; there-
.' • fore it might be taken as a fair statement of the cost at
which spirits might be manufactured in Scotland. Could
any One believe that more than one-half of that cost,
• e•iainely, twopence, was produced by the excise restric-
▪ -tioni? Nevertheless, he proposed to allow 2d. a gallon for
• ' the whole claim in respect to these restrictions; and, tale-
. ingthe eest of thomanufacture at 6d. a gallon—still more
• if taken at std., which he believed would be nearer the
truth—it was- perfectly incredible that the cost of produc-
tion could 'be enhanced at the rate of 2d. a gallon by the
Excise restrictions. • He saw no other grounds on which
'•.- the distillers could claim protection against colonial
' • spirit'. In awarding 4d. per gallon as a differential duty
to countervail the legislative disadvantages under which
• the distillers and producers of British spirits were placed
- be conceived he had given them a full equivalent. Look
• ing at the relative prices of the two articles, the differ-
ence-was not greater than would be compensated by the
'••• protection ,he proposed. In the draft report of the Noble
'Lord, et page 174, he took the average cost price of or-
dinary whisky at 2s. 30., and of rum at 2s. 40., and
• theprices of the other varieties ran very near each other.
With these prices there was no reason to suppose that
the English distiller would be ruined by the importation
- • • of rum at a duty of 4d. The whole amount of colonial
spirits which had been introduced into this country last
• year was , only three millions of gallons, out of a total
consumption of upwards of twenty-six millions and a
r" • half; and and no doubt there had been.an increased con-
': • • snmption of rum last year, owing to the deficiency of the
• barley crop. But he did not suppose that, in future
years, there would be any such increase in the consump
•t • tion of . rum as to produce any. sensible effect on the
large mass of British spirits consumed in this country.
With regard to the question of revenue, he assumed
• the loss at about 62,000 L; and he confessed he calcu-
• lated-upon an increased consumption sufficient to pro•
duce that amount of revenue.- An additional consump-
•tion of 150+000 gallons in England would do it, or of
3004000 gallons-in. Scotland, or of 400,000 in Ireland,
' supposing the increase to take place entirely in one
country. . It was not likely that the increase would take
• • place wholly either in one country or another ; but he
thought he might fairly assume an increase of about
200,000 gallons on,the total consumption. He hoped it
el' would be more, for the sake of the colonists ; and a re-
t (Auction in a differential duty always operated in favour
• • of 'the consumer. • :He believed the interests of both
would be coriSulted.by themeasure he had proposed; and
he thought-bet-had. shown Ats- any person who would
-1 • ~ considec tha subject, that ,in maintaining a diffe.
rential duty of, 4d. per gallon between British and colo-
nial pita spirits eudequate compensation was given to the
• ;BritisbAistiller, in, respect of the malt duty, the de-
creases,: the excise restrictions, and the other disadvan-
- • -rages under which be alleged he was placed by the ex-
isting bawd. . With regard to the loss which would be
"""----10-.Aneed iutlie.,colonies....or._ in this country, he did not
profess to go into that at all ; his principle was, as far as
. legislative..enfictment was concerned, to allow the pro-
' dtneeteeen: the ;colonies and in this country to come into
competition. oft equal, terms. That, he believed, would
be effected by the proposal he submitted to the Com-
- mittee ; and he would now conclude by placing in the
••• hinds of the Chairman a resolution, the effect of which
was to substitute for the present differential duty of 9J.

where of course it was impossible to test its accuracy.
`''here Mr. Wood, therefore, gave an opinion, he ac-
knowledged himself that his evidence was worth very
little; whilst where he spoke as to matters of fact it
was clear that that evidence was worth still less.—
(Hear, hear.) The preamble of the Channel Islands'
Act of 1845, framed by the Right Honourable Mem-
ber for Cambridge, fully admitted the principle of
the right of the British distiller to peculiar pro-
tection, in order to countervail the various burdens
placed by the excise duties on that industry. The Hon.
Member for Dublin had stated that, in acceding to the
repeal of the corn-laws the Irish Members had involved
their country in an annual burden of three millions
sterling, and therefore he claimed mercy to the Irish in-
terest on the present question; but the Irish Members
bad been fully and distinctly warned, that did they as-
sent to that measure, they would be among the first to
suffer from its operation, and therefore they were en-
titled to no commiseration for the injury they had wil-
fully brought upon themselves and upon their country.
As to the West Indians. the pretended boon would turn
out little, if anything, better than a mockery. They
were there to do justice—not to favour one party or
another, but fairly to assess the duties as was bestadapted
t:) the interests of the country. Give the colonists com-
pensation, but not at the expense of the Irish and Scotch
distillers, but at the expense of the slave dealers, who
were at present reaping all the profits of the sugar trade
of this country.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that if the objections to the
Government proposal were on account of the excise re-
gulations, his opinion was that those latter were if any-
thing too favourable to the British distillers —(Hear.)
He denied the extent of hardship complained of by that
body as arising from the excise. In some cases the
excise might be an inconvenience but in others it was an
advantage, and in no case more so than that of spirits.
It gave a great additional protection to the manufacturer
against the frauds of his servants.—(Hear.) The heavy
penalties had been much dwelt upon by witnesses before
the Committee, but they were seldom inflicted, being,
generally speaking, merely held up in terrorem to protect
the honest portion of the manufacturers. When the
grievances of the excise on spirits were spoken of, let them
consider the case of soap. The excise was lid. on hard,
and Id. on soft soap, while the duty on colonial soap im•
ported into this country was precisely the same, and yet
he never had heard an instance of a British
manufacturer complaining of the competition. In Ire-
land, also, there was no soap duty, nor was there any
restriction on the manufacture, neither was there any
countervailing duty on its importation into this country.
And yet, what was the consequence? Did Ireland over-
flow the country with soap?—(Loud laughter.) The
tact was, that England .sent 6,000,000 cats. of soap to
Ireland every year.—(Hear, hear.) And this, notwith-
standing those tremendous excise restrictions of which
so much had been said. He, therefore, excluded from
consideration any allowance to the distillers on the
ground of excise restrictions.—(Erear, hear.) The next
point to which the Noble Lord had alluded was the
question of decrease; and hero he must express his dis-
sent from the Noble Lord's estimate of the value of the
evidence given by the Chairman of the Excise. The Noble
Lord attached no value to that gentleman's evidence
because it had been given with diffidence.
Lord G. BENTINCK.—What I said was, that I had
read the evidence of the Chairman of the Excise Board,
in which he expressed himself diffidently as to the re-
strictions, but most positively as to matters of fact, and
that in matters of fact he was wrong in the proporiion
of four to one.—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN had understood the Noble Lord to
express himself as attaching no importance to the Chair-
man's opinion. For his part, he should attach the more
value to a man's evidence who expressed himself with
diffidence and caution.—(Hear, hear.) But to return to
the decrease. The differences of opinion which had
b( en exhibited on this point arose from oneparty relying
on an isolated case, and the other taking a fair average
spreading over a reasonable number of years. What he
(Mr. Goulburn) contended was, that taking a fair ave-
rage of years—the allowance made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, namely—three farthings a gallon, was a
fair and reasonable allowance for decreases.—(Hear,
hear.) He therefore saw no reason for opposing the
Government proposal on that ground. If there was
one duty more than another with which the Excise au-
thorities ought to be satisfied, it was the excise paid on
spirits in England: it gave them no trouble, being
paid by eight
ni
rihvagnneoel rumfecnili
eaontsnthjmhot
utaeho:.
pordopoyeoutruhttootsirhteoitpei
0.
eotl houses;
competitor.
proposal
cot.
oahohl ahlolkenodi
nTwemndi
keep
ptralueiyitli
ihtihel
Nobleppei
sat
srrrhgtosibdwdv Scotch
uuenaoitcesshtLeaetct
b. theolrewoedoi
roreß.
ngroleaerbote:sefieafmtcta onlytat
competitorsnhea opinion,i
odldes,,
oversa6tplt
ahho4nr
taee tiolstevaoei
his
ohi
tvtlees.
hl ChairmanaodepncGu
eotbladvantageodarleovg agneet
r
r
out of the market, he could hardly be injured by a sum
of 64,0001. conceded to the colonial producer.—(Hear,
hear.) He should not further detain the House, save by
expressing his full concurrence in the justice of the pro-
posal which Government had submitted.
Mr. FORBES regretted that he could not give his
support to the proposal of her Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. FAGAN intimated that as his object had been
obtained by the discussion which had taken place, he
would not call for a division.
The CHAIRMAN—Then, will any Hon. Gentleman
move that I leave the chair?
Mr. FAGAN—I will move that you leave the chair.
—(Cries of " Divide.")
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ayes 75
Noes l6B
Majority —93
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL declared his intention o
giving every opposition to the main resolution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
his proposition would give the Irish distiller more pro-
tection than the colonial dictill.r_

tillers were quite correct in estimating their loss at 31d.
a gallon under the present system of charging the duty
at the worm's end. The Right Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken in supposing that no rectification took place in
Ireland; the Government distillers distilled twice in
in order to produce a good article, and that was a species
of rectification. That produced a loss of another penny,
making in all 7-id. per gallon. On the subject of the
the decreases, the Right Hon. Gentleman had frankly
stated to the Irish deputation that there would be no diffi-
culty whatever on that head, and he stopped all discusson.
The justice of the claim was so evident on the face of
it, that he could not do otherwise. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had admitted that the West Indian distillers
obtained a protection of 3id. through not being charged
the decreases ; hence, the British distillers were quite
justified in claiming that amount, even if the loss on the
decreases did not reach so much. But the Right Hon.
Gentleman had made a mistake in his calculation. The
mode of gauging adopted when the spirit came from the
worm's end differed materially from the mode of gaug-
ins them when they came out of bond ; and hence the
miscalculation. One of the most intelligent distillers in
Ireland stated that upon an aggregate quantity of
225,780 gallons of spirits shipped to England, the total
deficiency was above 4,500 gallons, on which the duty
was 1,8581. 105., and this they had to pay in full. He
contended that the sum of lid. a gallon was
only a fair allowance for decreases. If the Right
Honourable Gentleman persisted in maintaining
the view he now took, he ought at least, for the sake
of the home distillers, to keep the differential
duty at 9d. Mr. Wood had stated before the Commit-
tee that he had no means of contradicting the state-
ment of the distillers as to excise restrictions, though he
argued that where they claimed 3id. a gallon for de-
creases, only id. was due, and that therefore their claim
for excise restrictions ought to be reduced in the same
proportion. He admitted that 6d. a gallon was a fair
protection, but argued that the excise restrictions ought
to be fixed much lower than the distillers estimated
them. Following out the calculations of the Chairman
of the Excise and himself, the distilling interest in Ireland
and Scotland would be seriously injured by this measure.
According to the report of the Noble Lord (Lord G.
Bentinck), the sincere and able advocate of the West
Indian interests, that body had no just cause of com-
plaint against the present duties. He should, therefore,
move as an amendment that the Chairman report pro-
gress and ask leave to sit again.
Captain JONES thought the measure of the Govern-
ment would prove extremely injurious to Ireland. He
should, therefore, support the amendment moved by the
lion. Member for Cork.
Mr. REYNOLDS said it was the opinion of
the Irish distillers that if the differential duty
was reduced from 9d. to 4d. they would be almost
annihilated. He thought the Government would
not at least have gone below 6d., and that
they would allow for waste and leakage. He under-
stood the Right Hon. Gentleman to say to the Irish
deputation that there would be no insuperable objection
on his own part to make the duty 6d. He thought that
a great advantage was given to the colonial grower over
the native grower by this measure, for it was after all
an agricultural question—one between oats and sugar.
The Irish and Scotch manufacturers had intolerable
disadvantages to contend against in the Excise regula-
tions. The allowance to the colonial importer was 3d.
for leakage and natural evaporation, while the allow-
ance to the Irish distiller was only a farthing and a
traction of a farthing. He was a free-trader, but he
was opposed to the application of free trade as contained
in the present measure to Ireland.—(Laughter.) The
Irish Members who voted for free trade in corn, and
the Irish people who were in favour of that measure,
acted with the utmost disinterestedness, for that mea-
sure was not for the benefit of Ireland. Ireland had,
therefore, a claim upon the consideration of the House.
—(Laughter.) She had been called the right hand of
England; let them beware that they did not convert
athhdo_utghhatt
hertha
she would be better without them.
tinthwe caololenfitesawrmer.e—a(dLrlugduplaoungthhteerc.o)untHrye.,
for the re•
h
it in that aspect. He differed from the
Mr. BARELY looked upon the present proposition as
part of the general measure brought forward
Noble Lord, who
lief' of the West India interest, and he would deal wit
deserved so much credit from the West India body for
his exertions in their behalf, with respect to this part of
the question. He could only account for the Noble
Lord's opinion on this subject by supposing, not that he
loved the West India interest less, but that be loved cer-
tain interests at home more. It was evident from what
had been proved before the Committee, how much the
price of rum would be under the 4d. duty; and he would
be touch surprised if its effect would not be to give great
benefit to the West India body. As a West India owner,
he would consider his situation much more desperate if
they did not derive considerable advantage from the
change of duty. The position of the home dis-
tillers had been much improved of late years, so that
they had less to fear from competition than formerly.
Ile thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
completely cut away the ground from the Scotch
distillers. If they were able to compete with the Eng-
lish distillers in the English market they had a very
poor case indeed against the introduction of colonial
spirits. In a pamphlet lately published, called " Ob-
servations on the Evidence before the Committee on
Coffee and Sugar Planting," by a Scotchman, it was
stated that from 150,0001. to 900,0001. was paid to five
or six Scotch distillers as hush money. The same ob-
servations applied to Ireland, so that the consumers of
this country not only paid the distiller here, but they
also paid for keeping the Irish and Scotch hisky out
of the market. 'The Chairman of the Excise, who was
the best authority on this subject, said that 4d. would be
a fair differential duty, and he hoped the Government
would not be induced to set aside an authority of so
much weight. The colonies would watch the conduct of
the Government in dealing with the question of the
duty of rum, and would test the sincerity of their free-
trade opinions by the manner in which they dealt with
it. If the colonists now saw free-traders linked together
in support of a Government monopoly they would come
to a conclusion that that body was a very selfish one.
He accepted the present measure as an instalment of
what was due to the colonists.
Lord G. BENTINCK assured the House that he had
Hon. Gentle-
never heard any complaint from Norfolk barley-growers
on the subject of the spirit duties. The
i •
Gentle-
man appeared so credulous about the matter of hush
money, that he really did not wonder at the rest of his
arguments. When the Hon. Gentleman declaredthe Chairman of Excise was the only person w o gave
that
reliable evidence betore the Committee, he probably was
not aware that Mr. John Wood had himself declared
that what he had stated was mere matter of opinion,
W d took
and that it ought to be taken by the Committee with
oocon-
siderable deduction on that account. Mr.
all the distillers of' England and of Scot-
statements of
upon himself to arraign the evidence and impeach the
land, lie declared that
people as high in station and
character as himself—men whose veracity he could not
pretend to question—were to be dealt with on the prin-
ciple of the rule of three as far as their evidence
resuectng decreases was concerned.—(Hear, hear.)
This was the Whig Chairman's insolent way
of treating gentlemen and men of unimpeachable
integrity. But in reference to this very evidence
of Mr. John Wood: oa the subject of decrease that in
dividual was obliged subsequently to amend his own
evidence, and to admit that he had himself' erred in the
truth to the extent of 75 per cent. Who,. then, was to
be trusted—the trade, or this Chairman of Excise ?
(Protectionist cheers.) But the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer made another statement respecting the excise
gauge, with a view to prove that the trade wore wrong
and the customs right. But why had. not Mr. Wood
made that statement to the Committee, where its truth
or falsehood could have been fairly tested? No, the
statement was reserved for the • Iloilo or Commons,

Boyd. John

After a few words from Mr. CHRISTIE and Mr. P.
HOWARD,
Mr. MAUNSELL moved that the Chairman report
progress.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL suggested to his Honourable
nobhm3taa,
reottaet.
iaereadvarml
res3yid,:'
gweeerbprhbrhei
Friend, that at this period of the session he would not
attempt to defeat the Government by adjournment, but
take the sense of the House on the main question.
Mr. LABOUCHERE hoped also that that course
would be adopted. The whole subject had been fully
gone into before a Select Committee. He hoped that a
course which used to be the exception, but which had
l
in. It was often complained that the Government were
not active enough in passing the measures they brought
forward, but if constantly met by that mode of opposi-
tion it was impossible for them to do so.—(Hear.)
Mr. KEOGH thought the motion of the Hon. Mem-
e
uruspcsiatephhii
rneoaaowtedshnnraeodcuatt
u.eetni
ltl
importance
obehTapaneretoshflooooiretetfrnt
yhavebat
eenheb,
deeshaeieEedusttto,
xtone;icotetrhhhmnbo
Exchequer,
eueeqdsfndtueoe.
hti
occasion
eerow:ai If
con-
trary,
lhoiuii
anesi
would
o hadf a
induced
hdeudeeeEndXi
denied
mHt
that
toaQt
bringUaEn yR s
for-
wardure-
peated
thetCh et:
hope had been held out tolhe deputation alluded to. He
thought that the further consideration of the question
ought to be adjourned.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. KEOGH
and Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL,
Mr. BARKLY said that, in justice to the rum trade,
the Irish Members ought to suffer the question of the
t;ifferential duties to be settled as speedily as possible,
for the uncertainty that had prevailed so long had been
s
very injurious to those who dealt in rum.
beene
tcuepohai
which
mmrtrarbtioeudwireelpsarNonreaeobasaui
dsnisoell
tgkitemiooiEtihtnnsirnoototLetenhsiwnesnLtoserfoohudoetotl
facih e
rule,
would not be persevered
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN urged the Hon. Member for
Limerick to persevere in his motion for an adjournment
of this question.
Col. DUNNE said that the evil which the present
measure would inflict in Ireland was so great that, not-
withstanding he regretted the loss of time that would
occur, he must urge the Hon. Member for Limerick to
persist
.
of the representatives of Ire-
reason for wishinglrish
he
questiondeba e two
was
se
hardejuoguhrtn eel;
in which
was because everythe
House during the absence
land•
wstasoblemre;
the west
vation for there was not an Irish Member. on
the interests of the
India 'Committee, notwithstanding
truLthordinGt.hßeEHNTenl.NeCuKd
Gadamlliatntetdmthematbetrela
G. B ken 113 C )
distillers of that country were infvotlhveedHionnt.hme
Member
riofnor
Limerick persisted in his motion he (Lords
discussed by that Committee. I
thought that both the Irish and Scotch distillers hid a
claim to a postponement of the debate.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN,
Mr. F. S. BUTLER denied that the deputation of
Irish Members had waited on the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer with any dishonourable motives, and urged the
adjournment of the debate on a question of much more
grave importance than some Hon. Members seemed to
suppose, on the ground that so many Hon Members were
absent in the discharge of paramount duties at the as-
sizes in Ireland.
The Committee then divided on the amendment that
the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit
again, when there appeared—
For the amendment • • 4B
Against it 127
Majority -79
Col. DUNNE then moved as a further amendment
that the Chairman do now leave the chair,
The Committee again divided, when there appeared—
of
factious.—(Laughter.)
oMwuisat.jh_ooro(i
For the amendment 4B
Against it 125
ty
islveetrieeedmispeoisuetde
tthoebHe —77
Mr. CALLAGHAN denied that the Irish Members
at
ugh
havingt er
)conrisueltheidm any
other Member as to the course to be pursued.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no
wish to accuse Honourable Members of being factious;
but, the question having been discussed for five hours, an
Honourable Member opposite had just pointed out that
at one period there were barely forty Members present.
It was not fair for Honourable Gentlemen, who did not
choose to be in their places at the proper time, subse-
queutly to oppose the progress of a measure on the
ground that it had not been properly discussed.
Lord G. BENTINCK said the House was not so
utterly destitute of speakers when the Honourable Mem-
ber for Leominster rose as that Hon. Gentleman ap •
peared to suppose, for he (Lord G. Bentinck) bad risen
to address the House at the same time.—(llear.)
Mr. CARDWELL said that he, out of a feeling of re-
spect for the opinion of the House, had abstained from
addressing it upon this subject. For if they were all to
speak, they would go on speaking for evermore, and
the progress of public business would be very much im-
peded. The West India interest was suffering exceed-
ingly. Their speeches would do it very little good,
while passing the Bill would do it a great service.
Mr. MACGREGOR addressed the House amidst
shouts of continued laughter, which. arose in some mea-

Brown, W.

Butler. P. S.

Clay, Jliles

a duty of 4d. per gallon. -
The CHAIRMAN having- read the r: solution at
length,
Mr. FAGAN said the proposition now made differed
materially from that which the Right Hon. Gentletnun
had himself made on a former occasion. He did not
think this question turned on4enefiVto the consumer;

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY is,

sure from the peculiar manner in which the Hon. Member I
held his hat behind his back. He said that the business t
ot the House had been very much delayed by the long
speeches which had been made from the opposite
benches (the Protectionist). He was most anxious that
a termination should be at once put to the discussion.
Colonel DUNNE did not give his vote from any fac-
tious feeling of opposition. There had not been a thin-
ner attendance ot Members than was usually the case
when an Irish question was discussed, and he could
vouch, at all events, for the fact that there were plenty
of Members willing to address the House. One of the
chief reasons that he desired a postponement was, be-
cause he expected the return of the Irish Members who
were absent at the assizes.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I cannot agree with the
Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. lam far from
imputing any factious motives either to him or to any
one else. I appeal to them on the ground of public con-
venience ; and although they may think they are justi-
fied in the course which they are pursuing, yet it is quite
impossible that this, which is the most important busi-
ness, should be deferred because Members happen to be
absent—(Hear, hear)—because the Irish Members hap-
pen to be at the assizes. I heard it insisted upon, that
this debate should be adjourned. I am quite ready to
do so, provided that when the House meets at twelve
o'clock this day, we go on with this Bill instead of the
Highways Bill, as has been already arranged. I must
go on, I cannot consent to postpone the question until
the Irish Members return from assizes, and we must go
on with the question until we get through it.
Mr. DUNCAN—Perhaps they would find themselves
to-day in the very same predicament as they were now
placed. The Irish Members would not have returned.
He trusted that the Noble Lord would persevere.
Mr. ANSTEY'S reason for his opposition was not that
he might prevent the West Indians from receiving this
miserable compensation, but that her Majesty's Ministers
might be compelled to frame their plan without detri-
ment to interest of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) There was
a strong case, not only for an adjournment until to-day,
but even for an adjournment beyond the session.—
(Laughter.) They would afford no relief to the West
Indians, and they would do a great deal of detriment to
the people of Ireland.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place; and on our return we found
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN addressing the House, and
repudiating having ever attended a hole-and-corner
meeting of Irish Members. He would continue to move
adjournments, in order to prevent the measure being
hurried through the House with such indecent haste.
After a few words from Colonel DUNNE,
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL urged the propriety of tak-
ing the division that night. Repeated motions for ad-
journment injured the party which made them.
The gallery was again cleared for a division.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Fors
u favourmed ,of
and the
the r resolution... ol
report
t ion
was the resolution
Against it
tluajsoertihtyeninre
to be received this day.
The West India Islands Relief Bill was read a third
time and passed. _ .7-79
The lordered

The Qualifications and Registration of Electors (Ire-
Land) Bill and the Light Dues Bill were discharged.
'SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had encoun-
tered so many difficulties with respect to this Bill, that
he begged to withdraw it
The order was accordingly discharged.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to Three o'clock
to Twelve o'clock this day.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.:

MONDAY, JULT 17,
RUM, &c., DUTIES.—(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That in lieu of
the Duties now chargeable, &c. : —Whereupon Motion
made, and question put, " That the Chairman do leave the
Chair." The Committee divided :
MINORITY—AYES, 75.
Anstey, Thomas Fox, Richard M. M'Gregor, John:
Archdall, Captain Fuller, A. E. Manners, Lord G.
Baldock, E. H. • Galway, Viscount Masterman, John
Bateson, T. Gasltell, J. M. - Monsen. William
Bentinck, Lord G. Gordon, Admiral Morgan, 0.
Bentinck, Lord H. Gore, W. B. O. Napier, Joseph
Beresford, William Granby, Marquis of Newdegate, N.
Bourke, R. S. Greene. John -, Noel, G. J.
Bouverie, E. P. Grogan, Edward Norreys, Sir D. •
Bremridge, Richard Gwyn, Bowel Nugent, Lord
Broadley, H. Halsey, T. P. O'Brien, Sir Lucius
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hastie, Alexander O'Connell, M. J.
Chichester, Lord J. Henley, J. W. Reynolds, John '
Cole, Hon. H. A. Herbert, H. A. Sadleir, John
Cowan, Charles Flildyard, T. B. Scott, F.
Crawford, W. S. Hodgson, W. N. Scully, Francis
Devereux, John T. Hood, Sir A. Somerset, Captain
Dick. Quintin Hudson, G. Spooner, Richard },
Disraeli, B. Ingestre, Viscount Start, H. G. f
Duncan, George Jones, Captain Sullivan, Michael I
Dunne, F. Y. Keogh, William Tyrrell, Sing. T. I
Emlyn, Viscount Knox, Colonel Wawn, J T.
Farnham, E. B. Lascelles, E. Wodehouse,E. I
Farrer, James Lockhart, W. TELLERS. 1
Ferguson, Sir R. Lowther, Hon. Col. Fagan, William
Floyer, John M'Cullagh , W. T. Forbes, William

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Hertford, July 17.
(Before th© LORD CHIEF BARON.)
CRAWLEY V. HICKSON.

Abdy, T. N.
Acland, Sir T. D.
Adair, K. Shafto
Anson, Colonel
Anson, Viscount
Armstrong, Sir A.
Armstrong, K. B.
Baines, K. T.
Barkly, Henry_

MAJORITY—NOES, 168.
Frewen, C. H. Mostyn, E.
Gladstone, W. E. Ogle, S. C.
Glyn ;G. C. Paget, Lord Claretme
Godson,;Richard Paget, Lord George
Goulburn, Henry Palmerston, ViscotM
Graham, Sir James Parker, John
Greene, Thomas Patten, J. W.
Grenfel , Charles W. Pechell, Captain
Grey, Sir George Pennant, Colonel
Grey, R. W. Perfect, R.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Pigott, Francis
Hall, Sir B. Pilkington, James
Hallyburton, Lord Pinney, W.
Hastie, Archibald Pugh, David
Hawes, Benjamin , Pusey, P.
Hay. Lord J. Itapkael, Alexander
Hayter, W. G. Reid. Colonel ;
Headlam, Thomas Repton, G. W.
Henry, Alexander Ricardo, Osman 1
Hervey, Lord A. Rice, E. R. t
Heywood, James Robartes, T. J. 1
Hobhouse, Sir John Romilly, Sir John t
Hobhouse, T. B. Rumbold, C. B. !
Hodges, T. L. Russell, Lord John
Hogg, Sir J. W. Russell, F. C.
Howard, C. W. Rutherford, A.
Howard, J. K. Sandars, Joseph
Howard, P. H. Seyraer, IL K.
Howard, Sir It. Shell, R. L.
Hutt, William Shelburne, Earl of
Inglis, Sir R. Simeon, John
Jervis, Sir John Somerville, Sir W.
Johnstone. Sir J Spearman. H. J.
JollitTe, Sir W. H. Talbot, C. R.
Kershaw, James Thickness°, R. A.
Labouchere, Henry Thompson, Colon
Lacy, Henry C. Thornely, T. •
Langston, J. H. Tollemache, F. I.
Lascelles, W. S. Towneley, John
Legh, G. C. Townley, R. G.
Lemon, Sir Charles Turner, Edmund
Lewis, G. C. Turner, G. J.
Lindsay, Colonel Tynte, Colonel
Littleton, E. R. Verney Sir Id.
Lockhart, A. E. Vivian, J. H.
Mackinnon, W. Ward, H. G.
M'Taggart, sir ,y, Willcox, Brodie
Marshall, J. G. Williams, John
Matheson, A. Wilson. James
Matheson, Colonel Wilson, Matthew
Mauls, Fox Wood, Sir Charl
Miles, P. W. S. Wood. W. P.
Milner, W. M. Wyld, James
Mitchell, A. T. wyvill. Marmacht e
Moody, C. A. TELLERS.
Morpeth, Viscount Tufhell, Henry
Morris, David Rich, Henry

Baring, Sir F. T.
Bellew, R. M.
Benbow,lJohn

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Hawkins were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Montagu Chambers for the defendant.
Sergeant SHEE, on opening the case, said, the action
was brought to recover compensation for one of the most
grievous injuries that could be inflicted upon a woman—
the breach of a solemn promise of marriage, and it was
peculiarly aggravated when it was accompanied, as in
this instance, by the seduction of the injured party. He
then proceeded to state that the plaintiff was the daughter
of a respectable farmer at Cadwell, on the borders of
Hertfordshire, and the defendant was a cattle-dealer, liv-
ing at Gosmore, a village three or four miles from the plain-
tiff's father's farm. The defendant had been in the habit
of going to the farm occupied by the plaintiff's father
upon business during the commencement of the year
1846, and he very soon began to pay marked attention
to the plaintiff, and in :the month of June of that year
he became a frequent visitor, and was received as the
acknowledged suitor of the plaintiff. The visits were
continued constantly up to January, 1847, when, no doubt
in consequence of an intimation that was made to him by
the plaintiff as to her condition, the defendant all at once
discontinued coming to the farm. During the intimacy
that had existed the defendant had frequently expressed
his intention to marry the plaintiff, both to her father
and her brother, and although the sudden discontinuance
of his visits occasioned souse surprise, yet, as the whole
extent of his misconduct was not then known, no notice
was taken of it, but in the mouth of July following
the family of the plaintiff was thrown into consterna-
tion by the plaintiff being suddenly delivered of a
child, of which it turned out the defendant was the
father. Soon after this took place the defendant
renewed his visits, and frequently attempted to join the
society of the plaintiff, but he never renewed his ho-
nourable offer of marriage, and it appeared pretty clear
that his object at that time was to endeavour to renew
the dishonourable connexion that had subsisted between
them, and that ho had no thought of making her his
wife. The family of the plaintiff, finding the position
of affairs, endeavoured to ascertain from the defendant
whether he had any intention of performing the solemn
obligation he had undertaken, and after making excuses
on the ground that his mother objected to the marriage,
he at length flatly refused to marry the plaintiff, and she
had in consequence been compelled to bring the present
action. Tho Learned Sergeant said that he could not
find in the case any circumstances to justify this pro-
ceeding on the part of the defendant. The young woman
was as respectable by her position in life as the de-
fendant himself. Their ages, too, were not at all
incompatible with each other, the defendant being
forty-eight, and the plaintiff thirty-five ; and it ap-
peared that, without any real cause for so doing,
the defendant had wantonly cast shame and dis-
grace upon the plaintiff; and having effected her ruin,
he now refused to perform the promise of marriage
which, no doubt, alone had induced her to consent to his
wishes. He did not know what excuse would be offered
on behalf of the defendant on this occasion, but with
regard to the assertion made by him when he was first
appealed to by the family, that his mother would not
allow him to marry the plaintiff, it was perfectly ridi-
culous. The defendant was not a child; he was a man
of mature age, and quite competent to decide upon what
was proper to be done in such a matter, and having so-
lemnly promised to marry the plaintiff, it was absurd for
him to decline to perform it on the ground that his mo-
ther would not allow him to do so. The Learned Ser-
geant, in conclusion, said it would be unnecessary for
him to dilate upon the pain and misery that had been cast
upon the plaintiff by the conduct of the defendant; but
he said he was sure that when the jury had heard all the
facts, they would give such an amount of damages as
would to some extent, at all events, afford her a compen-
sation for the wrong she had suffered. The following
evidence was then adduced:—
George Crawley deposed that the plaintiff was his
sister, and they both resided with their father, who
occupied a small farm at Cadwell, in Bedfordshire. In
the year 1846, the family consisted of his sister Hannah,
the plaintiff, his father and mother, witness, and a fe-
male servant. He knew the defendant, who occupied
some land at Gosmore, about four miles from their farm,
and he was also a cattle dealer. A short time prior to
Whitsuntide, 1846, the defendant was in the habit of
coming to their farm on matters of business, and very
soon afterwards he began paying attentions to his sister.
At first he used to come only once a week, in the even-
ing, to visit her, but ho soon came oftener, and he was
frequently with her alone on Sunday mornings while
her father and mother were at chapel, and witness
was engaged about the farm. He was considered
to be courting the plaintiff all this time, and about
a week before Christmas, when all the family were
present, he said that he and Hannah were going
to be married, and he asked witness what he in-
tended to make him a present of upon the occa-
sion. Witness told him that he could not afford
to give him anything, and the same question and answer
were repeated severa times. Witness at length asked
the defendant if he meant what he said, and ho replied
that he did, and witness then said, if they got married,
and should want a cradle, he would make him a present
of one.—(A laugh.) The defendant replied that he
would have something better than that, and witness then
said that if he was determined to marry, what would he
like to have? The defendant replied that he should
like to have a very handsome sofa, and witness said he
would give him one when he was married. The court-
ship went on until Christmas, and shortly after that
period the defendant discontinued coming to the farm
to visit his sister. On the Bth of January, 1847, he met
the defendant in Hitchin-market. He came up to him,
and complained of being very ill, and said that be and
Hannah were going to be married, but that his mother
and sister would not let him marrry Hannah, and that
they were quite distracted at the thought of his doing so.
Mr. HAWKINS—Did he say anything else upon
that occasion ? Witness—Yes. lie said he knew
the disappointment would be the death of him, but that
when ho died he would be sure to leave all his property
to Hannah.—(Laughter.)
Examination continued—He met the defendant again
on the following market day, and he told him ho was no
better.—(Renewed laughter.) He said his heart was
very bad—he wanted to marry Hannah, but his mother
would not let him.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Hewkries—How old ;is defendant? Witness—
Nearly fifty.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. HAwKlNs—And so he said his mother would not
let him get married? Perhaps she thought he was not
old enough.—(Laughter.) Witness—lie only said that
she would not let him, and he told me his heart was so
bad that he thought some day he should drop down
dead.—(Renewed laughter.)
Examination continued—Witness's sister was deli-

Berkeley, Captain
Berkeley, Craven
Birch, Sir Thomas
Bowring, Dr.

Boyle, Colonel

BrOcklehurst, John
Brockman, E. 1).
Brotherton, J.

Browne , R. D.

Buller, Charles

Cardwell, Edward
Carew,lW. P.
Cavendish, C. C.
Cavendish, W. G.
Childers,:J. W.

Clitiord,.Henry M.
Colebrooke, Sir T.
Compton, H. C.
Cowper, W. F.
Craig, W. G.
Dalrymple, Captain
Dashwood, G. H.
Davie, Sir Henry
Deedes, W.
Denison, J. E.
D'Eyncourt, T.
Duckworth, Sir J.
Duncuft, John
Dundas, Admiral
Dundas, Sir D.
East, Sir.J,B.

Ebringtoii, Viscount
Egerton, Sir P.
Elliot, John E.
Eusten, Earl
Evans, Sir De Lacy
Fitzgerald, W. R.
Fitzroy, Henry
Foley, J. 11.
Fortescue, J. W.
Freestun, Colonel

CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.—The following is an ot.
list of pensions granted between the 20th day of Jt
1847, and the 20th day of June, 1848, and charged u
the Civil List (pursuant to Act 1, Viet., cap. 2):—Ch i
tian M'Caskill and Jessie M'Caskill, 60/. each, " A d.
tionat pension. In consideration of the gallant con (
of their brother, the late John M'Caskill, and his de t
on the field of battle. In trust to Lachlan Martin Ma e
son, Esq , and Rev. Alex. Macgregor.":—Rev. Theo 1
Mathew, 3001. In consideration of his meritorious e et
tions to promote temperance in Ireland.—Leigh H nt
Erq., 2001. In consideration of his distinguished to
rary talents.—Grace Anne Simson, Eliza Grace Pr tt,
Margaret Parker, Helen Jemims, and Francis A es
Chalmers, 501.; widow and daughter (each 251.) of Ithe
late Rev. Dr. Chalmers. In consideration of his pi pty,
eloquence, and learning. In trust to the Rev. Dr. in.
Hanna and Thomas Chalmers, Esq.—Frances Freeling
Hood and Thomas Hood, 501. each. Children of ,the
late Thomas Hood. In consideration of the literary
merits of their father. In trust to William Elliott,
M.D., David Salomons, Esq., and Thomas Reseigb._
Frances Christie and Mary Murray Christie, 25/. e h.
In consideration of the services of their father, the ate
Sir Archibald Christie. In trust to Captain Fred. Go don
T
Christie and Arthur Forbes, Esq.—George Newport,
F.R.S., 1001. In consideration of his researches and dis-
coveries in comparative anatomy and physiology.-4tar-
e Garth, Esq.
BRIGHTON, SATURDAY.—About three
garet Morrice Bell and Caroline Bell, 501. h,
daughters of the late Professor George Joseph Bell. In
consideration of the labours of their late father i the
'improvement of the law of Scotland. In trust to ..Alex-
acnadtehrerSinheawitrEosrqsa.,manmd Shaw,aTitlhaonmd,assoGi.e,ovvrgiedowo G
f.E:44..71
Frederick Maitland. In consideration of his diutin.
g,ui
Thomasshe d
Maitland
military
and
Thomas
co
thto Captain Frederick
rton
this morn-
ing a most terrific storm of thunder and lightning burst
over this town, awakening thelinhabitants almost unlver-
sally from their slumbers. At the first outburst the
whole horizon was one light. In a yew minutes how-
ever, the whole of the sky became black, and flashes of
lightning and claps of thunder alternated with each other
in a manner fearfully awful. Although no damage was
done in the town, the neighbourhood
was not so fortu-
nate. In the valley on the north side of the South
Downs the storm was of greater violence than ever be-
fore remembered. At Ham's Farm, near Stone Pound
Gate, in the parish of Hurstpierpont, 'a barn was struck
by lightning, and was soon reduced to ashes, with all its
contents. In an adjoining out-building a horse and a
calf were burned to death. Ham's Farm is in the occu
pation of Mr. Burtensh-w.
Achinuley
at Hurstpier-
pon
t was also struck by
are happy to the lightning and split into
fragments, without, we add, doing any
further mischief. _
UASE•—TORRI
THE GLENTILT • B ~. it* C. e, THE
DUKE or ATHOL.—The judgment in this case, which
Merely inv • olves the preliminary point of title, was given
His
on Friday by Lord Ivory. f d
Lordship,
havingd stated
the principles on which he oun ed his Judgment, made
the following order:—" The Lord Ordinary having
heard counsel for the parties upon the preliminary de-
fence set forth in the defender's first plea in law, super-
sedes consideration thereof, until it be seen what shall be
the precise shape and extent of the pursuers' averments,
when the record comes to be adjusted, with a view to
closing the same; in the meanwhile appoints a record to
be prepared on the whole case in common form; and to
that effect appoints the pursuers to give in a condescen-
dence of the facts which they aver and offer to prove in
support of their summons, by the first box-day in the
ensuing vacation; and the defender to give in answers
to the same by the third sederunt day of the winter
Seagell."—Scotsmctn.

vered of a child on the 30th of July, 1847, and in the
September the defendant came to the house and at-
tempted to renew his intimacy with the plaintiff, but as
he said nothing about marrying her, the family would
not allow him to come to the house. He saw the de-
fendant a short time after the child was born, at market,
and asked him if he intended to fulfil his promise of
marriage, when be replied that he should never marry,
because he was forty-eight years of age, and he should
not live to see his family brought up. Witness told him
he was a very false man for acting as he had done to his
sister, and he said it was a bad job, but it could not be
helped. In October the defendant came to his father's
11 and wanted his sister to let him have the child, but wit-
s, ness refused to have any communication with him, and
in ordered him out of the house. Upon another occasion
g- he heard the defendant say that his sister might go to
i- law with him if she pleased, but he did nut care, for ho
:t had got more money than all of their family put toge-
h ther. The defendant farmed some land, and he had
often heard him talk of buying land, and also heard him
I say that he had money in the Bank of England.
Cross-examined—The defendant lived with his mother
who is an aged woman, and a sister, who is older than
- himself; and he believed they were both dependent upon
him. According to his account they were both dis-
tracted when they heard of his intended marriage. His
sister was still living with them. Did not know how
much land the defendant occupied.
William Crawley, the father of the plaintiff, spoke to
the circumstances of the courtship between his daughter
and the defendant, and said that in September, 1846, the
defendant asked him what ho intended to give his
daughter when they married, and witness replied," Times
goes so hard with us farmers that we must not think of
portioning our daughters."—(A laugh.)
Mary Abbess proved that after the birth of the child
the defendant made several presents of clothes for the
child to the mother, and also on some occasions gave her
money .
Some other evidence was adduced, which showed that
the defendant was possessed of two small copyhold es-
tates, comprising about ten acres, and that he was as-
sessed at 301. to the poor-rate of his parish.
Mr. CHAMBERS then addressed the jury for the de•
fendant, and said, that after the evidence which had been
adduced, he should not attempt to deny that the de-
fendant had made a promise of marriage and that he had
not performed it, and their verdict must consequently
be against him, the only question that remained being
the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was en-
titled. In order to arrive at the proper conclusion upon
this point it would be necessary for them to look at all
the circumstances of the case, and see what real injury
the plaintiff had sustained. He reminded them that the
circumstance of the plaintiff having had a child ought
not to have any weight upon their decision on the pre-
sent occasion. The defendant would still be amenable
for that under another form of action, and all they had
to do on the present occasion was to assess the damages
the plaintiff had sustained by reason of the defendant
not having kept his promise to marry her. What were
the facts of the case? Here was a poor man, with two
little copyhold estates, having a mother and a sister
entirely dependent upon him, and if the plaintiff had
been married to him, she and her children must
also have been dependent upon his small resources,
and therefore he submitted the prospect was anything
but a flattering one, and, so far as the marriage was
concerned, it appeared to him that the plaintiff had sus-
tained very little loss by not contracting such a mar-
riage. It appeared pretty clear that the plaintiff herself
looked at the matter in this light, for she did not
with
to have made any complaint, and was living
family just the same as before ; and ho expressedt
opinion that if some attorney had not interfered. andie h
jury
the parties that there was a ground of action, h
ttold
would never have heard of this cause. The Learned
s
Counsel then called the attention of the jury
tto.Lerengee
of the parties, and said there was a very grea clUt
between such a case as this, where the complainit
party was a:woman of mature age, and that of a youn,,
girl whose affections had been trifled with btyhaat
apnrdaecer
wwoo
tined seducer, and he expressed b
all the circumstances the jury justice
moderate hat
moderate amount of damagescul opinion
dd
satisfy
of the case.
The CHIEF Minos having brielsiflyiitald_reDssaed the
uaages,julo7l:
they returned a verdict for the p