The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

INTERFERBNCE WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Lord DENMAN presented a petition from a gentleman of
the name of Smith, which purported that on the 19th of
December last his private house had been invaded by three
persons of the Excise department, who stated that they came
in search of a private still. The offence was aggravated by the
fact that the gentleman whose premises had been intruded
upon was a special pleader. There was nothing to justify this
offence, for it had been committed under the authority of an
anonymous letter. Now, this gentleman was aware that he had
no redress by an action at law, for the authorities seemed to
think that it was not contrary to the law, and he was there-
fore aware that he could obtain no damages. Such being the
case bethought that his only remedy was to petition that House,
and he trusted their Lordships would entertain its prayer with
a view to an amendment of the grievance of which this gentle-
.

man complained. if the law were permitted to be enfo-rced in
its present shape, no man's property would he safe. He would
on a future day bring forward a Bill to amend this law as it
stood at present.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that if this petition had
been received merely on the statement that had been made that
night, nothing would have been further from his thoughts than
to make any reply to it, further than to answer the question
put by the Noble and Learned Lord; but the petition which
had been read by the Clerk at the table was, in point of fact,
a direct attack on one of the public departments of the coup.
try, which, if any of the departments were so, was well and effi-
ciently executed—he meant the Excise ; and when the Noble
and Learned Lord the other night very kindly informed him
that he intended to present this petition, and draw the attention
of the House to the statements contained in it, he ( Lord Dal-
housie) took care to inform himself as to the whole of the sub-
ject. He found that the person whose name was affixed to this
petition had had another presented to the Commons House of
Parliament, very similar in substance. He found, however,
that the petition that night presented to their Lordships was,
as compared with the other, greatly modified in its language
and statements. With respect to the facts on which the peti-
tion itself was founded, namely, that the petitioner's house was
entered by an Excise officer, armed with a search warrant,
that fact was undoubtedly true. He was quite ready to say so
much with respect to that ; and with respect, also, to the con-
duct of the officer in obtainining the warrant, he did not wish
to advance one word of defence. The conduct of the officer
was blameable in the eyes of his
.superiors, and they punished
him. But the allegations in this petition did not merely attri •
bute blame to the officer—they inculpated his superior
officer also. The petitioner, in the first place, stated
that the man, in executing what he called his duty, had effected
a forcible entrance into his house, and when his warrant was
demanded, he refused to produce it ; that these proceedings
alarmed and dismayed the persons in the house, and that the
health of the inmates was then, and was still, placed in jeo-
pardy. To each and all these statements, he (Lord Dalhousie)
gave an unqualified contradiction. How stood the facts ? An
anonymous letter was received by the Commissioners of
Excise ; but no measures were taken, no instructions were
issued on that letter. On the contrary, it was remitted to the
officer of the district, with instructions to carefully inquire and
report upon it. The officer did not report ; but from the cir-
cumstances connected with the letter itself, he fancied that
there existed sufficient grounds for suspicion. He, therefore,
proceeded to the nearest magistrate, to make, as the law re-
quired, a deposition. That magistrate was from home, and he
then proceeded to the next, and procured a warrant, after
making the oaths required by law. He proceeded with this
warrant to the petitioner's door, which was not forcibly entered.
The officer knocked, as he would in any other case, when it
was opened. He inquired for the master, who did not happen
that day to be at his chambers, and when he came, no warrant
was asked for, because it was at once shown. They afterwards
proceeded to look over the house. The Noble and Learned
Lord said that any inquiry on the officer's part in
the district would at once have proved that no
suspicion could attach to this gentleman's house,
but he (Lord Dalhousie) could inform the Noble Lord that
this would be, in every case, very insufficient ground to go
upon. He could tell the Noble and Learned Lord that in
another house—a house of better appearance than this, and
more like a gentleman's seat—a small still was found in full
operation in the drawing-room. The officer, after proceeding
through several of the rooms, did perceive that there was no
cuse for suspicion, and he left. The family did not once see
him. The gentleman happened to be at dinner, and when he
offered to open the door of the dining-room, the officer said it
was unnecessary, he apologised for the trouble that had been
given, and then departed. This happened on a Thursday, and
on the Friday Mr. Smith, the petitioner, addressed a letter to
the Commissioners of Excise, complaining that no re-
dress had been given him—that no apology had been
tendered, although the Commissioners must have been in pos-
session of the report of their affair. No such report had been
made by the officer. The gentleman added that he desired an
investigation into the proceeding. He said that if he did
receive from them a specific assurance before three o'c ock on
the next day that their officer would be reprimanded, he
should take no proceedings, but otherwise he would place the
matter in the hands of his attorney, and have public opinion on
the subject. Now although it was perfectly necessary and
proper that this subject should be brought before the Commis-
sioners, still it was equally necessary that 'the conduct of the
officer charged should be inquired into, lest he might have been
improperly impugned. To the petitioner's demand the Com-
missioners made answer on the same day. They stated that before
pronouncing judgment on the conduct of the officer, they would
call on him for an explanation, after which they would com-
municate with Mr. Smith without delay. The Commissioners
of Excise, he considered, were right in their proceeding, be-
cause they did not wish to sanction proceedings of an unjust
and arbitrary character. Nothing, surely, could be more rea-
sonable than that statement. Until they had ascertained the
facts of the case they could not with propriety tender an
apology. Why no, person would flog his hound until he had
reason to believe that his hound had committed a fault, and
surely they could not be expected to render less justice to a
fellow man than they would to a dog. On the same day the
Commissioners received a reply from the gentleman who peti-
tioned the House that night. He said that the reply the Com-
missioners had sent to his letter could not be received by him.
The outrage perpetrated by their officer on a private
gentleman had been one for which, as gentlemen, they were
bound to make every satisfaction. He required, most distinctly,
an ample apology from them ; and further, he would require
10/. before two o'clock to-morrow, to cover the cost of
counsel, and other contingent expenses. Now he would ask
what these expenses had been? This was written on the 19th,
and on thellBth, the day before, the very transaction which had
given rise to the correspondence had taken place. Now he asked
again, what expenses had been incurred? The letters to the
Commissioners of Excise had been written from the gentle-
man's own chambers. He had not even to pay sixpence to the
messenger, because, in his former letter, be said that his clerk
would wait the reply. Where, then, were the expenses? He
(Lord Dalhousie) understood that lawyers had even a sort of
charitable regard for one another, and that they prescribed
for other's ailments in the same way that medical men did not
charge those of their craft for attendance on their bodily
ailments.
Lord CAMPBELL seemed to express dissent.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said the Commissioners wrote
Mr. Smith again, that his demand of an apology and 10/.,
was inadmissible ; and on the same day he, in a letter,
charged them with having committed and sanctioned a gross
act of tyranny. He (Lord Dalhousie) thought that it might
have crossed the imagination of this Mr. Smith, of Hare-
court, Temple, (for he was anxious that he should be de-
scribed thus in his petition), that plain-spoken person, on
reading his letters, might have called his demands an attempt
at extortion, but he could not press this opinion upon
their Lordships. A 'this happened upon the Friday.
The Commissioners wrote again upon the Monday, stating
that the officer had been severely censured, and regretting the
annoyance to which the petitioner had been subjected. lie
might inform their Lordships that the officer was a most re-
spectable man, who had served in the department for thirty or
forty years; and he might further add, that the term
" censure," carried in the Excise a much weightier
meaning than their Lordships probably attached to it. It
meant suspension from promotion for three years, and no re-
wards for any meritorious conduct. But this gentleman, on
the 12th of January, changed his tactics, and taking up the
cause of the officer whom •he had formerly been in such
a passion with, he charged the Commissioners with the
offence against him. He said that he did not
wish the officer censured, because he had no doubt
that he had, under the circumstances, acted with the
view of pleasing them ; and on the idea that his conduct
would be altogether ascribed to seal. But would their Lord
ships believe, that immediately afterwards, this gentleman
commenced attacking the excise-officer himself, that he de-
manded from him that he should sign an ample apology, and,
in addition pay him a sum of 25/. On those conditions
only were the actions to be stopped. Now, this officer had
been thirty-two years in the excise, he had then a salary of
200/., out of which he paid his travelling expenses, so that
his salary at the utmost only amounted to 1501., and yet this
man demanded a sixth of his salary, and an abject apology. It was
dated January 17th, yet an action was commenced on the 16th.
Had thisgentleman not gibbeted himself, he ( Lord Dalhousie),
would not have drawn him further before the House and before
the country. The 251. were not paid, th
feramon hmodne
the
hmeawed augstioubi
ibntblidbemel
eta-
(ds.i
tendered but not paid. The officer refused to sign the apology,
aaNnnoddwt
endeavoured
gentleman
would
retad the ea
pohg
wroteoddefer
ar
tletterleoy settlements
required,ay ing
that
the petitioner termed it, and he would put it to the House to
say whether Peter Mann,the excise officer, with 150/ a year
was not the honester and the better man than Mr. .Smith, in
his house, Woodlane, Highgate. He had never heard of any
charge against an officer of excise, and he questioned ii any
of their Lordships had. He would give the Noble Lords
the assurance he asked, that the department of the excise
would not act upon any anonymous information ; they had not
done so in times past , they had not done so then. These
were the facts of the case, and he would leave their Lordships
to draw their awn conclusions from them.
Lord DENMAN said that he had known nothing of the sub-
ject matter contained in the petition, further than as he had
been informed by some of the gentlemen connected with the
Excise, who had called upon him yesterday. He should still,
however, have felt it necessary to present the petition, if he had
been asked to do so. He did not believe that the gentleman in-
tended to place the amount of money he had demanded in his
pocket ;he intended to give it to some charity. conclusion
earnestlyehnetruterto inferior hopedroitr officers.
tcheer. N. oble Lord would limit the powers
RAlLWAYaitioOnFfrloßmEcLerAtaNioD.
LGorRdERAETDEWsEDSATLEER
petition
Ireland, par-
ties
the Great Western Railwa Bill
connected with the Grand Canarleocommprayingitt that
presented e s ent e
Their Lordships then adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMOI VS, April 6.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed, viz.:—
Inverness and Elgin Junction Railway.
Dunblane, Doune, and Callander Railway.
Tramore Embankment.
Sidmouth Market.
•
Severn Navigation.
Manohester Markets.
Caledonian Insurance Company,
Carshalton Rates.
Hull and Lincoln Direct Railway.
Westruther Roads.
Part Ellen Harbour.
Edinburgh Paving.
Leith Paving.
Airdrie Police.
Greenlaw Roads.
Sligo Ship Canal.
Hales worth and Norwich Railway.
Sheffield, Buxton, Leek, Potteries, and Crewe Railway.
East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction
Railway (by order).
London and Windsor Railway (by order).
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL.
Mr. HAWES moved the consideration of the report
of the abovP Bill, when
Mr. ROEBUCK objected that this was not a strictly
Private Bill, and therefore he should oppose the con•
sideration of the report.

The SPEAKER said that the Bill, in his opinion, was
strictly a Private Bill, although it gave extended power
to the Company promoting it.
Mr. ROEBUCK contended that notice ought to have
been given to each Member of that House who repre-