The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-03 00:00:00

'ESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1860.

as the importer. Though the charge on bills of lading was
objectionable, it might have been admitted as a substitute
for the other little vexatious charges. There was no use in
testing the opinion of the committee, and the sufferers from
the right hon. gentleman's plan must bear it.
Mr. CRAWFORD said he did not share in the general
objection to those charges ; but if at any time they produced
more than was anticipated from them, the mercantile inte-
rest would have a fair claim . for their reduction. He
thought that the penny tax on packages would be collected
' without much trouble, and would produce much more than
was expected. As to the unit of entry he saw no great
difficulty in carrying out the arrangements proposed by the
resolution. Nor did he think that the duty on packages
would have the effect of diminishing the quantity of goods
brought in under the denomination of "broken stowage."
There would be no difficulty in so arranging the unit of
duty in all cases that shippers of goods in all parts of the
world would know perfectly well what peculiar circumstances
they had to meet. The proposed tax on bills of lading
would lead to great advantage in ascertaining the quantity
of our exports. The bill of lading was in effect a contract
between the shipper of the goods and the owner of the ship,
and was not likely to be far wrong on either side. The
fourth copy of the bill of lading would answer all the pur-
poses of a declaration of value, and afford a very satisfac-
tory means of arriving at the quantity and value of the ex-
ports of this country.
Sir H. CAIRNS said that the cross-channel trade
between England and Ireland had not hitherto been con-
sidered an export trade, though the goods might afterwards
be exported from England. He understood, from the terms
of the resolution, that goods sent from Ireland to Liverpool,
to be reshipped there, would not be subjected to a double
charge. The statistical returns of exports were at present
very inaccurate, for though Ireland exported to the extent
of many millions a year, as the goods were sent to this
country to be reshipped, no notice whatever was taken of
them in the returns as forming part of the export trade of
Ireland. From one part alone, Belfast, many millions'
worth of linen were exported every year ; but in the returns
its exports were stated at a few hundred thousand pounds.
He would suggest an addition to the resolution, requiring
that a declaration should also be made as to the origin or
place of manufacture of the goods exported; they would
then have a knowledge of the place which really and bona
fide did export them. He thought that the resolution was
not sufficiently clear as to the power of the Lords of the
Treasury for adjusting charges. The words, "so that the
charge shall as little as may be exceed per cent. on the
value thereof," were vague. He would suggest that it
should be, "shall in no case exceed per cent." Great
errors would also arise from the required declaration of
value to be placed in the bill of lading. The effect of this
resolution would be, that it would lead to inequality in the
incidence of the charge ; for a bill of lading in some eases
included almost the whole cargo, and in others only a small
portion of one. The same tax, therefore, would be levied on
a bill of lading which represented £lO,OOO and on one which
represented only £lO. The charge was not justified by the
reasons assigned for its imposition ; it would hamper trade,
and after being imposed, the pressure against it would lead
T. 45 its removal.
Mr...IIANKEY said his objection was that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had not stated what this charge was to
be a substitute for. The mercantile body suggested this
charge on bills of lading to the right hon. gentleman in order
to avoid the tax upon packages, but he now put the tax
upon both. He had no objection to the charge itself, but
he thought after..what took place that the right hon. geutle-
'man ought to state what taxes he was going to take off.
Mr. CAVE objected to the resolution, especially that
part of it which referred to the cost of collecting statistics.
It was very questionable whether this charge should be
saddled on the commercial classes at all. The cost already
fell on those classes, but by this proposal they would have
to pay it twice. The charge on small packages would lead
to great delay, inconvenience, and even to the stoppage of
goods. It would also increase the chances of embezalement
because there was no more fertile source of that crime than
the entrusting of sums of money to porters and junior clerks
to pay these small charges. He was glad the right hon.
gentleman was going to reconsider the charge for operations
in bond. The effect of the charge would be to drive into
foreign countries many of the operations which were now
performed in this country.
Mr. MITCHELL said he felt bound to support the fresh
taxation sow proposed by the right hon. gentleman, having
given his support to the general principle of his scheme.
Mr. HORSFALL said the question was not now whether
they would have any of these small taxes, but what was the
best form in which they could be levied. He did not like
the charge at all, but he accepted it as a compromise ; and
on that ground he was prepared to support it. He should
like to hear from the right hon. gentleman that he aban-
doned the tax on small parcels. If passed this session, he
had no doubt that a tax of that kind could not be of long
continuance. With regard to the over-valuing of goods
sent from Liverpool, he was at a loss to assign any reason
for so doing; but there was great carelessness on the part
of the custom-house officers, and they were sometimes
obliged to guess at the value.
The resolution was then agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then pro-
posed the 21st resolution, as follows :—" That in aid of the
charge of the customs establishment incident to the ware-
housing and removal of goods under bond, there shall be
charged (irrespective of any duties of customs, or other
charges payable by law, and in addition thereto) a customs
duty at the rate of 10s. per £lOO on the amount of customs
duty payable on such goods as shall be-warehoosed, and re-
moved under bond from any warehouse in any port or place
to any warehouse in any other port or place, and at the rate
of ss. per £lOO on the amount of customs duty payable on
such goods warehoused but not removed, to be paid in each
case on taking such goods out of bond for home consump-
tion; provided that tobacco shall only be chargeable
with half the above rates, and that no more than the
sum of 55., in addition to the sum of ss. per centum,
shall be chargeable upon any single delivery of sugars
for refineries when removed under bond." At pre-
sent a number of very small places enjoyed the privi-
leges of warehousing at the cost of the country, not in
respect only of goods they imported, but also of goods that
were transferred to them. The consequence was that the
large towns had begun to ask for those privileges; and
Manchester had very naturally and fairly also asked to
have those privileges extended to it. That was agreed to,
but upon the condition that the town itself should in one
form or another be subject to the charges. But Manchester
said, " Why should we bear the tilt of warehousing when
the deliveries into our warehouscea amount to hundreds of
thousands a year, while those insignificant places have
warehousing establishments without being called upon to
pay any of the charges ?" He thought on the grounds of
justice and policy, the proposal of the Government, was a
sound and wise one. It would compel the inhabitants of
those warehousing places to contribute to the costs of the
establishment, and would operate in preventing an undue
demand for the extension of warehousing establishments
throughout the country. The mode proposed by the reso-
lution was this--it was based upon the principle of levying
a quarter per cent. upon all goods in warehouses or deli-
vered from warehouses. The parties upon whom those
charges would fall were not the importers of goods, but
those whom he should call the retail dealers throughout
the country. But there was one exception with respect to
those charges, and that referred to tobacco, upon which the
charge would be only one-eight per cent., on the ground
that as the charge levied was not upon the value of the
goods, but upon the amount of duty paid, it was thought
right that the charge be mitigated one-half of that imposed
upon other goods ; and thus an equality of charges would
be obtained between tobacco and other goods. Now, as to
the charge upon goods removed, that had been fixed at one
quarter per cent. ; and he should say if it was a sound
principle that those places should be subject to the cost of
warehousing, the charge was a fair one. He should be
sorry to do anything for the repression of the warehousing
system, but, like any other, it had its proqer limits. He
would not multiply establishments for warehousing at
places which did not export, and which could not ex-
port. The only fair way of regulating the system was
for each to make a moderate:contribution towards the cost
of the establishment. This could best be done by putting
a small charge upon the removal of goods. They would not
charge upon each removal for those goods which underwent
successive removals. He found important functions with
respect to the regulation of trade and the equalisation of
prices in the different markets. A special provision was
made for sugar. They proposed that a fee of ss. should
Satisfy for the removal of any quantity of sugar deliverable
out of bond for the purpose of refining. This tax would
not press severely, as it would be commonly levied on
amounts of 20 or 30 tons, and sometimes on amounts con-
siderably beyond that. The proceeds' of this resolution
would be about £50,000.

Mr. DALGLISH objected to the resolution, because it
made the great centres of trade pay for small and unim-
portant places. The hon. gentleman moved an amendment
to the effect of getting rid of the charge on removal of goods
from bonded warehouses. The verbal amendment put was
the omission of the words " and removal."

The committee then divided, when their appeared :
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES

BILL.

Upon the motion for the resumption of the adjourned de-
bate on the second reading of this bill,
Mr. CROOK moved that the bill be read a second time
that day six months. The hon. member said the Chancel.
lor of the Exchequer had informed the house upon a former
occasion that two parties objected to this bill. He confessed
that he had no sympathies with the licensed victuallers. He
appeared simply as an advocate of the opinions which the
various temperance societies of this country had explained
in their petitions to the house. They did not ask the Go-
vernment to prohibit the introduction of foreign wines into
England. They 'waived their peculiar views on the present
occasion, and took issue with the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer on his own conditions. That right hon. gentleman
had characterised the bill as a wise and good measure, and
said he believed it would not very powerfully affect the use
of spirits, or even the use of beer. The plea of the large

section of the community which he (Mr. Crook) repre- •
sented was, that having consented to the introduction of
foreign wines, they believed the facilities for its distribution
now existing were amply sufficient. There were 105,000
persons at the present time set up by law specially to ad-
minister to the comfort, or to corrupt, demoralise, and de-
base the people, and this bill would add largely to that num-
ber. The bill was in direct opposition to the report of the
committee of 1854, which was presided over by the present
President of the Poor-law Board, with the exception of the
provision placing coffee-shops and refreshment-houses
under the supervision of the police. The bill made the
labours of the committee quite useless, and would prevent
the house acting upon their report at any future time; and
he wondered why the right hon. gentleman had not pro-
posed to allow ardent spirits to be sold by every shop. The
committee of 1854 recommended that no intoxicating drinks
should be sold without a license of not less than £6; but
under the present bill a shop could be opened for the sale of
wines with a license which would not cost more than 2d. a
day. The result of the committee's report was that the facili-
ties for the distribution of intoxicating drinks should be
largely reduced ; and in the face of that and the other facts
he had mentioned he appealed to those members who were
fathers of families and justices of the peace, whether they
could conscientiously give their support to such a measure.
He implored the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the
grounds of propriety and temperance, to withdraw so fatal
a measure out of regard for the interests of the poor ; but if
he did not do so he believed that the wisdom of the house
would reject it. He moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, in seconding the amendment,
disclaimed being the representative of any tempere,nca asso-
ciation or other body, and said he opposed the bill because
he thought that upon many grounds it would not tend to
the welfare of the community. Experience proved that
three- fourth's, if not five-sixths, of the cases which came
before the criminal courts of the country were referable to
the temptations, the seductions, and the degrading influ •
ences of licensed public-houses and beer-shops. (Hear.)
He submitted that neither upon fiscal, sanitary, nor moral
grounds had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made out a
case in favour of the bill. Mr. M'Culloch said he doubted
whether inferior wines, if introduced into this country. free
of duty, would be very much drank ; and that he thought
beer would continue to be drunk by the bulk of the popula-
tion. The Economist newspaper, in an article upon the sub-
ject, said that there were a great many weak wines produced
in France which might be made sufficiently strong for the
English palate by the introduction of alcohol in the shape of
brandy. This was the cloven foot of the affair, and would
lot ihe people know what they had to expect. A French
gentleman examined before one of the wine committees also
said that the French producers had no anxiety with regard
to their good wines, and that what they wanted was to get
rid of their bad vintages. (Hear, hear.) Not a single peti-
tion had been laid on the table in favour of the bill, and in
his opinion the present facilities for the sale of spirits and
wines were amply sufficient, and he trusted the house would
pause before it thrust upon the people greater temptations.
It appeared that in order to carry out the treaty with France
they must thrust these wines down the throats of the pub-
lic. The bill was as clumsy a piece of legislation as he ever
saw, because under it barbers, greengrocers, tailors, aid in
fact any other shopkeeper might take out a license fol. the
sale of wine. Then came clause 4, which contained a most
dangerous principle. Every place of refreshment, every
oyster shop, every little shop for the sale of buns or biscuits
was obliged to take out a wine license. That was licensing
with a vengeance. But this was not all—with the French
wines they also introduced French police. (Hear, hear.) By
a later clause of the bill constables had discretionary power
to enter these places, however respectable, at any hour of
the day. As a lover of constitutional freedom he protested
against this inquisitorial system. (Hear, hear.) The man
who gave or lent his room in which his neighbours or a
pic-nic party might come and eat their food must take
out a license. The 12th section gave an extraordinary
power 'to the magistrates. If, after a notice for the license,
any objection was offered within 30 days by a magistrate,
the excise were not to grant the license. This was worse
than the French system. Here was a bill which deprived a
man of his license simply on the objection of a magistrate
that he did not consider the house a bona fide eating-house.
He should like to know what was a bona fide eating-house ?
There was no definition of it in the bill. The license was
to be given on the ground that a man when he ate wanted
drink. He (Mr. Seymour) agreed with this : but, if the
argument were good for anything, the man ought to be
allowed to choose what he would drink—he ought to be
allowed to drink beer, if he chose, as well as French wine.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—He may.
Mr. SEYMOUR—There was nothing to show that he
might in the bill. Then as to the clause relating to adul-
teration, it struck at the small shopkeeper, but left the
adulteration by the shopkeeper unchecked. He objected to
the bill on every ground, financial, political, and moral.
The Beer Bill. which was introduced to give the working
man cheap beer, was a failure—and this would be more so,
while, like that bill, it would increase immorality and crime.
Mr. KER SEYMER considered the proposition to grant
wine licenses to refreshment houses the best par,t of the
budget ; but he was not surprised that it should be opposed,
and by two opposite parties. He expected, too, to find that
the strongest opposition would be from the licensed vic-
tuallers, for moral opposition was rarely so effectual
as a selfish opposition. The advocates of temperance were
mistaken, he thought, in their ground of opposition. At
the samntime, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, which would extend the liquor traffic, was quite a
godsend to the Total'Abstinence people, who had all the
paraphernalia of agitation and were anxious to exercise it
for the introduction of the Maine law. As to the more mo
derate objectors, who said the bill would increase drunken-
ness, he could not see that the present system prevented
people from getting drunk if they chose to do so. The
house had determined to reduce the wine duty, and the
next step was to give free scope to its consumption by
allowing it to be sold in refreshment houses. Many would
prefer beer, no doubt, but let them have wine if they
chose. The question for the house to consider was whether
the only path to cheap wine should be through the gin
shop. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had decided wisely that it should not. (Cheers.)
There was no greater anomaly that struck a Frenchman in
this country than that law which prohibited the proprietors
of eating houses selling wine or beer, and he thought on all
grounds that it would be desirable to remove that anomaly.
The licensed victuallers said this bill was not free trade,
but they endeavoured to mystify the question. The question
of free trade was not involved in the bill before the house
at all. That question was whether they should restrict any
number of persons from selling beer; and he knew that
there were hundreds of persons who were competent to keep
houses, but who were forbidden to do, so, and that was the
question of free trade. The licensed victuallers then said
the bill would lead to an extension of drinking. Now, did
these publicans really oppose the extension of drinking?
True, they said drinking in these wine shops would be bad,
but drinking in gin-shops was the best of all possible.
(Laughter.) To catch a few Conservative votes, they said
that these houses would be the resort of Radical politicians.
Well, all knew that " pothouse politicians" was a pro-
verbial term, and all Englishmen would talk politics, but
he did not feel any alarm about these new houses. And
then these gentlemen said that respectable women were
ashamed to be seen at the bar of public houses. Well, if
they were the respectable and virtuous places as stated, he
did not see why persons should be ashamed to go there.
(Hear, hear.) And the daily organ of the publican body
had stated in a recent number that if a man should go into
a pastrycook's shop he would find his wife disgracefully
drunk in the back parlour, and his daughter employed in
something worse in the attic. (Hear.) But all that was
only worthy of the quarter from which it • came. (Hear.)
That was the case of the publicans as stated by themselves.
He had shown that the teetotallers were not fair judges of
the question, and many persons like the hon. member for
Leominster were needlessly alarmed. The position of the
licensed victuallers was wholly selfish, and he did hope the
parliament of this country would sanction this measure.
Mr. HARDY said he would not impute to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer any intention to corrupt the morals of the
•ountry. The course taken by the hon. member for Dorset-
shire did not touch the question, which was whether it was
necessary or advisable to increase the places for the
sale of intoxicating liquors--(hear, hear)—and whether
to do so would increase the revenue without injury
to social order. He was quite clear of brewers and all
other persons, and therefore he might say that he did not
believe in the cry against them, nor did he believe that the
licensed victuallers would suffer to the extent of
Z 50,000,000, as alleged in their memorial ; indeed, he did
not think they would be affected at all at present. The
present system of licensing he could not defend ; it was
open to improvement, and the justices should have the full
control over all places where persons assembled together
for the purpose of drinking. The system of appeal, as it
now existed, he was not satisfied with, for it had become a
mere form, and generally the magistrates in quarter sessions
affirmed the decisions of the justices below. He was opposed '
to the doctrine of the United Alliance Society. The use of
the thing was good, the abuse bad. No doubt these drinks
were harmless in their use but prejudical in their abuse,
and it was the duty of the house to check the abuse of them.
The object of the bill was to raise a revenue, and he be-
lieved that it would be a failure. The loss from one source
would not be made up by the admission of French wines
into this country and to be sold by refreshment houses. It
was a remarkable fact that, as the Secretary to the Treasury
had told them the other night. nearly the whole of the indi-
rect revenue of the country was made out of nervous stimu-
lants. No doubt the community required a good deal of
stimulant to raise its spirit from the depression into which
a temporary income tax was so well calculated to throw it.
(A laugh.) The bill, they were told, was to secure the sale
of wine. Well, what had the free vintners of London sold?
Look at the evidence of Sir R. Mayne, and they would
find that the free vintners sold spirits under colour of
wine. (Hear, hear.) And what security had they that
the same thing would not occur, when they placed
beershop-keepers in a position similar to that of the
five vintners ? Indeed ho should like to know on what
principle they could allow wine to be sold, and not extend
the same privilege with regard to spirits ? Depend upon
it, they were opening a door which they could never again
shut ; and when this measure failed—as fail it would—

they would have no choice left them but to grant free trade
in intoxicating drinks. The right hon. gentleman said he
wished to join eating and drinking together; but people
drank more after dinner than they did at dinner. (No, no.)
Well, they used to do. (Laughter.) Besides, a man did
not eat except when he was hungry; whereas he drank for
many reasons. People drank with a friend, or because—
" Good wine, a friend, or being dry,
Or lest you might be by-and. by,
Or any other reason why."
(Laughter.) No one would wish to see persons who now
dined at home with their families frequent eating-houses ;
and therefore the class to whom the bill would apply was
comparatively limited. But a man who had once been to an
eating-house where liquor was sold would find his way there
again when he wanted to drink ; and he would not think it
necessary to eat first. Thus, eating-house or no eating-house
it would be all the same. In the early part of the session he
(Mr. Hardy) had asked for the report of the Forbes Mac-
kenzie Act. A commission had been sent into Scotland to
inquire into its operation. That was a restricting act against
the sale of wine and spirits, and the houses which supplied
wino and spirits. He must say that the preamble of that act
contrasted in a most remarkable manner with the provisions
of the present bill. It recited that great evils had arisen from
certificates granted to houses for the sale of wine and spirits
in Scotland ; a commission was appointed to inquire into
the operation of the act, and, whilst waiting for the report,
the Legislature of this country was called upon to pass an
act for England and Wales upon totally different principles.
That commission was composed of several eminent and en-
lightened men, and Sir G. Clarke's name was sufficient to
insure an impartial and disinterested inquiry. Was it not
important that the house should know what the report
of these commissioners said ? (Hear.) He hoped he was not
detaining the house, but this was a subject on which he felt
'a deep interest, and he hoped the house would pardon him.
(Hear.) Then it was said'that this bill would prevent adul-
teration. But only a few days since the hon. member for
Birmingham introduced a bill to stop the adulteration of ar-
ticles of food and drink. But the house well knew that the
statutes relating to publicans and beersellers contained re-
strictions of the most severe character against the adultera-
tion of beer and spirits, yet the attempt to pat down adulte-
ration had entirely failed. The hon. member had informed the
house that bread was often made of plaster of paris, and that
cayenne was nothing but brickdust ; so that a man after eat-
ing adulterated bread, and then endeavouring to rectify his
digestive organs by the stimulant of cayenne pepper, ran a
chance of having his internal economy entirely walled up.
(Laughter.) That took place under the most perfect system
of free trade. There was another point to which he would
allude, viz., the sale of wine in single bottles. That, nek
doubt, was a matter of comparatively minor importance.
Yet there was a great deal in what had been said by the
hen. member for Southampton. One of the chief evils of
the present system was the presenting servants who came to
make purchases for their masters and mistresses at shops
with wine or spirits over the counter. Was there no danger
of this system extending itself, and taking the place of the
old practice of giving veils to servants ? (Hear.) He thought
that subject was worthy of considerable attention. He had
already treated of some of the social features of the measure;
but there was another question which be would wish to put.
Was it likely that this bill would succeed as a matter of re-
venue ? (Hear.) He confessed he thought not. By this time
it was pretty well seen which way the taste of the mass of
the people was extending. It was not to be supposed that a
supply of minor stimulants would stop the sale of stronger
liquors. The case might be compared to that of the news-
papers which were deemed objectionable. People asked one
another why do you not take in a good family paper ? (A
laugh.) The light wines would be considered harmless and
insipid, people probably thinking that they did them no good;
and as the " family papers" disappeared from circulation,
so people would at last have recourse to the more exciting
stimulants which they had a greater affection for. The
right honourable gentleman seemed to anticipate that
drunkenness would diminish, inasmuch as it did not pre-
vail in countries where the light wines were drunk. He
(Mr. Hardy) did not know where the right hon. gentle-
man obtained his information. He could only say that
Mr. Fenimore Cooper, the American novelist, had stated,
speaking of Paris, that he saw more drunken people in Paris,
by knowing where to go to look for them, than he had ever
seen in London. He found it also stated that there were
no less than 360,000 of these wino shops in France; and
that out of 11,000 homicides perpetrated in that country
400 were committed in these wine shops, With respect to
Sweden the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the house
some information which he (Mr. Hardy) was glad to hear.
He had had occasion some years since to comment upon the
case of Sweden, and he was glad to hear that Sweden had
rescued herself from the stain which had attached to her.
Every person in Sweden had aright to distil; and in order
to show what the result of fre‘trade in spirits was, he
would observe that in Sweden a were 150,000 distillers.
He quoted from Alison's History, where the authorities were
cited, and the result of this free trade was, that notwith-
standing the thinness of the population, the amount of im-
morality in Sweden was not paralleled by the case of any
other country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told
them that 1860 was to be a memorable year. Did he mean,
with Jack Cade, that conduits were to run with nothing but
claret ? (A laugh.) Re would recommend the fright hon.
gentleman to build his fiscal reputation on measures which
would improve the morals of the community, and not on
founding new houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors. If
he.added to the 120,000 debauched houses already existing,
he would be doing that which was against the sense of his
constituents, of the house, and of the country at large.
Mr. AYRTON moved the adjournment of the debate.
(No, no.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER consented.
(Cries of " When ?")

The adjourned debate was fixed for the 19th of April,
amidst much cheering from the Opposition.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a first time.

POLIC4i AND TOWNS IMPROVEMENT ACT
'AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND).
This bill was read a first time.

PUBLIC \CHARITIES.
This bill was read a first time.

The house adjourned at 20 minutes past 12, till 3' o'closk
to-morrow (this day).

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—GLOUCESTER, April 2.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
THE ST. BRIAVEL'S MURDER.

Joseph Webb, a young man, was charged with
the wilful murder ofan old man named John Hughes,
under circumstances of extraordinary brutality, on
the 4tli of January last.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Sawyer prosecuted; Mr.
Cripps for the defence.
The prisoner is a labourer, who had been working
for Mr. William Kear, a timber merchant, cider
dealer, and who also retailed cider at a house called
the Cherry Tree, at the Lower Mynde, in the parish
of St. Briavel's, Gloucestershire. The prisoner,
who is a single man, and who was living with his
parents, was only casually employed by Mr. Kear,
in the place of George Hughes, who had been un-
well for about three months. About six o'clock on
the morning of the 4th of January, prisoner went
to his. work as usual, and about nine o'clock George

Hughes came and announced that he was suffi-
ciently recovered to go on with his work. He
went out about three o'clodk in the afternoon to
see a calf in an out-house, about 300 yards from
the house, Mr. Kear accompanying him, and pri-
soner remained in the kitchen. What then oc-
curred may be best gathered from the evidence of
Richard Kear, an intelligent boy of 13., He said :
I was sitting on the• settle in the kitchen, and
prisoner snatched from me some bread "and meat
which I was eating. I said if he was so greedy
as that he might have it. He began teasing me,
pulling my hair, and bumping my head against the
settle. I cried out, and my sister Eliza came and
struck prisoner with a stick. He took the stick
from her, and my grandfather came into the kitchen
and helped my sister to get prisoner from me
Prisoner struck both of them down with his fist
and when my i 3 ister Esther came in, he struck her*
down. John Hughes, the deceased, was sitting on
a chair by the fire, and prisoner went round and
knocked him down. I fetched a spade, and said if
he struck my grandfather again I would strike him
with the spade. He did strike him again as he was
sitting on the settle, and I struck the prisoner on
the head with the spade. I ran out,. prisoner fol-
lowed ; I dropped the spade outside the house, and
my grandfather picked it up., He was going to
throw it away, but prisoner wrenched it from his
hand, and knocked him down with his fist. John
Hughes came out with his hat on, and was going
away, when prisoner ran after him and struck him
on the head with the spade. He struck him again
with the spade when he was on the ground. Pri-
soner next struck my grandfather down with the
spade, and kicked him. Grandfather's left arm was
broken. My sister Eliza said prisoner had killed
grandfather and he struck her down with his fist.
She got up and ran away, and he followed her nine
or ten yards, then turned back and struck Hughes
with the spade on the head as he was lying on the
ground. There was blood on Hughes's head. He was
quiet, and I thought him,insmsible. Grandfather
had got up and was standing by the door, and pri-
soner again knocked him down with the spade in the
doorway. I then ran up to the prisoner, and kicked
him, and he tried to hit me with the spade, but I
avoided the blow. He again went and struck
Hughes. I got grandfather indoors, and locked
the door. I went out by another door into the or-
chard, which is higher than the house, and saw my
aunt, Mary Williams, who exclaimed, " Oh, Lord,
he will kill father !" Prisoner ran after me, but on
Jane Howell's coming up with a child in her arms
he struck her on the forehead, and caused a great
wound, and the spade handle broke. I saw my
father coming, and threw a stone at the prisoner,
which knocked him down.

Cross-examined—The stick with which prisoner
was struck was about as big as a man's finger. I

saw no blood on him until the policeman struck
him.

Prisoner took off his upper clothing, and showed
the collar and neck of his shirt much torn. He
said he was choked before he went out, and did
not know whether he was dead or alive. A large
number of witnesses corroborated the above evi-
dence, and agreed in saying that the prisoner was
sober at the time. Mr. Kear said the prisoner wag
very wild, threatening everybody, but gave up the
pieces of the spade when asked kindly.
George Hughes said prisoner threatened bin
before he went to see the calf that was ailing.
When he came back, his father (who was 76 years
of age) was insensible, and the old man died that
same night.
Mr. Wotton and Mr. Reed, surgeons, gave evi-
dence as to the state of the deceased, whose sktiu
was fractured in three places, the bone being
driven into the brain, this being the immediate'
cause of death. Prisoner had sustained injuries
on each side of the head. He was calm and quite
sober when the surgeons saw him at midnight.
Police-constable Lord, who apprehended the pri-
soner, deposed that he refused to be taken into
custody. He struck witness, who struck him howl
blows with a bludgeon on each side of the head,
accounting for the injuries afterwards found an
both sides of prisoner's head.
Police-constable Turner deposed that prisoner
afterwards told him that he did what was done in
self-defence, that they were all drunk together, and
he would pursue the same course if it had to be
done over again.

Mr. Cripps argued that there was aggravation
in the case, which aroused prisoner's irritation,
and suggested that tobacco had been put into the
prisoner's cider, which, combined with the effect of
the blow he received on his head, he was exasperated
beyond measure, and furiously performed acts be
had not the slightest intention to commit. He sub-
mitted that although undoubtedly the prisoner
would have to undergo very heavy punishment for
what he had done, the jury might, consistently
with their duty, acquit him of the crime of murder•
which would consign him to the scaffold, and find
him guilty merely of inanslanghter.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of man-
slaughter, and he was sentenced to penal servitude
for life.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

COLCHESTER--IVIARcH 31.

A tolerable supply of wheat, and for the best sample
millers were obliged to give is per qr over the full prices
of last week. Spring corn and other grain unaltered•
Beans and peas is dearer.

Wheat, white 46s to 52s Beans, Mazagan..32s to 365
red 40s to 48s Middle & small 36s to 42s
Barley 36s to 50s White peas 36s to 38s
Oats 20s to 28s Grey.. 32s to 38s