The Sun.
London, England, 1819-05-20 00:00:00

EXCISE INFORMERS.

Lord 11. HOWARD presented a petition from the Bur-
grsses of the Borou4b of Arundel, .tunplaining of the en-
couragement am) indulgence shown to Excise. Informers,
who, instead of being punished for the grievous offences
which they had committed, were liberally rewarded at the
-expence of the State. The petition prayed for the enact-
ment of such laws as should provide a safeguard for the in-
nocent, and ensure the punishment of the guilty.
Mr. W. IIURRELL complained of the conduct of the OfH-
_cerF of the Excise an the Coast of Sussex. He stated perju-
rk.s to be frequent among them ; and thought he admitted
smuggling was carried on to a great extent in that neigh-
bourhood, he could not but think that other means ought to
be taken to repress it, than had as yet been adopted.

The cii.v.NaLLoß of the EX'CHEQUEIt understood
the charge preferred against the Board of Excise, of em-
ploying informers, was unfounded; and it was stated in the
petition, that certain persons had been punished and tra.n-
si!ort,a under particular circumstances, without giving names,
to enable the House to judge of the merits of the case. He
therefore hoped the House would not suffer a charge so
vaguci) 'made to be laid on the table.
:11r. BENNET contended, the complaints urged in the Pe-
tition were substantially made out. Ile stated several cases
is which verdicts had been given against persons charged with
a breach of tine Excise ,Laws, in which the most iidamous
false swearing had taken .place. A man of the name of
Thomas Duke, who had been transported for theft, was one
of the witnesses produced in the case of a Mr. Henty. This
main had perjured himself so, that he had been twice admo-
nished by the Judge during- the trial. He was surprised an
imlictmcnt had not been preferred against that man. He
swore he had taken notes of the proceedings to which he de-
postol, at the time they occurred. When asLed it he could
write, he answered " yes." A pencil was handed to him in
Court, and it turned out that he (lid not know bow to frame
a single letter. Yet this person had been produced by the
Excise as :In evidence against :".Ir. Henty. The Board of Ex-
cise were charged with baring employed transports, vagrants,
and paupers-in short, persons such as had never been per-
nottotto give evidence in a Court of Justice, till they were
-ibrati4lit forward wider the bail and patronage of the Solicitor
'to tine Excise. Our person had been brought forward for
similar purpose, at a time when he was confined in Horse-
kiouger-1:ote jail,- en a charge of murder. Mr. Henty had
'seen aceustal of a breach in the Excise Laws, without either

the time or the place at ,vhich the alleg•ed offence was com-
mitted being specified. Thirteen poor wretches, who had no
nt,:ans of defending themselves, had been so intimidated that
they had falsely pleaded guilty. it had since been proved
that they here smuggling ou the evening of the 4th April,
when they %erre not charged. with it, but they had not been
so employed id the morning- of that day when they were
charged with it. He hoped the whole Exchequer system
would short!v come under the consideration of that House.

_ .... .
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER only opposed
the petition on acouunt of the facts being so vaguely stated
If whit had b,cui asserted by the Hon. Gentleinim were dis-
tiocCy it, there would be no objection to re-
ceive it.

LUNIIINfiI'ON said, in the case of Mr. Henty, as in
another cise on account of the infamous' character of the
witnesses, the fides and all the'costs had beets ordered to be
repaid. It would therefore he seen that all the reparation
had heels made that could be made. He wished to know if
the Noble Lord who had brought forward this petition had
propositi,sn to sills iiiit to the House for the amendment of
the law. It was his wish, and that of the Government, that
the law should be framed so as nut to touch the innocent,
while it ',ached the guilty. As reparation had been made in
the cases ositieli had been mentioned, be could not see that
any good was likely to result front laying this petition on the

Mr. HARVEY suggested that the best course might be to
withdraw the petition, and move for papers to give the. House
further information on the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no objec-
tion to the production of such papers..
Lord H. HOWARD was confident the petitioners would not
hare pot their names to that which they did not believe to be
true.—He consented to withdraw the petition.
Atter a few further remarks front Mr. Lushington, Mr.
Ctirwen, and Mr. Wallace, the petition was withdrawn.
A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' con-
currence with the Revenue Payments' Bill, and other Bills.