The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-27 00:00:00

LATEST PARTICULARS LAST NIGHT,

Immediately after the conclusion of the examination of the ac-
cused man, Thomas Henry Hocker, yesterday, at Marylebone
Police-court, Inspectors Shackell and Haynes, of the detective
poi* force, feeling convinced from the evidence adduced that the
party who had undergone examination was in reality the murderer
of I,fr. Delatue, considered it necessary further to prosecute an in.
quit.) with respect to him.
The :mpression made on the mind of the officers was that a
sufficiently minute search had not been made of the lodgings
of th• alleged murderer, or of those of his father, by Inspector
Partridge and Sergeant Scotney, at the time they apprehended the
prisoner Hocker. Acting on this impression, and under a fear
that unless they were prompt in their movements the evidences of
giiilt against the prisoner might be removed, Inspectors Shackell
and Haynes at once proceeded to the residence of Hocker's father,
No. 17, Charles street, Portiand.town. The inspectors, on their
arrival, made known to the father of the alleged murderer
the object of their visit, and at once, without any hesitation
on the part of the father, every facility was offered them to
make a search of the premises. They were first shown into
a front room on the first floor, which was the one occupied
by his son, who also had a lodging where he was captured,
No. 11, Victoria-terrace. In this room the officers found
that which is presumptive, if not conclusive, evidence of the atro.
cious guilt of the prisoner. Secreted in this room were a pair of
trousers stained with blood and covered with dirt; a pair of stock.
ings, the leas of which were also bloody, the blood having gone
through the trousers, and a Mackintosh the front and back of
which were also splashed with blood. On these things being shown
to the unfortunate parent, he identified them as those of his son
now in custody. A further search was pursued, but nothing else
was discovered, and Shackell and Haynes left the place with the
clothes in question in their possession, and Inspector Shackell at
once proceeded to the Marylebene Police-court, where he explained
to Mr. Rawlinson, the magistrate, who had not then left the
bench, the important discovery which he had made.
ARe: this Inspector Haynes proceeded to the New Prison,
Clerkenwell, to which place Hocker was conveyed in the prison
van immediately after his remand, for the purpose of making a
minute examination of the prisoner's dress and person. With
this view he directed the prisoner to take off his coat, which he
wore on Friday night, the cuffs of which, upon examination, were
covered with blood.

A button was found in the field near the spot where the deceased
was murdered, and also one found at the lodgings of the accused,
in Victoria-terrace, and on Inspector Haynes comparing them to.
gether they exactly matched each other, and what is more con.
elusive, on the inspection of the prisoner's coat two buttons were
missing, and on comparing both of these buttons with the remainder
of those on the coat they exactly tallied with .them. The pair of
drawers which the prisoner had on were on examination found to
be also spotted with blood. •

Whilst at the station.house the prisoner, in reference to a large
sum of money he was stated to hare been seen to spend on Saturday,
said that it came into his possession fairly, having been given to
him by a woman with whom he was acquainted in the New-road;
but this, it is understood, will be disproved. The defence which
Mocker vet up when before the magistrate, that he could prove
that he did net leave his residence till a quarter or 10 minutes to S
o'clock on the night of the murder, will, the reporter is informed,
be denied by several witnesses.
An official report of the above facts was last evening made to the
Commissioners of Police. It has already been stated that there
was strong reason for believing that there were three men whe
were concerned in and supposed to be the perpetrators of the horrid
*ine. The inspectors have instituted the most rigid inquiries
b n this Point, and from the information they had received there
is but little doubt that more than one person was engaged in the
murder. The reporter was informed that a belief was entertained
that another man would be in custody early this (Thursday) morn.
ing, if not last night.

The a'leged murderer is stated to be a teacher of the ♦iolin, but
formerly was a teacher at the Christ Church District Schools, lit.
Marylebone.

STATE OF TRADE.—The news from India received
, , by the intermediate mail, yesterday, though not con-
. sidered very favourable, has not produced any injurious
effect upon our market. The demand for all descrip•
tions of yarn, and especially for those suitable to the
eastern markets, was very good yesterday, and prices
continue to advance. There was also a fair demand at
good prices, for nearly all descriptions of manufactured
goods, except twenty•seven-inch printing cloth, which
has begun to accumulate in the hands of the manufac-
ktrers.—Manchester Guardian.

I MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 26.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. W. H. P. CAREW took the oaths and his seat
for the county of East Cornwall.

INCOME-TAX.
Lord JOHN MANNERS and Mr. ROEBUCK presented
petitions again,t the continuance of the income-tax.
Mr. G. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from
Rutlandshire against the Medical Reform Bill.
Mr. TATTON EGERTON brought up the Birken-
head Docks Bill, which was read a first time.
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

The Eastern Counties Railwayßill was read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time.
OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

Lord ARUNDEL presented petitions from places in
Somerset and Westmoreland, against the sale of intoxi-
cating liquors on Sundays.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.

Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE presented petitions from
each of the Parliamentary districts of Glasgow, signed
by upwards of 13,500 inhabitants, in favour of this Bill.

BRIDGWATER RAILWAY.

-
The Committee reported that the standing orders had
been complied with on the Bridgewater proposed line of
railway.
BARNSLEY JUNCTION LINE.

The Committee on standing orders reported that the
order had been complied with on this line.
SHEFFIELD AND HUDDERSFIELD RAILWAY.
Pt titions were presented fur Bills fur the formation of
the Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway.
THAMES AND MEDWAY CANAL.
The report of the Committee on the Thames and Med-
way Canal Bill was brought up. The standing orders
had been complied with.
SUGAR DUTIES.
Sir W. CLAY gave notice that, on the House going
into Committee of Ways and Means, he should move an
amendment, to the effect that an ad valorem duty should
be imposed upon sugar.
COLONIAL ACCOUNTS.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that, on the 11th March,
he should move a series of resolutions on the system of
making out the Colonial accounts:—lst, that there
should be an uniform system of accounts for the Ex-
chequer receipts and payments of the several colonies;
2d, that there should be a statement of the whole
amount of the receipts and expenditure as they occurred,
without any distinction ; and, 3d, that the payments
into her Majesty's Exchequer should appear in no other
way for the future than as credits for disbursements on
payment into the Exchequer.
SUGAR DUTIES. _

Mr. WILLIAMS said the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this after-
noon he would state when the sugar duties was to come
into operation. Would it be convenient to do so now ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, considering all the circumstances of the case, he did
not see any ground for altering the time set down in the
resolution.
Mr. WILLIAMS gave notice then, that he would
when the resolution was proposed, move that the re-
duction should begin on the Ist of April.—(Laughter.)
Mr WALLACE wished to know if any allowance
would be made to persons holding sugar in bond?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
understood to reply, that persons who had sugar in
bond would have to maintain it there until the duties
were remitted. If it were removed in the meantime,
of course the sugar would be liable to the duty.
The Hon. S. WORTLEY said it became important
then to know when the duty would be taken off. He
should be glad therefore to know when the resolutions
were likely to be agreed to ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished
it was in his power to give the Hon. Member the in-
formation he required. There were so many orders of
the day standing on the paper, that it was quite impos-
sible to say when the resolutions would receive the sanc-
tion of the House.
GLASS DUTIES.
Dr. BOWRING wished to put a question to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished to know
whether, supposing the existing duties on glass were re-
moved, it w as his intention to repeal the duties on foreign
glass ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that if the Hon. Gentleman would look to the schedule
that had been laid on the table, he would find that a cor-
responding alteration had been made in the duty on
foreign glass.
SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. VILLIERS, seeing the Vice-President of the
Board of Trade in his place, wished to put to him a
question affecting the debate of the evening. It had
been stated as one chief justification of the high differen-
tial duty that those restraints which used to exist with
foreign countries would still continue. It was also
stated that the duty on refined sugar would still con-
tinue as usual.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the resolutions on the table of the House would
answer the questions of the Hon. Member. It would be
seen from them that it was intended to introduce refined
sugar at increased duties.
MEDICAL REFORM BILL.
Lord HOWICK presented a petition against the
Medical Reform Bill.
BISHOPRIC OF BATH AND WELLS.
Mr. COLLETT rose to put the questions to the First
Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given notice, with
respect to the bishopric of Bath and Wells. He wished
to know whether it was the intention of the Government
to appoint another bishop during the life of the present
incumbent, and whether it was their intention to unite
the diocese with that of Salisbury on the death of the
present Bishop ?
Sir R. PEEL could not avoid expressing his astonish-
ment when the notice was first given by the Hon. Mem-
ber. To the first of his questions he. could only reply
that the Government bad no power to make any such
appointment, and, therefore, his answer was decidedly in
the negative. To the second question he would defer
all answer, at least for the present.
Mr. COLLETT then gave notice that he would move
for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the dioceses of
Bath and Wells with that of Salisbury, on the demise of
the present Bishop of Bath and Wells.—(Hear.)
METROPOLITAN GRAVE-YARDS.
Sir P. EGERTON wished to thaw the attention of
the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home
Department, to a shocking circumstance which came out
in evidence before a police magistrate. It appeared that,
in some of the crowded burial-grounds of the metropolis
(one was instanced in the neighbourhood of Clerken-
well) it was the custom to inter the bodies pro tempore,
and shortly afterwards to burn them. He wished to
know if the Right Hon. Baronet intended to adopt any
measures to prevent this desecration ?
Sir J. GRAHAM, bad never heard of the practice
referred to, but the circumstances mentioned by the
Hon. Baronet would have his best attention.
SUGAR DUTIES.—SUPPLY.

On the motion that the order of the day for the House
resolving itself into a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. MILNER GIBSON begged to offer a short ex-
planation of part of the statement he made on the sugar
duties question a few nights since. As it had been sup-
posed that, in his estimate of the cost of producing a
hundred-weight of sugar, he had not included all the
expenses, he begged to say that in his estimate he had
included salaries, wages, taxes, &c,—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN. RUSSELL then rose and said—Sir, I
believe that the House is now about to enter upon the
consideration of a question of very great importance,
brought forward by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. It is a motion of great importance,
not only in a financial, but in a commercial point of view.
The Right Honourable Gentleman, in this proposition,
has laid down these two propositions—first, that it is
desirable and necessary to renew the income-tax for a
further limit ; and, secondly, that the use to be made of
the surplus revenue which this tax will create, or
a great portion of it is to apply it to the relief of
the country from certain other taxes, and to in-
crease the trade and commerce of the manufacturing
districts. With regard to the first of these proposi-
tions, I need not dwell upon it, for the House
has already, by a great majority, agreed to the renewal
of the income-tax, thereby declaring that, if the other
taxes about to be proposed shall appear to this House
to be the best that could be proposed, the House has no
objection to try the experiment proposed in this respect
by the Right Honourable Baronet at the head
of her Majesty's Government. But with respect
to the second proposition, that appears to me
to be one of such vast importance as to require
naore careful and deliberate consideration, as it would
materially affect certain articles of consumption. And
the first of these articles is sugar ; and it would appear
to me, though such has not been stated by her
Majesty's Government, that the views of the
Government are to make such an alteration in
the duty on this article as will place the ma-
nufacturers of sugar in a position that will not give
them room to complain that those duties had been lightly
altered. If that be so, I think this House should take
care to see that certain necessary and indispensable con-
ditions should be complied with. The first of those is,
to take care that no enactment on the subject should be of
an inconsistent or contradictory nature in itself ; and
secondly, that there should not be taken from off arti-
cles of commerce a greater amount of taxes than would
be necessary for the purposes of the revenue, and at the
same time do justice to the West India grower, by giving
him such an amount of protection as may be necessary.
The first objection that I have to this proposition is,
that it professes to keep up a distinction which I hold
to be impracticable, between the produce of foreign free
and slave labour. That this project is illusory seems
to ine a proposition so plain that, if it were not that the
plan of the Government contemplates a contrary course,
I should hardly attempt to detain the House any length
of time in arguing so obvious a proposition. But when
we discussed the question, last year, certain answers
were offered to the proposal which I then made, that all
foreign sugar should be subject to the same duty,
whether it were the produce of free labour or of
slave labour. I think it necessary now to take
some notice of these answers. I objected that
this distinction was illusory. I said there was no ob-
jection to take toLacco or cotton at the same duty from
the countries where they were slave-grown as from the
free states. It was answered that certainly the Govern-
ment did not propose to interfere with the tobacco or
cotton duties, or with commerce long established ; but
thatr in all new regulations which might be in-
troduced, they would make the distinction be-
tween the produce of free labour and that of
slave labour. But this is not the fact, for the proposal
of this year, as well as that of last year,' does make an
alteration ; but the distinctionnTbatveeti foreign free and
coffeeild. forlnvsedt
to 6d.,
slave labour is not observed.
last year the duty was reduced frpoomn
forellipp and the same duty was imposed u
o
it is proposed this year to admit without
sugar as upon the produce of free labour. With rgersPwe:t
to copper ore,

duty that which is the produce of slave labour. And
with regard to cotton, you are going to take off the
whole duty this year, and you do not propose to make
any distinction between that which is raised by
the labour of slaves in foreign possessions and
that which is raised in the East ladies, and die-
where, by free labour.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I find, ac-
cording to those who are the greatest opponents of
slavery—philanthropists who take this view—that we
ought to discourage all productions of slave labour.
These persons admit that we cannot exclude alto-
gether the products of slave labour, yet still some
of them regard with dissatisfaction the encourage-
ment which is given to slave-grown coffee and cotton.
But, in point of fact, you cannot discourage slave labour,
for although you profess to limit yourselves only to the
produce of free labour, yet, if the distinction could be
kept up—if your Custom-house regulations could
be so maintained that none but free-labour
produce should be admitted—still the free-labour
sugar, kept from the market of the world for
your supply, would be replaced in the market of the
world by the slave-grown sugar which you excluded.
'The reply to this was of a very refined nature, and I
own I think not a very successful one. It was, that you
would in fact make a difference of price in the markets
of the world between free and slave-labour sugar ;
that the free-labour sugar of Java and
other countries would command a better price
than slave labour sugar, in consequence of your
restriction. Ido not think that this will be the case, for
supposing the whole consumption of sugar to be 670,000
tons,gyou take away 20,000 tons for the consumption of the
continent, as there is no difference made on the continent
between free-labour and slave-grown sugai ,the probability
is that the greater part of the want thus created will be
supplied by the sugar of Cuba and Brazil, which admits
of great extension, and that this 20,000 tons additional
will be the produce of slave labour. But in the next
place there was this difficulty in the project
you proposed, that you could not in point
of fact, confine your consumption to the free-
labour . sugar of foreign countries. You had certain
treaties with foreign Powers by which you had agreed
to admit their articles on the same terms as those of the
most favoured nations ; therefore, you could not exclude
the produce of those countries consistently with
the maintenance of those treaties. There are se-
veral countries which come into this catalogue ;
and the fact as accorded with the argument then ad-
vanced, that you would not effectually exclude slave-
labour sugar, for the only sugar, and that but a small
quantity, which has been imported under the Act of
last •cear, was said to be the sugar of Venezuela, and
was, in fact, sugar produced by slave labour. I have
heard various statements with regard to this slave-grown
sugar. Some say it has been recognised as the sugar of
Porto Rico, others say it is the sugar of Surinam or Bra-
zil. But those I have seen on this subject generally agree
that it was not the sager of Venezuela, but sugar
which by some fraud or other was passed as Venezuelan
into this country.(Hear.) This is but a single in-
stance, but it has happened very early in the course of
your experiment. It has happened so early, that it has
preceded any of those importations for the sake of
which you altered the law. Now, if this
is the case already, what may you expect from
the whole of the next ten years, for instance, if you
preserve this distinction ? What can you expect but
this—that ingenious persons will contrive schemes by
which they may more effectually evade your regulations,
and that the sugars of Brazil and Cuba will be sent
to the ports of Venezuela and other ports, where
they may find a consul who is not suspicious,
or Custom house authorities, who are open to a bribe,
and by this means constantly evade the provisions you
have made for the exclusion of any sugar that is not
the produce of free labour. If this be the case,
then I submit that it is impracticable to keep
up this distinction. You are attempting that
which is contrary to the nature of things—
you are attempting that which you cannot follow out in
practice. I will not say that there has been any by
in this proposal, as I do not wish to use any ar-
gument of that sort ; but admitting and giving every
credit for good intentions, as much as was claimed, it is
not a proposal that can be carried into effect, and it is
impossible that your regulations can actually exclude that
slave-grown sugar which you propose to exclude.
It is hardly worth arguing this question again. It is
quite clear that the manufacturers of sugar in Brazil and
in Cuba, so long as you send value for their sugar, are
indifferent whether you yourselves consume the sugar or
not. All that they ask for is, a market for their pro-
duce, and when they obtain that they are satisfied
with the resut. Such, Sir, is one of the obvious defects
of the measure, defects which I think will, from
year to year become more and more obvious
and striking. I proceed next to what I consider
another fault in the measure, and that is, that I con-
sider it rather aggravates than otherwise the protec-
tion given at present to the colonies. I was
happy to hear, the other night, the principles of
free trade admitted by all who spoke on the question,
except by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member fir Newark,
who so lately quitted the office of President of the
Board of Trade, made a most remarkable declara-
tion on this subject. He admitted that the East
Indies had no claim for protection—he admitted that
nothing but the scarcity of labour in the West India co-
lonies, resulting from the Emancipation Act, could form
a ground for protection respecting sugar. This is a most
important admission.—(Hear, hear.) It is most im-
portant, because it evidently admits this, that it was no
reason because the produce was the produce of our colo-
nies, that any protection whatever should be extended.
Mr. GLADSTONE—I did not say that these colo-
nies had no claim for protection. What I said was,
that they had no claim for greater protection than 10s.
per cwt.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Then I misunderstood the Right
Hon. Gentleman. I thought he said the colonies had
no claim for protection. However, this admission of
only lOs. per cwt. protection narrows the question of
protection very considerably, because a protection
of 10s. or 10s. 6d. per owt., according to the proposal
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, is not required
by justice with respect to 70,000 tons which
come from the West Indies. With respect to
the Mauritius, there:-is a sufficiency of labour for
the Mauritius. Newspapers even tell us that
the labourers cannot get sufficient employment.
This demand of protection to the amount of 10s. 6d.
does not apply either to Barbadoes or Antigua, because
those colonies have likewise a sufficiency of labour.
Then the demand of protection made on behalf of the
West Indies amounts only to a claim of protection
for that amount for Jamaica, Trinidad, and De-
merara. Now this, I must say, makes a great
difference in the case; because you are proposing an
equal protection of 10s. 6d. both for those who may in
justice demand it, and for a great many others who have
no such claim. Now, Sir, let us examine the protection
which is thus proposed. My Honourable Friend the
Member for Manchester, in bringing forward his
motion the other night—and I find it impossible not
to refer to that debate, because it raised what
was a' part of the present question—(Hear, hear)—my
lion. Friend stated on that occasion that the protection
given amounted to a tax of about 2,300,0001. on the
people of the United Kingdom. My Noble Friend the
Member for Sunderland stated that it was a protection
to that amount, a .d at the same time he said that there
had been a difference of above 7s. 6d. in the price of colo-
nial and foreign sugar. The Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Newark, to whom I must again allude, said
that there was an evident inconsistency in these argu-
ments—that if the difference was no more than that, it
was impossible that the protection could be more than
14s. Now, certainly, when I heard that declaration, I
felt impressed with the importance of it as
corning from the Right Honourable Gentleman,
but, at the same time, I could not agree in its
justice; and I will state my reasons why I think it is not
correct. What the Right Hon. Gentleman proposes is,
not to continue the present importation and the present
duty, but a new importation and new rates of duty. If
the present importation were to continue, and the differ-
ence of price, which was 20s. and 275., we might say that
there was only that difference of' price, and that with
the present rate of duty there was no greater
protection. But let it be observed, that the protection
proposed to be given is on a consumption of 250,000
tons of sugar. What is assumed by the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite is, that the consumption of sugar
will increase from 207,000 to 250,000 tuns ; and the
consequence must bo, that until this foreign sugar which
is proposed to be admitted, comes into the market, the
West India sugar will continue to rise in price,
Therefore supposing, Sir, that the price of sugar now
was 205., it appears on the admission of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the imposition on the 15,000 tons of foreign
sugar would make it 2Ss., and make the price at which
foreign sugar will be brought in the market not less
than 48s. Now, supposing that the price of West India
sugar is now, as it was a few weeks ago, 285., it acill
then, by the addition of a 14s. duty, be raised to the price
of 425., and will not be until it has risen to
485., that foreign sugar can be brought into the market
to compete with West India sugar. If sugar be, there-
fore, at the price which it was a few weeks ago, the
price at which it will be sold will give a protection of
14s. a cwt. to West India sugar. If this be the
case, the measure of the Government will not give
to the consumer the benefit which will be lost to the
revenue. This competition, therefore, Sir, does not
seem to me to give any benefit to the country.
By the calculation of the Right Hon. .Gentleman, if
the price of sugar has risen to 30s. or 325., the consump-
tion will be decreased, and foreign sugar cannot come
into the market. The price of West India sugar will,
in that case, rise, and there will not then be the con-
sumption of 250,000 tons, which has been calculated as
as the consumption of the country; and of the 250,000
tons, 15,000 tons being subject to the foreign duty,
it Hill be a natural consequence that the price
will rise to 345. Now, Sir, what is the
effect of this rate of 14s. ? The rate, I am aware, is
actually 1 ls. 2d. ; but the rate being 255. 2d., and that
255. 2d. being reduced to 1 ls. 2d., there is a difference of
14s. But this will be enough to prevent any benefit to
the consumer, The fact will be, that there will be in
this a remission of is. to the consumer, and 6s. to the
West Indian planter. Other calculations have been made,
and these give 6s. to the consumer and ss. to the West
Indian planter. But, supposing all the duties equal, and
these not more than Bs., the benefit given to
the West Infliffn planters will not be less
than 1,100,0001, and this tax will be imposed simply for
the sake of the benefit of the West India planters
and the Exchequer, for the tax will be equally divided
between the West India planters and the Exchequer.
It is a tax divided between the Exchequer and the West
India colonies—one part of it going to the revenue, the
other being for the benefit of the planter! BO then,
Sir, it is said that you must give this great protec-
tion on account of the state of the West Indies, and
the abolition of slavery. Sir, I could not vote
foe my Honourable Friend the Member for Man-
chester the other night, because the West Indies
two a very emiderable claim upon uo, owing CQ '