CHAPTER XVI.

WHO THREW THE BOTTLE?--EXCISE AND CUSTOMS CASES.

In the "Dublin Annals" given in Thom's Almanac and Official Directory, it is stated in reference to the year 1822, "Riot in the theatre, on the Marquis of Wellesley, the Lord Lieutenant's first visit thither, during which a bottle was flung into his Excellency's box."

At the time referred to, I had not attained a profession, and my magisterial position was twenty years distant. I have, however, a very distinct recollection of the affair, as I was seated about the centre of the pit during the riot, and I have to notice that the statement in the Dublin Annals is incorrect. It contains, perhaps, the only inaccuracy that can be found in that voluminous and comprehensive publication. No bottle was flung into the viceregal box, but a rattle was thrown, which struck the front of the box, fell inside, and was raised and held up to the view of the audience by the Lord Lieutenant himself. A bottle was thrown from one of the galleries, and it struck the curtain in the middle with such violence, as to form a kind of bay for itself, and it slipped down on the stage, close to the foot-lights, and was taken up unbroken by the leader of the orchestra.

Prosecutions for riot were instituted, and amongst others a man named Henry Hanbidge was indicted. To him was imputed the throwing of the bottle, and some persons swore informations to the effect, that they were in the middle gallery, and that the bottle was cast from the upper gallery to the centre of the curtain. The proceedings for riot were ineffective. There was no conviction.

When I became a magistrate, in casual conversations with Pemberton, Cox, and others, the "bottle and rattle riot" formed a topic. They said that the assertion of the bottle having been cast from the upper gallery was generally disbelieved. It was, in fact, regarded as an impossibility. Major Sirr and Alderman Darley went one morning, whilst the prosecutions were pending, to the theatre, bringing a large hamper of bottles, and accompanied by some active and powerful peace-officers, who were directed to throw bottles from the upper gallery to the curtain, but not a bottle reached even the orchestra. The roof of the theatre sloped forward and downwards, and the elevation required to send the missile to the curtain invariably smashed it against the ceiling, and distributed the broken glass about the pit. The Major and Alderman came to the conclusion that the riotous bottle had been cast from the boxes or lower gallery.

In about ten years after the affair at the theatre, the house of Sir Abraham Bradley King in Dame Street was consumed by fire. The conflagration commenced in the lower part of the premises, in which there was a great quantity of stationery. The first and second floors were almost immediately in flames. The catastrophe occurred on a Sunday morning. No fire brigade was then organized, no fire escapes had been provided. A man was in the top front room, and he had no access to the roof. A fearful death appeared to be his inevitable fate, when another man emerged from the roof of a neighbouring house, carrying a rope of six or seven yards in length, at one end of which he had formed a running noose. He stood on the narrow parapet over the window, and let down the looped end to the poor fellow, whose only chance of escape depended on the sheer strength and steadiness of an individual. The rope was fastened round the waist of him whom the flames were fast approaching, and he was carried along by the intrepid fellow whose courage and humanity excited him to risk his own life to avert destruction from another, until the window of the adjoining house was reached, and the rescue was completed. This heroic act was accomplished by Henry Hanbidge.

I had been ten or twelve years in office as a police magistrate, when I was applied to by a poor old fellow who was suffering acutely and completely debilitated by rheumatism, to sign a recommendation for his admission to Simpson's Hospital. The applicant was Henry Hanbidge. I most readily complied with his request, and told him that I would insert a few observations on his noble achievement at the fire in Dame Street. He expressed the deepest gratitude for my disposition to serve him. When I was giving him the document, I said, "Now, Hanbidge, might I ask you who threw the bottle?" He replied, "I did, your worship." I asked him "from what part of the house was it thrown?" "From the upper gallery, your worship. A friend and I had emptied the bottle, and I ran my stick into the neck, and shot it straight to the curtain off the stick." My predecessors had not thought of such a mode of projection.

EXCISE AND CUSTOMS CASES.

During my tenure of office I had an undesirable monopoly of the cases brought forward for infractions of the Excise laws, and also an ample share of imputed violations of the statutes regulating the Customs duties in the City and County of Dublin. The barristers who preceded me as magistrates of the Head Police Office, had, in consideration of such business being disposed of by them, an addition of £105 to their salary; but when I was about a month in office, I was favored with a communication that, without prejudice to the continuance of the work, I was to be exonerated from the trouble of receiving or acknowledging the usual pecuniary remuneration. The proceedings instituted by the Excise were, almost invariably, of an uninteresting character. I only recollect one which I consider worth recording in these pages. The premises of a maltster were visited by a revenue officer, and in one of the rooms he observed that a board of the floor was rather loose under his step. He raised it, and found a shoot which led to another floor in adjoining premises, which were apparently untenanted, and in which a large quantity of fresh malt was in process of drying. The principal workman in the maltster's employment dropped on his knees, implored mercy, and said that he would confess all. He then stated that he had made the communication for the purpose of stealing his master's malt, and that he had taken away all that was found by the officer in the adjoining store. He produced from his pocket a key for the external door of the building in which the malt was found. The maltster escaped the infliction of a very heavy penalty, but the workman was convicted on his own confession of stealing the malt, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. I subsequently was informed that during his confinement the man whom he had robbed (?) supported his family most comfortably, and as soon as the culprit terminated his incarceration, _he was received back into the maltster's employment_.

As to the infractions of the Customs laws, my cases all consisted of tobacco or brandy, and the seizures were, in almost every instance, effected immediately on the arrival in port of the respective ships. I believe that the intelligence of smuggling ventures being on board was almost always furnished by those from whom the contraband articles were purchased, or by the attendants in taverns or liquor shops, before whom unguarded conversations might have occurred, and in some instances from both sources. According to my recollection, the great majority of detections occurred on board vessels coming from places belonging to the British Crown. Jersey contributed largely to the contraband traffic, Gibraltar afforded an occasional venture, and the timber ships from the British provinces in North America were frequently made available to the illicit importation of tobacco. A fine brig from St. John's, New Brunswick, named, as well I can remember, "The Hope," arrived in Dublin in the summer of 1852. She was boarded in the bay by some officers of Customs, to whom the master stated that his cargo was exclusively timber. No other description of goods was mentioned in the vessel's papers. The officers proceeded to raise some boards at the foot of the cabin stair, and took out a large quantity of Cavendish tobacco. They then entered the cabin and removed some other boards, finding an abundance of tobacco, which had been there concealed. The master was arrested, and having been brought before me, I remanded the case, by the wish of all parties, for a week. The revenue authorities did not institute any proceedings involving the condemnation of the brig, but they sought the conviction of the master, who was adjudged by me to pay two hundred pounds, or in default of such payment, to be imprisoned for six months. His wife had been the companion of his unfortunate voyage, and their separation, on his committal to prison, was extremely sad. He was a fine-looking young man; I think his name was Harris, and he stated that he belonged to St. John's. The wife was also a native of that place, and I never beheld a woman who, in my opinion, surpassed her in personal beauty. Moreover, she was very near the time when to the designation of "wife" the term "mother" would be added. Whilst I condemned the man I deeply commiserated the woman, and all who witnessed their parting sympathized in her affliction. At the Richmond Bridewell, he was treated with much kindness, and was frequently allowed access to the gardens, to which, as well as to his prison-room, his wife was constantly admitted. There was a young man confined at that time at the instance of some of his relatives. He was a very extraordinary person. In him great literary attainments were combined with imaginative power: he had a mind which could

"Give to airy nothing A local habitation and a name."

He sometimes lapsed into excessive intemperance, during which he exhibited such violent tendencies as justified a committal for two months in default of substantial bail. This imprisonment brought him into association with Harris the tobacco smuggler. They became confidential friends. At this time about two months of the smuggler's term had expired, and his fellow-prisoner expressed an anxiety that they should both be liberated together. Harris could not perceive how such a wish could be accomplished, but the other thought it perfectly feasible. He prepared a memorial to the Commissioners of Customs, which he desired Harris to sign, and it was forwarded forthwith. In a few days I received a letter from the solicitor of the Customs, and with it the memorial. The Commissioners expressed their willingness to have three months taken off the term of the smuggler's incarceration, provided that the committing magistrate did not object to such a commutation. I immediately forwarded the fullest approval of such lenity, and having read the memorial, I returned it to the solicitor. I regret that I did not keep a copy of it, for it was a document which I feel myself incompetent to describe in terms suitable to its merits. In refined and elegant language it acknowledged the commission of the offence and the justice of the punishment inflicted. It declared a determination to abstain in future from every wilful infraction of the laws, and implored the commiseration of those to whom it was addressed for the misery to which the memorialist was reduced, even though it had originated in his own misconduct. His young and affectionate wife, who had accompanied him from her native country, had been unable to withstand the pressure of their misfortunes, and had gone to an early grave in a strange land, being attacked by premature childbirth. He had not even the mournful privilege of assisting at the interment of his beloved consort and her offspring; but from the gloomy precincts of a penal prison he besought the authorities to come to the merciful conclusion that he had suffered enough.

Half of his imprisonment was abrogated, and the time of his discharge was at hand. I was about to leave the police-court on an afternoon, when I was informed that a lady earnestly requested an interview for a few minutes. To this application I acceded: and the fair visiter, having apologized for her intrusion, proceeded to inquire--

"If you please, sir, will you kindly inform me whether my husband's time of imprisonment is to be calculated from the day of his arrest or from the day of his trial?"

I asked the name of the lady, and she replied that she was Mrs. Harris. I remarked that "I was agreeably surprised, as I had seen it stated that she was dead."

"Oh, sir," she exclaimed, "that was put in the memorial by Mr. ---- without even my husband's knowledge. However, I lost my little baby. But I hope that you will not tell that I am alive." I then informed her that her husband's term commenced from the date of his conviction, and she retired. I did not feel it necessary to give any publicity to Mrs. Harris's continued existence.

When the Ajax man-of-war was stationed at Kingstown, the officer in command frequently exercised his crew in warlike operations. In the year 1844, as well as I now recollect, he announced his intention to have a mimic attack made on the ship, by boats, at night. A vast number of persons assembled to behold a spectacle intrinsically grand and peculiarly novel to a Dublin public. The operations commenced about ten o'clock, and continued for upwards of an hour. Signals of alarm were displayed by numerous lights of various colours, and they were succeeded by tremendous discharges of artillery and musketry, above which the cheers of the supposed combatants were frequently audible. At length the assailants retired, and the Ajax remained intact and triumphant. The spectators were most enthusiastic in their applause of the bloodless conflict, which certainly was most deserving of public admiration. However, it afterwards transpired that during the sham battle in the harbour, some extraordinary operations were effected in the vicinity. A smuggling vessel landed a cargo of tobacco close to the Kingstown end of the eastern pier, but outside the harbour. The venture was completely successful, and several days elapsed before the revenue authorities received any intimation of such a daring proceeding. The cargo was conveyed away partly by rail, partly by road, and it was reported that almost the whole of it was transmitted to Limerick, but nothing tangible resulted from enquiries or searches. On the same night another cargo was landed on Dalkey Island, and hastily concealed amongst the rocks. It was supposed to have been brought by a consort of the craft which had made the other run. On the following day, a man, apparently of the seafaring class, gave information to the Customs that he knew where there was a large quantity of contraband tobacco concealed, and that he was willing, for the usual remuneration, which I believe was nearly half the value of the commodities, to conduct them to the place. He accordingly took them to Dalkey Island, where they found the tobacco. It was subsequently rumoured, and I believe the rumour was well-founded, that he was the master of the vessel from which it had been landed; and as one cargo had been successfully smuggled, and the vessels had got away in safety, the reward, incident to discovering the other cargo, was sufficient to pay the prime cost and expenses of the two ventures, and to realize a considerable profit on the whole transaction.

Lest the favorable issue of the illicit speculation which I have last narrated should have the effect of encouraging or even suggesting to any individual any connection with such traffic, I would say that I noticed the successful issue of the enterprise as an extraordinary and exceptional incident. Detection is generally the result, with forfeiture of the goods, fine, or imprisonment. About four years before I retired from office, a young man who had a fine fishing-boat at Howth, and who was engaged to be married, went off to Jersey, and freighted his craft with tobacco and brandy. A revenue cutter was sent to meet him, and he was captured within view of his native hill. His vessel forfeited, his cargo seized, himself a prisoner, and utter ruin substituted for his dazzling but delusive hopes, he lapsed into the extreme of despair, jumped overboard, and perished. His fate should deter, more than a casual and extraordinary escape should encourage, an infraction of the revenue laws.