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.