SILK SMUGGLERS—PROSECUTIONS. (Hansard, 9 December 1831)

§ Mr. Alderman Venables
begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether the prosecution for smuggling, which had been instituted against a house in the silk-trade in the city of London, had been continued or not, and what was the result?

The Attorney General
said, that his right hon. friend, to whom it properly belonged to answer that question, was not present, but he thought he might take upon himself to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman. The prosecution to which the hon. Member had alluded, was a prosecution for penalties for evading the payment of the duty on certain silks. There were others, but one alone was about to be brought to trial, when it was compromised for a sum of 20,000l. Probably the whole amount of the fines to which the parties had subjected themselves, might amount to 140 about 25,OOOl. He believed, that the amount received as a compromise was the largest the Government had ever obtained from such a prosecution. There were goods to be taken back, which might possibly amount to 5,OOOl. So that the offending parties would have to pay a sum of 15,000l., which was sufficient to make them suffer so severely as to be a guarantee that they would not repeat the offence.

§ Mr. Alderman Venables
wished to put one more question, which he did at the request of the silk-trade generally. They wished to know for what particular reasons the compromise was effected? for they felt very strongly, that it was a most injudicious course, to compromise such actions. They were the more anxious on this subject, on account of the distress which prevailed in the trade, and the facilities which existed for smuggling.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, he had adverted to this subject last Session, and he then received what he understood to be a distinct pledge that no compromise should take place. He would venture to assert, that three times the amount of silk was smuggled into the country beyond what was paid for, and he knew, that the trade had felt the utmost anxiety on this subject, and had expected penalties to the amount of 50,OOOl. to be recovered.

The Attorney General
was bound to state, that this matter had come into his hands without instructions or restrictions as to what he was or was not to do. He believed, that in the pledge spoken of by the hon. member for Preston, his right hon. friend only intended, that the case should be brought into Court, to be there dealt with as might be proper; and so far there had been no violation of the pledge. The fact was, that if every thing charged could have been proved, the penalties could only have amounted to 25,000l. The compromise, therefore, was only for a sum of 5,000l. less than might have been obtained had every thing been fully proved against the parties.

§ Mr. Alderman Venables
was bound to say, that Government had, on this occasion, obtained a more satisfactory settlement of the prosecution than had ever before been obtained; but the objection to any compromise still existed.

Sir Robert Peel
said, that as this case had excited a great deal of attention, he thought it would be of advantage if the papers connected with it were laid on the Table. Those papers would show the way in which the duties had been originally evaded, and 141 they would inflict that punishment which the compromise had enabled the guilty parties to avoid, but which was the most effective that could be employed against them—he meant the punishment of publicity. If the compromise was effected, as he supposed it was, before the trial, of course there could have been no publication of the circumstances of the case, and the disgrace attendant on such a publication was wanting to complete that punishment which, without it, would be hardly sufficient to prevent parties from being guilty of the same offence.

§ Lord Althorp
said, the object of Government most assuredly was, to prevent smuggling if possible, and the object of the parties in this case, in agreeing to a compromise for so large a penalty, was, perhaps, chiefly with the view of avoiding the additional punishment of publication, otherwise he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in the principle, that every publication ought to be given to the circumstances of the case, since it was the object of the Government to prevent the recurrence of such offences.

§ Mr. Alderman Venables
said, that he should take an early opportunity of moving for the papers.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. That part of the King's Speech which informed the House that his Majesty had directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be laid on the Table, having been read,