PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING BILL. (Hansard, 6 April 1830)

The Earl of Malmesbury
was anxious to take advantage of that occasion to protest, not against the Bill, but against the practice which made it necessary. Their Lordships were aware that at present, service in the Navy was made a punishment for smuggling, and the Bill compelled the smuggler serving in the Navy to allot a moiety of his pay for the support of his family. To that he had no objection, in fact it was necessary; but he objected to punishing smugglers in that manner. The principle was highly objectionable, and could only have the effect of throwing a stigma on a highly honourable service. What brother seaman but must feel humiliated when he sees a profession to which he had devoted his best energies, and in which were embarked his best hopes and aspirations, thus dishonoured by being made a punishment for offences against the laws of this country? He had resisted the application of the same objectionable principle to the punishment of poachers, who, it was proposed, should be forced into the Army. He hoped the noble Lord would remedy this defect, and thereby prevent a stigma being thrown on a highly honourable profession.

Lord Melville
, in answer to the noble Earl, begged leave to state that this punishment of the crime of smuggling was only inflicted on those smugglers who had been at sea previous to the commission of their offence. To no other class of smugglers did it apply. He should be happy to support any measure which would put an end to smuggling. or provide a better method of disposing of the smuggler, but that question was not then before their Lordships. The present Bill was made necessary by the law as it stood and would be an improvement.

The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he objected to the system altogether. A man was caught smuggling, he was asked whether he was a sailor or not, and if he answered yes, he was sent to a King's ship. This was degrading the King's service, and therefore he objected to it.