Lords Sitting of 16 March 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la. Benefices Augmentation; Marine Mutiny; Exchequer Bills (£1,750,000).
2a Coasting Trade; Highways (South Wales); Mutiny; Commons Inclosure.
3a Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000).

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS—PETITIONS.
LORD BROUGHAM presented petitions from the magistrates of Carlisle and of the county of Cumberland, and from John Fawcett, Esq., a magistrate, of great experience in the administration of the criminal law in that county, praying for alteration in the mode and time of taking pleas of prisoners charged with larceny. The petioners pointed out that, according to the latest returns of the whole number of prisoners brought to trial at each assize in that county, between one-third and one-fourth immediately pleaded guilty on being placed at the bar, and that these, nevertheless, caused just as much expense to the county as those prisoners who pleaded not guilty, and stood their trials, inasmuch as the whole cost of getting up the prosecution had to be incurred to precisely the same extent; and suggested as a remedy that courts of petty sessions should be empowered to receive pleas of guilty, after which prisoners so pleading might be brought up for judgment at the assizes without any further proceedings. The noble and learned Lord said he had been desired by the petitioners to introduce a Bill into their Lordships' House on the subject, but he had declined, thinking that, probably, the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack would be prepared to undertake the subject; and, if not, that as it would be one greatly affecting the county magistracy, a Bill would be more fittingly introduced by a private Member in the other House, which was composed in a great measure of country gentlemen engaged in the administration of justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must decline to undertake to bring in a Bill upon this subject, because the matter was one of the very greatest importance, with which it would not become any Government to deal without full and careful consideration. It seemed at the first blush very reasonable that, when a prisoner was brought before a magistrate, he should be allowed, in order to save expense, to plead

847
guilty once for all; but was there not some danger that a prisoner might occasionally be induced to plead guilty, with the fear of the magistrate before his eyes, when in reality he might not be guilty of the exact crime which was laid to his Charge? At the same time the subject was one which deserved consideration; and he could assure his noble and learned Friend that, although doubts had been thrown upon the expediency or the feasibility of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commission upon the codification of the criminal law, he did not think the same difficulties were likely to apply to the code of procedure which the Commissioners had suggested. The subject of these petitions belonged to the latter branch of the question, and no doubt had engaged the attention of the Commissioners, though he was not able at that moment to say that it actually formed part of their Report.
LORD BROUGHAMasked the noble and learned Lord if he had any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the letter which he had lately received from two of the learned persons engaged in the project of codification of the criminal law, commenting on the answers lately received from the Judges with reference to that project?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was not his intention to lay upon the table a copy of the letter which he had received from Mr. Graves and Mr. Lonsdale, the assessors to the Commissioners upon Criminal Law Consolidation, with reference to the opinions of the Judges upon that measure. The letter was a private one, and though it was written with great ability, and in a perfectly respectful manner, yet he did not think it would be quite consistent with his duty to lay before their Lordships a sort of running commentary upon all the Judges had stated, in their character as Judges, for the guidance of the House. What he proposed to do was, to refer the opinions delivered to their Lordships by the Judges to the Select Committee upon the Bill, and then to have Messrs. Graves and Lonsdale examined as witnesses before the Committee, and they would then have an opportunity of making whatever explanation they had to offer with regard to the objections urged by the Judges.

COASTING TRADE BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, on moving the second reading of the Coasting Trade Bill, said, that the measure was brought under the consideration of their Lordships in consequence of the recommendations contained in Her Majesty's Speech delivered at the commencement of this Session, with reference to the removal of all remaining restrictions upon our navigation. He was happy to be enabled to inform their Lordships that the measure which had been passed in 1849 for the repealing of the Navigation Laws had not been attended with those evil results which had been anticipated by some of their Lordships on the other side of the House; and, as a proof of this, he might mention that since that year (1849) the increase in the tonnage possessed by this country had been 700,000 tons, and that there had also been an increase in the number of sailors employed in navigating those vessels, to the amount of at least 20,000. If there was any portion of the shipping interest which had not shared in the general prosperity, it was the coasting trade, and that was the only branch not affected by the alterations which had taken place in 1849, and so far from having increased it had remained stationary, if, indeed, it had not retrograded. He was aware that this might be attributed, in some degree, to the increased competition of railways and steamboats, which had diminished the number of sailors and reduced the number of vessels employed in the coasting trade; but he was convinced that other causes, in addition to those just mentioned, had operated to produce so undesirable a result. When the Bill of 1849 was introduced to their Lordships, by his noble Friend the President of the Council, it was stated that the principal reason why Parliament was not asked to deal with the coasting trade was, that apprehensions were entertained in many quarters that, in all likelihood, great injury would result to the revenue from the introduction of foreign vessels, who would have great facilities in evading our revenue laws. Since 1849 that question had been fully considered, and he was happy to say that all the authorities were now unanimously of opinion that the revenue would sustain no loss by the introduction of foreign shipping into the coasting trade of this country. It was considered, in truth, that the English sailor was much more likely to evade the vigilance of the Custom-house officers than the foreign seaman, who, ignorant of the language of the country, and without

849
connections in our ports, would find almost insuperable obstacles in the way of any attempt upon his part to defraud the revenue. At the same time it was necessary that the foreigners who entered into the coasting trade should be subject to all the regulations which at present affected English vessels, and he hoped the Bill would be considered to have provided satisfactorily in that respect. But if it was desirable upon general grounds to make the proposed alteration in the law, what had taken place within the last year afforded additional reasons for adopting that course. Their Lordships were doubtless aware that during the past twelve months the whole trade of the country had been greatly inconvenienced and injured by a positive want of shipping to carry on the ordinary traffic, and that in consequence freights had risen upwards of fifty per cent. In this metropolis the consumers of coals had a large additional burden thrown upon them, and considerable loss was experienced by manufacturers and producers throughout the country. Numerous memorials and petitions had been presented to the Government complaining of the inconvenience and injury arising from the want of shipping in the coasting trade, even at a greatly enhanced rate of freight, and of large quantities of produce being detained in the northern ports at a time when foreign vessels were leaving in ballast, not being available to supply the deficiency in consequence of our restrictive enactments. He could mention to their Lordships an instance of the particular kind of hardship which arose from these circumstances. Last year a large house in Newcastle, engaged in the manufacture of alkalies, wrote to the Government that, in consequence of the want of shipping for the purpose of bringing the raw materials from different parts of the country, they might probably be obliged to close their works, although at that time there were several Norwegian and other foreign vessels in the Tyne, which, but for the existing law, might have been employed in the coasting trade. Some of these vessels had brought timber to the port of Dublin, and might have conveyed from that port some of the raw material which was required at Newcastle. Instead of being allowed to do so, they were compelled to take in ballast, which, on their arrival at Newcastle they discharged into the Tyne, to the infinite injury of the navigation; and the corporation then, at great expense,
850
had to have it dredged up and conveyed away elsewhere. Again, the crop of potatoes in the north of Scotland last year was very plentiful, whereas in the south of England it was almost a failure. The result was that potatoes in the London market were scarce and dear, and a supply could not be got from Scotland, owing to the want of shipping, though the ports were full of Russian and Norwegian vessels, which had brought cargoes of hemp, tallow, and battens for the herring trade. Many similar cases had occurred; but he hoped that those he had mentioned would be sufficient to induce their Lordships to consent to the proposed relaxation of the law, which had hitherto prevented the introduction of foreigners into the coasting trade of this country. But although it was admitted that, as regarded the question of cheapness, the relaxation of the law might be advantageous, it was contended that there were much higher interests at stake, and that by throwing open the trade they destroyed what was the great nursery of seamen for this country, and would be cutting off the sinews of war by destroying the trade in which were reared their best and hardiest seamen. If that argument was found insufficient in 1849, with regard to the foreign trade, he was sure they need entertain little apprehension that it would be more cogent now. They would have little to fear from the competition of foreigners in our own seas, from their superiority in the navigation of their ships, their intimate knowledge of the ports and the coasts, and their connection with the inhabitants of the different ports they frequented, and, under all the circumstances, he did not think that they had reason to apprehend any great influx of foreigners. There were numerous vessels from the Baltic and other foreign ports, which at present were obliged to sail in ballast instead of conveying away from one British port to another cargoes that were only waiting for transport from want of the necessary shipping. If, then, by any artificial means, they kept up the price of the coasting trade, and thereby promoted the competition of railways, which were the only real rivals they had to apprehend, they would only encourage the combination of shipowners and sailors, maintain those high prices, and eventually destroy the very trade they proposed to protect. The best means, in his opinion, of preventing the trade being thrown into the hands of the railways—for if the

851
trade once forsook the sea and was conveyed by land it would be difficult to bring it back—would be by throwing open the trade, as had been done with one portion of their shipping trade already, to its great advantage as well as to the benefit of the country at large. With respect to the question of reciprocity, he thought it would be a narrow and foolish course of policy to make our commerce in any way depend upon the fears or inexperience of other nations; we should go on fearlessly and independently in our course of improvement, and show our confidence in the principles we advocates by the sincerity and energy with which we enforce them. He must admit, indeed, that we had not met with as much encouragement from abroad as we had a right to expect. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped their Lordships, however, would remember that we had not learnt the lesson of free trade long ourselves. But the conduct of other nations had not been so discouraging as some seemed to imagine. America had given us at once complete reciprocity, so far as her laws enabled her to do so, and the exception of the Californian trade was the result of what was considered to be a grave constitutional objection, which he hoped would be removed by the Bill now before their Lordships. If England was prepared to admit Americans into her coasting trade, he trusted that the United States, upon their part, would throw open the Californian trade, which they now regarded as a portion of their coasting trade, to British enterprise and industry. Holland, again, had met us in a fair and honourable spirit. Our shipping was admitted to the Dutch ports upon the most favourable terms; and he was happy to state that a communication had already been received by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to the effect that the Dutch Government were disposed, even with respect to the coasting trade, to give us the same advantage which we extended to them. At the same time he might mention that a retaliatory clause bad been inserted in the Bill which would enable the Queen in Council to close the coasting trade against any nation which might deserve to be excluded from it; but he trusted that power would never be exercised. He moved the second reading of this Bill, therefore, upon several grounds—first, because it would confer a great benefit upon all classes in the community; secondly, because it would tend to foster rather than injure our nur-
852
sery of seamen; and, thirdly, because it would produce an extension of trade and commerce, and by that means promote the prosperity and well-being, not only of the shipping interest, but of every branch of industry in the kingdom.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, it was not his intention to offer any Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord, but he could not allow this Bill to be read the second time without addressing a few observations to their Lordships. It had been said that the predictions of those who opposed the repeal of the Navigation Laws had entirely failed, and that our foreign trade, instead of being diminished, had actually increased. He cheerfully admitted that our foreign trade had increased; but that increase was not greater than what took place in a similar period under the old law, and it had arisen almost entirely, if not altogether, from causes which were not foreseen in 1849—the discoveries of gold in California and Australia, which had created such an immense demand for shipping to those countries. With respect to our nursery of seamen, he was afraid that all the ill that could be done upon that point was effected last year in the Bill allowing the manning of British vessels by foreigners—a measure which, in his opinion, left nothing British about our ships except the ownership. He was quite satisfied with the retaliatory clause, and for his own part he saw no reason why the agriculturists and other producers of this country should not take advantage of a foreign vessel for the purpose of conveying their produce from one port to another. When there was not a sufficient number of British vessels at hand and the foreign ones were riding idly at anchor, he thought it was not only foolish, but illiberal, not to make use of the means that were placed within our reach.
EARL WALDEGRAYEwas understood to oppose the Bill, chiefly upon the ground that it would make foreigners dangerously familiar with our coasts.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that when the Navigation Laws were repealed in 1849, it was stated that, in consequence of the then existing state of treaties with the United States, no separate Act would be necessary upon their part to open up their coasting trade to British vessels. Our coasting trade was not included in the measure of 1849, and of course the coasting trade of the United States, embracing the trade between California and New

853
York, was not opened to the ships of this country. What he wanted to know was, whether, under the existing law of the United States, it will be necessary for Congress to pass a separate Act opening the coasting trade, including the trade between New York and California, to British vessels, now that we are about to introduce American ships into our coasting trade?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that we had now removed the constitutional objection which had been felt in the United States to our introduction into the Californian trade. There was no law, he feared, which, after the passing of this Bill, would admit us to the American coasting trade, and a new Act would, therefore, be required for that purpose.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he understood the constitutional objection to have been, that they could not put the trade between New York and California on the same footing as the trade between New York and Boston, and that, therefore, there could be no relaxation, in that sense, of the United States' coasting trade in favour of England. He thought that, in equity, we had a strong claim, in the noble Earl's view of the case, to obtain a right to the whole coasting trade of the United States, including the trade to California.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he entirely concurred with the last observation of the noble Earl.
EARL GREYsaid, this Bill supplied what, at the time, he thought a great defect in the measure of 1849—a defect, moreover, to which nothing reconciled him except the certainty that, if an attempt had been made to rectify it, the measure would have been lost altogether. He was glad to find that the result of the great experiment which their Lordships were induced to sanction in 1849 had been such that this Bill, which was one intended to remove the last remaining restriction upon commercial intercourse, was received with the general acquiescence of the House, only one dissentient voice being raised against it. With respect to the retaliatory clauses of the Bill, he trusted, as had been the case with those of the Bill of 1849, that they would prove a dead letter. Indeed, upon the whole matter of reciprocity he earnestly hoped the Government would abstain from pressing it upon foreign Powers. The more experience he had of commercial negotia-
854
tions the more he was convinced that the less diplomacy interfered with the matter the better. We waited on for some thirty years after the peace, negotiating with every foreign nation in the hope of obtaining a mutual relaxation of commercial restrictions. An immense deal of ingenuity and labour was bestowed by successive Secretaries of State and Ambassadors in trying to effect that object; but as long as we pursued that policy, instead of making any advance towards a better system, the restrictions upon the trade of the world were progressively getting worse and worse. It was very natural that it should be so; for as long as the opinion prevailed that in abolishing restrictions a nation benefited, not itself, but other countries, no real progress towards a system of free trade could be made. Ten or a dozen years ago, however, this country adopted the sensible principle of deciding what should be its own commercial regulations, quite irrespective of what foreign countries might do. The result was precisely what might have been expected. Foreign countries did not follow our example, believing our commercial prosperity to have been the result of what was called protection; and they could not understand that we had not some sinister object in view in adopting a, different policy. But since they had seen the great impulse that had been given to our prosperity by the relaxation of those absurd restrictions on our trade with foreign countries which formerly characterised our policy, they were gradually, one after another, following our example, and admitting the absurdity of their own system. If we only fairly and energetically carried out our system in this respect, and abstained from soliciting foreign countries to follow a similar one—if, he said, we only adopted that high-minded policy—he was quite persuaded that not many years would elapse before every country in the world, even the most benighted, such as Spain, would be compelled by force of circumstances to imitate our example, and to relax those absurd restrictions to which they still had recourse. He trusted he might be excused for having offered these few observations on the subject before the House; but having taken so great an interest in the measure of 1849, he could not allow this Bill, which he thought was a necessary consequence of that measure, to pass without availing himself of the opportunity of making the remarks which he had addressed to their Lordships.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he perfectly agreed with his noble Friend who had last addressed their Lordships, that this Bill was an almost necessary consequence of the measure of 1849; but he wished to state that the opposition which a considerable part of the body of free traders, and himself among the rest, offered to the Bill of 1849 was in accordance and in perfect consistency with the doctrines held by the most venerable authority on the subject of free trade. The body to whom he referred did not go so far as the great apostle of free trade, Dr. Adam Smith; and he (Lord Brougham) took leave most respectfully to express dissent from one of his doctrines, holding that he went too far in the exception he took to the principles of free trade in a particular respect. Adam Smith's doctrine was that he had no manner of doubt of the soundness of the principles of free trade as applied to the wealth of a country—with which doctrine he (Lord Brougham) heartily concurred—yet that there were interests of more importance to a nation, and that was the defence of a nation; and that the principle of free trade ought not to obtain when it was inconsistent with the measures necessary for public security. Differing most respectfully from that great authority in the length to which he carried that exception, he (Lord Brougham) still thought that in 1849, with such means for securing the maritime strength of the country as we then had, it was perilous to tamper with a system on whose behalf so much could be said. Where things were well, to leave them well was his doctrine; not to apply change, whether under the name of innovation, or under the name of reform or improvement, where all was so well that we could hardly fancy any complaint could be found with our position. When things were ill, where there were defects, abuses, or grievances, then let them apply the reforming knife, either to prune or to eradicate; but when things were well, especially in so important a matter as that which touched the defence of a country, it was, upon the whole, better to leave well alone. Having come to the resolution they did in 1849, he thought this Bill was a necessary consequence, and he therefore cordially supported the Motion for its second reading.
On Question, agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned till to-morrow.