The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-25 00:00:00

Sde.;' Lord STsieCET presided.

Mr. COLLIES, Q.C., who bad moved the adjournment
on tho previous occasion, resumed the debate. In refer-
ence to Mr. Westlake's argument, that commercial block-
ado as distinguished from military blockade war until a
recent period unlawful, and that until within the last two
centuries commercial blockade war unknown, he observed
that the reason commercial blockade had not been known
is the middle ages war the want of ravel force on the part of
any power to enforce it, adding, that the right was clearly
recognised in the judgments of Lord Stowell, and by all
writers on the subject. As to the more debatable question
of what the law ought to be, Mr. Cobden suggested, quoting
the authority of Mr. Oa s, that no blockade should be
lawful, except the blockade et • fortified place. and that it
should be maintained by laid and by sea. Mr. Westlake,
on the other hand, would allow the blockade of other Wan
fortified places in case of attack, sad held that it war
sufficient if they were blockaded by sea only. This was an
intermediate position, which was untenable for one moon,
that it was impossible to define what was such an attack
as would justify the blockade. Mr. Cubden'a posi-
tion wan more intelligible. warding the question
from an English point of view, he (Mr. Cob-
deo) held that it would be useless for us to
abandon the right unless all other nations would agree to
abandon it likewise. TaksiAmeriCa—why, her most power-
ful means of esersinethe Confederates was
the blockade of
their ousts and porta—wee she likely to abandon that
right? Certainly not. Prised/ode the case was in favour
of maintaining the right in our own case, because we were
enabled to blockade the portliest au enemy, while that enemy
was unable to maintain a blockade against our ports ;,and
as the object in carrying on hostilities was to Mkt •
greater loss on the enemy than we ourselves sustained, it was
obvious that the power of blockade gave us that advantage,
because we by blockading a port destroyedits trade as with
all the world, whereas the lose we sustained war the
loss of trade only with that particular wort. Again, Mr.
Cobden, in some degree boggles the question, said that the
only powers we wine likely to be at war with were Russia,
France, and America. Bat why was that' Because our
power of blockading the porta of thesmaller powers rendered
it next to impossible that they would risk involving them-
selves in hostilites against us. In regard to Buena, if the
blockade of Cronstadt in the last war had been effectual
the trade of that power would have been destroyed, whereas '
all the inconvenience to us would have been that WS should
have had to pay • higher price for tallow,
hemp, and flax. The main ground why we did "not
make this blockade effectual was not what Mr.
Cobden said, but the fear of a war with Prussia. But what
was the result? Why, for two years the shipping of Russia
was lying noshes in Cronstedt, until she organised a system
of land carriage through Prussia, and the trade in jute had
been permanently transferred to India ; whereas to us the
only loss was the higher price we paid for the articles we
received from Russia through Prussia, while it was indis-
putable that the blockade of Cronetadt brought the war to
a conclusion much earlier than otherwise it would have been.
In the case of France, too, we should under the law of
blockade inflict infinitely more injury on her than we should
suffer from it. The same might be said of America. Then
he urged that if we once gave up the power, we
could resume it. Therefore at present he was not
disposed to abandon a right which, in the event of war, he
believed gave us a most valuable advantage over the enemy.
Of all the inetances the world had ever afforded of the
efficiency of blockade as a belligerent right, none war so
strong as that afforded by the care of America, for it was
uoquestionable that but for the exercise of that right by the
Federal/ the Confederates would have been victorious. He
denied that neutral powers had any right to complain, I
seeing that they agreed to it ; and if we were to give it up
we had better abandon our naval supremacy altogether.
Mr,EDWARD WEBSTER took the opposite view, and
observed that the question was, whether by treaty
between any two or more nations the right of commer-
cial blockade should be abandoned, and that all
private property not contraband of war should be
inviolate.- He differed entirely from Sir G. C. Lewis that
in the event of war all treaty obligations were at an end.
If France, Russia, and England were to enter into such a
treat,, be could Dot admit that its cooditions would ant be
held binding by ell the patties to it even though war should
break out between any two of them. It was contrary to
principle and practice among civilised nations not to respect
private property on land. (No, no.) Yes, such had been
the practice of the Duke of Wellington ; and what difference
was there in principle between private property ou land
and private property on the seas' He held that the right
of blockade- should only exist as against a belea-
guered port or place seeking to introduce food
or other supplies for the beleaguered army, and
at some length contended that when by a blockade the trade
of a country, not Bull engaged in war, was destroyed, that
country was justified in putting an end to such blockade,
just as much as one nation was justified in interfering to put
an end to war when it became injurious to nations which
were not themselves parties to it, which had been often
done.
Mr. PmTiit, Q.C., remarked that, whatever might have
been its origin, the recognised law of nations now was, that
• blockade melt be maintained, not only 'against fortified
but nnfortifled places, and, in fact, as was now being prac-
tically muted by the Federal*, against the entire coasts of
the enemy. As to the desirability of maintaining that law
as regarded Great Britain, he observed that Great Britain,
haying become the brokers of the whole world, whatever
would subserve the commercial interests of the whole
world would in the end subserve the interests of Great
Britain. Mr. Cobdea had said that, in oensequence'of the
extension of the railway 'ream, the law of blockade, as
against certain countries, lost its force. Such a case as that
of Russia would never occur again. During the late war
there was no railway between Memel and St. Petersburg.
There were other ports to be blockaded is that war besides
Croostadt, and it was well known that that blockade was
anything but effectual, and that we suffered quite as much
from it in the higher prices we paid for spire, hemp, and
other articles, while the only persons who were benefitted
by it were the Prussian brokers and agents. Take
the case of a war with France. If we could
maintain • blockade (which, to be effectual, must
be kept up along the whole coast from Bayonne
to Dunkirk, and he left them to calculate what
would be the cost, and how it would try and strain our
iron-clad fleet), the produce would flow into and out of
France, through Antwerp, which was a neutral port, and
with which, from every part of France, there was commu-
nication by railway. It was the same with every other
state in Europe. In former times, when there was no rail-
way communication, no telegraph, he admitted that these
commercial blockades had done sonic harm, but they had
never been effectual for the purposes for which they were
intended. He did not think Mr. Cobden's proposals would
prevail at present, for ministers and parliament had other
subjects on their hands. Then as to our maritime
supremacy. What was it! If we asserted dominion over
the sea we should have to fight for it, and if we contended
for the old right of blockade we should have all the other
maritime nations combining against us. It was our policy to
administer the law of the sea as fairly and liberally as pcesi-
ble, and not seek to establish old antiquated laws which
were unsuited to the altered circumstances of the times. He
thought any member of parliament would do servos by
moving for a committee to inquire into the alteratives in the
law of nations which recent changes had rendered necessary,
with the view to some convention supplemental to the treaty
of Paris by which the conduct of nations towards each other
in regard to the rights of private property and the law of
blockade might be regulated. He doubted if, in the great
war. Lord Stowell's judgment would have been so readily
aNnieeced in had our arms been less successful. He
believed, whether adopted or not, Mr. Cobdeu's proposal
would receive its practical solution within the nrst six
months of any war that might break out. Practically the
right of attack was confined to the hulls of the commercial
ships of the enemy—belligerent property not on board the
ships of the enemy was safe, unless contraband of war.
Therefore he was of opinion that some inquiry was necessary
as to what further concession should be made in order that
a generally understood code of international law might be
established. For himself, he was bold enough to affirm
Mr. Cobden's proposition.
Mr. W. M. Barr thought the discussion confounded the
right of blockade with the duty of blockading, and that
Whey pervaded Mr. Cobdea's arguments and conclusions.
The real question was, would it be for the advantage of
mankind—not of any particular nation—to give up the
right of blockade in time of war! There was no difference
practical) y between a blockade by sea and a cordon by
laud, and he held that in the case of war it was perfectly
justifiable to isolate your enemy, as the most effectual
means of coercing him. The neutral who interfered io •
just war because the isolation of either belligerent was in-
jurious to the interests of that neutral became • party to
the war.
Mr. WESTLAKE generally replied to the arguments ad-
duced against the congenial to which his paper pointed,
viz. the adoption of Mr. Cobden's proposition, and • vote
of 'acknowledgment to the author of the paper, and •
similar compliment to the noble chairman, concluded the
evening's proceedings.

crworgNoiti

THE ALLEGED COMMERCIAL FRAUD.

James Crowther and Samuel Goodburn, two
respectable middle-aged men, who were charged at the
Mansion-house on Monday week with conspiring to-
gether in obtaining by film pretences various sums, to
the amount of about 7,000/., with intent to defraud their
employers, Messrs. Laing and Merridew, appeared yesterday
before the:Lord Mayor, in answer to their recognisanees,to
undergo a further examination upon that charge.
Mr. Walther again prosecuted, end Mr. Sleigh, banister, .
instructed by Messrs. Hellyer And Feverish, appeared en
behalf of the defendant Crowther ; and Mr. Geo. Lewis
appeared for the defendant Goodburn.
Mr. Wontner signified his intention of calling Mr.
Barber as a witness, and he thought his would be the only
additional evidence that would be required.
It will be remembered that on the het examination Mr.
Ling, of the firm of Laing and Merridew, was the only
witness examined.
Mr. Weigh mid, yesterday, he should like to put a goes.
tion or two to Mr. Ling, and be woo amordregly main
called into the witness-box ' • and, in answer to Mr. Ste
said—The tremor:time between our firm and Mr.
amounted to several thousand pounds per annum for the
last amend the entries being made by Goodburn and
another clerk is our books. Upon a purchase Wog mods in
the market, the entry would be immediately mole in the
contract-book, sometimes, not always, by the person who
effected the purchase. The ooutract-books are all still in
existence. The contract I referred to with Mmes.
Northcote and Son is entered on our bootie and
our commission charged as brokers and received
by es, as I said on the irk Premien. Crowthee
has since bele eseryhe en laminar on his owe account,
but I have linos asearesieed he was a clerk. I hare spoken
my mind reweedm him. I have been called upon by some
person to arisen* Crowther'. amounts, but I refused to en-
tertain it. Crowther mat Mr. Georee Evans to me offering
to give me any explanatkm 'might require. My reply wax
that Crowther had Mid me so many lies that I wouM not
Ibelieve him upon bismuth. I told Mr. Evens to tall Crow-
ther to send me a copy of all the transactions with Barber,
but I have never had it. I never said I would not let
Crowther rest until I drove him cut of the market.
Mr. Lewis, on behalf of Goodburn, said he should like to
cross-examine the witness before Mr. Barber was called, and
in answer to him
Mr. Laing said—Barber's account commenced in 1853. I
think it commenced with a purchase of tartar only. I think
that was paid for in cash. From 1853 to 1i155, it was paid
for partly by cash, and partly in manufactured articles.
The first dealing in saltpetre was in June, 1855. It was
the duty of Goodburn to credit him the tartaric acid or the
cash when paid, in the ledger. From June, 1853, to June.
1855, I looked over Barber's amount from time to time. In
June, 1835, there appears to be about 500/. due to us from
him. In 1855 a fresh business was introduced between our-
:selves and Barber. It was the purchase of saltpetre through
us es brokers in addition to the tartaric acid. Between
1855 and 1861 I went over the ledger account of Barber
several times in each year sod always made inquiries. When
that new business was introduced nothing was said to the
defendants about the amount of Barber's account. I did not
consider it requisite to caution them any more about ft. On
one occasion I told Goodburn not to let the account go over
5001. The payment for the saltpetre was made as refined
saltpetre by cash. In every year I went over the account in
the ledger between Barber and ourselves several times. I
thought Barber was a man of limited means sad • man
it was not safe to trust 5,0001. Is was a stipulation be-
tween us and Barber that he should deal through our
house alone. I was aware that Barber had not any salt-
petre refining works till 1855. Between 1855 and 1861
Barber might have paid us in cash and manufactured
articles as much as 80,0001. We charged Barber one pee
cent., and one per cent for selling ; half per cent. on b-
ing was because we made advances on the warrants. Ws
also charged five per cent. interest upon the balance. The
interest depended upon the state 'of the market. It was
very likely to have been as much as eight per cent at
times. Our firm was in the habit of catering into contracts
for the purchase of saltpetre for Barber. We entered into
contracts most likely to the extent of 3,0001. It was debited
to Barber, and would become his, subject to payment. If
3,0001. worth of saltpetre, purchased at Liverpool, was
purchased without warrants, and conveyed to Bar-
ber's premises without any security, it was by the
prisoner, and Dot with my or my partner's knowledge
or sanction. I have had • partner named Page, who
left the firm in the beginning of 1839. The books were
examined at that time, and I think the balance due from
Barber was about 6.0001., but I understood from Goodburn
that we held securities to cover that amount. I took Good-
burn's word for that. mad thought that quite 'efficient. He
. did not say the account was partly secured. I asked him
if it was properly secured, and he said it was. The books
were gem over by Mr. Campbell and myself at the end et
1859, and the balance against Barber was then about 5,000 i.
I knew then that Barber was doing more business at that
time than at the time he commenced. After we /Deed
' the extent of the debt due from Barber we gave Mr. Cando-
roy a letter stating that we would not make Barber bank-
rupt for twelve months. That was about April, 1862. I
disoovered that Goodhue° and Crowther bad without my
knowledge or comsat entered into an arrangement with
Mr. C.sWeroy. They had taken warrants from the box with-
out my sanction and delivered them from time to time
to Mr. Guiding, who was to supply the saltpetre to Mr-
Barber, and Berber was to repay him in refined saltpetre.
Cauderoy gave my clerks • memorandum that he would pay
the money when he sold the saltpetre. When the dis-
covery was made Cauderoy bad warrants to the amount of
upwards of 9001., which he ultimately paid the money for.
I don't know what arrangements they made with Barber;
they credited ()midway without my consent. I had told them
not to trust Mr. Cauderoy in any transactions. There were
40 or 50 accounts opened. Goodhue° had the management
of them; but be was not authorised to give credit Hs did
not come from me from time to time when he delivered
the warrants. He had no need to do so, as he had
general instructions as to the limit of every amount.
I had unlimited confidence in Goodburn end I do
believe that, with the exception of this account,
no other account has been in error. I have
not been able to find out that Goodburn has derived the
least benefit from Barber's account. The discovery took
place in March, and he remained with me until June, when
be resigned. He was most assiduous in making up the
accounts of Barber. I find that every item has been en-
tered in my accounts with Barber. I have gone over every
item, madam bound to say I have found them all correct.
Mr. Laing, on being examined by Mr. Wontner, said with
respect to the transaction of Crowther, which I told Mr.
Sleigh was entered in our books, and on which we received
the brokerage. that is the traimaction about which I had
the conversation with Crowther, and in which he admitted
the 'Foods were his own, and which be had bought with the
monies of the firm. Barber paid me part in cash, part in
tartaric acid, and part in saltpetre. I mean by
that that when you sold the tartaric acid you
placed the proceeds to his account, having par-
chseed the raw material for him. If that bad been carried
out in all subsequent transactions, it would have been quite
safe. The ledger would show what goods had been bought
for Barber, and what he had paid in respect of those goods ;
but the securities did not appear on the face of that account.
Each party's securities are kept separate, and are not carried
th h the ledger. I did not examine the *meriting, but
took burn a word that Hey were sufficient to cover
the balances. If he bad retained the warrants until the
goods had been paid for, the account would have been
perfectly atisightforward. It was no matter what the balance
was, so long as there were securities to over it. I
know aothirg about the Liverpool transaction in 1838,
in which the saltpetre was sent direct to Barber's
premises without the warrants being retained. If that was
dime it must have been by the prisoner, and was Dot done
with my consent or authority. 1 have not supplied Barber
with a single article since the discovery of the state of his
aoconst. The 9001. was realised by securities which
Canderoy held. I have told them both not to give Cauderoy
credit. Cauderoy failed in my debt, and I was one of the
respecters of his estate ; that was in Nov., 1957.
The cross-examination bad lasted a considerable time,
and Mr. Wenner said Barber's examination would most
likely occupy several hours, and it being already late, the
case was adjourned for • week, both the defendants being
admitted to bathe same as before.