CHAPTER I.

PREFATORY TO THE SERIES OF CASES,

ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS

THE public announcement of the formation of a Committee of London Merchants for the promotion of inquiry into the constitution and management of the Board of Customs was the signal for communications to them from all parts of the United Kingdom, embracing statements by individual merchants, and memorials from Chambers of Commerce, and other public bodies. Some of these were anonymous, to which the Committee declined to pay any attention. Others were not properly authenticated, or contained reflections rather upon the commercial policy or the tariff of the country, for which the executors of our fiscal system could not be considered responsible, than strictures on the mode in which that system was practically applied. These also the Committee were of opinion it was not desirable, or was beyond the terms of their commission, to deal with, and therefore they set them aside. Others, although expository of grievances, they regarded as rather incident to all, the most as well as least, perfect methods of Customs management, being chiefly illustrative of the eccentricity or caprice of individual officers to which the best ordered services are liable, than to the particular course of mechanism adopted under the existing dispensation.

The Committee, therefore, strictly confined their attention and reports to representations which substantially were expository of not only practical but remediable fiscal abuses; which strictly bore upon the constitution and management of this Board of Customs as these actually stand; and above and before all, which were fully authenticated by written documents, under the signature of known, respectable, and trustworthy parties.

The following collection does not embrace all the cases which have appeared in the reports of the Committee. Those only which presented features of especial interest and instruction have been selected from the whole, and classified as perfectly as the miscellaneous nature of the materials rendered practicable. Although on the appointment of the Select Committee of the House of Commons a distinct pledge was ex

acted by its members and given by the government, that for any assistance or information which either officers of the Customs or private individuals should supply towards the elucidation of the inquiry, they should in no shape be affected by the Board of Customs, it is certain that great distrust is entertained of that pledge, and that much useful evidence and aid are withheld, in consequence of the fears entertained by those who could furnish both, from a conviction that urpleasant results would be visited upon the parties. A careful perusal of the evidence already taken before the Select Committee, will indeed show that some bitterness of feeling is feebly concealed by members of the Board at some portions of the testimony adduced by their subordinate officers; and the Committee cannot entirely divest themselves of the impression that symptoms appear in the second examination of some of these officers, of the influence of the opinion expressed by their superiors of the tenor of their first evidence. The Committee, therefore, would desire it to be distinctly understood that the series of cases which follow by no means represents the entire spirit of the testimony which may ultimately be available; and that it is to be regarded simply as an introduction to the consideration of a large and complicated subject.

It has been found somewhat difficult, in laying these statements before the public, at all times to confine details of finical officiousness, administrative incompetency, unnecessary sacrifices of the trade of the country to superfluous fiscal forms, and capricious oppression, within the sober bounds of mere naked narrative. The following letter from the Secretary to the Treasury to the Board of Customs, which is quite as applicable to the present system of management as to that which immediately gave rise to it, will however satisfy the candid, that the Government itself has been compelled to express an opinion on the subject equally forcible, and with results hitherto equally abortive, with that which the Committee have felt constrained to publish.

"I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to inform you, that they have recently had under their consideration representations from various merchants, complaining of unjust seizures and vexatious detentions by the officers of your department.

"In some of these cases, my lords have observed that the precise letter of the Acts of Parliament framed many years ago, in time of peace and of more circumscribed commerce, have been rigorously applied amidst all the difficulties incident to war, and against the manifest spirit of the Acts themselves, the penalties of which were directed for the punishment of FRAUD OR CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, and not for

ACCIDENTAL OR TRIVIAL OMISSIONS.

To four cases, which will serve as examples of many others, I am commanded to draw your special attention.

"The first is the seizure of 20 hhds. sugar, entered with the mark R.S. instead of R.S...: the hogsheads were seized by the officers of your department at Bristol, merely for the omission of the small intervening mark..; and a satisfaction has been demanded for the restoration of each cask, of one guinea.

"It is quite manifest from the circumstances of this case, that no fraud could have been intended. To grant a satisfaction therefore to the seizing officer, could tend only to encourage similar seizures for trifling irregularities; and therefore my Lords cannot sanction the payment to the seizing officer of any satisfaction whatever, but direct the immediate restoration of the goods. Another seizure at the port of Bristol, which has particularly attracted their Lordships' observation, is that of two hhds. sugar imported in the ship Ruth,' in the month of April, and seized by the officer, as he declared, for being an excess upon the report of the cargo, against the earnest remonstrance of the owner, who contended that the cargo entirely corresponded with the report. After nearly four months' detention, and various reports and correspondence, the owners were enabled, from the accidental circumstance of no part of the cargo having been sold until the whole was delivered, to prove that there was no ground whatever for the seizure; and the very irregularity which was the pretence for the seizure, was traced to the officer himself.

A third case at the port of Bristol is that of the sugar imported in the 'Anna Maria,' a part of which has been seized because the marks do not entirely correspond with the report; but as the whole contents of the cargo as reported and delivered agree, there is no ground to suspect any fraud, and the irregularity is not of an extent to call for any penalty. My Lords, therefore desire that the sugars may be forthwith restored, without any satisfaction whatever.

"A fourth case now before their lordships, is that of the Perseverance,' in the port of London, which vessel and her cargo have been seized under circumstances so extraordinary as to demand their lordships' immediate interposition.

"It appears that this ship brought some cases of sugar from Gibraltar, and under the existing laws was not liable to seizure, but the owners were at liberty to send the vessel and cargo again from this country. They applied, however, to their lordships for leave to land and warehouse the cargo; and whilst this application was under consideration, your officers, construing such application into an intention to land the goods for warehousing, seized the vessel and cargo. The application to their lordships for permission to warehouse being refused, the memorialist then applied for an order to tranship the cargo into another vessel for Gibraltar, the petitioner being subject to heavy demurrage for detaining the vessel.' To this request their lordships

were pleased to accede, and your Board were apprised thereof on the 6th ultimo, and desired to give immediate directions for that purpose.

"The vessel' Perseverance' and her cargo having, however, been seized by your officers as above stated, you have requested their Lordships' directions, submitting, that should their lordships be pleased to order the delivery of the goods and vessel, the seizing officer might, according to the practice, be entitled to a satisfaction; but you beg to submit how far their lordships, under the circumstances, may think he has any claim to the same.'

According to the views which my Lords at present take of this case, the original seizure appears to have been most unjust, and any practice which would entitle the officers to satisfaction cannot be too much censured or too soon abolished.

"In cases like this my Lords expect, from the discriminating judgment of your Board, the prompt and vigorous execution of the powers vested in you by law; and you may confidently rely, without the delay of previous reference to their lordships, which is in itself a heavy punishment to the merchant, upon their lordships' full support in whatever measure may be necessary for the punishment of oppressive or contumacious officers. This my Lords feel to be due to the interest of the fair merchant and to the character of the Government, both of which are affected by such transactions as those adverted to in this letter.

"Already my Lords have instructed you to enjoin your officers to refrain from acting upon any new constructions of law contrary to the past practice, and to refer all such doubts in the first instance to your Board; and in cases of great importance or difficulty, you will apply for their lordships' determination. AS THE PENALTIES CONTAINED IN THE VARIOUS LAWS OF THE CUSTOMS WERE INTENDED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF FRAUD, AND NOT OF ACCIDENT OR TRIVIAL OMISSIONS, THE OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS MUST CEASE TO CONSIDER SUCH MISTAKES AS SOURCES OF ADVANTAGE TO THEMSELVES, for my Lords are determined hereafter to mark with their decided displeasure every detention that shall appear to have been made upon such vexatious pretensions.

"In order to remove every doubt of their lordships' intention upon this subject, I have it in command to desire, that if upon the delivery of cargoes of vessels it shall appear that any packages which may be erroneously marked do in substance and contents correspond with the report and the manifest, neither such goods or vessels shall be deemed liable to seizure on account of such error.”

The Legislature has enacted certain laws, declaring that various duties shall be levied upon the imports into this kingdom, for the public service. As a general rule, Parliament has not interfered to prescribe the

machinery by which this revenue shall be collected. It has given absolute powers to a Royal Commission to devise and regulate the methods by which these levies shall be effected; and a wide discretion to the Boards of Trade and Customs, and to the Treasury, to enforce or to relax the statutable provisions under which they act. To corroborate their authority, it has always readily lent its enactive sanction to any measures for which these institutions have applied to facilitate their operations, or to execute the details of their system of collection. It has even gone so far as to legalise retrospectively and prospectively their rules and regulations, without examining too curiously their consistency with, or their relevancy to, the acts of which these Board orders professed to be the machinery of the execution.

For the nature of the duties to be levied; the wisdom of their application to particular commodities; the equity or practical expediency of the scale of assessment; the symmetry, intelligibility, or economical fitness of the tariff, it is conceived the Legislature is responsible. For the practicability, business arrangement, simplicity, and efficiency of the machinery by which these principles are worked out, the Board of Customs are accountable. While fiscal statutes exist, it is willingly conceded that those who are charged with enforcing them have no discretion but that of executing the duties with which they are charged; and that the Board of Customs has only the mixed judicial and ministerial function of interpretation and practical application. A judge may ac knowledge the folly and hardship of laws, which nevertheless it is his duty to declare and enforce. A commissioner may be impressed with the inexpediency, inconsistency, and complex obscurity of measures, which nevertheless he has no alternative but to carry into effect as he best can, in the least objectionable, but at the same time the most perfectly effectual, form.

This distinction it has been considered necessary to premise, in order to separate all objections to the system of collecting import duties, from any connection with personal hostility to its executors. Considering the traditionary character of the management of all our public offices; the absence of all provisions for reform of, or change in these, pari passu with the progress of commerce, and the altered circumstances of the country; the fact that the Commissioners are at once the creatures and the victims, (in the case of their subordinate officers) of a vicious distribution of ministerial patronage; and that as no qualifications of fitness are attached to their offices, there is no call upon them to prepare themselves by preliminary training for their duties, since such is not demanded of them, and it would be unreasonable to expect that they should raise objections to their acceptance of lucrative appointments which are offered to them without conditions; it may fairly be permitted