CHAPTER VI.

PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.

THE Committee, in dealing with this subject are anxious to premise, that it is one which they do not regard as of paramount importance. The imbroglios of wayfarers with Custom-house officers, little concern trade, or the greater interests of a commercial nation. It is but just also to observe, that from the highest to the lowest, not even excepting ladies of rank and position, passengers are either unconscious or conscious smugglers, and give the authorities a difficult duty to discharge. Still, without doubt, many improvements in the system of examination might be adopted, and some changes in the tariff might greatly assist the proper adjustment of a question not the less troublesome because it does not involve very considerable interests.

Sir Thomas Fremantle affords the following information:(554) With respect to vessels arriving with passengers, it is the custom in many other countries for the officers to board those vessels and there search the luggage of the passengers, so that they may be at once enabled to land. Could not that be done in the river Thames, for example, or in the river Mersey? -That plan has been more than once under the consideration of the Board of Customs, and it has been found to be imprac ticable. I believe, on one occasion, the experiment was tried. The officers were put on board at Gravesend, and the passengers' luggage was all brought out upon deck and there examined, but the practice was found to be so very inconvenient, that it was discontinued almost immediately.

(556. Mr. Brown.) Are you aware that in passing the Belgian and French frontiers, the officers do come on board the vessels and examine the luggage, and that every package which they pass is marked in chalk and is carried off by a porter be longing to the Customs, and put on shore; the passengers being then permitted to take it wherever they please?—I have not had an opportunity of seeing the business carried on in those countries.

(560) Do not you think that a periodical examination of the

luggage in passenger vessels would be sufficient, if more stringent punishments, including the forfeiture of the baggage, were the consequence of detection in smuggling; would travellers be found willing to incur the risk of severe fines, and of the forfeiture of their baggage in case of their being detected in violating the regulations of the Customs?—I am afraid passengers will always incur the risk. There is a great tendency to do so. I do not, however, quite understand the purport of the expression in the question, "a periodical examination."

(564.) Supposing a person imported, for example a trunk full of books, would he know, without an examination by the Custom house officers what was the duty to which those books were subject?—He certainly would not; indeed, the law with regard to books is such as to render the suggestion made by the honourable Member quite impracticable, because we are bound, under the Copyright Act, to examine every book that is imported into this country, in order to ascertain whether it be a foreign reprint, and whether it be subject to copyright; if it should turn out to be so, the book is seized and confiscated, and must be destroyed. One of the most individous parts of our duty is to examine all books, and to deprive passengers of books which they may have had in their possession for many months, or even years if they turn out to be subject to copyright. The law of copyright makes a very close examination of all books introduced into the country absolutely necessary, while it is a matter in which no question of revenue whatsoever is involved.

Authors and publishers will thus see at what a price to their readers their copyright is protected, and we hope the public will begin to ask why authors and booksellers alone are to occupy the public servants in protecting their patents from invasion, when every other inventor must protect his own. The concession of any such privilege to literature alone is a very questionable act of the Legislature, and calls for grave consideration. The Committee entertain quite the same opinion on the subject of imposing on our Customs establishment the duty, at an immense sacrifice of time and money to our trade and shipping, of protecting the marks of our manufacturers from piracy.

(566 Mr. Brown). What danger would result to the revenue, or what inconvenience would arise to the passengers from requiring that when a ship comes into a Liverpool or a London dock, the luggage of the passengers should be examined on

board ship, so that the passengers might carry it off at once; the system, as it now exists, you are aware, is attended with great delay and great inconvenience?-I apprehend that it would create great confusion and inconvenience on board ship, and that the majority of passengers would not like their goods to be opened on board ship.

(567) You are aware of the system which is now adopted in the shed; the first passenger on the list generally has his packages examined first?-Yes.

(568) What inconvenience could arise in the ship from adopting the same system as is now pursued in the shed?— The luggage is in the hold; it must all be brought up and placed on deck, and when the vessel is coming to anchor, if the weather is not very good it appears to me it would be extremely difficult to make such arrangements as would be necessary for the discovery of each gentleman's luggage among the quantity there is on board, bringing it to a proper part of the deck, and having it opened and examined, and the articles which are subject to duty weighed or measured and assessed for duty.

(571) The owner of the package produces his key and opens it, the searcher examines it, the owner or his servant is present, and it is relocked, so that there is no chance of plunder ?— There is no chance of plunder in the private room, but I think there would be if, on the deck of a ship, you opened a large package containing a great variety of articles, which would all be exposed.

(590 Mr. Brown.) It very frequently happens that the large American packet-ships arrive on Sunday; in that case the passengers cannot get even clean linen on board; if they arrive late in the evening the same thing occurs, and ladies are often put to great inconvience. Is there no means by which that inconvenience could be obviated?-The present practice is to allow them to land with a small quantity of luggage, such as a night bag.

(737) What are the articles which you find are generally smuggled in passengers' luggage?—Articles of every description: French gloves, French shoes, cigars, Eau de Cologne, pieces of silk to make up gowns, and almost every description of goods.

(738 Mr. Cornewall Lewis.) Jewellery?—Yes.

X

(739 Mr. Forster.) Upon none of those articles are the duties very heavy?-With the exception of cigars, the duties upon those articles are not very heavy.

(740) If the passengers were required to affirm to their having no smuggled articles, under the usual penalties of perjury, and their luggage was also subjected to an unforeseen and unexpected examination, with forfeiture of the luggage in case anything liable to duty was found, are you still of opinion that that would not be found sufficiently stringent to protect the revenue? -I am of that opinion; and I think it would be very unfair to call upon parties to declare whether they had goods liable to duty or not, and to subject them to a severe penalty if they made a false declaration, because passengers are ignorant of the state of the law upon the subject.

(741) But I should propose that the article should be enumerated in the declaration which they should be called upon to affirm?—Then they must enumerate the whole tariff.

(742) But the articles upon which any considerable amount of duty is paid are very limited in number?—They are; but we can make no distinction in the administration of the law between those articles which are subject to high duties and those articles which are subject to low duties; the same examination is made for all.

With submission to such an authority the Committee take leave to say that they entertain a different opinion. It is easy to select such articles from the tariff as maintain a high duty for a small bulk, and confine the examination to these. There could be no objection to a passenger smuggling his carpet bag full of wheat at 1s. per quarter duty, or even a portmanteau full of currants, provided the weight were restricted, and the number of luggage parcels which each passenger could take without examination defined. Under such a system, and by the entire abolition of duty on articles which yield little revenue, but can be brought in small bulk, the operation of luggage probing might be greatly simplified, by confining the declaration to such articles as tea, tobacco, wines and spirits if the luggage were above a certain weight, and a few others. Watches, clocks, jewellery, lace, silks, and others classed under ad valorem duties might safely be admitted duty free, seeing that the entire revenue from ad valorem duties, is only £180,000 per

annum.

The evidence of Mr. Rolls is instructive on this point.

(2300. Mr. Cornewall Lewis.) Is there now any article subject

to high duty, that can be secreted about the persons of passengers?—No, I think not as a general rule.

(2301) Is it necessary now to make personal examination of the passengers?—No, it is done to a very slight extent.

(2302) Is the duty upon lace or upon any other article, sufficient to induce persons to secrete it about their persons ?-I think not.

(2303) Is much duty in fact charged upon passengers' baggage?—No not much; much less than was formerly the case. (2304) What are the articles subject to duty, that are generally found in passengers' luggage?-Needlework, silk for dresses not made up, eau-de-cologne and cigars.

(2305) Are those generally in very small quantities?—Yes, except with passengers who are coming from India. I presume you allude more to the continental ports.

(2306) Would it be possible to allow a small portion of articles, subject to duty if imported by passengers, and manifestly without any object of fraud, to be brought in free from duty? -That is generally speaking carried out now.

(2307) If a person were to land a small quantity of cigars, or a small number of books, you would not charge any duty?— With a passenger moving in a good sphere of life, I should not charge the duty upon a pound of cigars.

(2308) At present the Custom-house officers do exercise a discretion in admitting a small quantity of articles with passengers free of duty?—Yes; eight or ten pounds of books would not be charged; and a bottle or two of eau-de-cologne would not be charged.

(2309. Chairman.) Would a dozen pairs of gloves be charged? -It depends upon the rank of the party; if we considered that they were for his own use, we should not charge them but if a person had a dozen pairs of gloves and three or four silk dresses, and five or six bottles of eau-de-cologne, we should charge them.

(2310. Mr. Cornewall Lewis.) If passengers' luggage were passed free of duty, would it not be immediately converted into a means of evading the revenue laws upon a large scale?—No doubt it would, and prevention is better than cure.

(2311. Mr. Forster.) But it could only be done on a large scale by professed smugglers; by persons who travelled for