་

Since the foregoing letter appeared, the Solicitor for the Customs has addressed another letter, to another morning journal, of the same desscription as that on which I have been remarking. He makes every conceivable statement that can alarm the public mind as to the integrity of the management of the Docks. He says, that the case of the twelve bags of coffee is only one, and a comparatively insignificant one, amongst the many which presented themselves;' that confidence has been reposed in the Dock Companies which could not be withdrawn on light grounds.' In reference to the correspondence printed by this Company (consisting of nothing but the letters which have passed on both sides), he says, that the letters of the Company in that correspondence are fraught with empty charges, specious arguments, and deductions drawn from coloured statements.' He compares the conduct of this Company to that of a servant who should appropriate 5l., the property of his employer, to his own use;' and finally, he states, that the course taken by the Board of Customs has been taken 'reluctantly, but unavoidably, under a deep sense of public duty, and after earnest remonstrances on the part of the Board.'

In this manner, does this gentleman, in his official character, spread abroad, through the columns of the public press, every species of detraction that could be employed against the London Dock Company. Whatever other peculiarity such a proceeding may have, it has, at least, in official life, that of novelty. The truth of his assertion, that earnest remonstrances had been addressed to the Company in vain,' will be ascertained by a reference to the correspondence, which will show that no representation of any kind came from the Customs that was not answered without delay or evasion-and that the first intimation which the Company received of the commencement of this extraordinary course of proceeding, consisted of a demand to inspect the Company's warehouses-which was instantly complied with.

I am sorry, my lords, to be obliged to lengthen this representation, which I was just about to bring to a conclusion, for the purpose of adverting to a communication just received from the Board of Customs, that its Solicitor is instructed to commence another law suit against this Company, for the recovery of the duties on the twelve bags of coffee, ex Duke of York,' already referred to in this letter at the first page of Correspondence.

The Directors have already stated, that no such twelve bags of coffee, have ever been landed. They prove this by the following facts :

1. The number of bags in the warehouse agrees with the number reported in the ship's manifest.

2. It agrees with the number entered by the importers of the coffee.

3. No one has come forward to claim any such twelve bags of

coffee.

4. If any such twelve bags of coffee had been in existence, they must belong to somebody.

5. If there had been a claimant for such twelve bags of coffee, the books of the Customs would show it, because the first act of an importer of goods is, to pass an entry for them at the Custom House. Consequently, the Customs has, within itself, the means of knowing whether any importer has passed an entry for twelve bags of coffee out of this ship, beyond the number accounted for at the Docks.

On what, then, does the Board of Customs rely? On the tally of its tidewaiter, which did not agree with that of the London Dock Company. These tally men-both those in the service of the Customs, and those in the service of the Company-are weekly servants, with wages a little higher than those of a labourer, and qualifications proportionate. The taking the tally is but a preliminary proceeding, and of necessity done with rapidity. When the goods are all brought into the warehouse, they are carefully counted over-the weight of each bag is taken, and the account of the whole cargo is then made up and compared with the ship's manifest. All these proceedings are attended by the officers of the Customs.

For an example that these tallies' are liable to mistake, reference may be made to the case of the wine, per Iberia' (page 77 of the Correspondence). The Solicitor of the Customs stated in that case, that it appeared that two quarter casks of wine 'were duly landed in the London Docks, but were not forthcoming.'

It happened that, on this occasion, the Company was enabled to produce a certificate from the shipper of the wines, in Spain, stating that, by mistake, two sets of bills of lading had been filled up for these two quarter casks, which had caused an error in making out the ship's manifest in Spain, and that consequently the account of the London Dock Company was quite correct.

And yet the tidewaiter had certified in this case that these two quarter casks had been duly landed,' and the London Dock tallymen had agreed with him. The men are not in this case without excuse. Two quarter casks of the mark in question, were landed out of the ship-of that fact the men were sure-and when they found the same mark occurring in two places in the ship's manifest (owing, as already stated, to two sets of bills of lading having been signed for them) they marked them off in both places. These cargoes of wine often contain 150 different marks in one manifest.

Permit me, my lords, to suppose that this case comes before a jury

The Company calls into the witness-box-not its own servants, but the officers of the Customs. It calls on them to declare three facts :

1. The number of bags reported by the ship-master on his
arrival at the Custom-house, as being on board his ship.
2. The number of bags entered by the merchants to whom the
coffee belonged.

3. The number of bags accounted for by the London Dock
Company.

These being all found to agree with each other, the case must, of necessity, come to an end-without the Company calling one of its own officers-leaving to the eyes of a British jury such a case as had, perhaps, never been taken before such a tribunal before.

But demonstration may, in this case, be carried even a step further. The Board of Customs must be aware-if it were acquainted with the practice of foreign Custom-houses-that they contain a record of the contents of the cargo of every ship leaving their ports. If the Board still remained incredulous-believing that these twelve bags of coffee had really existed, but had mysteriously escaped from the Docks-it had nothing to do, but to write to the British Consul at Rio Janeiro, and request him to ascertain, for the information of the Board, the number of bags of coffee which had been put on board the ship in that port. And thus, it might have spared the Directors of this Company the vexation of another lawsuit, and I must be permitted to add, the humiliating task of placing such a case as this before your lordships.

I have now, my lords, on behalf of my brother Directors and myself, to express to your lordships our deep and earnest concern at having been compelled to intrude thus largely upon your lordships' time and attention. The circumstances which have compelled us to do so have not been of our own seeking.

I will now take the liberty of stating to your lordships, what we humbly suggest for your lordships' consideration.

We are of opinion, that this unseemly conflict between the Customs and this Company should be put an end to. We hold it to have been wholly unnecessary in its beginning-most vexatious in its progressand in its consequences, doing nothing but damage to the commercial reputation of the port of London. We, with all deference, suggest, therefore, that some members of your Lordships' Right Honourable Board and of the Right Honourable the Board of Treasury, be appointed to look into the whole of the matters now in contention between the Customs and us. We have nothing to hold back or to conceal. A Company, whose accounts and books are kept by two hundred clerks, can have no secrets. If, in any particular, we have done any wrong or damage to the revenue, we are ready to make it good to the uttermost

farthing. If we have not, we ask to be exonerated from these unworthy suspicions. We are ready to have the whole machinery of our administration throughout the Docks thoroughly examined. If any improvement can be suggested to us therein, we will adopt it, not only cheerfully, but thankfully. If any greater means of security to the Revenue can be devised, they shall be put in action.”

It has only here to be parenthetically noted, that the Government, to whom this offer was made, appears to have considered that the proper time to accept it, was after dragging the Company through the Court of Exchequer in modum pœnæ, for having "had a secretary who was very fond of writing," Mr. Dawson, who is our authority for this theory of causation, observes of the foregoing Representation and its Appendices, that he "considers it is one of the great causes of war between the two departments" (A. 1720)—truly a most ample justification for fines, seizures, confiscations, arrestment, and incarceration! In fact, it amounts to an unconscious acknowledgement, that these grave, onerous, and most unheard-of proceedings, were adopted from no sense of the deep responsibilities of duty, but from a spirit of passion, or the pique of pride; the Board wished to humble, and fairly "break in" the Directors of the Dock Company and they seized their goods-piled actions on them, and indictments for felony on their servants-just to let them know who they were bandying words with. The final abandonment of the whole proceedings for a nominal fine, is the best evidence that the measures adopted were begun in passion, without justification, and finished in fear without excuse.

CHAPTER III.

HAVING introduced the general subject to the consideration of the reader, it now remains to examine each of the cases in dispute betwixt two great public institutions, individually, and to analyse and sift the evidence which has been laid before the Select Committee on the subject. Preserving the order adopted in the original series of events, in the correspondence, and in the enquiry of the Select Committee, the Digest shall proceed with

§ 1. COFFEE PER "DUKE OF YORK."

In the examination of Mr. John Cattley, the Chairman, in conjunction with Mr. J. D. Powles, Secretary of the London Dock Company, after a detail of official documents which are embodied in substance in the subsequent answers, this case is thus explained.

(2698) Will you state what the Customs further communicated ?The first case in dispute was that of coffee by the "Duke of York." This ship delivered a cargo of coffee in the London Docks from Rio Janeiro. The cargo consisted of 1,010 bags, landed in the London Docks. The Custom-house tidewaiter made the number of bags amount to 1,022. The Company's tally-man did the same. But when the cargo came to be made up in the warehouse, that is, to be piled and counted over, it was found that there were only 1,010 bags. Reference was then made to the ship's manifest, and the bills of lading, and it was found that she had taken on board only 1,010 bags. The entries at the Custom-house were next examined, and it was found that only 1,010 bags were entered by the importers; consequently, the number in the warehouse agreed with the ship's manifest, with the bills of lading, and with the entries of the importers. Whence it resulted that only 1,010 bags could have been landed, for the simple reason that only 1,010 had been shipped. When a ship arrives from a foreign port, the first thing the captain has to do, is to deliver in to the Customs, on his solemn affirmation, a true account of the whole of his cargo, the marks, numbers, and packages, called a manifest. The object of this act is, to see