instead of the case being first sent to the Commissioners, and referred by the Commissioners to the bench officers, and then afterwards decided by the Commissioners ?-That seems a very round-about way of doing the business, but it is done in the course of half an hour. The bench officers' office is within about 100 yards of the Board-room, and although it sounds like a very round-about way of doing it, there is in fact no delay at all.

Whether there is or is not delay-whether the office is 100 yards or 100 miles from the Board, what is gained by this multiplication of officers? Mr. Dawson himself admits that the Bench officers are competent to the performance of the duty, and in answer to an enquiry (1614) if the duty "could be performed by the present number of bench officers without increase," he owns "I think it could; I do not think the bench officers are overloaded." With his usual alacrity he thus proceeds.

(1615. Chairman.) Do you refer those cases which are mere matters of form to the bench officers?-Yes, those go to the bench officers. The petition clerk, before he sends the paper in to the Commissioners, sends it to the bench officers.

(1616. Mr. Alderman Thompson.) Although the number of applications is large in amount, yet as regards the general run of the business could not they be easily classified, the category not being numerous?—That is quite true.

"Thus far we run before the wind." The unfortunate gentleman has dug his own pit, and cannot be made to see that the excavation is for his own use. Following hard upon this answer, the Alderman puts the following interrogative corrollary, and opens, too late for retreat or defence, the eyes of the Deputy Chairman.

(1617) Therefore could not those petitions be decided upon by the bench officers or the surveyors-general according to precedents which have been laid down in cases of that trifling character, without any reference to the Board?—I should like to know why the duties and the services which are appropriated by the Act of Parliament to the Commissioners should be delegated to subordinate officers, if the Commissioners have time, and power, and inclination to perform them (!!!) One honourable Member has been examining me as to the want of practical knowledge on the part of the Board! how is practical know

ledge to be gained unless they have those details to go through. The Commissioners do not complain of the onerousness of those duties, and the public do not complain of the loss of time, because there is no loss of time in fact. The Act of Parliament makes the Commissioners the superintending body for the management and regulation of the Customs under the supervision of the Treasury. I do not see why you should take away from the Commissioners duties which belong to them, and attach them to the surveyors-general or to the bench officers.

In short, Mr. Dawson cannot see why two men should not do one man's work, if the "division of labour" be necessary to afford them an apology for drawing the public money at quarter day.

§ 5. THE BOARD IS NOT ONLY OF NO USE, BUT A POSITIVE

HINDRANCE TO BUSINESS.

Mr. Dawson supplies the following information :—

(1598) The imports at Liverpool are greater than they are at any other port of the United Kingdom ?-Certainly.

(1599) And the whole of the business of the Customs there is managed chiefly, not by the Commissioners, but by the heads of the departments?—Yes; the collector, the comptroller, and the inspector-general form a committee, A LITTLE BOARD

THEMSELVES IN FACT.

(1600) Having those powers delegated to them by the Board of Customs here, are they not enabled to give great facilities to the imports and exports at Liverpool ?-They give as much as they possibly can.

Mr. Foot adds

(1881. Chairman.) Are you aware that many applications, which are made here through the Petition Office, are decided by the officers at the outports themselves?—I am aware of one class of applications, that is, of amendments of goods for undervalue, because, whether the stoppage is made at London or the outports, they come through my hands. The collectors and comptrollers have a discretionary power, if they think there is no fraud intended, of allowing the entry to be amended, upon a deposit equal to the difference of duty, and they come up to the Board for their approval afterwards.

Mr. Boyd continues—

(1885) You know the extent of the indulgences given at the outports?—Yes.

(1886) Will you particularize them ?-There is permission to grant relief in cases of vessels detained or goods detained, where it is a matter of consequence to avoid delay; and the deposit that is required to be given to the collector and comptroller I think is not to the extent that Mr. Foot seemed to think; it is sufficient to cover any amount of fine or satisfaction that may eventually be awarded, not a fine equal to the value of the ship or goods that are stopped. With respect to the amendment of reports which they are authorised to allow, that goes to a greater extent than it does in London, although they have done the same thing very recently also in London, but upon a smaller scale. Those indulgences which are now granted, are felt to be useful by the trade.

(1890) You have no doubt that the mercantile community in London would be very glad to have the outport principle extended to London?—I have no doubt they would; and perhaps at the outports they would like the outport principle extended still a little further; I think the thing is progressing.

(1891) As you inspect the outports, do you believe that any great inconveniences or irregularities have arisen from the principle of summary decision at the outports?-Not at all; but great facilities to the trade and to the merchants; and I have never heard of any inconvenience.

(1263. Chairman.) Supposing you were informed that about 1200 petitions were presented every month to the Board of Customs, would you not consider it a strong argument against the system which is now carried on; would you not consider that a system against which complaints to the extent of 1200 a month were made by the mercantile community is carried on with too much adherence to form, or vexatiously?-A very large proportion of those papers are not complaints; there is nothing like that number of complaints; but there are many papers that they call petitions that are the simplest things in the world arising out of mistakes of the parties themselves; the masters of ships make mistakes in their reports, and beg to alter them; they are merely matters of form, and things that are granted as a matter of course.

(1265) If they are so completely matters of form, why could it not be left to the officer on the spot to take steps about it instead of having the long process and delay af appealing to the Board?-That is now being done; the Bench are now authorised, as they do at Liverpool and at all the outports, to grant relief in those cases of their own authority.

(1269. Mr.Forster.) Is it not necessary to make a special ap- plication to the Board for leave to amend a report ?-I know that at the outports application is made to the collector and the comptroller in such cases; whether in London the regulations require the application to be made to the Bench or to the Board I do not know; but probably it would be that which swelled up the number of petitions.

This section has a practical conclusion for its title. The corrollary is not drawn by us, but by the official witnesses from the interrogation of senators in the discharge of their parliamentary duty. Here are the fiscal officers depicted by themselves.

(1273) Do you think that there would be any danger in increasing the power of the officers at the outports of holding those informalities to be void?-Not at all; it is done.

(1274) Why should you not adopt the same system in London? It has not been done; it is beginning now, inasmuch as the Bench have power to allow the report of the ship to be amended; but I suppose the Board expect while they are sitting in London that they should be asked for their permission ; it would seem odd for the Board to be sitting in London, and people to go by the door and not ask them for their permission.

(1275) SO THAT THE INSTITUTION OF THE BOARD IN LON

DON CAUSES GREATER DELAY TO THE MERCHANTS THAN TO

THOSE IN THE COUNTRY?—At the outports, on account of their distance from London, it was absolutely necessary to do something, especially before railways; the delay was enormous, and therefore it was done to facilitate the merchants' business.

And to the same effect Sir Thomas Fremantle, in answer to a query of Mr. Brown, (788) "Petitions from the country do not go through the petition seat?"-replies, "No; they go into the Board as Board papers, or to the Committee. (789 Chairman) Then the country has an advantage over London in that respect?-It has except in point of delay."

But while some facilities are granted to the provinces which

the incumbrance of a Board denies to London, the outports suffer under a grievance which appears from the evidence to be entirely uncalled for, as will be seen in the sequel. Mr. Boyd's examination elicits the following facts.

(1017) Are all the petitions from the outports sent to London for decision?—Yes; every petition is addressed to the Board, and the Board being in London, of course everything comes to London to the Board.

(1018) Then at the outports, consequently, great delay upon those petitions will naturally arise?-Delay will arise, but every possible means has been taken to prevent the inconvenience of such delay, and now that we have railways the delay is not very serious.

(1019. Chairman.) Are those outport petitions always referred to you?—Yes, if there is any point in them that is difficult, or that requires consideration, they are referred to us,

(1020) The surveyor-general at Liverpool has no power of decision? There is no surveyor-general at Liverpool; there is an inspector-general; that is a grade lower than the surveyor-general.

(1021) Has he the power of deciding upon petitions at Liverpool without reference to London?-The collector, the comptroller, and the inspector-general at Liverpool form themselves into a committee, and in cases of emergency that would not admit of delay, certain powers have been vested in them at once to grant relief to the merchants, if it is within their province.

It will at once be seen that if provincial petitions of importance are referred to the surveyor-general, all that is required to supersede the necessity of a reference to London, is to send a surveyor-general to the larger out-ports. Nothing can well be more contemptuous, and at the same time more conclusive, than the following very matter-of-fact statement by Mr. Boyd.

(1053. Chairman.) You do not think the Board decide upon any petition without first referring it to your body?—No, I do not mean to say that; I say that it is the general rule to refer papers of importance and difficulty to the surveyors-general; but there are an immense number of papers upon which the Board decide, where there is no difficulty or question, and which it would be only a waste of time to refer to the surveyors