are given by a clerk in the Petition Office; but if the suggestion that I have offered were carried out, viz. that one of the Commissioners should attend in the room where the answers were given, and the report of the officer was read to him if he required it, what would be the expense attending such a proceeding as that?-There would, undoubtedly, be no expense attending that proceeding.

(718) When a case goes into the magistrate's court, you cannot avoid the publicity between the officer and the importer, which you so much deprecate in the case of a complaint being made to the Board of Customs?-I should not wish to do so.

(719) Why should you deprecate the publicity in the one case, when you are exposed to it in the other?-Because the decision of the magistrate amounts to a complete decision of the case, and the infliction of a penalty; our decisions are merely decisions in the progress of the case; the ultimate decision rests with a court of law, if the matter is of sufficient importance to raise a question of disputed facts; it is the law which forfeits the goods, and imposes a penalty for the infraction of the regulations; all we do is to detain the goods, and to say to the party, "We shall not give them unless you submit to such conditions;" with regard to the under-valuation of goods, the party is paid his own valuation, and 10 per cent. in addition.

(720) Would not that practically have an effect in a pecuniary point of view in preventing appeals to a higher court, except in cases of high amount?—It would encourage appeals, I think, if parties thought that the officer made an unfair statement, and that the business was not properly conducted.

(721) Supposing parties gained their appeal in a court of law, would not they have the whole of their expenses to pay?—Yes but we should be very careful afterwards how we followed out a similar practice.

§ 6. APPEALS.

It is the peculiar privilege of our British jurisprudence that in every case a court of appeal is open to the injured citizen, or to him who conceives that he is wronged. It is our peculiar consolation to know that it is always competent to us

To fly from petty tyrants to the throne."

There is an appeal even from the secret tribunal of the Commissioners of Customs. If the Board is oppressive, the oppressed may appeal to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. What the nature of that appeal is the following evidence will shew. We quote in the first instance from that of Mr Boyd.

(1105) May not cases frequently happen where parties receive the first decision of the Board come to by them, without the circumstances having been referred to you, and drop the matter, and yet feel that they have been treated with injustice by that decision?—I am not aware of any such case in my own knowledge.

(1106) According to the practice might not such cases occur? -They might, but I do not think if there were such cases they would be allowed to sleep; the parties would apply again if they saw there was any injustice done them.

(1103) Do you think that when petitions are presented a second and third time, it often happens that the first decision is reversed upon the ground of the discovery of new facts?—It may be so; and sometimes a reconsideration, with a subsequent report upon the papers, may have given rise to a differeut view on the part of the Board from that which was entertained when it was first decided, and when the report was not given on the papers; I have known decisions reversed after I have made a report upon the papers, where we have not originally reported upon the papers. The Board have sometimes come to a decision upon papers, and afterwards altered the decision they had come to, upon the report of the surveyor-general made upon a subsequent application,

(1104) Then I understand you to say that very often the Board decide cases without referring them to you, and that subsequently the parties petition a second time, and the cases are then referred to you, and the previous decision of the Board is reversed?-Such instances have occurred, but I will not say frequently.

(1098) When the decision is once given does it often happen that the petitioner petitions the Board a second and a third time?—Yes; and then they petition the Treasury or the Board of Trade afterwards; that frequently occurs.

(1099) Are you aware of many cases in which the merchant

has petitioned the Board a second and third time, in which the first decision of the Board has been annulled, either by the Board itself or by the Treasury?—There are frequent instances of that.

(1102) What is the general nature of the cases that are brought before the Board of Customs and the Treasury by a petition presented a second and a third time after a decision has been come to ?-It is not confined to any particular class of cases; they are cases of almost every sort that can be imagined.

The following is from the evidence of Sir Thomas Fremantle,

(646) With respect to your answer to Question 91, with reference to petitions, you say they call for their answer, and the clerk reads to them the order of the Board, that "the Board cannot comply with their request." Does the clerk read to them the order of the Board in all cases ?-I apprehend he does.

(647) I believe that in certain cases the powers of the Commissioners are limited, and that the Treasury alone can grant redress?It is so.

(648) In such a case, what is the answer returned to the petitioners by the Board?"That this Board cannot comply with their request."

(649) They are not informed that they may obtain redress elsewhere ?-No intimation is made to them to that effect.

(650) In fact, the decision of the Board is in no case final; in all cases there is an appeal to the Treasury?-I understand that to be the case; the Board of Customs proceeds under the authority of the Lords of the Treasury, and their Lordships have power to control every act of the Board of Customs.

(651) Has the Treasury any better means of forming an opinion upon the subject than the Board of Customs?-The Board of Treasury is, in fact, the court of appeal from the Board of Customs; and the Board of Treasury, in all matters of law, may consult their own solicitor, and the law officers of n their own account, or take such other measures as they may think fit, with a view to come to a proper decision upon the question brought before them.

(652) But they have no practical knowledge of the case?No, they have not; and in most cases I should assume that they take the detail of the facts from the Board of Cus

toms.

(653. Mr. Goulburn.) Taking into consideration also the statement of the parties?—Yes; they have also the statement of the parties on the other side before them,

And having "also the statements of the other parties before them," there "are frequent instances in which the first decision of the Board has been annulled by the Treasury!"

It will thus be seen that the Board do not hint to disappointed suitors that they may go to the Treasury-nay, their subordinates do not condescend to suggest that they may solicit the Board. Merchants are expected to discover this process of redress by intuition, or, are left to imagine that Commissioners are infallible, or at least that they are absolute. Not, indeed, that the conclusion would be entirely without foundation. The bench officers, and surveyors, and inspectors general, indeed, know something of their business-the Board little-and the Treasury nothing. The Lords are constantly being changedthe Chancellor of the Exchequer goes out with the administration-so do the Secretaries to the Treasury. The appeal is generally from those who know something to those who know less-and at last to those who are omni-nescient. The pro

cess is this. An officer who will get half a fine, a whole satisfaction, or a great haul at once by pouncing on a whole cargo, provided he can keep his own counsel and tell his own story his own way, makes a large seizure. The owner of the goods appeals to the Board, and the Board refers the whole to the seizing officer. The petitioner appeals to the Treasury. The Treasury refer his appeal to the Board, and the Board refers it to the seizing officer. Even then, so careless and unstable are the whole of the judges to whom the decision is delegated, that the Board, on the second or third petition, annuls its first order-the Treasury reverses the decision of the Board -or, on a second appeal, recalls its own. This does appear indeed to be a ridiculous exemplification of that boasted privilege of English subjects-"the power of appeal."

CHAPTER III.

FINES, SATISFACTIONS, SEIZURES, AND

FORFEITURES.

§ 1. DUTIABLE GOODS

After having described the terrors of the Board of Customs, it is a pleasing duty to turn to what even appears to be another side of the picture, and survey the Commissioners in their character of protectors of the fair trader, and champions of commercial integrity.

It is in this disguise that the Board of Customs and Excise not unfrequently present themselves, even when perpetrating some of their severest acts. They seem, sometimes, like propitiating priests, deprecating the application of the law, and mitigating the penalties of the Exchequer. At such times they would appear to be organized with no other object than to excuse fines, commute penalties, and forgive the gravest offences for the most moderate consideration. Alas! it is a delusive vision. Too often it is only after the injury is done that they come forward to mitigate the mischief-the injury, let it be ob served, which their own hands have inflicted.

The Boards of Customs and Excise first of all consult together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to procure Acts of Parliament declaring the most enormous penalties for the slightest offences-even for entirely innocent errors; and after terrifying the merchant with the threat of prosecuting him for a fine of £100 for every "" pinch of sugar" he removes from one end of a warehouse to another, or for some such offence as that of turning the letter P the wrong way, the Board graciously accepts a fine of £5 for that which in reality is no offence at all. They do just what they please with the commercial classes, and then take credit for their clemency, and try to persuade their victims that it is generous in them to be contented with only a portion of a penalty, of which in justice they had no right to exact the smallest part.