(1094) But has not the seizing officer, in point of fact, the last word, inasmuch as he has the last report to make upon the statement of the petitioning merchant ?—Yes, the merchant begins and the officer answers him.

The Deputy Chairman, thus contributes his contingent of information on this subject.

(1558) In all those cases, where the parties have appealed a second or a third time to the Board of Customs, or have appealed to the Treasury, must we not conclude that the parties were not satisfied with the original decisions that were given?Decidedly; I had one instance of that the day before yesterday. A man had not entered some copper that came from China; he said he had entered it; the fact was that he had not entered it. The goods were seized, and he presented a petition to the Customs, which fell under my hands, and it was referred to the landing-officer; the landing-officer reported that he had not entered the goods. My decision was to amend the entry upon a satisfaction of 5s., which I thought was very trifling. The next day he presented another petition, stating that he was very sorry for the imposition of this 5s., that he was guilty of no fraud, and that he did not see why he should be treated in that way. I wrote a note upon the paper to say that no fraud was imputed to him, but that the Board of Customs were to guard against irregularities as well as frauds; that if there had been fraud, I should have dealt with him in a very different way from imposing 5s.; that it was an irregularity, and that I thought he was well off with 5s. The next day he presented a third petition, stating that he was guilty neither of fraud nor of irregularity; so when it came to that, I thought it was high time to refer it to the surveyors-general, to let them see the party and report to me the result; the party has been guilty of irregularity, and no doubt the fine of 5s. will be continued upon him. Those are frequent occurrences.

(1556) In that very case, supposing the party had refused to pay the fine, what would you have done with the goods ?-We should have detained the goods, and sold them at the end of a certain time.

(1560) Should you have returned the goods into the Court of Exchequer ?—Yes, they would have been returned into the Court of Exchequer.

(1561) Do you know whether, supposing a party had refused to pay the fine for such irregularity, and that the goods had been in conseqnence returned into the Court of Exchequer, the Court of Exchequer would under such circumstances have considered the goods forfeited?-If he made no defence for the goods, if he did not appear in the Court of Exchequer to defend them, the Court of Exchequer, as a matter of course, would have forfeited

them.

(1562) But if he had defended them by stating that it was a mere mistake in making the entry, would the Court of Exchequer in that case have forfeited the goods?—I cannot say what the Court of Exchequer would do, but I should think it could not do otherwise, as it was an infraction of the law. But that is a very extreme case; they never would take a thing of that kind into the Court of Exchequer, a man would see the folly of it at once; a man would pay 5s. to have it over.

(1563) You say that a man would pay 5s. to have it over; in fact, does not that give the Board the power of imposing any penalty they please, because they know perfectly well that a merchant would rather submit to it than incur the expense of an Exchequer suit?-Certainly not. That man knew as well as possible that he was guilty of an irregularity, but he chose to go on in that way; it is one of many cases of that kind; they like a conflict, and they end in submission.

(1564) Do you practically believe that any merchant, whatever penalty you chose to impose upon him, would contest it by a suit in the Court of Exchequer with the certainty of paying 50 times as much for costs, whether he gained the suit or not? -I am sure that many merchants, if they thought themselves right, would go to any expense to defend themselves.

(1565) Supposing you imposed a penalty of £5 upon a merchant for an alleged irregularity, and he knew that by defending a suit in the Court of Exchequer, whether he succeeded or not, he must pay all his own costs, which would probably amount to £200 or £300, would he not, under those circumstances, submit to the penalty?—I do not think that all merchants would go into the Court of Exchequer; but there are a great many public spirited men that would be glad to show up the Customs, if they were wrong; but I venture to say that they are right 999 times out of a thousand.

It may be, however, that the Board do not select "the public spirited men" as the victims of their exactions; that they keep terms with those who "would be glad to show up the Customs if they were wrong;" and only put in force the powers of the law where they believe they can do so with comparative impunity.

§ 2. FREE GOODS.

The general public are little aware that although Sir Robert Peel could and did liberate many commodities from duty, he could emancipate none from fiscal inspection. The stoppage of free goods is at the present moment, it is believed, nearly as frequent as that of dutiable commodities. On this subject Sir Thomas Fremantle supplies the following information:

(401) Can you state to what extent you consider it part of your duty to examine any goods upon which no duty can be evied? We have two objects in looking at them; the one is to ascertain that they are free goods, and are not made a vehicle for introducing goods subject to duty; the other object is, that an account of them should be rendered with sufficient accuracy to make up our statistical accounts.

(402) With a view to the first of these objects, do not bulky goods come to this country in bales and packages of the same kind?-Cotton comes in bales; and the practice in delivering cotton is very simple at Liverpool; the bales are spitted, and the quantity is taken from the merchant's account.

(403) Is every bale of cotton spitted?—I think not, but the spitting is such a very simple process that it would not take much time; they are weighed, and during the time that the officer is standing for the weighing, he can spit them without any loss of time.

(404) Are not the bulk of the free goods either such as would admit equally of a similar mode of examination, or in such small packages that any admixture of dutiable articles could be at once ascertained?—There is a great variety in the packages.

(413. Chairman.) With reference to the statistical object of ascertaining the quantities of free goods imported, do you consider that you are bound, on the part of the Customs, to take the trouble yourselves of ascertaining the quantities, or that you can rely upon the returns given you by the importer? -In the principal number of cases we do rely upon the mer

S

chant, but I believe there are some in which we see the goods weighed ourselves.

(428. Chairman.) With reference to a previous question, do you now recollect whether any instance has occurred of goods being returned into the Exchequer, which had been originally seized for not being reported, but which had afterwards been reported?—I have no doubt that cases have occurred in which free goods not reported in the first instance, and of which a report was subsequently made, have been put under stop, and perhaps returned to the Court of Exchequer in consequence of the irregularity not having been accounted for to the satisfaction of the Customs.

(429) You would therefore consider that the Board of Customs had a perfect right to return into the Court of Exchequer free goods seized in the first instance for an irregularity?—If we had reason to suppose that great irregularity or fraud was connected with the transaction.

(744) Did you not express an opinion on the former day that there was a necessity for the examination of all free goods, with a view of ascertaining whether any goods liable to duty were concealed among them?-Yes.

(749) So that you would be unable to reduce materially the Customs establishment as long as there remained one article upon which a heavy duty was levied ?—I should hardly say one article only; but as long as there remained any articles subject to a high duty, no very great reduction could be made in those branches of the establishment which are not immediately concerned in the collection of the revenue.

(750) If I rightly collect your answer, it is that there could be no great reduction in the establishment, because, though the goods did not come from places from which goods liable to duty would ordinarily come, still it would be necessary to examine them, because otherwise goods might be sent to those places in order to be smuggled into this country?—Yes.

The law of the Customs has been described as a reign of terror. The statutes create penalties, seizures, fines, and forfeitures perfectly enormous in proportion to the offence, and they leave the application of these extravagant exactions totally to the discretion of the Board. In utter uncertainty as to amounts, and in abject dependence upon the humour of the Commissioners, the victim has no remedy but to place himself entirely at their disposal. Mr. Boyd states,

(1387. Mr. Mc Gregor.) With reference to seizures in general, you have no fixed rule of per-centage as to the imposition of fine?-No.

(1388) If a merchant makes a wrong entry either through mistake or with intention of fraud, he is not at all aware of the fine that will be inflicted upon him; it may be great, or it may be small? If there is a suspicion of fraud, it is likely that confiscation will take place, and that it will not come to a fine.

(1389) Supposing, for example, that a merchant in America, or a merchant in the East Indies, sends a package of tobacco, and it weighs 3 lbs. less than a cwt. when it is landed in this country, and you stop it because it is underweight, what would be the fine that the importer would have to pay for that irregularity of which he could not have been cognizant ?—I do not think the Board would award any fine in a case like that.

(1390) Supposing, for instance, this case, which happened in one of the outports, a merchant in Calcutta sent a package of 97 lbs. of cigars, and it was believed that the package on leaving India weighed 100 lbs., and that a difference of weight to that extent had been caused by the cigars becoming dried in being brought here, yet the officers of Customs stopped the tobacco and allowed it to be entered afterwards upon paying a fine of 9d. in the pound; if such a case as that occurred in the port of London, would so large a fine as that be imposed?—I should say not.

It would appear that in case of a seizure, even for a mere irregularity, the goods are sold without so much as the form of a return into the Court of Exchequer. At least, this is so, according to the evidence of Mr. Dawson.

(1566) You are not quite certain that the goods are returned into the Exchequer in those cases ?—I am not sure; I think they would be seized and sold in a case of that kind.

(1567) You apprehend that in certain cases of seizures or stoppages, you would neither go to a suit in the Court of Exchequer, nor give up the goods, unless the fine were paid?Certainly, we should not give up the goods unless the fine were paid.

(1568. Mr. Moody.) The goods must be condemned before they are sold?-Yes.

(1569) Is it competent to the Board of Customs to condemn