Those same goods might be conveyed in a lighter to the legal quay without examination, and yet they are not allowed to go from the ship's side in our docks to our warehouses, 30 yards off, without a previous examination.

(7084) How long is it since the Customs adopted this examination of free goods on the quays?—It is six or nine months ago: it may be more than that.

(7085) Did it prevail immediately after those goods became free?—No, it has been a practice established since; but I will give the Committee the exact date. There are one or two other inconsistencies in the comparative treatment of free goods and bonded goods which have struck me: when there are free goods in bulk, and about which there can be no question (there may be some question as regards free goods in packages), but free goods, such as brimstone, valonea, and linseed, must be inspected by a landing-surveyor before they can be delivered from the ship. Now wheat, which is subject to a small duty, may be delivered over the side of the ship, merely upon the order of the Customs tide-waiter. Again, if the merchant wants, with regard to this brimstone, valonea, or linseed, to weigh the same on board the ship for the purpose of sale between himself and the buyer, he cannot do that before or after the legal hours of business; he cannot do that before eight in summer, or before nine in winter, or after four; but if those goods are delivered without weighing, the weighing not being performed by the Customs, they may be delivered from six in the morning till six at night.

(7086) You see no reason for that ?—I see none; it is an inconsistency.

This course of examination suggests reflections of a very grave nature. It is not alleged that smuggling has increased since trade became free; and it is not therefore very easy to conceive a proper motive for this sudden fit of vigilance. As it appears to be purely discretionary, it opens the door to great partiality on the part of the officers in the treatment of the goods of different merchants. If, as seems to be hinted by Mr. Chandler, the system is not applied to private warehouses as it is to the London Docks, then it is very apparent that it offers temptations to corruption on the part of the Customs authorities, who, by a strict inquisition of all goods landed at one Dock, and a lax inspection at another, may drive the custom of the merchants from one Dock Company to another at their

pleasure. It is imperative that the degree of examination of different cargoes should be uniform, or it is inevitable that it should be an instrument of bribery of the officers, and fraud on the part of the importers. To give to inferior officers any discretionary power in the case, is to destroy the independence of the Dock Companies, and to render successful competition practicable only to such as demean themselves by improper subserviency to the fiscal authorities.

TRANSIT AND TRANSHIPMENT.

The subject is introduced by the statements of the Chairman. of the Board.

(186. Mr. Brown.) What is the practice as to goods arriving from a foreign country, passing through England in bond to go to another country; how are they dealt with? Within the last twelve months, new regulations have been adopted, by which one entry is passed, which is both an import and export entry; and under those regulations great facilities have been afforded for the transit of goods.

(187) Are you aware that many of those goods in transit are opened for examination on their arrival, and again on their departure ?—A question arose whether it would be prudent and proper for the Customs altogether to forego the right of examination with reference to this class of goods, and I thought it my duty to insist upon the maintenance of that right in order to prevent fraud.

(188) What fraud can arise when you take possession of the goods immediately upon their arrival, keep them in the Queen's possession, and receive them on board by an officer?-Goods might be smuggled either upon the arrival or the departure of the vessel, or they might be substituted for other goods in their passage from one vessel to another; and there being no accurate account of such goods, it would be impossible on any subsequent occasion to ascertain whether a fraud had been committed or not. The object of that examination is to ascertain that the goods which are so passed are actually the same description of goods that they purport to be. And some examination would be required with reference to the statistical

returns.

(189) Inasmuch as the goods are completely in the possession

U

of the Customs from the moment of their arrival to the moment of their departure, if frauds arise must they not be with the Customs who have possession of the goods, and not with the merchant?-They are not in possession of the Customs while the vessel is upon the coast, nor previously to the tidewaiter being put on board the vessel; that is the time at which small quantities of goods might be run on shore, both on the homeward and the outward voyage.

(190) But those goods never come under your cognizance which are smuggled in before they come into port; the question refers to goods actually arrived, landed, put into the possession of the Customs, transmitted through the country, and locked up under the care of the Customs, till they are re-shipped for some other destination?-It was proposed to permit goods to go across the country from Hull to Liverpool, but I do not know whether as yet that has been taken advantage of.

(191) Are not a great many of the goods that pass through the country in that way, goods which come from France, delicate silks, gloves and watches, and other articles of that kind, which receive so much injury from being opened, that this examination has the effect of stopping, in a great measure, that transit trade?-Complaints undoubtedly have been made of the opening of goods in transit, but the principal inconvenience has arisen from the question of marks and brands, which is one of very great difficulty. In this book, Walford's Customs Laws, there are certain prohibitions on the importation of articles with reference to the size of the packages in which they should be imported, and the marks there may be upon them; it has been held that those goods ought not to be imported into the country even in transit; but the Commissioners, under the transit regulations, have not thought it necessary to enforce those prohibitions. The only cases in which they have been enforced have been cases in which direct fraud appeared to have been attempted, in which articles were marked with the names of British manufacturers although they were of foreign manufacture.

(192. Mr. Foster.) How can the mere opening and examining of the case or package prevent smuggling from that case or package subsequently?—Because it enables us to ascertain that the goods are what they purport to be; and therefore, if

smuggling takes place, and an enquiry follows that attempt at smuggling, we are able to ascertain whether the goods have been properly accounted for.

(193) What satisfaction, or what advantage to the revenue can there be from such knowledge as that?-Because we have ascertained by examination that the goods are what they purport to be.

(194. Mr. Brown.) 'Assuming that marks are put upon them purporting to be those of English manufacturers, which we know is done to a very great extent on the Continent, at Geneva, and in France, and Belgium, and other foreign countries, does it not appear to you that if they are not introduced into this country for home consumption, we cannot prevent that from being done, but that by these restrictions we may deprive this country of the transit trade in carrying those goods?-I think there is a difference between the two cases. The goods which are manufactured abroad and sent direct from those countries to our colonial possessions or anywhere else, with the names of British manufacturers upon them, go direct from those places; but if they pass through this country and are exported to our colonies or to other countries, that gives additional evidence that they are of British manufacture. The cases are not quite the same.

(195) Inasmuch as those goods are generally sent to foreign countries in the packages in which they come, and it is very well known in those countries what they are and where they come from, is not the disadvantage of our being deprived of carrying them greater than any that could arise from letting them pass without examination?-I apprehend the parties for whose benefit the law was passed were the British manufacturers generally, and whether it is right to maintain the law is a question for the Government.

It may here, however, be suggested that the proper and easy working of an establishment, so as to make its forms most consistent with the convenience of the public, for whom all laws are ostensibly framed, is a subject for the head of the department, who is the servant of the public.

(198) Have you not known instances in which, notwithstanding all the care taken by the Customs, packages have been changed in the progress of transmission from one port to

another?—I have not known any instance of it since the transit regulations have been in existence.

(199. Mr. Forster.) Have you not heard that the examination of goods in transit has been felt to be so great a hardship by foreigners, that bonding warehouses have been established at Jersey for the purpose of avoiding that measure ?—No, I am not aware of that fact.

(200. Mr. Brown.) With respect to arms going through England in transit, as the law now stands, is it not the fact that you cannot import a pair of French pistols, and export them from any port in the United Kingdom?-Arms are wholly prohibited articles.

(617. Mr. Fagan.) There is a large importation by steamers from the Continent into the port of London of goods which are intended to be transhipped for Ireland, is there not?-No; I am not aware of it.

(618) Ornaments, and toys, and matters of that kind?—I have no doubt such goods are conveyed to Ireland by coasting vessels.

(619) Are not they examined in the port of London ?—They are all examined in the port of London, because they are for home consumption in this country; they would pass to Ireland under the coasting regulations.

(620.) Would not it be an improvement, and give greater facility for the transit if they were transferred without examination under the seal of the Custom-house, directed to the local custom-houses in Ireland?-They would then require to be examined when they arrived in Ireland.

(621) Would not it facilitate the transit of those goods if that plan were adopted instead of their being examined in London as they are now, with all the risks of their being injured or destroyed?—The importers have this privilege, that if they choose to bond their goods they may send them under bond to Ireland.

(622) What objection would you have, seeing that it would facilitate considerably the transit of those goods, which are every year increasing in amount, to allow them to be so transferred under the seal of the Custom-house, and directed to the customhouses in Ireland?-We think it is necessary for the security of the revenue, that the goods should be examined, and the con