The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-22 00:00:00

LIGHT SOVEREIGNS.

Mr. PELLATT asked the Secretary of tie Treasury
whether the Government intended to take any and what
steps to protect the public from the circulation of light
sovereigns and half-sovereigns, by which serious loss is
now sustained in the deductions for light gold by the
bankers ?
Mr. WILSON said the Government had no intention
to take any steps on the subject. No party was how-
ever obliged to take light gold unless he pleased, and
when it was once paid into the bank it was not re-
issued.

object of the Government, in the arrangement which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed, to do away as
much as possible with ad valorem duties, chiefly with the
view of getting rid of the difficulties connected with the
entries of goods and the daluation of the Customs duties.
He believed the report of the committee would bear him
out in the belief that those duties had been one of the
most fruitful sources of dissension between the commercial
public and the Custom-house authorities—(hear, hear)—
and therefore, whatever might be the necessity for them in
past times, when high duties were charged on all descrip-
tions of goods, it was considered by the Government that
now, when the duties were, with few exceptions, reduced
to small and moderate rates, they might be almost entirely
abandoned. With respect, however, to the few that would
be left, they would still be treated as they had hitherto
been. It would be a question with the Government whether
the 10 per cent. which was at present paid by the Govern-
ment upon goods stopped for undervaluation, over and
above the value the importer put upon them, should not
be reduced to 5 per cent., in order to reduce the limits
within which the persons desirous of sailing as near the
wind as possible might think it safe to enter their goods ;
but the number of cases would be so few that little incon-
venience would arise whether this regulation was altered
or not. The next point the committee reported upon was
that of seizures and stoppages, and adjudications of them.
With respect to this important subject, it was well known
that it had led to great and very angry discussions but he
was happy to say that the Board of Customs, before the
committee had made their report, had already taken steps
in pursuance of the recommendations that had been made
to them by the committee, and removed two of the
most serious evils which had been complained of. At pre-
sent, a Custom-house officer seizing !goods gave no notice
either to the owner or his agent of the reason why he had
made the seizure, so that the owner, being left in igno-
rance as to the cause of the seizure of his goods, was often
placed in a most embarrassing position. (Hear, hear.) As
early as August last, however, the Commissioners of Cus-
toms published the following notification of their own
accord—a fact which he thought it only fair that the house
should be made acquainted with. (Hear, hear) :
"Notice.—The Commissioners of her Majesty's Customs
hereby give notice that directions have been issued to the
officers of the Customs in the united kingdom, that whenever
they may seize or stop a vessel, boat, or goods, they are to
furnish the owner, when he is known, or his agent, with a
written notice, specifying the grounds of detention." _ _

Therefore, so far as that complaint was concerned, he hoped
it had been entirely met by this notification. It had also
been objected that the Board of Customs was a sort of
secret tribunal, a kind of small Star Chamber—(hear, hear)
—where cases were decided without the knowledge of the
parties interested—(hear, hear)—and where no fair means
were allowed to persons to protect their own property. He
hoped that this complaint had also been entirely met by the
circular which was issued by the board on the 23d of
August last

" The Commissioners of her Majesty's Customs hereby give
notice that they will be prepared, in any case of seizure in
London, under the Customs laws, upon application being
made to them in writing, and where the owner of the goods,
etc., may be desirous of such a course, to appoint ono of the
members of the board to take the evidence, on oath, of the
merchants or other parties claiming the property on the one
side, and of the detaining officers on the other, supported by
that of any witnesses that may be necessary for the proper
investigation of the case, and to report the same for the board's
decision, agreeably to the practice observed in cases of com-
plaints by merchants and others against officers."
Ho need not say that with these two regulations the Go-
vernment entirely concurred. (Hear.) It might be said
that this latter regulation would be inapplicable to the out-
ports ; but the Government had also had that point under
their consideration, and had provided by a treasury minute
that a similar inquiry should be allowed to take place be-
fore the collector or controller at any outport. (Hear,
hear.) Ho begged also to state, that considerably greater
powers had been extended to the landing surveyors with
regard to amending entries than they had hitherto
possessed. Landing surveyors would now have the power,
in cases of small and unimportant amounts, to maintain
entries, or to allow them to be amended, without a direct
appeal to the Commissioners of Customs, which, in small
and trivial cases had very unnecessarily created consider.
able delay. (Hear, hear.) He might•add that the Govern-
ment had desired that the Commissioners of Customs
should carefully watch how far this experiment was found
to answer its purpose, and, if they saw no reason to object
to it, to take every oppor'omity of extending similar
powwaseorns
o.
ofT
vh
oe r
ynext
ac at siemwp- ho
ri
tc ha o theoe . c oilmente
rrietferer
ohda dt
o the reportedlaw
Nv
of costs and penalties. Au impression prevailed that the
Crown and the subject wore not placed on an equality in
prosecutions in Customs cases. Now, the state of the law
was this :—With respect to civil cases—that was, where
the CommiSsioners of Customs brought an action for the
recovery of bonds, or where there was a difference of opi-
nion with respect to the law, the Crown stood exactly in,
the same position as the subject—that was to say, the
losing party paid the costs, whether that party was the
Crown or the subject. Then, with respect to the arrears
of duty and the recovery of penalties in cases of sinugglina.e,
which were partially of a criminal nature, the rule had
been for each party to pay its own costs. The Customs in
such cases never recovered costs from a defendant, and the
defendant had no claim for costs against the Customs.
But, with respect to a third class of cases, which probably
constituted the great majority of cases—he meant cases of
prosecutions against the Crown for goods seized—undoubt-
edly, as the law at present stood, the Crown was entitled
to demand a bond from the defendant to the amount of
1001. for costs before going into court; but in case the
defendant was successful he had no claim for costs, whereas,
if the Crown was successful, it had a claim for costs against
the defendant, although in practice it was generally con-
fined to the bond of 1001. taken in the first instance. On
considering this important subject the Government had
come to the conclusion that, on the whole, considering the
altered tone of feeling of the times of which we live, as
compared with the times when these laws were enacted,
the time had come when the Crown might safely place
itself in the same position as the subject—(hear, hear)—
that was to say, that if the Crown should be found to have
been right it should have a claim for costs, but that if
wrong the subject should have a claim against the Crown.
(Hear, hear.) There were by one of the acts which contem-
plated prosecutions in cases of direct smuggling stringent
powers put into the hands of Government ; and with re-
spect to those powers, he thought it would be unwise for
the Government to give them up ; but, so far as regarded
costs, the Crown and the subject should henceforth be
placed on the same footing. There was, however, one
very important feature of this matter to which he wished
to call Use attention of the house. It frequently happened
in cases where vessels or goods were seized that there was
only a nominal owner, or perhaps no owner at all, or some
person was put forward who was incapable of bearing costs
should an action be brought against him. It had been
suggested that, in all such cases, the Crown should be en-
titled to insist that, before going into court, security for
costs should be provided, in case the Crown should be
successful. This appeared, at first sight, to be a very
reasonable proposition, but, on carefully considering it in
all its bearings, ho (Mr. Wilson) had felt that, if adopted,
it might perhaps preclude poor men, who were unable to
fnrnish security for costs, from an opportunity of fairly
defending themselves. Considering, besides, that the
Crown was in possession of the goods seized, he thought,
on the whole, that the Government might venture to allow
the law to remain in this, as in, other respects, as between
subject and subject. (near.) But there was another im-
portant alteration which the Government proposed with
respect to prosecutions. It had been suggested by the
committee whether a quicker and more economical tri-
bunal might not be allowed in cases which involved
only small amounts. He thought they would show
themselves not alive to- the great advantages which
were being derived from the establishment of County
Courts if they passed over this suggestion of the com-
mittee without feeling that, instead of the lengthened in-
vestigations and loss of time which occurred in Exchequer
trials, besides the heavy costs, it would be better, in cer-
tain cases of small amount, to make it imperative upon the
Crown to resort to the County Com ts, or to some other
local tribunal, as the Treasury should direct, according to
the convenience of the locality. (Hear.) The Govern-
ment had therefore come to the conclusion that it should
be made imperative upon the Crown, in all canes where
the duties or penalties to be recovered did not exceed 1001.,
to resort to the County Courts, or such other local tai
banal as the Treasury might direct. They would, how-
ever, give the defendant the option of removing the case,
to a higher court, if he thought proper, to be tried by a
jury ; and they also proposed to give the Commissioners
of Customs a similar power upon an appeal to the Trea-
sury, because it must be evident to the house that even in
cases of small amount, there might be largo, complicated,
and unusual principles involved—(hear, hear)—but as a
rule they would be obliged to resort to the small court in
all cases where the fines and penalties did not exceed 1001.
(A Member, " Together ?") Yes, together. But they
proposed to go even a step further, and say that, even in
cases which involved a larger amount of duties and penal-
ties than 1001., where the Commissioners of Customs
should certify to the Treasury that, from the simple nature
of the cases, they might be safely left to the local tribu-
nals, the Treasury should be empowered to authorise the
step so recommended. (Hear, hear.) At present also if a
merchant found himself aggrieved by a seizure, and wished
to bring an action, he was obliged to proceed against the
seizing officer only. Now this was a serious case ; because
the merchant might have been put to great inconvenience
by the seizure of his goods, and if he found that it was
only a Custom-house officer of an inferior rank against
whom he must bring his action for damages, undoubtedly
he might feel himself placed in an awkward and disadvan-
tageous position. (Hear, hear.) If the law was closely
looked into, it would be found that the seizing officer was
only nominally concerned in such transactions, and that
the real party was the Commissioners of Customs ; but if
there was any uncertainty as to the state of the law on
this point—he believed there was none in reference to the
practice—that uncertainty would be removed by the Trea-
sury minute now passed, which made it imperative that
in every action under the Customs laws, the Commis-
sioners should be, if not nominally, yet really responsible.
There was another complaint which had been made with
respect to the limit of time within which an action might
be brought against a Custom-house officer or the Commis-
sicners of Customs. As the law now stood, the limit was
six months from the time of the cause of action arising,
but it not unfrequently happened that the trial was post-
poned, and that a delay of 12 months occurred. parties
were thus placed in a very awkward position from the un-
certainty of the result, and the long delay which took
place, and were thereby apt to be deterred from bringing
actions. To remedy this evil the Government proposed
that in future the defendant should have the right to bring
an action for damages within one month after the final de-
termination of the court against the subject. A complaint
owis ; but
aet t there
s
was also made with regard to the law of " prescription" in
the case of the Crown bringing actions
, i
with regar ford
to this
was something to be said. At present, in the case of limit " civil" actions, the Crown was bound to the of six
years, as in every other case ; an
for ffences against the Customs laws, the right of the
Crown to bring actions was limited to three years in cases
brought in any of the superior courts, and to six months
for those brought before magistrates. He did not think,
therefore, there was any occasion to make any al-
teration in this respect (Hear, hear, hear.) The next
exml ihbei
rt
oe
that recommendation of the committee referred to a most
important subject—the trausi t3y: t sm. The transit trade
the
len
dnil jYaenitxiiorpnedsn
se to themselves, to use
fea-
turesofth iosfeoreumnatrrkay
had,b
l remarkable
during the discussions upon the navigation laws, two or
Imttwfoeuwld be remembered
three years ago, one very great a?drTportant advantage_
anticipated from the change of those
the lawsh7as? that
11" yf
inftoerrethste_
extendStatese
anc shipping
MP: g t
countries
by inducing European which had previously sent
would
Great
Britainb e able
vu
ht
ee
tr
the
•
great inconvenience
shipping of this country for the conveyance of their goods.
I in d tremarkable
their goods directly to the various parts of the world, at
That anticipation had been realised a. ni s -
; degree. In order to give facilities to this trade,
.arrane
• Hull, Goole, Grimsby, d Southamptos, whereby goods
might be landed from ships arriving from foreign corm-
' Ments had been made at the ports of London, Liverpool,
trios, and without being opened or examined, might

THE''''SITN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 22, 1853.