The Sun.
London, England, 1869-12-30 00:00:00

LONDON, TI1111?SDAY, DEC. 30, 1869.

WHILST the Government is working its will with
the Admiralty and the War Office, the extravagance

and mismanagement of the Customs department
pursue the even tenour of their way. No branch (
the Administration presents a fairer mark for the
incisive propensities of an economical Ministry.
Other departments may involve greater expen-

diture ; but against nono can a clearer case be
made out for investigation with a view to reform.
When a public authority pronounces nine-tenths cf
the Customs' labour to be "utterly unnecessary" and

" maintained to supply fictitious work," it is surely

high time to look further into the matter.
B3sides the occasional eccentricities to which we

have before called attention, two permanent charges

are laid against this depart=nt—those of neeflessly
complex working and excessive expenditure. The
former evil is, of course, productive of the latter, but
it likewise causes inconvenience, delay, and loss in
the transaction of business. The details required

by the department are endless, and have to be
repeated again and again. For carriage by rail a few

tons of 'goods would require only one or two

orders, filled up with very few words.
to export a similar quantity to a foreign
country an extraordinary process has to be
undergone. The forms which must be filled up
previously to putting the merchandise on board ship
are sufficiently extensive to cover the floor of a large
room. Their superficial area, as ascertained by actual
measurement, is about 900 feet. On des3 docu-
ments are inscribed the names of ships, places,

But

persons, countries, &c., and not once or twice, but
dozens of times. Such labour can scarcely Le need-
ful. The waste must be considerable both to the
nation and the shipper, for, though an unhappy
country proviles the forms, the labour r qu'sito to
fill them up must be found by the merchaLt.
If the revenue is to be protected, of course the safe-
guards must be efficient; but that a few tons of goods
cannot be shipped with safety to national interests
without the consumption of twenty-nine feet by
twenty-eight feet of paper is simply incredible. But
it is not in details only that the Customs' management
is open to stricture. The general plan on which the
duties are gathered is not less questionable. If the
primary business of the department is to collect the
revenue, how can that mission be fulfilled by the esta-
blishment of custom-houses at places where -C.:ere is
no revenue to collect ? Yet this is precisely what i,

done at present. All round the coast may be found
small ports which withdraw money from the ex-
chequer, instead of contributing to it. In ether
words. there are many Customs establishments where
there is no trade, and where the duties colitxtea wri
not cover the cost of keeping up the station. Why
then maintain such No doubt they afford employ-
ment to various worthy officials ; but this is not the
business of the department. Where a Custom-
house represents a yearly loss, it ought not to exist.
A few examples wll serve to shew what unpr, fit-
able speculations some of our Customs stations ars.
A return lately presented to the House of Commons;
on the motion of Mr. HEADLAII, gives the amount of
revenue received, and the expenditure involved in its
collection, at all the ports and inland bonding towns
of the United Kingdom. The Customs establishment
at Aberystwith, for example, cost £BlO last
year, whilst the amount of duties received
was only £73—less than one-tenth. By far the
greater number of the custom-houses transact busi-
ness on behalf of the Inland Revenue, and in some
cases the receipts under this head are very large ;
but -Aberysthwith has no such collection to
bring forward as a set-off. At Beaumaris the
receipts in 1868 were £385, and the expenses £l,ll0—
rather more than three times as much. Here, too,
there was scarcely any work done on behalf of the
Inland Revenue. At Fowey the takings were very
little more than half the expenses, and the
Inland Revenue account was nil. At Llanelly
the duties collected just turn the scale against- the
cost of maintenance, the former being £1,688, a2d
the latter £1,655. At Maldon the business pays only
one-third of its expenses; at Milford little more than
one-tenth. The establishment at Padstow spends
£432 in collecting £5O. At Rye the proportion is
100 to 1, the outgoings amounting to £406, and the
takings to only £5. At the Scilly Islands the Customs
establishment cost £471, whilst the duties collected
were last year represented by a solitary sovereign. Wells
plys only one-third of its expenses. In Scotland
the station at Kirkwall required £BB2 for its main-
tenance, and the receipts were nil; Lerwick cost
£520, with a like result; Stornoway expended £527
in receiving £11; whilst Stranraer presents quite an
active appearance with an income which covers one-
third of its expenditure. Wick very nearly manages
to clear off three-fourths of its annual cost. Wigtown
spendi £505, and does absolutely no businesswhatever.
In Ireland, Skibbereen is the only very flagrant example.
The duties it collects meet about a quarter of the sum
required for maintenance. In all these cases, with
the single exception of Llanelly, nothing is done on
behalf of the Inland Revenue. It may be conceded
that the amount of duties received, as compared. with
the outlay involved in collection, is not to be taken as
an exact representation of the work done by a
Customs station. The business details vary con-
siderably at different places, and, moreover, thelevying
of duties is not the only kind of labour in this
department. But the allowances to be made on these
grounds are not sufficient to affect the general conclusion
that at many of the small places the maintenance
of a Customs establishment is a clear loss to the
nation, and might well be dispensed with. As the
general tendency of trade is to pass the goods now
paying duts- through the larger ports, the abolition
of what we may call these insolvent stations would
involve no great difficulty. The ports which now
receive no duties can hardly suffer from a disruptioi,
of business arrangements if the local Custom-house
put up their shutters.
The examples we have quoted are of that flagranl
kind where the expemes exceed the income. Bul
it is also instructive to note the strange dispropor.
tion which the various ratios of revenue and
expenditure at the larger ports bear to each other.
Gloucester spends £4,412 in collecting £01,812 ;
Exeter only £2,470 in collecting £113,533. At
Greenock the duties amount to one hundred
and thirteen times the cost of the station;
at Grimsby they are only twelve and a halt
times pa great. At Hartlepool £4:088 repre7