The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-31 00:00:00

be given to the Commissioners of Customs, it ought
to be exercised with the greatest care and modera-
tion. The administration of these officials has, how-
ever, been characterised by lamentable indiscretion ;
and in the case of two important metropolitan
companies—the Milwall and the Dagenham Docks
Companies—the license to land goods was arbi-
trarily and unreasonably refused. Hitherto the
Commissioners have not wasted much argument in
reply to public complaints touching their deeds ; but
they deem it not beneath their dignity to enlarge a
little on the subject in their report to the Treasury.
They begin with the Milwall Docks ; and a very
unfortunate beginning it is. That the Milwall
Company should ask landing powers of the Commis-
sioners, be refused (of course), and that the Lords of
the Treasury should overrule the decision of their
subordinates, and grant the license for the space
of three years, cannot be deemed an auspicious
opening of the case. The Commissioners feel
this, and do not disguise their wrath with the
Treasury Department. They aver that landing
foreign goods was not contemplated by the Act
which the company obtained in 1864; though what
this can matter to the worthy Commissioners it is
difficult to see. They have refused landing powers
to the Dagenham Company, though foreign trade
was proposed by the latter body from the first—
thus shewing themselves superior to all Acts of Par-
liament, or anything that may be contemplated
in them. In the one case the Commissioners with-
hold the license, although the trade expressly sanc-
tioned by the Legislature cannot be carried on
without it; in the other case they complain that the
project sketched out in the original Act has been
departed from ! The dilemma is plain : if the Board
be guided in conferring landing powers by the deci-
sions of Parliament, the sooner a licence is granted
to the Dagenham Company the better for the
Board's consistency; and if those powers are
granted without regard to the Legislature,
why do the Commissioners complain that the
Milwall Company obtained an Act to do
one kind of business, and have since made up
their minds to carry on another ? Surely the Dagen-
ham affair does not testify to much respect for Acts
of Parliament. There the Commissioners have for
months past revelled in the luxury of nullifying and
frustrating three Acts. The powers which the
Mill wall Company obtained in 1864 were "to make and
maintain canals in the Isle of Dogs, to provide accom-
modation for shipping, and water-side accommoda-
tion for shipbuilding and other business requiring river
frontage." These stipulations, urges the-Board, pro-
vide for manufacturing purposes alone; the old com-
panies did not oppose the Act of 1864, because
nothing was said in it about landing goods; and yet
the Lords of the Treasury, setting aside the opinion
of the Commissioners, have granted landing powers.
This is, doubtless, an enormity, but something may
be said in its favour. It may be pleaded that the
prime duty of their lordships was not to prop up old
companies ; but, in granting this landing license, to
determine whether the Milwall Company could fairly
lay any claim to it. The Treasury had the advan-
tage of the Commissioners' wisdom in deciding this
question, and yet their lordships resolved to grant
the landing powers. Nor does it appear that any
great wrong was done. The Milwall Company ob-
tained the license only on condition of giving up
shipbuilding, they were to guarantee the Treasury
against loss, their powers would expire in three
years, at the end of which time they must
come up to receive sentence. These conditions ought
to have satisfied, one world think, even Customs'
Commissioners. But the Board loudly complains
that its decision was overruled by the Treasury, and
their lordships are plainly informed that it was owing
to " parliamentary pressure." This outburst of
indignation affords a clue to the Commissioners'
feelings. Their great mission is to resist parlia-
mentary influence. Great trade questions ought to
be settled, not in the House of Commons, but
at the Custom House. The open arena of the Legis-
lature, where all claimants can be heard, and where
private and public rights receive—if not a perfectly
impartial hearing—one much less biassed than can
be had elsewhere, is not the place for the Board. The
Commissioners have kept up their dignity by distri-
buting their favours without regard to Parliament
or its Acts; and they are astonished to find that the
Treasury is so weak as to be open to such influence.
Of course, the past is irrevocable, but let the Trea-
sury take warning in future. The case of the
Milwall, Company will be heard again when their
license expires, and, moreover, there is another com-
pany which wants a license, and has notyet obtained
one.

Yes, the Lords of the Treasury have yet a chance
to sheer themselves men like the Commissioners, and
resist parliamentary influence. They must not give
way in the case of the Dagenham Docks. It is true
that there is no chance of taking refuge in an Act
of Parliament here, for the three Acts granted to
the Dagenham Company plainly contemplate the
landing and warehousing of goods—the business
planned from the first is an impossibility with-
out these powers. The Commissioners, however,
bring forward other pleas. They are not
convinced that the Dagenham works are needed.
They admit that "several" firms, unconnected with
the company, have testified that they are needed,
but these unofficial witnesses, says the Board, have
not considered the accommodation already provided
in different places along the Thames. The " several "
firms alluded to number one hundred and thirty-
three of the leading mercantile City houses, and are
quite as well able to judge whether the existing
accommodation be sufficient as are the Commis-
sioners. These merchants testify that the landing
and warehousing accommodation at Dagenham
would be highly advantageous in the case of dan-
gerous and inflammable material—petroleums, oil,
resin, &c., and though the Commissioners point out
that several places of the kind are now available, in
nearly every case the premises alluded to are situated
in populous neighbourhoods or contiguous to other
valuable property. But we repeat that it is a gross
injustice to consider such a question now. The time
for deciding whether the accommodation was wanted
or not was when the bill empowering the company
to commence business was before Parliament,
not after the works have been commenced
and some £160,000 expended. The Board has
no right whatever to question the usefulness of an
undertaking which the Legislature has sanctioned ;
its only function in such a case is to see that there
is no primd facie objection to the opening of the
works. By passing three Acts for the formation of
a company and the construction of docks, Par-

liament clearly implies the power of landing
goods, without which the rest of the property
would be entirely useless. The business of the
Commissioners, like that of the Board of Trade in
the case of railways, is simply to see that the
arrangements are not defective, and though several
trivial objections are raised on this score, the leading
objection of the Board is that Parliament has
sanctioned an undertaking which is not required,
and, therefore, Parliament must be set at nought.
To stop a great undertaking after a large outlay, as
they have arbitrarily done, is simply to overrule the
decision of the supreme power in the State. The
Commissioners plead that: the wharf and warehouses
only are complete, and that the docks have not been
commenced. It unfortunately happens that the
works have been suspended; but the Board does not
add that the stoppage is owing to their refusal, which
is the fact. The Commissioners have, in short,
nothing whatever to say touching the Acts of Parlia-
ment except that since these Acts were obtained the
dock accommodation in the neighbourhood of the
metropolis has largelyincreased. Their decision, then,
amounts to this: the shareholders of the Dagenham
Company must lose their money, the works already
made must fall to decay, and Dagenham remains
desolate because other companies have gone into the
same line of business and have obtained the privileges
which the unfortunate company vainly seek, although
those privileges were, as they believed, guaranteed to
them by Act of Parliament.