The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-13 00:00:00

been charged, and the merchants have been settled
with. Where the quantities abstracted before being
brought to account were in excess of the bills of
lading, and the error has not been discovered by the
shipper and notified to the merchant, the latter may
have had all he expected and been satisfied. If, how-
ever, these excesses have not been brought under the
notice cf the Crown, but wholly or in part brought
into consumption, the revenue has suffered, and the
fair trader has suffered by the unfair competition to
which he who pays honestly the duty on his goods
must be subjected, and if this be so, we ask, what
have the Customs been about ?

How comes it that the guardians of the revenue
have foregone the means of securing its integrity,
and of preserving intact the property of the
merchants, who, confiding in their account for duties,
regulate thereby their demands on the warehouse-
keepers for their goods ? If, by the abstraction of
goods, deficiencies are created, the merchant, it is
presumed, gets an allowance either from the shipper,
the shipowner, or carrier, the lighterman, or the
underwriter. In this case it is not the merchant, but
one or other of the parties indirectly who suffer.
Upon what evidence they are fixed with the loss is
to us an enigma; but the revenue is here again a
sufferer, and we think the Customs should solve that
enigma, and guard against such puzzles being pro-
pounded for the future.

These things furnish matter for inquiry, and
we trust it is in better bands- than for-
merly. We have in a previous article on
this subject freely expressed our opinion of the laehes
of the Board of Customs, and it has called forth a re-
monstrance from a mercantile correspondent, whom
we take this opportunity of informing that oar stric-
tures on the Customs were general. We do not wish
to be unjust, and we must admit that on a more care-
ful review of the statements contained in the columns
of one of our contemporaries, though designed for a
different purpose—and we thank our correspondent for
the hint—some excuse is to be found for the
existing Board of Customs, as the majority
of the present Board are comparatively
new men. If so, they are not answerable
for the misrule of their predecessors, and we admit
that it is difficult to break through established prac-
tices. They are now furnished with a powerful
lever, and we would rather encourage them in
the proper use of it than join in deriding the quali-
fications of the new Board, and personally inveighing
against i:s several members. The examination of this
question leads us to take a more cheering view of the
case. The journal just alluded to has unwittingly
furnished materials which place the parties affected
in a much higher position than their predecessors. If
the majority of the present members cf the Board
have had but few years of official experience in their
department, we must give them credit for having
turned it to some account. The infusion of a little
new blood into the sluggish constitutions of anti-
quated bodies has a tendency to re-invigorate and
bring about a wholesome renovation. We hope to
see it verified.

We look forward to the adoption of regulations
which will at once form a safeguard to the revenue,
relieve the dock companies Trom the danger of mal-
versation by their servants, disarm suspicion against
them, restore public confidence in those influential
bodies, and secure the best interests of the mercantile
community, We are the more sanguine, because we
observe more evidences of energy and uncompromis-
ing integrity in a department which has heretofore
been a subject of complaint and dissatisfaction,
and we rejoice to see indications of a similar spirit
in the solicitor who, as the legal adviser of the Board,
may be very instrumental in supporting and giving
effect to their measures, if, indeed, he do not give a
tone to their deliberations, as they must needs have
recourse to him on most important matters. We
know that there is no great inducement to a stipen-
diary officer resorting to needless litigation, adding
thereby to the labours of his office. We were glad to see
Mr. HAMEL'S declaration against sinecurism, and,
therefore, do not concur in the ungracious attacks
which have been made upon him, avowedly on account
of the firmness and determination that distinguish
him. We purpose shortly, should space and oppor-
tunity permit, to enter a little more fully into this
subject. In the meantime we will only observe that
we have looked in vain for the acceptance of his
challenge, repudiating the statements attributed to
him. As the attack was anonymous, the only clue to
the author was to be found in the details of his ad-
versaries' statements, and their accordance with aome
pamphlet said to have been circulated by a former
law officer of the Customs. After the deliberate,
though polite, contradiction which Mr. HA•
At EL has publicly given to every position
advanced, he may accept the silence ob-
served as a retractation of the statements, or
a confession of inability to maintain them. We do
not enter upon this to vindicate the present solicitor,
who, if we may judge from the tone and spirit of hie
letters, can defend himself, but refer to it to show
the weakness of a cause which must have recourse to
personalities. The solicitor, be it remembered, is
amongst those who are abused for protecting the
interests of the merchant, and they may yet have to
acknowledge themselves under great obligations to
that gentleman—but more of this hereafter.