The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-10-01 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL CUSTOM-HOUSE.

Under this title we have recently drawn the attention as well
of the public as of the public authorities, and, as we have reason
to know, not without effect, to certain vexatious proceedings
which have for some time existed in that department of the re-
venue at the port of Liverpool. It will always afford us plea-
sure to find our labours tend, as in this case, to the well-being of
the community and the facility of commerce; and we hope that
the correction of evils which has taken place subsequently to
our notices will prdve but a beginning in that respect.
There is much more to do to satisfy the just expectations of the
commercial body ; and, as certain of the authorities are, offici-
ally, well acquainted with those expectations, it is hoped that
the necessity for giving publicity to a longer list of grievances
will be spared both to them and ourselves. There is, however,
one little matter to which we shall take this mode. of drawing the
attention of those authorities, as we think justice has been With-
held from the parties concerned. We have in our possession
three affidavits sworn before the magistrates of this borough,
in February of the present year, having reference to a trans-
action that occurred in the year 1831, where a party was charged
with an offence against the revenue laws, which terminated in
afi act of apparent extortion, as appears by the following
affidavit :

" Borough of Liverpool,
" Personally appeared before me Charles Horsfall, Esq.,
Mayor, James M'Cubbin, mate of the smack Ailsa, Glasgow
trader, who made oath that, in the year 1831, he was served with
a summons on the 15th September, by Walker, in the
command of the Cutter, to appear at the town-hall on the 29th
of said month, to answer an alleged offence against the revenue,
served in the Ailsa's cabin, in the presence of John Little, the
master. This deponent attended at the Town-hall on the said
29th September, and was met at the door by Walker, and
Farrer, the Custom-house broker; the latter told M'Cubbin
that. his attendance was not necessary—that he and Walker
could settle the business without his presence before the magis-
trates; they, Farrer and Walker, went into the Town-hall, and
shortly returned, when Farrer told deponent that Walker had
informed the magistrates that deponent could not be found to be
served with.the summons, having sailed to India, and had got
the matter settled in deponent's favour for the mitigated penalty
of £3 Is. 6d.; on the Bth October following, the said Farrer de-
manded the sum of £3 Is. 6d., viz., £2 los., the mitigated pe-
nalty, and Ils. 6d. expences, which deponent paid him.
Walker, when he served the notice, recommended deponent
to employ Ferrer as the only person to extricate him from the
difficulties of the transaction. Deponent having since discover-
ed no conviction had taken place, called upon 'Walker and de-
manded his money. Walker referred him to Farrer, who re-
fused to pay it back. Deponent transmitted a statement to the
principal °dicers of the port, on the 19th January, 1833. On
the Ist February, Farrer returned the deponent £2 10s., keep-
ing the balance lls. 6d. for his trouble in this fraudulent trans-
action. (Signed) JAMES WC ÜBBIN.

" Sworn this sth February, 183.3, before me,
" (Signed) CHAS. HORSFALL, Mayor."

We do not think it necessary at present to give the other two
affidavits. But it is further stated, that a representation on the
subject was made to the Commissioners of Customs, and given
to the Inspector-General on the 19th January, this year; and
that, on the Ist February last, WC übbin attended the Inspector-
General, and received back £2 10s., as mentioned in the affida-
vit. Four questions suggest themselves with reference to this
transaction :

First,—Did the Inspector-General, or any of the proper au-
thorities, transmit to the Commissioners of the Customs in Lon
don, the representation given to him for that purpose ?
Secondly,—Did or did not the Inspector-General recommend
to 111‘Cubbin to withdraw such representation ?
Thirdly,—Was the Inspector-General cognizant of the re-
storation of the sum of £2 10s. to 111‘Cubbin ?

And lastly,—What course was taken •with reference to the
officer or officers engaged in the affair

Here we shall leave the matter for the moment. Arid we
think it only an act of justice to the parties concerned to say,
that our columns will be open to any fair and temperate state-
ment in exculpation or reply, as it appears to us that the trans-
action cannot rest where it is at present.