Receiver-Generals' in the Alienation Office, and to the
offices of Master in Chancery and Exchequer Solicitor.
The fees in vogue were to continue, and their proceeds
to be applied to the furnishing of salaries, residue to go
to the Consolidated Fund. A number of useless offices
in Ireland were abolished, and others deprived of much
profit. Among these were the Customs offices of
Pratique Master of the port of Dublin, and Customs
storekeepers of Dublin. The salaries of certain Scottish
* Cap. 60, 62, 64, 84, 57 Geo. III.



70 HUNGER AND CONSOLIDATIONS [1817-18

officials were to be pruned ' on termination/ and other
offices were ordered to be performed in person. Among
the latter were those of Auditor of Exchequer, King's
and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancers, and Presenter of
Signatures. Others were to be abohshed. These in-
cluded the offices of the Clerk of the Pipe and Controller-
General of Customs. The offices of Auditors, Tellers, and
Clerks of Pells in England and Ireland were to be performed
in person.

The old Irish aulnage laws (Acts relating to the measure-
ment of cloth) were abolished by Cap. 109. The patent
office of Aulnager of Ireland was held by Lord Blaquiere,
under a grant of 1797. He was compensated by a
pension of £500 per annum, payable to him or his heirs
till expiration of patent.

The ' winter ' hours for shipping goods in the port of
London had been defined by Elizabeth's Act as 7 a.m.
to 4 p.m., from September to February inclusive. These
were in a way extended by Cap. 116, 57 Geo. III., it being
provided that goods which had been sent from the quays
during the ' legal hours,' to be shipped in the river, might
be taken on board up to the time of sunset.

On January 31, 1818, the collector of Deal informed
the Board that on the previous night the officers had
stopped a postchaise which was entering the town, and
found in it several cases containing gold coin of the realm,
but that under the circumstances they did not feel justified
in seizing the goods. In reply the Board quoted the
opinion of the Attorney-General that coin merely found in
transit for exportation was not seizable, and advised the
collector to release the goods and keep an eye upon them,
so that they might be seized when actually ' passing out
of the realm.' The Board's letter ended thus : ' We
inform you that a person of the name of John Atkins of
Deal is now in the practice of exporting the coin of this
country to France, and has very lately been in town for
the purpose of purchasing coin to a considerable amount.'

By a patent of June 20, 18 Edw. IV., the power of



i8i8] AULNAGE, COIN, AND GAUGERS 71

appointing the City gauger had been vested in the Mayor
and Commonalty of London, in discharge of a debt of
;^7,ooo contracted by the king. The City worthies made
a practice of granting this ofhce to some esteemed acquaint-
ance. It seems that in olden times it had been lucrative,
but since the establishment of the West India and London
Docks the profits of the office had fallen off, most of the
gaugeable goods being landed in the docks, instead of at
the legal quays within the City. The grantee made
claim in the Court of King's Bench in 1807 to levy on
goods gauged within the docks. The dock companies
disputed his claim, but he succeeded in establishing it,
only to find the decision upset on a new trial. In 1817
Parliament allowed him to be compensated, the moneys
to be obtained by means of extra charges on fees levied
by City brokers.

About the middle of the year a strange circumstance
occurred. Captain Stirling, of H.M.S. Brazen, captured
a foreign vessel called the Tigress within three miles of
the coast of Trinidad, took her into Port of Spain, and
' libelled ' her in the Vice-Admiralty Court for contra-
vening the Navigation laws. He did not hand her over
to the collector of customs, as required by law, but held
her in charge until she was condemned. Then, under
the advice of the Attorney-General for the island,* and
with the concurrence of the Judge of Vice- Admiralty ,
he effected a compromise with the owners of the vessel.
They paid him £738 17s. 8d. sterling, and also paid the costs
(of course, as monstrous as usual). Captain Stirling then
restored the vessel, and divided the proceeds of com-
promise, taking £128 as his own share, and distributing
the balance among his officers and crew.

The proceedings were in two points illegal. The
gallant captain should have placed the vessel in charge of
the Customs, and when the compromise was effected he

* Henry Fuller, Esq. This learned gentleman's name figures
in connection with many strange legal transactions. See Illus-
trative Documents, No. 35.



72 HUNGER AND CONSOLIDATIONS [1818-34

should have handed half the proceeds to the Customs,
to be placed in the king's chest for subsequent remittance
to the Receiver-General, as the ' Crown's share.' It is
certain that the Trinidad Customs men were cognizant
of the transaction, for a seizure and trial of the kind could
not escape their notice, yet they made no report of these
illegal proceedings.

(It will be weU to trace the matter through all its subse-
quent ramifications. The London Customs lawycrswere in-
formed — by whom does not appear — in 1820, and a letter
was sent to Captain Stirling — then resident in England —
calling on him to pay promptly to the Receiver-General
£64 out of his own share, and then to make arrangements
for refunding half the sum he had paid to his officers and
crew. He wrote back, admitting his liability, promising
to pay the £64 at once, and asking relief in respect of the
rest. He urged that he had acted under presumably
competent advice, tendered by the Attorney-General of
Trinidad. ' I beg the Board will consider an officer of
the navy has in such cases no guides but the Cro\vn
lawyers, and that his situation is indeed deplorable if,
after having been employed, there is no time of his life
in which he may hope to consider himself safe from the
responsibility of errors in law.' The Board replied that
they could grant no relief. Meanwhile they censured
the Trinidad collector for not reporting the matter, and
hinted that they had at first been inchned to surcharge
him with the amount of the Crown's share.

It seems that somehow the matter passed temporarily
out of ken. In 1823 the Board found that Stirling had
not paid the money, so he was written to a second time.
He replied, blandly admitting liability. ' I ought not
in justice to keep the £64, nor do I intend to do so.'
But he pleaded that it would be too bad to make him
pay the other £305 odd. The Board ordered prompt
payment of the {jo^, and told him they would ask the
Treasury's directions as to the rest.

No reply was received till about a year later, when



i8i8-34] AN EVASIVE OFFICER 73

Stirling wrote, stating that he had just returned from
abroad, and had found the Board's letter awaiting him.
He would be happy to pay the £64 at once, and hoped he
might be relieved from the other burden.

Again the matter dropped out of official ken, and,
candid and ready in acknowledgment as Stirling had been,
he took no steps to revive cognizance. It is evident that
he had altered his mind, since that far time when he
wrote, ' I ought not in justice,' etc., for not a penny did
he tender, and the papers remained pigeonholed till 1833,
when some inquisitive person dusted and inspected them,
and the Board received a memo, from the same, to the
effect that Captain Stirling had not up to the present
paid in His Majesty's share. Again he was written to.
Then he began to show his hand. He answered that
he was willing, and extremely desirous, to pay the £64,
but feared that such payment might be held to render
him fuUy liable for the remainder.

The Board were in a quandary. If they brought the
matter to the notice of the Treasury they would in a way
impeach the efficiency of their own department. In the
first place, a vessel had been seized, condemned, and
released on payment of a sum of mone}^ the Crown had
been hindered of its share of proceeds, and the Board had
heard nothing of this from the responsible officers. Then
the Board had allowed themselves to be trifled with by
Stirling, and the papers had been overlooked on one
occasion for a year, and again for nine years. The lawyer's
opinion was taken. He stated that there was little likeli-
hood of success if legal proceedings were taken against
Stirling for either sum. Thereupon a very bland and
polite note was sent to the rollicking sea-dog, telling him
that if he paid the £64 the Board would waive claim of
the rest.

After conducting his own defence during fourteen years
with such marked ability, Stirling broke down in the end.
Had he but declared that on further consideration he
had come to the conclusion that he was not liable even



74 HUNGER AND CONSOLIDATIONS [1818-34

for the ^64, it is likely he would have heard no more of
the matter. But he failed thus to crown his edifice of
evasion. Still, he was not precipitate. He wrote,
stating that he had instructed his agent, Sir F. Ommaney,
to pay the £64 to the Receiver-General, but the old year
went and the new year came, and Sir F. Ommaney did
not darken the doors of the office in Thames Street.
Then a letter was sent to the agent, and in March, 1834,
nearly seventeen years after the seizure of the Tigress,
and nearly fourteen years after Captain Stirhng first
promised to refund His Majesty's share informally appro-
priated, the smaller portion of the debt was discharged.
Then fresh trouble arose. The Receiver-General, no
doubt alive to the peculiar nature of the whole transac-
tion, took the £64, but declined to give a receipt. Sir
F. Ommaney wrote the Board a letter of complaint, the
Board sent a receipt, and thus this extremely remarkable
transaction was adjusted.)

On August 13, 1818, the Secretary to the Postmaster-
General requested the Board of Customs to direct their
officers to be vigilant in preventing the smuggling of letters
outward, the Post-office authorities having come to know
that a vast number of letters were carried to Rotterdam
and other Dutch ports, to the great detriment of the
postal revenue.

On November 20, 1818, the Treasury apprised the
Board that a fraudulent scheme had been set afoot by
certain speculators. It appears these gentlemen had
imported a large quantity of foreign hops, and obtained
remission of most of the duty on the plea that the goods
were ' sea-damaged.' Then they formed a design to
export them and claim the full drawback, as though all
the duty had been paid on landing.

The British Customs duties were again consolidated
by Cap. 52, 59 Geo. III., it being provided that they should
cease on July 5, and be replaced by a new scale. (The
Act announced that foreign goods, imported into and then
exported from Great Britain, were liable to duty if re-



i8i9] FRAUDS AND CONSOLIDATION 75

imported.) The duties were in many instances increased.
The corn regulations were not affected by the Act. Some
of the more important duties, and one or two of the
quainter kind, are quoted below :

Anchovies and botargo, is. per pound ; caviare, 12s.
per cwt. ; eels, £13 is. 3d. the ship-load. (The importa-
tion of eels was exclusively in the hands cf the Worcum
traders, even as now. The vessels used were all of one
type, and of about the same tonnage.) Oysters, is. 6d.
per Winchester bushel ; stock-fish, 5s. per 120 ; sturgeon,
7s. 6d. the keg. Lobsters and turbots were duty-free.
Fresh fish, British-taken and brought in British ships,
were duty-free ; so were British-taken-and-cured fish.

Glass manufactures, not being bottles, window, flint,
or plate glass, paid 80 per cent, on the value, and an excise
duty of six guineas per cwt. Wrought iron paid 50 per
cent, on the value ; leather manufactures, 75 per cent. ;
foreign-made sails, whether in use or as merchandise,
paid at the rate of ;£i04 9s. 2d. for every £100 value.
Lemons in a British-built ship paid £1 5s. per 1,000 ;
in a foreign-built ship, £1 7s. 6d. per 1,000 ; eggs paid lod.
per 120 ; truffles, 5s. 6d. per pound.

The difficulties attendant on assessment and calcula-
tion are evinced by the number of ' divisions of articles,'
each chargeable with a specific duty. There were 24
different rates of duty on the various kinds of stone,
53 on oils, 81 on skins, 104 on linen, and 183 on wood.

Tea, coffee, and cocoa were duty-free as regarded
customs, but they were subjected to crushing excise duties
on delivery from warehouse.

The duties outward stood thus : Coals were liable to a
special export duty (besides the duty of los. in the -^loo
value, which was levied on all exported British goods,
except corn, flour, linen, and cotton manufactures, woollen
manufactures exported to places within the East India
Company's charter, refined sugar, molasses, and articles
intended for use in the Plantation fisheries, all which
excepted goods were free from export duties).



76 HUNGER AND CONSOLIDATIONS [1819

The tonnage rates on ships endured. The only coast-
wise duties leviable were upon coal, slate, and stone.

During 1818 the controller at Falmouth, Jamaica,
had died, and appointed Robert Gilpin, the collector, as
his executor. The governor of the island appointed one
Joseph Wood, a resident, as controller, pending the
Board's dealing with the vacancy. Wood entered into
bond in the usual way, but Gilpin, by various excuses,
evaded handing over to him the controller's key of the
money-chest. After a time a new controller arrived from
England, and had scarcel}' taken up his duties ere Wood
died. Gilpin evaded the new controller's request for the
key for some time, and then was taken ill, and his spirit
went to join those of the two departed controllers.
The new controller, after Gilpin's death, succeeded in
obtaining possession of both the collector's and con-
troller's keys, and opened the chest, which, according to
the books, should have contained about ;£5,ooo in currency.
States the report on the matter : ' Only one piece of money,
of very small amount, was found therein.' Action was
taken against Gilpin's executor, Wood's surety, and the
new controller and his surety, at the assizes at Cornwall,
Jamaica, in November, 1822, and judgment was obtained
against all the defendants. Afterwards the Board re-
leased all the defendants, except Gilpin's executor, from
the penalties, on condition of their paying the costs
incidental.

On March 26, 1819, the Board reported on a letter
which had been sent, through Rear-Admiral Harvey, to
the Treasury, by Captain Elliott of H.M.S. Scamander,
stationed at Barbados. The gallant captain stated that
smuggling was carried on extensively between Martinique
and St. Vincent ; that French goods were publicly exposed
for sale in the latter island ; that he seized an English
schooner laden with contraband goods from Martinique,
another vessel which had loaded without a permit,
and a vessel called the Bellona ; that the last-mentioned
vessel was restored by the Vice-Admiralty Court of



i8i9] FRAUDS, COSTS, AND RELAXATIONS ']y

Trinidad ; that he seized a brig called the Problem, and she
was also restored to her owners ; and that he received for
his trouble, in the last two instances, merely trifling sums
as * satisfactions.' He seized two other vessels, which
were condemned, but he had not as yet been paid even the
expenses of seizure. He then seized the Harmony, and
secured her condemnation, which cost him £400 currency
in law expenses, and he had not as yet received his share
of the proceeds. This letter was sent to the Board, and
they stated that, with a view to prevent improper and
vexatious detentions, it had been their practice to insist
that the responsibility for all seizures should rest upon the
officers who made them, and that seized vessels were never
released unless with a provision that the owners paid all
reasonable expenses incurred.

On August 3, 1819, the Privy Council for Trade reminded
the Customs Board that though, under the Act of 1815,
the importation of foreign corn had been prohibited
except when the British price reached a certain figure,
the said Act did not apply to the Isle of Man, and that the
Manx legislators had refused to alter their code in the
way of assimilation ; therefore it was possible for foreign
corn to be imported free into the island when the price
was low, and then carried to Great Britain as Manx com.
It is curious to fall across such an instance of obstinacy
on the part of local legislators, and still more curious that
the Council should have thought it necessary to apprise
the Board of a contingency of which the Board must have
been aware.

On October 8, 1819, proclamations were issued by the
Governor of the Leeward Islands that, on account of
destruction wrought by the late dreadful hurricane, the
Navigation laws might be relaxed for six months, to permit
provisions and lumber to be imported into Tortola, Nevis,
and St. Kitt's, in vessels of any nationality, and sugar,
rum, and molasses to be exported in said vessels up to the
value of the import cargo. The Privy Council for Trade
desired the Board of Customs to direct their sohcitor to



78 HUNGER AND CONSOLIDATIONS [1819-20

draft a bill of indemnity to cover the governor's action —
said bill to be laid before Parliament (the usual proceeding
in such cases).

A letter dated December 30, 1819, reached the London
Board from St. Kitt's, stating that extensive smuggling
was carried on from Antigua into St. Eustatia. The
Board referred this to the collector of Antigua, and that
official made answer that he knew nothing of the traffic
referred to. He also stated that by his great zeal in
protecting the revenue he had incurred the animosity of
the members of the Antigua House of Assembly, and
hinted that the information might have been prompted
by them. It appears they had attacked him on the
matter of fees, alleging that the Customs and naval charges
' had given a formidable and repulsive aspect to the trade
of the town of St. John's' (Antigua), ' and acted as a terror
to all his Majesty's liege subjects engaged in lawful
traffic'

In a report sent by the collector of Halifax, Nova
Scotia, it was stated that the coal-mines at Sydne}^ Cape
Breton, were leased to one Leaver, who paid the Crown
6s. 4d. a chaldron on all coals shipped, and that the
lease would expire on December 31, 1820 ; also that the
mines were stiU being worked by horse-power, as none
would erect a steam-engine unless a longer lease were
granted.

A review of the condition of the Customs at the end
of George III.'s reign becomes necessary. The revenue
had swollen since the Act of Union, partly through aug-
mentation of trade — especially export trade — partly
through increase in the rates of duty. The values of
imports and exports were stated as below :

r . . / 17 Exports to

Imports [Foreign t- '^ n t ■

J /- 7 A Foreien Countries
and Colonial). j w ^ 7

' and the Colonies.

£ £

1817 .. .. 30,805,655 50,379,629

1818 . . . . 36,900,681 53.559.710



I8I9-20] FEES AND RETURNS 79

The net produce of the Customs in England, Scotland,
and Ireland, for the year ending January 5, 1819, appears
to have been :

£

England .. .. .. .. 10,176,794

Scotland . . . . . . . . 760,926

Ireland . . . . . . . . 1,860,089

Total . . . . . . 12,797,809



(By ' net produce ' is signified the sum remaining after
drawbacks and expenses of management had been paid.
The expenses of management amounted to over 9 per
cent, of the gross proceeds in England, and over 16 per
cent, of the gross in Scotland and Ireland.)

The whole of the net was not paid into the Exchequer.
Large sums were deducted, and applied as bounties to-
wards certain public undertakings. These amounted to :

In England . . . . . , . . 189,924

In Scotland . . . . . . . . 85,149

In Ireland ., .. .. .. 147,556

The balances kept back by the various collectors

amounted to :

£
In England . . . . . . . . 38,380

In Scotland . . . . . . . . 47,393

In Ireland . . . . . . . . 17,104

Out of the English moneys £62,512 w^ent towards build-
ing the new Custom House at London. Out of the
Scottish £71,332 went towards the support of the
Scottish Civil Government. In each of the three
countries a sum was withheld because, though collected
during the years under survey, it was not due till the
following year. Thus the actual payments into the
Exchequer were :

£

From England . . . . . . 9,601,903

From Scotland . . . . . . 432,845

From Ireland . . ... .. .. 1,635,470

Total .. .. .. 11,670,218



8o HUNGER AND CONSOLIDATIONS [1819-20

(The Irish returns are expressed in British currency.)
The annual accounts of seizures show that the pre-
ventive men were kept busy. From 1816 to 1818 the
records of total values on condemnation (in England alone)
stood thus :

i

1816 . . . . . , . . . . 182,774

1817 . . . . . . . . . . 76,116

1818 . . . . . . . . . . 117,776

Yet the amounts recovered in fines and penalties were
only—

I

1816 . . . . . . . . . , 24,989

1817 .. .. .. .. .. 28,808

1818 . . . . . . . . , . 21,360

The gradual extension of the bonding system had proved
a great boon to merchants, but they still complained of
the restrictions placed upon trade by the system of calling
for unnecessary bonds on many trifling transactions.
(Great relief had been afforded to the coastwise trade in
this respect, but foreign traffic was still hampered.) The
annual stamp duty realized on Customs bonds reached
the huge sum of £40,000.

The building of the West India, East India, London,
and Commercial Docks, had effected great improvement
in the trade of the Port of London, but the lessees of the
various legal quays and uptown warehouses complained
that their business suffered through the system of granting
special warehousing privileges to the dock companies.* A
commission of 1819 reported in favour of the complainers,
urging that ' care should be taken not to grant such
exclusive privileges to any one of the dock companies as
might operate to prevent that spirit of competition which
secures to the merchant a moderate charge for the ware-
house rent of his merchandise.'

* It is curious to note that, in spite of special privileges of this
kind, the London dock companies have recently been compelled
in a way to solicit the public to relieve them of their responsibilities,
while the legal quays are able to hold their own. Much coddling,
though it may foster for a time, destroys efficiency in the end.



i82o] GENERAL CUSTOMS MATTERS 8i

Circumlocution was still rampant in the Revenue
departments. Trifling Customs transactions were made
subjects of petitions to the Board, the result being much
waste of time and paper, for the method of dealing with
such applications was horribly imperfect. (It may be
mentioned, as an illustration of this, that when cattle,
sheep, etc., intended as food for passengers, arrived in
or were shipped by the East India Company's vessels,
fodder might not be taken on board for their support until
special written application had been made to the Customs.
The document was referred for the reports of certain
officials — men by no means inclined to hurry — and
considerable time elapsed before the transaction was
formally ' allowed.' Meantime the animals were on short
commons, unless the landing-officers of customs thought
fit to wink at an evasion of formality.) On March i,
1817, a number of important shipowners had memorialized
the Treasury, complaining bitterly of the delay ex-
perienced in obtaining answers to applications — appli
cations which the high customs officials persisted in
demanding, in many instances without any apparent
reason.

The Port of London was overstaffed, but a reduction
had been recommended. Abolition of the following offices
was suggested : i surveyor of searchers, 5 searchers, 13
landing-waiters, 4 ' extra ' landing-waiters, 35 ' occa-
sional ' landing-waiters, 1 ganger, and 2 ' occasional '
gangers, and the reduction of the jerquers from 5 to 2,
and of the jerquer's clerks from 7 to 2 (certainly an in-
structive suggestion). The ' piazza-men ' — preferential
tide-waiters, fifty in number, who were employed on the
Customs quay or in guarding during transit from ware-
house to exporting ship the goods which had been sold
by the East India Company to various merchants for
exportation — were quite unworthy. Wholesale fraud
took place during the conveyance of the above-mentioned