SMUGGLED SILKS.
THE papers connected with the acts of smuggling, in which the Louse of LEAF, Sox, and COLES, were implicated, have at length been published. They consist of the reports and examination of the seizing officer; specifications of the goods seized; evidence of Mr. Cox, of the Customhouse, respecting the state of the goods; examination of the two informers, and of a porter in the employ of Messrs. LEAF at the time of the seizures. The first seizure took place on the 5th August last. The goods were driven from Vaux- hall to the door of the warehouse of Messrs. LEAF, where they and the cart that conveyed them were seized. The second, third, and fourth seizures took place on the 12th of the same month,—one in the house of Mr. HISLOP, a silk manufacturer in Gutter Lane; one at the house of Messrs. WESTRON and DIGN VM, straw hat manufacturers, Newgate Street; the third at the house of Miss CAREY, milliner, Racket Court, Fleet Street. The value of the four seizures was 6,121/. 98. 3d.; they consisted almost entirely of ribbons. Mr. Cox, who examined the boxes seized on the 12th, describes the woods as squeezed into the boxes, not packed; of forty pieces of silk in one box, thirty-seven were not even tied; some were laid flat, others pushed in endwise; "cartoons" of rib- bons were jammed in the boxes; every thing bore the marks of confusion and hurry of removal, without any regard to value orap pearance for future sale. The informers, two watermen, describe eight smuggling transactions between the 13th May and- the 5th August.The goods smuggled were partly received from the Bel- fast Calais steamer, partly from a small vessel not named; they were conveyed by the informers to a barge belonging to one of them, and from the barge to the warehouse of Messrs. LEAF, in various ways, as from time to time was deemed most likely to escape the eyes of the Customhouse. In one case, they were landed at Queenhithe, in wine hampers ; at another, at King's Arms Stairs, Lambeth, in bags; at another, at Nine Elms. The porter describes the packing up and sending away from the ware- houses of Messrs. LEAF of the boxes seized on the 12th August. The packing commenced about half-past eight in the evening of the 3th, after the young men were gone. The son of Mr. CeeEs—who, as well as his father, is now a partner of the house—was present dur- ing the packing, and instructed the porters, who carried away the boxes, to go, some down Old Change, some up Cheapside, some through St. Paul's Churchyard. This witness also mentions his having observed, on various occasions, boxes brought to the ware- house, which contained pieces of silk wrapped in paper and pre- pared canvas to defend them from wet. None of the packages in which these goods were brought to the warehouse at all resembled those in which such goods are usually imported. In packing the goods sent away on the 5th, the shelves, he states, were not cleared, but a selection was made, certain goods only being sent away. They were all taken from the Foreign Room of the establish- ment. Such are the facts contained in the Parliamentary Paper ; en which a few observations will be expected from us. A system of wholesale smuggling is not so much a robbery of the King—in which light short-sighted reasoners are apt to regard it—as a robbery of the fair trailer, whom it exposes to ruinous competition ; and of the honest payer of taxes, who is of necessity compelled to make up that deficiency in the revenue which the nefarious practices of the smuggler tend to produce. There is another remark which a very slight consideration of the subject will suggest. The case of the wholesale smuggler, who robs the Customhouse, while he beggars the fair trader and cheats the pub- lic, is a very different one from that of a chance passenger, or a sailor, who smuggles half-a-dozen of handkerchiefs, a card of lace, or a gallon of brandy, for himself or an acquaintance. In the latter case, the probability always is, that if not " run," the article would not have been purchased at all; so that neither the revenue nor the fair trader gains by its seizure. It is analogous to a per- son's taking the opportunity of a friendly hand to convey a letter free, which otherwise he would not have written. The general plunder of the snmegler of capital, on the other hand, resembles more the entice of coach proprietor, who defrauds the Post- office and puts money in his own pocket by carrying a private letter-bag. But the difference in kind between the two crimes is small com- pared with their difference in degree. If we receive as true the in- formation which we have above detailed, it is impossible for a mo- ment to believe, that all, or any thing like all, the smuggling trans- actions of Messrs. LEAF during the four months from the 11th May lint year to the 5th August, when the first seizure took place, have come to light. But let us see what, during that time, has come out. From the evidence of two lightermen who were em- ployed by one SEDGEWICK, a person in the service of Messrs. LEAF, it appears, that during these four months there were eight transactions in all. The exact number of packages do not seem to be very accurately ascertained; for on this point there was a dispute between SEDGEWICK and the bargemen ; and it is not un- worthy of remark, that the information was given—such at least is the report—in consequence of an attempt to pay the bargemen less than they had bargained for; so completely in character is the whole affair. But although there • might be one or two pack- ages under or over, it seems clear that the several transactions were, in point of quantity, pretty nearly equal. Now, that of the 5th August is rated, by the seizing officer, at 6501.; and taking the duty at 40 per cent,* which is about the average, the sum of which the revenue was defrauded during these four months, was 2,0801.; being at the rate of 6,2401. per annum! This however may, for any thing the public knows, have consti- tuted a very small part of the sums of which the revenue had been defrauded during the year. The goods which were seized on the 5th August, consisted of ribbons—one only of the nine dif- ferent descriptions of foreign silk goods in which the house deals. Let us see how much foreign gauze, in which gauze ribbons are included, the house sold during the last year. On plain gauze, the duty paid amounts to no more than 27/. 2s. 11d.; which would give, at wholesale prices, somewhat less than 100/. as the entire sales from the 5th November 1830 to the 5th November 1831. On figured gauze, the duty paid is 1,4121.; which would give a sale of about 3,500/. The whole duty paid by LEAF and Co. during the year ending oth November 1831, on all silk goods imported by -them, was only 8,308/. 9s. 9d.; which, rating the average duty as before at 40 per cent, would make theprime cost of all the goods that entered Messrs. LEAFS' warehouses, in the course of twelve months, no more than 20,771/. Now, just for one moment -consider, that they are among the greatest, perhaps the very greatest, dealers in London; that they have an establishment se- cond to none in the metropolis, except perhaps that of Messrs. MORRISON and Co. ;t that the salesmen, and clerks, and others * The duty was meant to be an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent., but the Customhouse, for convenience, saw fit to alter it for a duty by weight ; it ranges, in Consequence, from 30 per cent. to 70 per cent. t The warehouses are rated, with the exception of eight in town and two in employed in their service, are not fewer than one hundred and thirty or one hUndred and forty individuals; let any man of com- mon sense consider those circumstances, and, combining them with the fact that a large portion of the immense capital of the parties is devoted to the foreign silk trade, ask himself if it be not a mere mockery to pretend that their entire transactions in foreign silks do not exceed 20,000/. a year: What, then, have become of the duties on the remainder? We may put that question to "Henry" and "Sedgewick " and and -----, and the other pseudo- nymous and anonymous personages that figure in the Parlia- mentary Paper. We shall not at present enter on the general question of the silk trade, but there is one point to which we must briefly advert. The silk-weavers, in despair of smuggling being, under any regu- lations, entirely suppressed, or even kept within moderate limits, call for the reenactment of the prohibitory laws. Now this can, putting out of view altogether its inconsistency with sound prin- ciples, will not and cannot be listened to, and ta press it is sheer folly. In fact, we are not without our siispiciens that those who do so are secretly friends to the free trade system, as it is called; and that they act by the weavers as HENRY MINi does by the Radicals—they ask to be denied, and would be the most deceived and disappointed of men if by any chance their petitions- were com- plied with. That foreign silks must be admitted, is a settled point ; that they ought not to be admitted without paying the duty imposed on them, is plain; that there is no means of prevent- ing smuggling, is by no means equally plain. In the first place, the duties are too high. Were them no smuggling, 20 per cent. would be a better defence to the home manufacturer than 40 per cent, is at present. It is a well-known fact, that for about 18 per cent. run goods can be insured from Calais to any warehouse in London. At present, therefore, there remains 20 per cent, to cover the risk in the London warehouse and for the smuggler's profit. If the duty were 20 per cent., time risk to and in the warehouse would be the same, and the smug- gler's profit would be nil. Would any person embark in a trade in which great hazard was incurred of capital and character, and. no profit at all ? We believe no wealthy man would, and the general trade suffers very little by poor smugglers.
But we would • go farther. Most friendly as we are to the ame- lioration of the criminal code, we can see no reason why crimes that are strictly analogous should be differently visited ; we can • see no reason why a wealthy merchant, having robbed the Ex- chequer of England of thousands, should escape for a fine, while he who robs that merchant's exchequer of the hundredth part of the sum should be sent to Botany Bay. Much less can we see why the poor boatman who is caught running a solitary tub of Hollauds should be sent for five years to a man-of-war, while the wholesale - contrabandist who is caught running his hundred packages of silk remains in the undisturbed enjoyment of his home and his friends. . Therefore, while we lowered the duty on silks, we would impose, not a fine—that most partial and unjust of all punishments—but the tread-mill, on those who dared to evade the duty. Let the first . offence against the revenue be visited with six months at the House of Correction, the second with twelve months, the third with a couple of years, and the fourth with seven years' transpor- tation—these are not more severe punishments than those inflicted - for wiring a hare or suffocating a pheasant—and we have not the slightest doubt that we should never hear more of smuggling as a regular branch of traffic among great capitalists.
Previous page
