of England were delivered by measure, and were open to re-measurement, if such nicety should be thought necessary, to ascertain their contents in length and breadth, that the butts received in return should be verified, as to the depth of the liquor they contained: since the whole affair was, in fact, a simple barter of clothing against drinking. And this is, after all, the essence of commerce, by whatever medium commercial transactions be facilitated.

The history of the case before us, shews, that King Edward the Fourth, having borrowed money of the City of London, to the amount of upwards of twelve thousands of pounds sterling, found himself unable to repay the same,

too many precedents among the kings his predecessors; and in which his example has been but too closely followed, by those whose revenues were apparently much superior in numerical value to his. Be that as it may, in liquidation of his debt, King Edward transferred the

is to be hoped, or expected, that from and after the date hereinbefore mentioned, that is to say, the feast of Saint Michael the Archangel, A. D. 1483 or 4, no malmsey were imported in tunnes deficient of measure, nor any reluctance manifest among the "merchants stranger, sellers of the said malmsey, to take in payment two-thirds of the value in woollen cloth wrought within the realm." Subsequent Acts of Parliament do not allow us to persuade ourselves that deceptions and evasions, though forbidden, were suppressed; or that what are now termed game casks," were then entirely unknown to the art of the cooper, or the practice of the dealer. In fact, our readers have seen* that complaints were made not only against the importers of--for which, perhaps, he could find but wine, but against the brewers of ale and beer in those days, although they dealt in a humbler article,---that they did not fill their vessels; and that the purchasers who trusted to their honesty " had gret losse; and also the ale and byere have palled, and were nought."— -!!! These practices, we fear, were trans-office of ganger for the Port of London, mitted with the trade; and honest Sir to the Corporation of London, and their John Falstaff was but too well informed, successors for ever, represented by the when he complained of "lime in his Mayor, &c. for the time being; and sack, too;"of the villainous infirmities their officer, thus appointed, measured of his lying-given age, and of the scar-every vessel of good liquor that presented city of good men and true; reduced to itself on the quays appertaining to the the pitiful number of three for all Eng- port. land, one of whom was poor, and growing old."—" Let me see thee lime and froth!" says Mine Host of the Garter to his newly-entered tapster :—and this, notwithstanding all the laws and regulations enacted and set forth by statute to the contrary. Conduct so egregious demanded the appointment of proper officers; and proper officers the King's Grace was pleased to appoint. Quantity was in his power, though quality eluded his authority; and if the butt, and the tunn, and the hogshead, did not contain the quantity due, as by law established, deduction from the payment was the necessary consequence. Hence, the importance of the office of gauger, or gaw-year; and by Charles II. June 24, in ger, and hence the "gawge-penny" that he claimed as his fee. It was nothing more than just, that when the woollens

Vide Arnold's Chronicle, Lit. Pan. vol. xIII. p. 38.

We are not aware that any interruption, beyond that of occasional seizure, and the consequent vexation, resulted from this arrangement, till the establishment of the West India Docks, in the 39th and 40th of his present Majesty. These Acts are intituled “for rendering more commodious and better regulating the Port of London." But the question has since occurred, whether the West India Docks be properly "within the Port of London," so that the city could render its charter, derived from King Edward, (confirmed, indeed, by subsequent patents from Charles I. October 18, in his fourteenth

his sixteenth year) available to the sup◄ port of its authority within that establishment. Two trials in the Courts, one at Nisi Prius, the other at Bar, were decided against the City's jurisdiction in the case; the City then applied to

1

the Prince Regent, intreating an extension of its powers; and this being referred to the Attorney and Solicitor General, it was pronounced "not competent to his Majesty, or to any power, other than that of the legislature, to to make a grant of the office of gauger to the Mayor and Citizens of London, as required by their petition."

It ought to be remembered further,
that the West India Docks, &c. of the
metropolis are little other than a kind
of self-defence against the attractions of
those at Liverpool, Hull, and other places.
The facilities these afforded drew mach
of the West India commerce to Livers
pool; and we have heard considerable
merchants declare, that the difference

between the expences on vessels, &c. in
the Port of London, and those of the
same nature in the Port of Liverpool,
was so greatly in favour of the latter,
that they could well afford to keep their
commercial establishment, and even, said
some, their family, out of it.

Such are the practical principles of the British Constitution! His Majesty's power is limited; and much as he may wish, his wishes must not prevail against right and justice,-against the general privileges of his subjects. We are led to desire that this were fully understood--This does not wholly depend on Liby natives, in proof that the sovereignty exercised over them is paternal, not arbi-verpool itself, but is partly the effect of trary; by foreigners, in proof that what are termed the liberties of the people, are not illusions, though they may not happen to have witnessed the effect of those limitations by which the Sovereign's power is bounded. We owe this remark to our country, and to its crown.

Under these circumstances the City of London petitioned the Legislature; and the evidence adduced before the Committee appointed to take their petition into examination, forms the bulk of the present Report. The Committee has furnished no opinion of its own; and the probability is, that the subject will be resumed, and be pushed forward with all possible energy-while the opposition re-acting against it will be conducted with the utmost resolution and spirit.

It is of consequence to the City, because privileges once enjoyed by a Corporation, if abated or defeated, may lead to a subversion of others, beside that immediately concerned; and thus, in time, whatever advantages attend them may be frittered away. On the other hand, it is of consequence to the proprietors of the West India Docks, and other establishments of the like nature, (the Committee of West India Merchants, &c.) because if once the right and authority of the City of London, to interfere with their property and business be substantially enforced and admitted, it will never be withdrawn; and thus an entail, which they affirm is of no advantage, but on the contrary is useless to them, would be perpetuated,

that system of inland navigation which
now intersects almost the whole of the
island. If Liverpool, or Bristol, &c.
can send sugars cheaper on account
of lesser expences at the port of landing,
and consequent on carriage by canal,
than London can furnish the commodity,
because its port expences, &c. are heavier,
then will all the neighbouring counties
send their orders to Liverpool, &c. and the
metropolis may find customers where it
can. The nation suffers nothing by this;
the consumption is the same; but the
metropolis suffers, because the competi-
tion in her markets is suspended: and
orders given for one thing, not seldom
draw orders for other things after them.

So far, at least, the question is of
general concern: and those who cal-
culate, as all traders ought to do, will
distinguish its importance, when con-
templated on that enlarged scale to which
it is clearly entitled.

The nature of the evidence adduced under this investigation, obliges us, in some degree, to follow the course pursued by the Learned Counsel, who appeared in behalf of their clients, respectively, before the Committee. The first attempt of the City's Counsel was to shew the NECESSITY of the appointment of such a public officer as the City Guager, and the benefits resulting.

The following is from the evidence of Thomas Groves, Esq. Inspector General of Excise for the Imports; he states the established order of business. -

Wherever the Excise and Customs had | the article for home consumption, or to exoccasion to exercise the duties of guaging, the City guager used to exercise his. Had he exercised it at the sufferance wharfs?-Yes; previous to the dock system the legal quays were not sufficient for the dispatch of the current business, and sufferance wharfs were necessarily had recourse to, for the landing of spirits and wines; and therefore when the Excise and Customs went to guage there, the City gauger

went also

The Excise go first, the Customs follow; then it used to be the practice for the City guager; now it is the Dock guager and Merchant guager, since the City guager has not been allowed to exercise his office.

State the nature of his employ and practice, to the time of his being rejected? The nature of his employ was to follow the Excise and Customs, and in case of their making a mistake, it was his duty to correct them. He also used to act between the buyer and seller; the merchant-importer used to cut a mark upon the cask, denoting the quantity, and by that mark the merchant-importer sold and the buyer purchased.

port it free of duty; in consequence, if he exports the article free of duty, the casks go with this first mark on them, the City gauger's mark, to denote the capacity of the casks; but if the duties are paid, and the article is taken into home consumption, then the City gauger, who acts between buyer and seller, supposing the goods to be sold, he re-gauges and puts another mark upon the bilge of the casks, denoting the actual quantity then contained in them.

You have stated the mark that is put upon the cask by the Excise, to be a sort of private mark?-It is put on in a different way from that of the City; and so long as the article remains in the custody of the Excise, it is not in the power of the trade to deface their mark; but when the duties have been paid, and the goods taken out of the custody of the Revenue officer, theu, I have always understood, the trade cut out the Excise mark, if they choose; but that the cutting out the mark of the City gauger is an offence in the eye of the law.

Who acts as gauger now at the West India Docks?-The Dock Company have a gauger of their own; and in addition, there is the merchant's gauger, a person employed by several of the merchants, but not generally, I believe.

The Docks, [West India, and London) are also answerable for deficiencies, such as may appear upon the delivery of the casks? Yes.

In the case of leakage, are they respon sible?—Yes, they are.

Upon those occasions when he acted with the Excise and Custom House Officers, was his only mark put upon the casks Do you happen to know whether any as indicating the contents?—No, the Ex-part of the profit of the Dock Company cise used to cut a private mark, but when depends upon the quantities imported, and the merchant took the goods into his own deposited in the docks?—Yes, I have no stock after he had paid the duty, I do not doubt it does; the rate of the dock charge know that he was restrained from cutting is one penny a gallon. out the Excise mark. But with regard to the City guager's mark, we have understood that the merchant was not at liberty to do that; and that being the case, the stocking officer of the Excise was governed by the city mark in taking the goods into stock; and he did this from ne- You mean such deficiencies as shall cessity also, because it very frequently hap-exist after the allowances for waste made pened, supposing him to have been skilful by the Act of Parliament?-Yes, they are enough to gauge, the situation of the stock obliged to pay the duty for the quantity of the dealers was such that he could not actually found by the gauge on landing, apply the rules or gauging instruments. and if there is a deficiency of a gallon a Gauging is a very difficult operation, and cask in a year only, there is an agreement the Excise officers in the interior are sel- between the Dock Company and the imdom equal to it; they have neither instru- porter, that the Company shall be excused ments nor skill sufficient for cask-gauging. for such deficiency; but if there shall be a Since the City gauger has not been al-deficiency (from any cause) greater than a lowed to exercise his office, I have heard gallon per cask in a year, then, I believe, instances of persons erasing his marks and the Dock Company is responsible.. substituting others, to answer sinister purposes.

There is an Act of Parliament which makes the London Dock Company respon The mark of the City gauger is to indi-sible for the quantities imported agreeably cate the capacity of the cask?-Yes, that to the Excise gauge, and also for the is, in the first instance. When goods are quantities delivered, agreeably to the Exlanded at the docks, the merchant has the cise gauge. option either of paying the duty and using

Supposing a cask is found upon landing

Mr. J. H. Reynolds, an Officer of the Excise is asked:

Was the diagonal rod used in gauging formerly more than it is now?-It was.

Previous to the establishment of the Docks it was a pretty common mode of gauging, was it not?-It was pretty com

to contain 120 gallons, and by leakage | Dock gauger found it his interest to gange they are reduced to a hundred, the permit as high as he could, for the benefit of for removal must express a hundred gallons. his employers, to keep up the quantity; I will mention a circumstance that has and on the other hand, the gauger emtaken place within this mouth. A quan- ployed by the merchants, found it his intity of spirits came from Scotland, in terest for them to keep it as low as he what we technically call, game casks; that could. is, casks intended for the purpose of eluding the gauger. The Excise gauger was gauging these casks in conjunction with the City gauger at one of the sulferance wharfs, where the latter still exercises his office. The City gauger (I believe the Excise gauger made the observation at the same time,) said, "There is a fraud in these casks, they are calculated for the purpose of eluding the gauge; I would re- However, you find the other more corcommend you to send for your superiorrect?-I do; it has been discontinued perofficer, and advise with him what is properhaps, four, five, or six years. Perhaps five, to be done." They sent for me; I di- years ago, a quantity of casks, prize rected them to take out the head of a goods, were brought into the London cask, and we found at the bottom, opposite Docks; they were made upon a very cu the bung, where the rod would drop to rious construction, but on examining them, take the bung-diameter, a piece of wood I found one of the heads was a false head, nailed; so that if this had not been dis- the top of the bung was made flat; and, covered, the officer would have taken a less on a moderate computation, I found that diameter, and consequently would have by gauging them by the diagonal rod they' miscalculated the quantity. would be under-gauged twenty-seven, or twenty-eight gallons.

There are fifty casks seized, all made for the purpose of deception.

A case occurred some time ago, which came to me officially in this way. Ten casks of rum were landed at the West India Docks, and they were removed by permit to the stock of a dealer at Plymouth. The officers of Excise at Flymouth (which is a considerable port) being able to re-examine the gauge, found they could not make out the gauge agreeably to the permit. The casks were seized, and reference being had to the original gauge in London; it appeared the trader had cut out the Excise gauge upon the casks, and substituted another, denoting them to contain 31 gallons more than the duties were calculated upon at the time of landing. The quantity which the gauge of the Excise made at the time of landing, was 1,148 gallons; when the casks arrived at Plymouth, the trader charged his correspondent with 1,179 gallons. I am not certain whether the Merchant gauger acted there

or not.

Mr. John Field, Surveyor of the Imports, in the service of the Excise, says, he would not rely on either of the guagers at the

docks; for which he assigns his reasons.

State a little more explicitly, why you would not rely upon either the Dock Company's gauger or the Merchants gauger?

I have always considered that the

mon.

Did you use the diagonal rod to all casks? No; principally in claret hogsheads, sherry hogsheads, and Vidouia hogsheads.

This representation is confirmed by the evidence of R. Stratford, Esq. Collector of

the Excise in the Port of London.

They gauge more nice than they did; they use the cross calipers, and take, a greater number of dimensions than they, did formerly, in order to take a true gauge of the content.

In consequence of that alteration of system, do you believe the Excise gaugę now to be more or less correct than it used to be, a dozen years ago?-More correct.

The casks used to be under-done very much.

Mr. W. Yeats, who had been in the wine and spirit trade, about thirty years,' reports other deceptions.

Have you found deception in casks coming out of the Docks have.

Explain in what way that has occurred? The witness produced some staves]-Here is

a part of a cask; this is the bottom stave, opposite to the bung, a No. 17 stave; 18 is the next. In comparing the thicknesses, when the outside is flush, there is nearly half an inch difference. What is that to produce? an additional dip upon the wet.