King's Cutters and Smugglers 1700-1855

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VIIIToC

PREVENTIVE ORGANISATION

We have already frequently referred to the Riding officers who were attached to practically all the chief ports of England. For the reasons already given the south-east coast had especially to be well provided in this respect. And, because of the proximity to the Isle of Man, the Solway Firth had also to be protected efficiently by these officers, additional, of course, to the aid rendered by the cruisers. Wales, however, seems to have been left practically unprotected. In the year 1809 there was inaugurated what was known as the Preventive Waterguard in order to supplement the endeavours of the cruisers and Riding officers. Under this arrangement the coast of England and Wales was divided into three districts, each of which was under an Inspecting Commander, the Revenue cruisers being now included in the Preventive Waterguard.

The three districts with the three Inspecting Commanders were as follows:—

For it was because they required a more effectual control and inspection of the officers employed in preventing and detecting smuggling that this fresh organisation was made. Certain stations were also allotted to the commanders of the cruisers, within each district—two to each station—and the stations and limits were also appointed for Preventive boats. The "sitters" of the Preventive boats were those who sat in the stern of these open, rowed craft and acted in command of them. The Collector and Controller were also addressed in the following terms, which showed that the Board were still doing their utmost to rid the service of the inefficiency and negligence to which we have had occasion to draw attention. "You are to observe," wrote the Commissioners, "that one material object of the duty imposed upon the Inspecting Commanders is to see that the cruisers are constantly and regularly on their stations, unless prevented by some necessary and unavoidable cause, and with their proper complements of men and boats, and if they are off their station or in port personally to examine into the occasion of their being so, and that they are absent from their station no longer than is essentially requisite."

At the end of every year the Inspecting Commanders were to lay before the Board of Customs the conduct of the several officers within their district and the state in which smuggling then was, and "whether on the progress or decline, in what articles, and at what places carried on." For the Board was determined "to probe the conduct of the Preventive officers and punish them" for any laxity and negligence, for which faults alone they would be dismissed. And in order that the vigilance and faithful duty in the commanders and officers on board the cruisers "may not be deprived of fair and due reward" their rate of pay was now increased, together with some addition made to the allowance for victualling, "and also to provide for the certainty of an annual emolument to a fixed amount in respect to the commanders and mates, by the following regulations":—

But these increases were conditional on their salaries, shares of seizures and penalties, and all other emoluments of that description not having amounted to the salaries now offered. The deputed mariners were to have £5 or £3 each, per lunar month. Mariners who had no deputation were to have £3 a month, boys on the cruisers £10 per annum. As to victualling, the commanders and mates were to have 3s. each per diem, mariners 1s. 6d. each per diem. Fire and candle for each person were to be allowed for at the rate of 1s. 6d. per lunar month.

Under each Inspecting Commander were to be two tenders in each district, and the mates who were acting as commanders of these were to have their existing £75 a year raised to £150 net in case their salaries, shares of seizures, and other emoluments of that description should not amount to these sums. Deputed mariners, mariners, boys, victualling, fire, and candle were all to be paid for just as in the case of the inspecting cruisers above mentioned. This was to date from October 10, 1809. A few months later a like improvement was made in the salaries of cruisers in general, for from the 5th of January 1810, commanders of these were to have their £100 per annum raised to £250 net—the above conditions "in case their salaries, shares of seizures, &c." did not make up this amount being also here prevalent—whilst first mates were to be raised from £60 to £100 net. If second mates were carried they were to have £50 per annum, deputed mariners £5 per annum and £2, 10s. per lunar month. Mariners were to have £2, 10s. per lunar month each, boys £10 per annum. Victualling, fire, and candle to be as already stated.

The early years of the nineteenth century showed that the evil of the previous hundred years was far from dead. The Collector at Plymouth, writing to the Board three days before Christmas of 1804, reported that there was a good deal of smuggling done, but that the worst places in his neighbourhood were two. Firstly, there was that district which is embraced by Bigbury, the Yealm, and Cawsand. In that locality the smuggling was done in vessels of from 25 to 70 tons. But in summer time the trade was also carried on by open spritsail boats of from eight to ten tons. These craft used to run across from Guernsey loaded with spirits in small casks. Up the river Yealm (just to the east of Plymouth Sound) and at Cawsand Bay the goods were wont to be run by being rafted together at some distance from the shore and afterwards "crept" up (i.e. by means of metal creepers or grapnels). The local smugglers would go out in their boats at low water during the night when the weather and the absence of the cruisers permitted and bring to land their booty. It appeared that 17,000 small casks of spirits were annually smuggled into Cawsand and the Yealm.

Secondly, the district to the west of Plymouth embracing Polperro and Mevagissey. The smuggling craft which brought goods to this locality were fast sailers of from 80 to 100 tons. But the goods which came into the general district of Plymouth were not carried far inland. Those whose work it was to carry the goods after being landed were known as "porters," and were so accustomed to this heavy work that they could carry a cask of spirits six miles across the country at a good rate. When it is remembered that these casks were made necessarily strong of stout wood, that they contained each from 5 to 7-3/4 gallons, making a total weight of from 70 to 100 lbs. at least, we can realise something of the rude physical strength possessed by these men.

During this same year the Collector at Dartmouth also reported that smuggling had increased a good deal recently in the counties of Devon and Cornwall. The cutters and luggers from Guernsey carried their cargoes consisting of from 400 to 800 ankers of spirits each, with a few casks of port and sherry for the wealthier classes, who winked at the illicit trade, and some small bales of tobacco. During the summer the goods were landed on the north side of Cornwall, between Land's End and Hartland Point, and thence distributed by coasters to Wales and the ports of the Bristol Channel, or carried inland on the backs of twenty or thirty horses, protected by a strong guard. But in the winter the goods were landed on the shores of the Bristol Channel, the farmers coming down with horses and carts to fetch the goods, which were subsequently lodged in barns and caves. Clovelly, Bideford, Combe Martin, and Porlock were especially notorious in this connection. These goods were also regularly conveyed across Exmoor into Somersetshire, and other goods found a way into Barnstable. Coasters on a voyage from one part of England to another frequently broke their voyages and ran over to Guernsey to get contraband. The Island of Lundy was a favourite smuggling depôt in the eighteenth century. From Ireland a good deal of salt was smuggled into Devonshire and Cornwall, the high duties making the venture a very profitable one—specially large cargoes of this commodity being landed near to Hartland Point. And this Dartmouth Collector made the usual complaint that the Revenue cruisers of that period were easily outsailed by the smugglers.

The reader will recollect those regrettable incidents on the North Sea belonging to the eighteenth century, when we had to chronicle the names of Captains Mitchell and Whitehead in that connection. Unhappily there were occasional repetitions of these in the early part of the nineteenth century on the south coast. It happened that on the 19th of March in the year 1807 the Swan Revenue cutter, a vessel of considerable size (for she had a burthen of 154 tons, a crew of twenty-three men, and was armed with twelve 4-pounders, two 9-pounders, and a chest of small arms) was cruising in the English Channel and found herself off Swanage. It should be added that at that time there was a kind of volunteer Preventive Guard at various places along the coast, which was known as the "Sea Fencibles." The Swanage "Fencibles" informed Mr. Comben, the cruiser's commander, that there were three luggers hovering off the coast, and these volunteers offered a number of their men to reinforce the Swan's crew so that the luggers might be captured. To this Comben replied with a damper to the volunteers' enthusiasm: "If I was to take them on board and fall in with the enemy we could not do anything with them."

So the Swan sailed away from Swanage Bay to the eastward and at midnight made the Needles. It now fell calm, but the luggers hove in sight and approached by means of their sweeps. As they came on, the cutter, instead of preparing to receive them in the only way they deserved, did nothing. But one of the Swan's crew, whose name, Edward Bartlett, deserves to be remembered for doing his duty, asked Comben if he should fetch the grape and canister from below. Comben merely replied: "There is more in the cabin than we shall want: it will be of no use; it is all over with us." Such was the attitude of one who had signed into a service for the prevention of smuggling craft. Instead of taking any definite action he waited despairingly for the enemy to come on. He then issued no orders to his crew to prepare to engage; he just did nothing and remained inactive under the white cliffs. But if their commander was a coward, at any rate his crew were determined to make a contest of it. They had actually to urge him to fight, but the luggers were right close on to the cutter before Comben had given the word. After that for three-quarters of an hour the crew fought the ship, and were at their respective quarters when Comben actually turned to the luggers and shouted to them: "Leave off firing; I have struck." During the engagement he had shown great signs of fear and never encouraged his crew to fight.

Seeing that they were led by a coward, the Swan's crew also took fright and thought it best to flee. They therefore jumped into the cutter's boats and rowed ashore, leaving their valiant commander to look after the Swan as best he might. She was of course immediately captured by the luggers, and as for Comben, he was taken prisoner, carried to France, detained there, and did not return to England till after seven years, when an investigation was made into his conduct by the Surveyors-General of the Customs, his defence being that "his men had deserted him." As for the latter, they reached the shore safely and were again employed in the Preventive Service.

It is quite clear that the Customs Board sometimes lent their cutters to the Admiralty; and there is a letter dated October 10, 1809, from the Admiralty, in which permission is given for the cutters in the service of that Revenue to be released from their station at Flushing under the command of Rear-Admiral Sir Richard Strachan, and there is also a Customs House minute of July 7, 1806, to the effect that the Swan and Hound Revenue cutters might be placed under the orders of Lord Keith in the room of the Stag and Swallow, for use at Cowes and Shoreham, where these cruisers were to be stationed. And it was in this same year that the Board again emphasized the importance of the Revenue Service being supported by the Navy and Army, and that to this end the most effectual encouragement should be held out to both branches, so that they might co-operate vigorously in the suppression of smuggling. They further expressed themselves as of the opinion that "nothing will more effectually tend to encourage them to exert themselves than the certainty of receiving a speedy reward." And yet, again, were the Revenue officers enjoined "to be particularly careful to secure the men employed in smuggling vessels whenever it may be possible to effect it, as their lordships have the strongest reasons for believing that the apprehension of being detained and impressed into his Majesty's service will have a great effect in deterring the persons engaged in these illegal pursuits from continuing their pernicious habits."

It was also part of the duty of the Customs officers to attend to the Quarantine, and the Customs Board resolved "that it is fit to direct a distinguishing flag to be used on board all boats employed in the Quarantine service." At Sandgate Creek, Portsmouth, Falmouth, Bristol, Milford, Hull, Liverpool and Plymouth, by the advice of the Surveyor for Sloops, a flag was deposited in the Custom House at every port of the kingdom, and it was resolved that in the above ports there should be two, except Plymouth, which should have three. Cruisers were also employed in the Quarantine Service.

We have already seen something of the conditions of service and the pay of the cruisers' crews. He who was responsible for the upkeep and supervision of these cruisers was known as the Surveyor for Sloops. For some time the Customs Board had been deliberating as to the adoption of some regulations for ascertaining the qualifications of those who desired to be commanders and mates of the cruisers. That some improvement was essential must already have been made clear to the reader from the type of men who sometimes were placed in such positions of responsibility. The following regulations were therefore adopted in the year 1807, "which appear to the Commissioners highly necessary for the safe conduct of the Service, as also for the safety of the vessels and crews committed to their charge." They resolved accordingly:—

It was also further resolved:—

It was, no doubt, because of such incidents as those which we have seen occurring in the Channel and North Sea that the Commissioners tightened up the regulations in the above manner. That these incidents were not confined to any particular locality let us show by the two following examples. The first had reference to William Horn, the Deputed Mariner and Acting Mate of the Revenue cutter Greyhound, whose station was at Weymouth. On the 5th of March 1806 he was in charge of the cutter whilst on a cruise to the westward. Off Portland the cutter fell in with a French lugger, which was a privateer. Horn gave chase, gradually overhauled her, and even came up with her. For a time he also engaged her, but because he subsequently gave up the fight, bore up and quitted her, allowing the privateer to escape, he was deemed guilty by the Customs Board of not having used his utmost endeavours to effect a capture, and was ordered to be superseded.

The second incident was of a slightly more complicated nature, and occurred on October 20, 1805, about midnight. The two men implicated were a Captain Riches, who was in command of the Revenue cutter Hunter, and his mate Oliver.

This vessel, whose station was Great Yarmouth, was on the night mentioned cruising in the North Sea. Presently the cutter sighted what turned out to be the Danish merchant ship, The Three Sisters, Fredric Carlssens master, from Copenhagen bound for St. Thomas's and St. Croix. Oliver got into the cutter's boat and boarded the Dane. He also demanded from the latter and took from him four cases of foreign Geneva, which was part of The Three Sisters' cargo. In spite of Carlssen's opposition, Oliver put these into his boat and rowed off with them to the Hunter. Riches was obviously party to this transaction, and was accused "that contrary to the solemn oath taken at his admission into office, he did not only neglect to report to the Collector and Controller of Yarmouth or to the Board the misconduct of his Mate, in unlawfully taking from the said ship the four cases of Geneva in question, but did take out of them for his own use, and by so doing did connive at and sanction the aforesaid unproper conduct of his Mate." It was also brought against Riches that he had not entered any account of this incident into his ship's journal, or made any record of the mate boarding the Dane.

In the end Riches was adjudged by the Board guilty of not giving information regarding his mate's conduct and of receiving one case of Geneva for his own use, but he was acquitted of connivance for want of evidence. He was found guilty also of not having entered the incident in his journal. Oliver was acquitted of having boarded the Danish ship for want of proof, but found guilty of having failed to keep a complete journal of his proceedings. But a further charge was made that Riches caused a case of foreign spirits, which had been taken out of the Danish ship, to be brought ashore from the cutter and taken to his home at Yarmouth without paying the duty thereon. Oliver was also accused of a similar crime with regard to two cases. Riches was acquitted for want of proof of having caused the gin to be taken to his house, but found guilty of having received it, knowing the duty had not been paid. Oliver was also found guilty, and both were accordingly dismissed.

And there was the case of a man named Thomas Rouse, who was accused of having been privy to the landing of a number of large casks of spirits and other goods from a brig then lying off the Watch-house at Folkestone. This was on the night of May 20 and the early hours of May 21, 1806. He was further accused of being either in collusion with the smugglers in that transaction or criminally negligent in not preventing the same. It was still further brought against him that he had not stopped and detained the master of the brig after going on board, although the master was actually pointed out to him by a boat's crew belonging to the Nimble Revenue cutter. Rouse was found guilty of the criminal negligence and ordered to be dismissed. And, in addition, the chief boatmen, five boatmen, and two riding-officers of the Preventive Service at that port were also dismissed for failing to do their utmost to prevent this smuggling, which had, in fact, been done collusively. Those were certainly anxious times for the Customs Commissioners, and we cannot but feel for them in their difficulties. On the one hand, they had to wrestle with an evil that was national in its importance, while on the other they had a service that was anything but incorruptible, and required the utmost vigilance to cause it to be instant in its elementary duties.

One of the reforms recommended towards the end of 1809 had reference to the supply of stores and the building and repairing of Custom House boats in London. The object aimed at was to obtain a more complete check on the quantities and quality of the stores required for cruisers and Preventive boats. And the example of the outports was accordingly adopted that, when articles were required for these craft that were of any value, the Collector and Controller of the particular port first sent estimates to the Board, and permission was not allowed until the Surveyor of Sloops had certified that the estimates were reasonable. Nor were the bills paid until both the commander and mate of the cruiser, or else the Tide Surveyor or the Sitter of the Boat, as the case might be, had certified that the work was properly carried out. And the same rule applied to the supply of cordage and to the carrying out of repairs.

As one looks through the old records of the Custom House one finds that a Revenue officer who was incapable of yielding to bribery, who was incorruptible and vigilant in his duty, possessed both courage and initiative, and was favoured with even moderate luck, could certainly rely on a fair income from his activities. In the year we are speaking of, for instance, Thomas Story, one of the Revenue officers petitioned to be paid his share of the penalty recovered from William Lambert and William Taylor for smuggling, and he was accordingly awarded the sum of £162, 2s. It was at this time also that the salaries of the Collectors, Controllers, and Landing Surveyors of the outports were increased so that the Collectors were to receive not less than £150 per annum, the Controller not less than £120, and the Landing Surveyor not less than £100. And in addition to this, of course, there were their shares in any seizures that might be made. Sometimes, however, the Revenue officers suffered not from negligence but from excess of zeal, as, for instance, on that occasion when they espied a rowing-boat containing a couple of seafaring men approach and land on the beach at Eastbourne. The Revenue officials made quite certain that these were a couple of smugglers and seized their boat. But it was subsequently discovered that they were just two Portuguese sailors who had escaped from Dieppe and rowed all the way across the Channel. The Admiralty interfered in the matter and requested the release of the boat, which was presently made. But two other Revenue officers, named respectively Tahourdin and Savery, in August of 1809 had much better luck when they were able to make a seizure that was highly profitable. We have already referred to the considerable exportation which went on from this country in specie and the national danger which this represented. In the present instance these two officials were able to seize a large quantity of coin consisting of guineas, half guineas, and seven shilling pieces, which were being illegally transported out of the kingdom. When this amount came to be reckoned up it totalled the sum of £10,812, 14s. 6d., so that their share must have run into very high figures.

CHAPTER IXToC

CUTTERS' EQUIPMENT

In an earlier chapter we quoted from Marryat a passage which showed that the mariners of a Revenue cutter were dressed in red flannel shirts and blue trousers, and also wore canvas or tarpaulin petticoats. The reason for the last-mentioned was appreciated by smuggler and Preventive men alike, and if you have ever noticed the Thames River Police dodging about in their small craft you will have noticed that at any rate the steersman has in cold weather some sort of apron wrapped round his legs. But in the period of which we are now speaking the attached apron or petticoat was very useful for keeping the body warm in all weather, especially when the sitter of the Preventive boat had to be rowed out perhaps in the teeth of a biting wind, for several miles at night. And the smugglers found their task of landing tubs through the surf a wet job, so they were equally glad of this additional protection.[11]

The period to which Marryat referred was the end of the eighteenth century. As to the uniform of the Revenue officers we have the following evidence. Among the General Letters of the Customs Board was one dated June 26, 1804, from which it is seen that the commanders of the cruisers petitioned the Board for an alteration in their uniform and that also of the mates, this alteration to be made at the expense of the officers. The commanders suggested for their own dress:—

The Board consented to these alterations with the exception of the epaulettes, "the adoption of which we do not approve, lest the same should interfere with His Majesty's Naval Service." Now in reading this, it is important to bear in mind that between the Revenue and Navy there was a great deal of jealousy.[12] It went so far, at least on one occasion, as to cause a Naval officer to go on board a Revenue cutter and haul the latter's flag down. The reason these epaulettes were disallowed may be explained by the fact that it was only nine years before the above date that epaulettes had become uniform in the Navy, for notwithstanding that epaulettes had been worn by officers since 1780, yet they were not uniform until 1795, although they were already uniform in the French and Spanish navies.[13] Since, therefore, these adornments had been so recently introduced into the Navy, it was but natural that with so much jealousy existing this feature should not be introduced into the Revenue service. Just what "the undress, the same as at present" was I have not been able to discover, but in the Royal Navy of that time the undress uniform for a captain of three years' post consisted of a blue coat, which was white-lined, with blue lappels and cuffs, a fall-down collar, gold-laced button-holes, square at both ends, arranged regularly on the lappels. For a captain under three years the uniform was the same, except that the nine buttons were arranged on the lappels in threes. For master or commander it was the same, except that the button-holes were arranged by twos.[14]

It was in January 1807 that the Customs Board took into consideration the appointment of several Revenue cruisers and the expediency of one general system for manning them according to the tonnage and construction of the vessel, the service and station on which she was to be employed. They therefore distinctly classed the different cruisers according to their tonnage, description, and number of men originally allowed and since added, whether furnished with letters of marque or not. And believing that it would be beneficial to the service that the complement of men should be fixed at the highest number then allotted to cutters in each respective class, they accordingly instructed the commanders of the different cruisers to increase their respective complements "with all practicable dispatch."

We now come to an important point concerning which there exists some little uncertainty. By a letter dated July 17, 1807, Revenue officers were reminded that they were by law bound to hoist the Revenue colours and fire a gun as a signal "before they in any case fire on any smuggling vessel or boat."

"We direct you to convene the officers of the Waterguard belonging to your port," write the Commissioners to the Collector and Controller at each station, "including the officers and crew of the cruiser stationed there, and strictly to enjoin them whether on board cruisers or boats in no instance to fire on any smuggling vessel or boat, either by night (whether it be dark or light), or by day, without first hoisting the colours and firing a gun as a signal, as directed by law, and to take care that on any boat being sent out armed either from the shore or from a cruiser, in pursuit of seizures or any other purpose, such boat be furnished with a proper flag." Two years later, on April 11, 1809, it was decided that cruisers could legally wear a pendant "conformable to the King's Proclamation of the 1st January 1801," when requiring a vessel that was liable to seizure or examination to heave-to, or when chasing such a vessel, but "at no other time." It is important to bear in mind that the flags of chase were special emblems, and quite different from the ceremonial flags borne on the Customs buildings, hulks, and vessels not used actually in the chasing of smugglers.

In addition to my own independent research on this subject I am indebted for being allowed to make use of some MS. notes on this interesting subject collected by Mr. Atton, Librarian of the Custom House; and in spite of the unfortunate gaps which exist in the historical chain, the following is the only possible attempt at a connected story of the Custom House flag's evolution. We have already explained that from the year 1674 to 1815 the Revenue Preventive work was under a mixed control. We have also seen that in the year 1730 the Board of Customs called attention to the Proclamation of December 18, 1702, that no ships were to wear a pendant except those of the Royal Navy, but that the sloops employed in the several public offices might wear Jacks with the seal of the respective office.

From a report made by the Harwich Customs in 1726 it is clear that the King's colours were at that date hoisted when a Revenue cruiser chased a suspect. But as to what the "King's Colours" were no one to-day knows. Among the regulations issued to the Revenue cruisers in 1816 the commanders were informed that they were not to wear the colours used in the Royal Navy, but to wear the same pendants and ensigns as were provided by the Revenue Board. By 24 George III. cap. 47, certain signals of chase were prescribed. Thus, if the cruiser were a Naval vessel she was to hoist "the proper pendant and ensign of H.M. ships." If a Custom House vessel she was to hoist a blue Customs ensign and pendant "with the marks now used." If an Excise vessel, a blue ensign and pendant "with the marks now used." After this had been done, and a gun fired (shotted or unshotted) as a warning signal, she might fire if the smuggler failed to heave-to. And this regulation is by the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 still in force, and might to-day be made use of in the case of an obstinate North Sea cooper. What one would like to know is what were the marks in use from 1784 to 1815. Mr. Atton believes that these marks were as follows:—

The English Excise, the Scottish Customs, Scottish Excise, and the Irish Revenue signals of chase were blue pendants and ensigns similarly flown, but as to the badges of office one cannot be certain. The matter of English Customs flags has been obscured by the quotation in Marryat's The King's Own, where a smuggler is made to remark on seeing a Revenue vessel's flag, "Revenue stripes, by the Lord." It has been suggested that the bars of the castle port and portcullis in the seal were called "stripes" by the sailors of that day, inasmuch as they called the East India Company's flag of genuine stripes the "gridiron." But to me it seems much more likely that the following is the explanation for calling a Revenue cutter's flag "stripes." The signal flags Nos. 7 and 8, which were used by the Royal Navy in 1746 to order a chase both consisted of stripes.[15] No. 7 consisted of eleven horizontal stripes, viz. six red and five white. Flag No. 8 had nine horizontal stripes, viz. red, white, blue repeated three times, the red being uppermost. I submit that in sailor's slang these signals would be commonly referred to as "stripes." Consequently whatever flags subsequently would be used to signal a chase would be known also as "stripes." Therefore whatever signal might be flown in the Revenue service when chasing would be known as "stripes" also.

But by an Order in Council of the 1st of February 1817, the pendant and ensign were to be thus:—

Now during an interesting trial at the Admiralty Sessions held at the Old Bailey in April of 1825, concerning the chasing of a smuggler by a Revenue cruiser, Lieutenant Henry Nazer, R.N., who was commanding the cutter, stated in his evidence that when he came near this smuggling vessel the former hoisted the Revenue pendant at the masthead, which he described as "a red field with a crown next the mast at the upper part of it." He also hoisted the Revenue ensign at the peak-end, the "Union at the upper corner in a red field," the field of the ensign being also red. It had a Jack in the corner. This, then, was exactly in accordance with the Order in Council of 1817 mentioned above.

But my own opinion relative to the firing of the first gun is in favour of the proposition that this was not necessarily unshotted. I shall refer in greater detail to the actual incidents, here quoted, on a later page, but for our present purpose the following is strong proof in favour of this suggestion. During a trial in the year 1840 (Attorney-General v. William Evans) it transpired that Evans had entered the Medway in a smack without heaving-to, and the following questions and answers respectively were made by counsel and Richard Braddy, a coastguard who at the time of the incident was on duty at Garrison Fort (Sheerness):—

To me it seems certain from this evidence of the coastguard that though the first signal was "mostly" blank, yet it was not always or necessarily so.

It was frequently discovered that smuggling vessels lay off the coast some distance from the shore and unshipped their cargoes then into smaller craft by which they were brought to land, and this practice was often observed by the Naval officers at the signal stations. Thus, these smuggling runs might be prevented if those officers were enabled to apprise the Admiralty and Revenue cruisers whenever observed, so the Treasury put themselves in communication with the Customs Board with regard to so important a matter. This was in the year 1807. The Admiralty were requested to appoint some signals by which Naval officers stationed at the various signal-posts along the coasts might be able to convey information to his Majesty's and the Revenue cruisers whenever vessels were observed illegally discharging cargoes. The Admiralty accordingly did as requested, and these signals were sent on to the commanders of the cutters. This, of course, opened up a new matter in regard to the apportioning of prize-money, and it was decided that when any vessel or goods discharged therefrom should be seized by any of the cruisers in consequence of information given by signal from these stations, and the vessel and her goods afterwards were condemned, one-third of the amount of the King's share was to be paid to the officer and men at the signal-post whence such information was first communicated. The obvious intention of this regulation was to incite the men ashore to keep a smart look-out.

The coast signal-stations[16] had been permanently established in the year 1795, and were paid off at the coming of peace but re-established when the war broke out again, permission being obtained from the owners of the land and a code of signals prepared. The establishment of these signal-stations had been commenced round the coast soon after the Revolutionary war. Those at Fairlight and Beachy Head were established about 1795.[17] Each station was supplied with one red flag, one blue pendant, and four black balls of painted canvas. When the Sea Fencibles, to whom we referred some time back, were established, the signal-stations were placed under the district captains. This was done in March 1798, and the same thing was done when the Sea Fencibles had to be re-established in 1803. The signal-stations at Torbay and New Romney (East Bay, Dungeness) had standing orders, says Captain Hudleston, to report all arrivals and departures direct to the Admiralty.

The Customs Board advanced another step forward when, in the year 1808, they considered whether "benefit might not arise to the service by establishing certain signals by which the commanders of the several cruisers in the service of the Revenue might be enabled to make their vessels known to each other, on meeting at sea, or to distinguish each other at a distance, and also to make such communications as might be most useful, as well as to detect any deception which might be attempted to be practised by the masters of vessels belonging to the enemy, or of smuggling vessels." They therefore consulted "the proper officers on the subject," and a code of tabular signals was drawn up and approved and sent to the commanders of the cruisers in a confidential manner. Each commander was enjoined to pay the most strict attention to such signals as might be made under the regulations, and to co-operate by every means in his power for the attainment of the objects in view. These commanders were also to apprise the Customs Board of any matter which might arise in consequence thereof "fit for our cognisance." These signals were also communicated to the commanders of the several Admiralty cruisers. And we must remember that although naval signalling had in a crude and elementary manner been in vogue in our Navy for centuries, and the earliest code was in existence at any rate as far back as 1340, yet it was not till the eighteenth century that it showed any real development. During the early years of the nineteenth century a great deal of interest was taken in the matter by such men as Mr. Goodhew, Sir Home Popham, Captain Marryat, and others. It was the atmosphere of the French and Spanish wars which gave this incentive, and because the subject was very much in the Naval minds at that time it was but natural that the Revenue service should appreciate the advantage which its application might bestow for the prevention of smuggling.

Further means were also taken in the early nineteenth century to increase the efficiency of the cruisers. In 1811, in order that they should be kept as constantly as possible on their stations, and that no excuses might be made for delays, it was decided that in future the Inspecting Commanders of Districts be empowered to incur expenses up to £35 for the repairs which a cutter might need, and £5 for similar repairs to her boats. The commanders of the cruisers were also permitted to incur any expenses up to £20 for the cutter and boats under their command. Such expenses were to be reported to the Board, with information as to why this necessity had arisen, where and by what tradesmen the work had been done, and whether it had been accomplished in the most reasonable manner. At the end of the following year, in order still further to prevent cruisers being absent from their stations "at the season of the year most favourable for smuggling practices, and when illegal proceedings are generally attempted," i.e. in the dark days of autumn and winter and spring, and in order, also, to prevent several cutters being in the Port of London at the same time, "whereby the part of the coast within their respective districts would be left altogether without guard," the commanders of these cruisers were to give warning when it was apparent that extensive repairs were needed, or a general refit, or any other cause which compelled the craft to come up to London. Timely notice was to be given to the Board so that the necessity and propriety thereof should be inquired into. It was done also with a view to bringing in the cruisers from their respective stations only as best they might be spared consistent with the good of the service. But they were to come to London for such purposes only between April 5 and September 5 of each year. By this means there would always be a good service of cruisers at sea during the bad weather period, when the smugglers were especially active.

In our quotation from The Three Cutters in another chapter we gave the colours of the paint used on these vessels. I find an interesting record in the Custom House dated November 13, 1812, giving an order that, to avoid the injury which cruisers sustain from the use of iron bolts, the decks in future were to be fastened with composition bolts, "which would eventually prove a saving to the Revenue." After ordering the commanders to cause their vessels to be payed twice every year either with paint or bright varnish, and not to use scrapers on their decks except after caulking, and then only to remove the unnecessary pitch, the instruction goes on to stipulate the only paint colours which are to be employed for cruisers. These are such as were then allowed in the Navy, viz. black, red, white, or yellow.

But apart from all the manifold difficulties and anxieties, both general and detailed, which arose in connection with these cruisers so long as they were at sea or in the shipwrights' hands, in commission or out of commission, there were others which applied more strictly to their crews. Such an incident as occurred in the year 1785 needed very close attention. In that year the English Ambassador at the Court of France had been informed by Monsieur de Vergennes that parties of sailors belonging to our Revenue cruisers had recently landed near Boulogne in pursuit of some smugglers who had taken to the shore. Monsieur de Vergennes added that if any British sailors or other armed men should be taken in such acts of violence the French Government would unhesitatingly sentence them immediately to be hanged.

Of course the French Government were well within their rights in making such representations, for natural enough as no doubt it was to chase the smugglers when they escaped ashore, yet the trespass was indefensible. The Board of Customs therefore instructed their cruisers, as well as those of the Admiralty "whose commanders are furnished with commissions from this Board," to make a note of the matter, in order that neither they nor their men might inadvertently expose themselves to the severity denounced against them by the French laws upon acts of the like nature.

In 1812 one of the mariners belonging to a cruiser happened to go ashore, and whilst there was seized by the press-gang for his Majesty's Navy. Such an occurrence as this was highly inconvenient not only to the man but to the Board of Customs, who resolved that henceforth the commanders of cruisers were not to allow any of their mariners shore leave unless in case of absolute necessity "until the protections which may be applied for shall have been received and in possession of such mariners."

Another matter that required rectification was the practice of taking on board some of their friends and relatives who had no right to be there. Whether this was done for pleasure or profit the carrying of these passengers was deemed to be to the great detriment of the service, and the Board put a stop to it. It was not merely confined to the cruisers, but the boats and galleys of the Waterguard were just as badly abused. The one exception allowed was, that when officers of the Waterguard were removing from one station to another, they might use such a boat to convey their families with them provided it did not interfere with the duties of these officers. So also some of the commanders of the cruisers had even taken on board apprentices and been dishonest enough to have them borne on the books as able seamen, and drawn their pay as such. The Board not unnaturally deemed this practice highly improper, and immediately to be discontinued. No apprentices were to be borne on the books except the boy allowed to all cruisers.

After a smuggling vessel's cargo had been seized and it was decided to send the goods to London, this was done by placing the tobacco, spirits, &c., in a suitable coaster and despatching her to the Thames. But in order to prevent her being attacked on the sea by would-be rescuers she was ordered to be convoyed by the Revenue cutters. The commander of whatever cruiser was in the neighbourhood was ordered "to accompany and guard" her to the Nore or Sea Reach as the case might be. Every quarter the cruisers were also to send a list of the seizures made, giving particulars of the cruiser—her name, burthen, number of guns, number of men, commander's name, number of days at sea during that quarter, how many days spent in port and why, the quantity of goods and nature of each seizure, the number and names of all smuggling vessels captured, both when and where. There was also to be sent the number of men who had been detained, how they had been disposed of, and if the men had not been detained how it was they had escaped.

"Their Lordships are induced to call for these returns," ran the instruction, "in order to have before them, quarterly, a comparative view of the exertions of the several commanders of the Revenue cruisers.... They have determined, as a further inducement to diligence and activity in the said officers, to grant a reward of £500 to the commander of the Revenue cruiser who, in the course of the year ending 1st October 1808, shall have so secured and delivered over to his Majesty's Naval Service the greatest number of smugglers; a reward of £300 to the commander who shall have secured and delivered over the next greatest number, and a reward of £200 to the commander who shall be third on the list in those respects." That was in September of 1887.

During the year ending October 1, 1810, Captain Gunthorpe, commander of the Excise cutter Viper, succeeded in handing over to his Majesty's Navy thirteen smugglers whom he had seized. As this was the highest number for that year he thus became entitled to the premium of £500. Captains Curling and Dobbin, two Revenue officers, were together concerned in transferring six men to the Navy, but inasmuch as Captain Patmour had been able to transfer five men during this same year it was he to whom the £300 were awarded. Captain Morgan of the Excise cutter and Captain Haddock of the Custom House cutter Stag each transferred four men during that year.

"But my Lords," states a Treasury minute of December 13, 1811, "understanding that the nature of the service at Deal frequently requires the Revenue vessels to co-operate with each other, do not think it equitable that such a circumstance should deprive Messrs. Curling and Dobbin of a fair remuneration for their diligence, and are therefore pleased to direct warrants likewise to be prepared granting to each of those gentlemen the sum of £100." In spite of the above numbers, however, the Treasury were not satisfied, and did not think that the number of men by this means transferred to the Navy had been at all proportionate to the encouragement which they had held out. They therefore altered the previous arrangement so as to embrace those cases only in which the exertions of the cruisers' commanders had been of an exceptionally distinguished nature. Thus during 1812 and the succeeding years, until some further provision might be made, it was decided that "the sum of £500 will be paid to such person commanding a Revenue cutter as shall in any one year transfer to the Navy the greatest number of smugglers, not being less than twenty." The sum of £300 was to be paid to the persons commanding a Revenue cutter who in any year should transfer the next greatest number of smugglers, not being less than fifteen. And £200 were to be paid to the commander who in one year should have transferred the third largest, not being less than ten. This decision was made in January of 1812, and in the following year it was directed that in future the rewards granted to the commanders of the Revenue cruisers for delivering the greatest number of smugglers should be made not exclusively to the commanders but distributed among the commander, officers, and crew according to the scale which has already been given on an earlier page in this volume. At the end of the year 1813 it was further decided that when vessels and boats of above four tons measurement were seized in ballast and afterwards broken up, not owing to their build, their construction, or their denomination, but simply because they had been engaged in smuggling, the seizing officers should become entitled to 30s. a ton.

There was also a system instituted in the year 1808 by which the widows of supervisors and surveyors of Riding officers and commanders of cruisers were allowed £30 per annum, with an additional allowance of £5 per annum for each child until it reached the age of fifteen. The widows of Riding officers, mates of cutters, and sitters of boats specially stationed for the prevention of smuggling were allowed £25 per annum and £5 for each child until fifteen years old. In the case of the widows of mariners they were to have £15 a year and £2, 10s. for each child till the age of fifteen. And one finds among those thus rewarded Ann Sarmon, the widow, and the three children of the commander of the Swan cutter stationed at Cowes; the one child of the mate of the Tartar cutter of Dover; the widow of the mate of the Dolphin of St. Ives; the widow of the Riding officer at Southampton; the widow and children of the commander of the cutter Hunter at Yarmouth; and likewise of the Hunter's mate.

After the 10th of October 1814 the allowance for victualling the crews of the Revenue cruisers was augmented as follows:—For victualling commander and mate, 3s. a day each and 1s. 6d. per lunar month for fire and candle. For victualling, fire, and candle for mariners, 1s. 10d. a day each. The daily rations to be supplied to each mariner on board the cruisers were to consist of 1-1/2 lbs. of meat, 1-1/2 lbs. of bread, and two quarts of beer. If flour or vegetables were issued the quantity of bread was to be reduced, and if cheese were supplied then the amount was to be reduced in proportion to the value and not to the quantity of such articles. And, in order to obtain uniformity, a table of the rations as above was to be fixed up against the fore side of the mast under the deck of the cruiser, and also in some conspicuous place in the Custom House.

Very elaborate instructions were also issued regarding the use of the tourniquet, which "is to stop a violent bleeding from a wounded artery in the limbs till it can be properly secured and tied by a surgeon." The medicine chest of these cruisers contained the following twenty articles: vomiting powders, purging powders, sweating powders, fever powders, calomel pills, laudanum, cough drops, stomach tincture, bark, scurvy drops, hartshorn, peppermint, lotion, Friar's balsam, Turner cerate, basilicon (for healing "sluggish ulcers"), mercurial ointment, blistering ointment, sticking-plaster, and lint.

In short, with its fleet of cruisers well armed and well manned, well found in everything necessary both for ship and crew; with good wages, the offer of high rewards, and pensions; with other privileges second only to those obtainable in the Royal Navy; the Customs Board certainly did their best to make the floating branch of its Preventive service as tempting and efficient as it could possibly be. And that there were not more captures of smugglers was the fault at any rate not of those who had the administration of these cutters.