King's Cutters and Smugglers 1700-1855 Part 6

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:--

"That all persons who shall be hereafter nominated to the situation of Commander or Mate of a Cruiser in the service of this Revenue, do attend the Surveyor of Sloops, &c. in London for the purpose of being examined on the several points submitted in the report of the said Surveyor, as essential for the qualification of officers of that description, namely, whether he understand navigation, is competent to lay off and ascertain courses and distances on the charts, can work a day's work and find the time of high and low water in any port of great Britain, and understand the use of a quadrant."

It was also further resolved:--

"That no person be admitted to either of those situations who shall not be certified by the said Surveyors to be fully qualified in the particulars above referred to, which certificate is to be laid before the Board for their consideration, whether in case such person does not possess a competent knowledge of the coast on which he is to be stationed, or is not sufficiently acquainted with the sailing and management of cutters and luggers tho' generally qualified, it may not be fit to direct him to repair on board some cruiser, whose station is contiguous to that to which he is nominated, and cruise in such vessel for the s.p.a.ce of one month, or until the commander thereof shall certify that he is thoroughly acquainted with that part of the coast, and also be fully competent to take charge of a cutter, or lugger, as the case may be, such a certificate to be referred to the Surveyor for Sloops, &c. for his report previous to such commander's or mate's commission being ordered to be made out." And the commanders of the cutters who shall be ordered to instruct such persons are to be acquainted that they are at liberty to crave the extra expense they shall incur for victualling such persons for the Board's consideration.

"And the Surveyor for Sloops, &c. is to report more particularly the nature and objects of enquiry as to the qualification of persons nominated Sitters of Boats and by what officers in the outports those enquiries are made and the qualification of such persons certified: for the Commissioners' further consideration, as to any additional regulations in respect of persons so nominated."

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 ash.o.r.e 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 quant.i.ties 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 pet.i.tioned 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 quant.i.ty 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 IX

CUTTERS' EQUIPMENT

In an earlier chapter we quoted from Marryat a pa.s.sage 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 ap.r.o.n wrapped round his legs. But in the period of which we are now speaking the attached ap.r.o.n 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 pet.i.tioned 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:--

"A silver epaulette, the b.u.t.ton-holes worked or bound with silver twist or lace, side-arms, and c.o.c.ked hats with c.o.c.kades, and the b.u.t.tons set on the coat three and three, the breeches and waistcoats as usual:

"For the undress, the same as at present.

"For the mates, the addition of lappels, the b.u.t.tons set on two and two, and c.o.c.ked hats with c.o.c.kades."

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 b.u.t.ton-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 b.u.t.tons were arranged on the lappels in threes.

For master or commander it was the same, except that the b.u.t.ton-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 cla.s.sed 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 cla.s.s, 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 sh.o.r.e 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:--

At the masthead: a blue pendant with the Union in canton and the Customs badge of office (a castellated structure with portcullis over the entrance, and two barred windows and two port-holes, one barred and one open, the latter doubtless to signify that through which the goods might enter) in the fly.

At the gaff: a blue ensign similarly marked.

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:--

The pendant to have a red field having a regal crown thereon at the upper part next the mast. The ensign to be a red Jack with a Union Jack in a canton at the upper corner next the staff, and with a regal crown in the centre of the red Jack. This was to be worn by all vessels employed in the prevention of smuggling under the Admiralty, Treasury, Customs or Excise.

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):--

_Question._ "Is the first signal a shot always?"

_Answer._ "A blank cartridge we fire mostly."

_Q._ "Did you fire a blank?"

_A._ "No, because she was going too fast away from me."

_Q._ "Did you hit her?"

_A._ "No."

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 sh.o.r.e 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 ash.o.r.e 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 b.a.l.l.s 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 sc.r.a.pers 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.