Chapter 6

THE REVENUE CRUISERS

We drew attention some time back to the assistance occasionally rendered by soldiers when the Riding officers were about to arrest smugglers. Early in the year 1740, or about the close of 1739, Thomas Carswell, one of the Revenue officers stationed at Rye, was murdered, and a corporal and three dragoons whom he had taken to his assistance were badly wounded, and a large quantity of tea that had been seized was rescued. It was after this incident that Revenue officers of this port--perhaps the most notorious of all the south-east smuggling territory--were ordered that in future when they went forth to make seizures they were to have with them an adequate military force, and to this end they were to make previous arrangements with the commanding-officer of the forces in that district.

But in spite of the seizures which the officers on land from time to time effected, and notwithstanding the shortcomings of the Custom House cruisers in regard to speed, and the frequent negligence of their commanders, it still remains true that these cutters and sloops, at any rate until about the year 1822 (when the Coastguard service was instituted) continued to be the principal and the most important of all the machinery set in motion against the smugglers. We have seen this service in working order as far back as the year 1674, at any rate, when the fleet consisted of only hired vessels. We have also seen that they were employed in sufficient numbers all round the coast, and that the Customs authorities, not content merely to hire such vessels, also presently obtained some of their own. It is possible that the smacks were used for such service even before the date 1674--perhaps very soon after Charles came to the throne--but there are no existing records of this to make the matter certain. The Revenue preventive work, in so far as the cruisers were employed, was carried on by a mixed control, and embraced six separate and distinct types:--

1. There were the English Custom House smacks, cutters, and sloops, some of which were hired vessels: others were actually owned by the English Customs Board.

2. There were the English Excise cruisers, which were controlled by the English Excise Board. They appeared to be very similar to the craft in the first class.

3. There were the Scottish Customs cruisers, under the control of the Scottish Customs Board. The official at the head of these was known as the Agent for yachts.

4. There were the Scottish Excise cruisers, controlled by the Scottish Excise Board.

5. There were the Irish Revenue cruisers, controlled by the Irish Customs and Excise.

6. And lastly, there were these vessels of the Royal Navy which were employed to assist the Revenue, such vessels consisting of ships of the fifth-rate, sixth-rate, and especially the armed sloops.

In the present volume it has been necessary, owing to the limits of our space, to restrict our consideration of cruisers chiefly to the most important of these, viz. those of the English Custom House and those of the Royal Navy. Under such a mixed rule it was obvious that many difficulties arose, and that the clashing of interests was not infrequent. For instance, between the English Custom House cruisers and the English Excise cruisers there was about as much friendship as there exists usually between a dog and a cat. Similarly between the former and the Naval cruisers there was considerable jealousy, and every display of that pompous, bombastic exhibition of character which was such a feature of the life of the eighteenth century, and the first years of the next.

Although the Revenue cruisers were employed primarily and ordinarily for the purpose of protecting the revenue, yet from time to time they were mobilised for coast defence. On different occasions during the eighteenth century they were lent to the Admiralty, and well supplied with men and arms in readiness for actual warfare. After the third quarter of the eighteenth century these Revenue cruisers seem to have been built in greater numbers and with some improvement as to design, which, seeing that they had so frequently been left well astern by the smuggling cutters, was more than necessary. There was issued in November of 1780, by the Board of Customs, an interesting letter that shows how closely these cruisers approximated to vessels of war, even when they were not under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. This letter was sent to the Collector and Controller at the different English Customs ports, and began by referring to the fact that many applications had been made to the Board asking permission to take out Letters of Marque. It will be remembered that this was a time when wars seemed to go on interminably, and there had been only a few brief intervals of peace ever since the Anglo-Dutch wars began. The Commissioners replied that they had no objection to the commanders of the cruisers providing themselves with Letters of Marque, if done at the latter's own expense "during present hostilities": but the Board declined to bear any part of the expense for any damages that might be sustained in an engagement where no seizure had been made and brought into port for a breach of the Revenue laws, so long as a commander should continue to hold these Letters of Marque. It was, in fact, a basis of no cure no pay. Each commander was, further, strictly enjoined not to quit his station and duty as a Revenue officer "under pretence of looking for captures, it being our resolution to recall the permission hereby granted, as soon as it shall be discovered in any instance to be prejudicial to our service."

But this war-like and semi-war-like service was entirely subservient to their ordinary work. It is evident from the correspondence of the Customs Board of this same year, 1780, that their minds were very uneasy. The smugglers, far from showing any slackening, had become more active than ever. These men had, to quote the words of the Commissioners, considerably increased the size and force of their vessels; they had also added to their number of both men and guns. They had become so violent and outrageous, they had acquired so much audacity as to "carry on their illicit designs in sight of the Revenue cruisers," and "whenever they have appeared within a certain distance have actually fired into and threatened to sink them." In such cases as these, it was reported to the Board, the mariners on board these cruisers have frequently refused to bear down and repel their attacks, explaining their conduct by saying that no provision was made for their support in case they received injury during these encounters. To meet such objections as these the Board resolved to allow the sum of £10 per annum to every mariner employed on board their cruisers who should lose a hand or foot, or receive any greater injury by firearms "or other offensive weapons of the smugglers while in the actual execution of their duty so as to disable them from further service; and we have also resolved to pay the surgeons' bills for such of the mariners as may receive slighter wounds." But it was stipulated that no allowance was to be paid unless certificates were produced from the commanders of these cruisers.

And before we go any further with the progress of these cutters, let us afford actual instances of the kind of treatment which had led the Board to make this allowance to its men. Three years before the above resolution, that is to say on April 24, 1777, Captain Mitchell was cruising in command of the Revenue cutter _Swallow_ in the North Sea. Off Robin Hood's Bay he fell in with a smuggling cutter commanded by a notorious contraband skipper who was known as "Smoker," or "Smoaker." Mitchell was evidently in sufficient awe of him to give him a wide berth, for the cruiser's commander in his official report actually recorded that "Smoker" "waved us to keep off"! However, a few days later, the _Swallow_, when off the Spurn, fell in with another famous smuggler. This was the schooner _Kent_, of about two hundred tons, skippered by a man known as "Stoney." Again did this gallant Revenue captain send in his report to the effect that "as their guns were in readiness, and at the same time waving us to go to the Northward, we were, by reason of their superior force, obliged to sheer off, but did our best endeavours to spoil his Market. There [_sic_] being a large fleet of colliers with him."

But that was not to be their last meeting, for on May 2, when off Whitby, the _Swallow_ again fell in with the _Kent_, but (wrote Mitchell) the smuggler "would not let us come near him." The following day the two ships again saw each other, and also on May 13, when off Runswick Bay. On the latter occasion the _Kent_ "fired a gun for us, as we imagined, to keep farther from him." The same afternoon the _Swallow_ chased a large lugsail boat, with fourteen hands in her, and supposed to belong to the _Kent_. But the _Swallow_ was about as timid as her name, for, according to her commander, she was "obliged to stand out to sea, finding that by the force they had in their boat, and a number of people on shore, we had no chance of attacking them with our boat, as they let us know they were armed, by giving us a volley of small arms." None the less the _Swallow_ had also fourteen men as her complement, so one would have thought that this chicken-hearted commander would at least have made an effort to try conclusions.

No doubt, the _Kent_ was a pretty tough customer, and both skipper and his crew likewise. But there was something wanting in Captain Mitchell. For consider another of the latter's exploits. It was the last week of September of that same year, and the scene had again the Yorkshire coast for its background. During the evening they espied what they rightly believed to be a smuggling cutter. They got as far as hailing her, but, as it was very dark, and the _Swallow_ did not know the force of the cutter, Mitchell "thought it most prudent to leave her," and so came to anchor in Saltburn Bay. But the smuggler had not done with this enterprising gentleman; so the next day the smuggler came into the bay, stood down under full sail, and came charging down on to the poor _Swallow_, striking her on the quarter, the smuggler swearing terrible oaths the meanwhile, that if Mitchell did not promptly cut his cable--it was the days of hemp, still--and hurry out of that anchorage, he would sink him. What happened, do you ask? Of course the _Swallow_ ought to have been under way, and should never have been lying there. She was acting contrary to the orders of the Board. But what must we think of a captain who calmly awaits the on-coming of a smuggler's attack? Why, so soon as the _Swallow_ espied him approaching, did he not up anchor, hoist sails, and go to meet him with his crew at their stations, and guns all shotted? But even after this gross insult to himself, his ship, and his flag, was the commander of a Revenue sloop to obey?

Yes--it is shameful to have to record it--Mitchell did obey. True, he didn't cut his cable, but he soon tripped his anchor and cleared out as ordered. The poor _Swallow_ had been damaged both as to her tail and her wings, for the smugglers had injured the stern, taken a piece out of the boom, and carried away the topping-lift. But evidently in those days the Revenue service attracted into its folds men of the type of Mitchell. Take the case of Captain Whitehead of the Revenue cruiser _Eagle_. Espying a smuggling vessel, he gave chase, and eventually came up with her, also off Saltburn. Whitehead hailed her, but the smuggler's skipper replied--one cannot resist a smile--"with a horrid expression," and called his men to arms. The smuggler then fired a volley with muskets, wounding one of the _Eagle's_ crew. Presently they also fired their swivel-guns, "on which Captain Whitehead thought it prudent to get away from her as fast as he could, the greatest part of his people having quitted the deck."

The smuggler continued to fire at the retreating cruiser, and chased the _Eagle_ for a whole hour after. The cutter turned out to be that which Mitchell had encountered on April 24, 1777, and her skipper was our friend "Smoker" again. This smuggling craft was described as a stout cutter of 130 tons, and a crew of upwards of forty men. She carried fourteen carriage guns, four three-pounders, as well as a great number of swivels. "Smoker's" real name was David Browning, and he was recognised by the _Eagle's_ crew from his voice, which was familiar to several of them. During that affray the Revenue cruiser received about twenty shot in her sails, about a dozen in her boat, and half as many in her fore-and main-mast. She also had her mizzen halyards shot away. From these details it would seem that she was dandy-rigged, that is to say, she had a mizzen or jigger in addition to her cutter rig, and on this jigger would be set a small lugsail as was the old custom.

Following on Mitchell's meeting with the _Kent_, we have a record belonging to July of that same year--1777. This time a different result was to come about. For instead of acting single-handed, the sloops _Prince of Wales_ and the _Royal George_--both being employed by the Scottish Excise Board, aided by H.M.S. _Pelican_ and _Arethusa_--four of them--at last managed to capture this schooner. She was found to be armed with sixteen four-pounders and twenty swivel-guns, and also had a large stock of gunpowder, blunderbusses, and muskets. "Stoney" was taken out of her, and he was said to be an outlaw whose real name was George Fagg. The guns and ammunition were taken ashore and put in the King's warehouse at Hull, and the crew of thirty-nine were placed on board the _Arethusa_. Among these prisoners were those who had murdered a dragoon the previous year, while the latter was assisting a Custom officer at Whitby. The arrest of these men was all the more interesting for a reward of £100 for their capture had been long outstanding.

The capture of the _Kent_ had been effected as follows: the two Excise cruisers were off St. Abb's Head on July 8, and hearing that the _Kent_ had been seen off Flamborough Head they sailed south, and off Filey fell in with her. On being hailed, the smuggler beat to quarters, shouting to the cruisers. "Fire, you ----, and be ---- to you." The battle at once commenced and continued smartly for an hour, when the _Pelican_ came up to give assistance to the two cruisers. The _Kent_, big as she was, now used sweeps--it was reminiscent of the days of Elizabethan galleasses--and drew away. However the _Pelican_ (a frigate) overhauled her, and the _Arethusa_ which had also come up gave valuable aid as well. The two naval captains allowed the cruisers to seize the _Kent_, and to take her into Hull, but the prisoners were put on board the _Arethusa_ as stated. The _Kent's_ master and four of the men had been killed. It should be added that the day before this incident the _Pelican_ had also chased the _Kent_ out of Bridlington Bay, so the smuggler must have come further north in the meanwhile, thus meeting the two Scottish cruisers bound south. The hatches of the _Kent_ were found to be unbattened, and her cargo in great disorder. The latter consisted of 1974 half-ankers, and a large amount of tea packed in oilskin-bags to the number of 554. This schooner had been built at that other famous home of smugglers, Folkestone. She was specially rigged for fast sailing, her mainmast being 77 feet long, and her main-boom 57 feet. It was found that her sails were much damaged by shot. Her mainmast was shot through in two places, and her main-boom rendered quite unserviceable. Ship and tackle were appraised at £1405, 16s., so with the addition of her cargo she represented a fair prize.

But "Smoker" was still at large even though "Stoney" was a prisoner. It was in April of 1777, when Captain Mitchell had fallen in with him off Robin Hood's Bay. A month later the Collector of Hull wrote up to the Board to say that a large lugger had been seen off Whitby, and well armed. She was described as "greatly an overmatch" for any of the Revenue cruisers, "or even for a joint attack of two of them": and that as long as she and the armed cutter commanded by Browning, _alias_ "Smoker" continued so daringly to "insult" the coasts, there was little prospect of success. For six months past the Revenue cruisers had not been able to make any seizures, because these smuggling craft not only brought over vast quantities themselves, but protected the smaller ones from the attempts of the Revenue cruisers. A year later, and we find that Mitchell was every bit as slack as before. This is made quite clear from a letter which the Collector of Hull was compelled on November 12 (1778) to write. In this epistle he informs Mitchell that either he or his mate, one of them, must remain on board the _Swallow_ at night, when lying in the Humber. For it appeared that two days earlier both were ashore. The mariner who had the midnight watch on board the cruiser saw a vessel, supposed to be a privateer, come right up the Humber into Hull Roads, sail around the naval tender there lying, then sail round the _Swallow_, and finally down the river again. Although there were twelve or fourteen men on the supposed privateer's deck, yet the _Swallow's_ watchman did not even hail her, Mitchell and his mate being ashore all the while.

Such incidents as the above show that there undoubtedly was cause for the complaints of the Customs Board that the commanders of their cruisers were not doing all that might have been done towards suppressing the evil at hand. On the other hand, it was equally true that the delinquents with whom these commanders had to contest were of a particularly virulent and villainous type. Thus, between the negligence of the one side, and the enterprise of the other, his Majesty's revenue had to suffer very considerably. No better instance of the potency of this lawlessness could be afforded than by an event which happened in the summer of 1777. Everyone knows, of course, that those were the days when men had to be impressed into the service of the Navy, so that, when any of these hardy smugglers were captured, they were valuable acquisitions to the Service, and far more useful than many of the disease-stricken crews which so often had to be shipped to make up a man-of-war's complement. In the year we are speaking of a number of smugglers who had been captured on the North Sea were put on board H.M. tender _Lively_ by Captain O'Hara of the Impress service, the intention being to convey these men to one of his Majesty's ships at the Nore. The tender got under way and was proceeding to her destination when the smuggler-prisoners mutinied, overpowered the _Lively's_ crew, and carried the _Lively_ into Flushing.

And similar examples of the impudence and violence of other North Sea smugglers could also be quoted. On the 7th of May 1778, Captain Bland, of the _Mermaid_ Revenue cruiser, was off Huntcliff Fort, when he sighted a smuggling shallop.[9] Bland promptly bore down, and as he approached hailed her. But the shallop answered by firing a broadside. The Revenue cruiser now prepared to engage her, whereupon the shallop hoisted an English pennant, which was evidently a signal for assistance, for a large armed cutter promptly appeared and came to the shallop's rescue. Seeing that he was overmatched, Bland, therefore, sheered off. During the same month Captain Whitehead, of the _Eagle_, to whom we have already referred, reported that he seldom went for a cruise without being fired on, and he mentioned that sometimes these smuggling vessels carried musket-proof breast-works--a kind of early armour-plating, in fact.

The principal rendezvous of the smuggling craft in the North Sea was Robin Hood's Bay. Whenever the cruisers used to approach that bight the smugglers would sail out, fire upon them, and drive them along the coast. Before firing, the smugglers always hoisted English colours, and on one occasion a smuggling craft had the temerity to run alongside a Revenue cruiser, hail her, and in a derisive manner ordered the commander to send his boat aboard. We spoke just now of the superior sailing qualities which these smuggling craft frequently possessed over the Revenue cruisers, and on one occasion, in the North Sea, the master of a smuggling shallop, when being pursued, impudently lowered his lugsail--that would be his mizzen--to show that the cruiser could not come up and catch him. And lest that dishonourable incident previously mentioned, of a cruiser being ordered out of Saltburn Bay, may be thought a mere isolated event, let us hasten to add that the cruiser _Mermaid_ was lying at anchor off Dunstanburgh Castle, on the Northumbrian coast, when Edward Browning came alongside her in an armed shallop named the _Porcupine_, belonging to Sandwich. He insisted on the _Mermaid_ getting up her anchor and leaving that region: "otherwise he would do him a mischief." Indeed, were these facts not shown unmistakably by actual eye-witnesses to be the very reverse of fiction, one might indeed feel doubtful as to accepting them. But it is unlikely that cruiser-commanders would go out of their way to record incidents which injured their reputation, had these events never in reality occurred.

Some idea of the degree of success which smuggling vessels attained during this eighteenth century may be gathered from the achievements of a cutter which was at work on the south coast. Her name was the _Swift_, and she belonged to Bridport. She was of 100 tons burthen, carried no fewer than 16 guns and a crew of fifty. During the year 1783 she had made several runs near Torbay, and on each occasion had been able to land about 2000 casks of spirits, as well as 4 or 5 tons of tea. Afterwards the whole of this valuable cargo had been run inland by about 200 men, in defiance of the Revenue officers. Then there was the _Ranger_, a bigger craft still, of 250 tons. She carried an enormous crew for her size--nearly 100--and mounted 22 guns. She had been built at Cawsand, that village which in smuggling days attained so much notoriety, and stands at the end of a delightful bay facing the western end of Plymouth Breakwater. This vessel had a successful time in landing cargoes to the east of Torbay without paying the lawful duty. And there were many fishing-boats of from 18 to 25 tons, belonging to Torbay, which were at this time accustomed to run across the Channel, load up with the usual contraband, and then hover about outside the limits of the land. When they were convinced that the coast was clear of any cruisers they would run into the bay and land, sink or raft their cargoes, according to circumstances.

And now, leaving for the present actual skirmishes and chases in which the Revenue cruisers were concerned, let us look a little more closely into their organisation. From the report by the Commissioners appointed to examine the Public Accounts of the kingdom, and issued in 1787, it is shown that the Custom House cruisers were of two classes: (1) Those which were owned by the Board, and (2) Those which were hired by contract. And as to this latter class there was a further subdivision into two other classes; for one section of these vessels was furnished by the Crown, no charge being made for the hire. But her outfit, her future repairs, in addition to the wages and victualling of the crew, and all other expenses, were paid out of the produce of the seizures which these cruisers effected. After this, if anything remained beyond these deductions, the residue was to be divided between the Crown and the contractor. Very often, of course, when a fine haul was made of a £1000 worth of cargo, there was quite a nice little sum for both parties to the contract, and a few other, smaller, seizures during the year would make the business quite a profitable undertaking. But when the amount of seizures was not sufficient to defray the expenses the deficiency was supplied by the contractor and Crown in equal proportions. That, then, was one of these two subdivisions of contracted cruisers.

But in the second of these the contractor provided the vessel, for which he was paid the sum of 4s. 6d. a ton per lunar month. It may seem at first that this was poor remuneration, especially when one recollects that to-day, when the Government hires liners from the great steamship companies, the rate of payment is £1 per ton per month. In the case of even a 10,000-ton liner there is thus a very good payment for about thirty days. But in the case of a cutter of 100 tons or less, in the eighteenth century, 4s. 6d. per ton may seem very small in comparison. However, we must bear in mind that although for this money the contractor was to find the outfit of the vessel, and be responsible for all repairs needed, yet the aforesaid contractor might make a good deal more in a lucky year. It was done on the following basis. From the produce of the seizures made by this subdivision of cruisers all remaining charges additional to those mentioned above were paid, but the surplus was divided between the Crown and contractor. Thus the latter stood to gain a large sum if only a moderate number of seizures had been made, and there was, by this method, every incentive for the hired cruisers to use their best endeavours to effect captures. Still, if there was a deficiency instead of a surplus, this was also shared by both contracting parties.

In the year 1784 there were, reckoning all classes, 44 cruisers employed, and 1041 men as crews. Of these cruisers the Commander, the Chief Mate and Second Mate, and, in certain vessels, the Deputed Mariners, were all officers of the Customs. In the case of the first class of cruisers--those which were on the establishment--these officers were appointed by the Board pursuant to warrants from the Treasury. In the case of the second--those which were hired by contract--the officers were appointed by the Customs Board. The captain of the cruiser was paid £50 per annum, the chief mate either £35 or £30, and the crew were each paid £15. But, as we shall see from a later page, the rate of pay was considerably increased some years afterwards. The victualling allowance was at the rate of 9d. per diem for each man on board, and an allowance of 1s. each was made by the lunar month for fire and candle. This last-mentioned allowance was also modified in the course of time. Some idea as to the seriousness, from a financial point of view, of this cruiser fleet may be gathered from the statement that these 44 vessels cost the Government for a year's service the sum of £44,355, 16s. 1d.

The largest of these forty-four cruisers was the _Repulse_, 210 tons. She carried 33 men and was stationed at Colchester. Her cost for this year (1784) was £1552, 16s. 8d. She was not one of the hired vessels, but on the establishment. Next in size came the _Tartar_, 194 tons, with 31 men, her station being Dover. She was on the establishment, and her annual cost was £1304, 6s. 2-1/2d. Of the same tonnage was the _Speedwell_, which cruised between Weymouth and Cowes. There was also the _Rose_, 190 tons, with 30 men, stationed at Southampton, being on the establishment likewise. Next to her in size came the _Diligence_, 175 tons, with 32 men. She cruised between Poole and Weymouth. She was one of the hired vessels, and was in 1784 removed from Weymouth to have her headquarters at Cowes. The smallest of all the cruisers at this time was the _Nimble_, 41 tons and a crew of 30. She also was a hired craft. Her station was at Deal, and her annual cost was £1064, 9s. 9d. for the year mentioned.

But though there was less expenditure needed at the outset, these contract ships were not altogether satisfactory: or rather it was the method than the cruisers themselves. For if we have any knowledge at all of human nature, and especially of the dishonest character which so frequently manifested itself in the eighteenth century, we can readily imagine that the contractor, unless he was a scrupulously honourable man, would naturally succumb to the temptation to economise too strictly regarding the keeping the ship in the best condition of repair; or he might gain a little by giving her not quite a sufficiently numerous crew, thus saving both wages and victuals. For the Crown allowed a certain number of men, and paid for the complement which they were supposed to carry.

Therefore, since this arrangement was marked by serious drawbacks, the contract system was discontinued, and at the beginning of 1788 fifteen contracts were ended, and five other cruisers' contracts were not renewed when they expired in that year. All the cruisers in the employment of the Customs Service were now placed on the establishment, and the practice of paying the charges and expenses out of the King's share of the condemned goods was rescinded. In the year 1797 the number of Customs cruisers was 37, the commanders being appointed by the Treasury; and it may be not without interest to mention the names, tonnage, and guns of some of those which were on the books for that year. There was the _Vigilant_, which was described as a yacht, 53 tons, 6 guns, and 13 men; the _Vigilant_ cutter, 82 tons, 8 guns. During the winter season she cruised with ten additional hands off the coasts of Essex, Kent, and Sussex. There was another, the _Diligence_, given as of 152 tons; the _Swallow_, 153 tons and 10 guns; the _Lively_, 113 tons, 12 guns, and 30 men. The _Swift_, 52 tons and 8 men, used to cruise between the Downs and the Long Sand (to the North of the North Foreland at the mouth of the Thames). Some of the old names under the former dual system are seen to be commemorated in the _Nimble_ (41 tons, 2 guns, 15 men). Her station was Deal, and she used to cruise between the Forelands. The _Tartar_ of this period was of 100 tons, had 10 guns and 23 men. But the _Greyhound_, probably one of the fastest cruisers, was of 200 tons, mounted 16 guns, and carried 43 men. Her cruising ground was between Beachy Head and the Start, and her station at Weymouth. A much smaller craft was the cruiser _Busy_ (46 tons and 11 men). Her cruising was in a much smaller area--around Plymouth Sound and Cawsand Bay.

Owing to the fact that commanders had been wont too often to run into port for real or imaginary repairs, the Commissioners decided that in future, when a cruiser put in, she was to inform the Collector and Controller of that port by means of her commander, and both to give his reasons for coming in, and to estimate the length of time he was likely to remain in port, before his being able to sail again.

With regard to the prize-money which these cruisers were able to make; before the year 1790 there had been a diversity of practice in the method of sharing. In allotting rewards to officers for seizing vessels which afterwards had been taken into the Revenue Service, it had formerly been the practice to deduct the whole of the charges out of the officers' moiety of the appraised value. But from April 14, 1790, "for the encouragement of the seizing officers," the charge was deducted from the total appraised value, and the seizing officers were to be paid a moiety of the net produce, if any. It had also been the custom to allow the commanders of Admiralty cruisers permission to use seized vessels as tenders. But from May 6, 1790, this practice was also discontinued by the Board, who ordered that in case any such vessels were so employed at the different ports, the commanders were to deliver them up "with their tackle, apparel, and furniture," to the Collector and Controller of Customs.

We referred some time back to the fact that these Revenue cruisers at times were mobilised for war, and also that to them were granted Letters of Marque. In this connection there is to be noted an interesting warrant, under the King's sign-manual, dated June 11, 1795, which reads:--

"Whereas the Commissioners of our Treasury have represented unto us that the cutters in the service of our Revenues of Customs have captured several Ships and Vessels belonging to the enemy, and have recommended it unto us to issue our warrant to grant the proceeds of the Prizes that have been or shall be taken by the cutters in the service of our Customs, granted to the cutters capturing such prizes respectively, and the expenses of the proceedings, in regard thereto, among officers and crews of the vessels in the search of our Customs, who made the said captures, together with the head-money, in all cases where head-money is or may be due by law....

"Our will and pleasure is that the proceeds of all such Prizes as have been or shall be taken from the enemy in the course of the present war, by the cutters in the service of our Revenue of Customs, after deducting all expenses of the Letters of Marque granted to the cutters capturing such Prizes respectively, and the expenses of the proceedings in regard thereto, together with the head-money in all cases where head-money is or may be due by law, shall be distributed in the manner following; that is to say":--

The Commander 14/32 ds. Mate 7/32 ds.

Deputed Mariner, or deputed } 3/32 ds., exclusive of their mariners if more than one } shares as Mariners.

Other Mariners 8/32 ds.

If there is no deputed Mariner, The Commander 1/2 The Mate 1/4 Mariners 1/4

It may be mentioned, in passing, that a "deputed" mariner was one who held a deputation from the Customs Board. Another warrant, similar to the above, and to the same effect, was issued on July 4, of that memorable year 1805. In July of 1797, the Customs Commissioners drew attention to the third article of the "Instructions for the Commanders and Mates of the Cruisers employed in the service of this Revenue," reminding them that the commanders, mariners, and mates were in no case to be allowed to participate in the officers' shares of seizures made by the crews of the cruisers unless the first-mentioned had been actually present at the time when the seizure was made, or could afford satisfactory proof that they were necessarily absent on some duty. Therefore the Board now directed that, whenever the crews of the cruisers made a seizure, a list of the officers who were not actually on board or in the boats of the cruisers at that time was to be transmitted to the Board with the account of the seizure. Then follows the other instruction which has already been alluded to. In order that the station of the aforesaid cruisers may never be left unguarded by their coming into port for provisions, or to be cleaned and refitted, or for any other necessary purpose, the commanders were instructed to arrange with each other "that nothing but absolute necessity shall occasion their being in Port at one and the same time."

It will be recognised that the object of this was, if possible, to keep the officers of the cruisers on board their vessels, and at sea, instead of ever running into port. For it would seem that by more than one of these gentlemen the work of cruising on behalf of the Revenue Service was regarded too much in the light of a pleasant, extended yachting trip, with an occasional chase and seizure of a smuggling craft to break the monotony of their existence and to swell their purses. But such a pleasant life was not that contemplated by the Customs authorities.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] "Shallop, a sort of large boat with two masts, and usually rigged like a schooner."--MOORE.