Chapter 7

CUTTERS AND SLOOPS

We have spoken during the preceding chapters of the revenue cruisers sometimes as cutters and sometimes as sloops. For the reason that will quickly become apparent let us now endeavour to straighten out any confusion which may have arisen in the mind of the reader.

Practically, sloops and cutters of these days were one and the same, with very minor differences. In a valuable French nautical volume published in 1783, after explaining that the cutter came to the French from England, the definition goes on to state that in her rigging and sail-plan she resembles a sloop, except that the former has her mast longer, and inclined further aft, and has greater sail-area. The cutter also has but little freeboard, and in order to carry her large sail-area she draws more water. This authority then goes on to mention that such craft as these cutters are employed by the smugglers of the English Channel, "and being able to carry a good deal of sail they can easily escape from the guardships. The English Government, for the same reason, maintain a good many of these craft so as to stop these smugglers." Our English authority, Falconer, described the cutter as having one mast and a straight-running bowsprit that could be run inboard on deck. But for this, and the fact that the cutter's sail-area was larger, these craft were much the same as sloops. Falconer also states that a sloop differs from a cutter by having a fixed steeving bowsprit and a jib-stay. Moore, who was also a contemporary, makes similar definitions in almost identical language. The real difference, then, was that the cutter could run her bowsprit inboard, but the sloop could not.

Now, in the year 1785, a very interesting matter occupied the attention of the Board of Customs in this connection. It appeared that in an important trial concerning a certain vessel the defence was set up that this vessel had changed her character by so altering her "boltsprit" that it became fixed and could not be run inboard. It was found that all which her owners had done was to pass an iron bolt through the bits and heel of the bowsprit, clenching it. The defendant insisted that thus he had rendered it a complete standing "boltsprit," and not a running one: and that, therefore, by such alteration, his vessel became transformed from a cutter to a sloop. And, according to the definitions which we have just brought forward, one would have thought that this was a good defence. However, the Crown thought otherwise, and contended that the alteration was a mere evasion of the Act in question, and that the vessel remained a cutter because such fastening could be removed at pleasure, and then the "boltsprit" would run in and out as it did before the alteration. The jury also took this view, and the cutter, which thought herself a sloop, was condemned. The Revenue officers and commanders of Admiralty sloops were accordingly warned to make a note of this. For a number of years the matter was evidently left at that. But in 1822 the Attorney and Solicitor-General, after a difficult case had been raised, gave the legal distinction as follows, the matter having arisen in connection with the licensing of a craft: "A cutter may have a standing bowsprit of a certain length without a licence, but the distinction between a sloop and a cutter should not be looked for in the rigging but in the build and form of the hull, and, therefore, when a carvel-built vessel corresponds as to her hull with the usual form of a sloop, she will not merely, by having a running bowsprit, become a cutter within the meaning of the Act of the 24 Geo. III. cap. 47, and consequently will not be liable to forfeiture for want of a licence." From this it will be seen that whereas Falconer and other nautical authorities relied on the fixing of the bowsprit to determine the difference, the legal authorities relied on a difference in hull. The point is one of great interest, and I believe the matter has never been raised before by any modern nautical writer.[10]

As to what a Revenue cutter looked like, the illustrations which have been here reproduced will afford the reader a very good idea. And these can be supplemented by the following description which Marryat gives in _The Three Cutters_. It should be mentioned that the period of which he is speaking is that which we have been contemplating, the end of the eighteenth century.

"She is a cutter," he writes, "and you may know that she belongs to the Preventive Service by the number of gigs and galleys which she has hoisted up all round her. She looks like a vessel that was about to sail with a cargo of boats: two on deck, one astern, one on each side of her. You observe that she is painted black, and all her boats are white. She is not such an elegant vessel as the yacht, and she is much more lumbered up.... Let us go on board. You observe the guns are iron, and painted black, and her bulwarks are painted red; it is not a very becoming colour, but then it lasts a long while, and the dockyard is not very generous on the score of paint--or lieutenants of the navy troubled with much spare cash. She has plenty of men, and fine men they are; all dressed in red flannel shirts and blue trousers; some of them have not taken off their canvas or tarpaulin petticoats, which are very useful to them, as they are in the boats night and day, and in all weathers. But we will at once go down into the cabin, where we shall find the lieutenant who commands her, a master's mate, and a midshipman. They have each their tumbler before them, and are drinking gin-toddy, hot, with sugar--capital gin, too, 'bove proof; it is from that small anker standing under the table. It was one that they forgot to return to the Custom House when they made their last seizure."

In 1786, by the 26 Geo. III. c. 40, section 27, it was made lawful for any commander of any of his Majesty's vessels of war, or any officer by them authorised, to make seizures without a deputation or commission from the Commissioners of the Customs. Those were curious times when we recollect that apart altogether from the men-of-war of varying kinds, there were large numbers of armed smuggler-cutters, Custom-House cutters with letters of marque, privateers, and even Algerine corsairs from the Mediterranean, in the English Channel. It is to-day only a hundred and fifty years ago since one of these Algerine craft was wrecked near Penzance in the early autumn.

We mentioned just now the Act of George III. which required craft to be licensed. This was another of the various means employed for the prevention of smuggling, and since the passing of this Act those luggers and cutters which engaged in the running of goods endeavoured to evade the Act's penalties by possessing themselves of foreign colours and foreign ship's papers. Now, as a fact, by far the greater part of such craft belonged to Deal, Folkestone, and other south-coast ports of England. Their masters were also from the same localities, and very few of them could speak Dutch or French. But for the purpose of evading the English law they got themselves made burghers of Ostend, and notwithstanding that their crews were for the most part English they designated their craft as foreign.

During the year 1785 it happened that two of these pseudo-foreign smuggling craft were chased by an English frigate. Owing to the fact that the frigate had no pilot on board, one of these vessels escaped, but the other, after a chase lasting five hours, realised that she would soon be overhauled. Her master, therefore, threw overboard his cargo as the frigate fast approached, and in company with a number of his crew took to his large boat. The lugger, after no fewer than twenty shots had been fired at her, hove-to. On taking possession of the lugger and examining her papers it appeared that her master's name was the very English-sounding Thomas March, and yet he described himself as a burgher of Ostend, the vessel being owned by a merchant. The master's excuse was that he was a pilot-boat cruising with a number of pilots on board, and for this reason it was decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and not detain him. But the frigate's captain had noticed that before the lugger had hove-to during the evening a part of the cargo had been thrown overboard. The following morning, therefore, he proceeded on board a Revenue cutter, "went into the track where the cargo was thrown overboard," and was able to find just what he had expected, for he located and drew out of the sea no fewer than 700 half-ankers of foreign spirits.

This precedent opened up an important question; for if a neutral vessel, or indeed any craft similarly circumstanced as the above, were to anchor off the English coast it was hardly possible to detect her in running goods, as it seldom took more than an hour to land a whole cargo, owing to the great assistance which was given from the people on the shore. For, as it was officially pointed out, as soon as one of these vessels was sighted 300 people could usually be relied on with 200 or more carts and waggons to render the necessary service. Therefore the commanders of the cutters sought legal advice as to how they should act on meeting with luggers and cutters without Admiralty passes on the English coast but more or less protected with foreign papers and sailing under foreign colours.

The matter was referred to the Attorney-General, who gave his opinion that vessels were forfeitable only in the event of their being the property in whole or part of his Majesty's subjects; but where the crew of such a vessel appeared all to be English subjects, or at any rate the greatest part of them, it was his opinion that there was a sufficient reason for seizing the vessel if she was near the English coast. She was then to be brought into port so that, if she could, she might prove that she belonged wholly to foreigners. "A British subject," continued the opinion, "being made a burgher of Ostend does not thereby cease to be a subject. Vessels hovering within four leagues of the British coast, with an illicit cargo, as that of this vessel appears to have been, are forfeited whether they are the property of Britons or foreigners."

It was not once but on various occasions that the Customs Board expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the amount of success which their cruisers had attained in respect of the work allotted to them. At the beginning of the year 1782 they referred to "the enormous increase of smuggling, the outrages with which it is carried on, the mischiefs it occasions to the country, the discouragement it creates to all fair traders, and the prodigious loss the Revenue sustains by it." The Board went on to state that "diligent and vigorous exertions by the cruising vessels employed in the service of the Customs certainly might very much lessen it." The Commissioners expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the lack of success, and ordered that the officers of the Waterguard were especially to see that the commander and mate of every Revenue vessel or boat bringing in a seizure were actually on board when such seizure was made.

A few days later--the date is January 16, 1788--the Board, having received information that great quantities of tobacco and spirits were about to be smuggled in from France, Flanders, Guernsey, and Alderney, warned the Preventive officers of the various ports, and directed the commanders of the Admiralty cruisers, which happened to be stationed near the ports, to be especially vigilant to intercept "these attempts of the illicit dealers, so that the Revenue may not be defrauded in those articles to the alarming degree it has hitherto been." And the officers were bluntly told that if they were to exert themselves in guarding the coast night and day such fraudulent practices could not be carried on in the shameful manner they now were. "And though the Riding officers may not always have it in their power to seize the goods from a considerable body of smugglers, yet if such officers were to keep a watchful eye on their motions, and were to communicate early information thereof to the Waterguard, they may thereby render essential service to the Revenue."

When the soldiers assisted the Revenue officers in making seizures on shore it was frequently the case that the military had difficulty in recovering from the Revenue men that share of prize-money which was their due. The Collector of each port was therefore directed in future to retain in his hands out of the officers' shares of seizures so much as appeared to be due to the soldiers, and the names of the latter who had rendered assistance were to be inserted in the account of the seizures sent up to headquarters. But the jealousy of the military's aid somehow never altogether died out, and ten years after the above order there was still delay in rendering to the army men their due share of the seizures.

The commanders of the Revenue cruisers were told to keep an especial watch on the homeward-bound East Indiamen to prevent "the illicit practices that are continually attempted to be committed from them." Therefore these cruisers were not only to watch these big ships through the limits of their own station, but also to keep as near them when under sail as possible, provided this can be done with safety and propriety. But when the East Indiamen come to anchor the cruisers are also to anchor near them, and compel all boats and vessels coming from them to bring-to in order to be examined. They are "then to proceed to rummage such boats and vessels. And if any goods are found therein they are to be seized, together with the boats in which they are found." The importance of this very plain instruction is explained by the further statement that "some of the commanders of the cruisers in the service of the Revenue endeavour to shun these ships, and thereby avoid attending them through their station."

On Christmas Eve of 1784 the Customs Commissioners sent word to all the ports saying that they suspected that there were a good many vessels and boats employed in smuggling which were thus liable to forfeiture. Therefore, within forty-eight hours from the receipt of this information sent by letter, a close and vigorous search was to be made by the most active and trusty officers at each port into every bay, river, creek, and inlet within the district of each port, as well as all along the coast, so as to discover and seize such illegal vessels and boats. And if there were any boats quartered within the neighbourhood of each port, timely notice of the day and hour of the intended search was to be sent by the Collector and Controller in confidence to the commanding officer only, that he might hold his soldiers in readiness. Yet, again the Board exhorted the Revenue officers "to exert yourselves to the utmost of your power ... and as it is very probable that the places where such boats and vessels are kept may be known to the officers who have long resided at your port, you are to acquaint such officers that if they value their characters or employments, or have any regard to the solemn oath they took at their admission, we expect they will, on this occasion, give the fullest and most ample information of all such places, and will cheerfully afford every other aid and assistance in their power, to the end that the said vessels and boats may be discovered and seized.

"And to prevent them from being launched into the water, and carried off by the smugglers after seizure, you are to cause one of the streaks (= strakes) or planks to be ripped off near the keel, taking care at the same time to do as little other injury to each boat as possible."

We now come to witness the reappearance of an old friend of whom we last made mention in the North Sea. The year we are now to consider is 1788, and the 15th of July. On that day H.M. cutter _Kite_ was sailing from Beachy Head to the westward. She passed to the southward of the Isle of Wight without sighting it, as the weather was thick. Later in the day it cleared as they got near to the Dorsetshire coast, and about 7.30 P.M., when they were between Peveril Point (near Swanage) and St. Alban's Head, and it was clearer and still not night, the ship's surgeon discovered a vessel some distance away on the weather bow. The weather had now cleared so much that the house on the top of St. Alban's Head was quite visible. The surgeon called the attention of a midshipman on board to the strange vessel. The midshipman, whose name was Cornelius Quinton, took a bearing, and found that the stranger bore W.S.W. from the cutter, and was steering E.S.E. He also took a bearing of Peveril Point, which bore N.1/2W., and judged the smuggler to be about 9 miles from Peveril Point. About 8 o'clock the cutter began to give chase, and this continued until 11 P.M., the course being now S.E. After a time the lugger hauled up a point, so that she was heading S.E. by S., the wind being moderate S.W. During the chase the lugger did her best to get away from the cutter, and set her main topsail. The cutter at the time was reefed, but when she saw the lugger's topsail going up she shook out her reefs and set her gaff topsail. It was some little time before the _Kite_ had made up her mind that she was a smuggler, for at first she was thought to be one of the few Revenue luggers which were employed in the service. About 11 o'clock, then, the _Kite_ was fast overhauling her, notwithstanding that the lugger, by luffing up that extra point, came more on the wind and so increased her pace. It was at first a cloudy night--and perhaps that may have made the _Kite's_ skipper a little nervous, for he could hardly need to be reefed in a moderate breeze--but presently the sky cleared.

As the _Kite_ approached she hoisted her signals and fired a musket shot. (As there is a good deal of confusion existing concerning the signals of the old Revenue cutters, it is worth noting that although it was night these signals were displayed. I make this statement on the unimpeachable sworn evidence of the _Kite's_ crew, so the matter cannot be questioned.) But in spite of these signals, which every seafaring man of that time knew very well meant that the pursued vessel was to heave-to, the lugger still held on and took no notice. After that the _Kite_ continued to fire several times from her swivel guns. Later still, as the _Kite_ came yet closer, the latter hailed her and requested her to lower her sails, informing her at the same time that she was a King's cutter. Still the lugger paid no heed, so the cutter now fired at her from muskets. It was only after this that the lugger, seeing her chance of escape was gone, gave up, lowered sail, wore round, and came under the _Kite's_ stern. The cutter hoisted out a boat, the midshipman already mentioned was sent aboard the lugger, and the latter's master was brought to the _Kite_, when whom should they find to be their prisoner but David Browning, better known as "Smoker," of North Sea fame? When the _Kite's_ captain asked for his papers "Smoker" replied that he had no papers but a bill of sale. He was afterwards heard to remark that if he had understood the log line he would not have been so near the land as he was, and admitted he had been bound for Flushing, having doubtless just landed a cargo on the beach.

The lugger was found to be decked and clinker-built with a running bowsprit on which she set a jib. Six carriage guns were also found on board, mounted on her deck. Four of these guns were observed to be loaded, three with powder and one with shot, and they were 4-pounders. After the capture was made the two vessels lay for a time hove-to on the heaving sea under the star-specked sky. The lugger was then put in charge of the midshipman and a prize crew from the cutter, the prisoners being of course taken on board the _Kite_. Both lugger and cutter then let draw their sails, and set a course N.E. for the Isle of Wight until 2 A.M. As it then came on thick the vessels hove-to until daylight, when sail was made again, the lugger being sent on ahead to sound, so as to see how near they were approaching the Isle of Wight. Later on they found themselves in 12 fathoms and judged themselves to be near the Owers. Eventually, having steered about N.N.E. and sighted Chichester Church in the distance, they went about and stood south, the wind having veered to W.N.W., and at 3.30 P.M. let go anchor in Spithead. Browning in due time appeared in Court, and a verdict was given for the King, so that at last this celebrated smuggler had been caught after many an exciting chase.

It was not many years after this incident that a 70-ton cutter named the _Charming Molly_ arrived at Portsmouth. A Customs officer went on board her and found a man named May, who produced the key of the spirit-room, saying he was master of the ship. In the spirit-room the Customs officer found a hogshead of gin containing 62 gallons. May was anxious to show that this was quite legitimate, as there were sixteen men aboard and the contents of this cask were for their use. The Customs officer now inquired if there was any more liquor on the ship, and May replied in the negative, at first. The officer then said he would search the cabin, whereupon May added that there was a small cask which he had picked up at sea and had kept for the crew's use. This cask was found in May's own state-room, and contained about three gallons of brandy, though it was capable of holding another gallon and no doubt recently had so done. However, May now said that that was the entire lot, and there was not a drop of anything else on board. Yet again the officer was not to be put off, and found in the state-room on the larboard side a place that was locked. May then explained that this locker belonged to a man named Sheriff, who was at present ashore, and had the key with him. However May volunteered, if the officer saw fit, to open it, but at the same time assured him there was no liquor therein. The officer insisted on having it broken open, when there were discovered two new liquor cases containing each twelve bottles of brandy, making in all eight gallons, and two stone bottles of brandy containing five gallons. Even now May assured the officer that he had no more in the ship, but after a further search the officer found twelve dozen bottles of wine in a locked locker in the cabin.

We need not follow this case any further, but as a fine example of deliberate lying it is hard to beat. Throughout the exciting career of a smuggler, when chased or captured, in running goods by night or stealing out to get clear of the land before the sun came up, this one quality of coolness in action or in verbal evasion ever characterised him. He was so frequently and continuously face to face with a threatening episode that he became used to the condition.

FOOTNOTES:

[10] See also Appendix I.