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.