It was, no doubt, because of such incidents as those which we have seen occurring in the Channel and North Sea that the Commissioners tightened up the regulations in the above manner. That these incidents were not confined to any particular locality let us show by the two following examples. The first had reference to William Horn, the Deputed Mariner and Acting Mate of the Revenue cutter Greyhound, whose station was at Weymouth. On the 5th of March 1806 he was in charge of the cutter whilst on a cruise to the westward. Off Portland the cutter fell in with a French lugger, which was a privateer. Horn gave chase, gradually overhauled her, and even came up with her. For a time he also engaged her, but because he subsequently gave up the fight, bore up and quitted her, allowing the privateer to escape, he was deemed guilty by the Customs Board of not having used his utmost endeavours to effect a capture, and was ordered to be superseded.
The second incident was of a slightly more complicated nature, and occurred on October 20, 1805, about midnight. The two men implicated were a Captain Riches, who was in command of the Revenue cutter Hunter, and his mate Oliver.
This vessel, whose station was Great Yarmouth, was on the night mentioned cruising in the North Sea. Presently the cutter sighted what turned out to be the Danish merchant ship, The Three Sisters, Fredric Carlssens master, from Copenhagen bound for St. Thomas's and St. Croix. Oliver got into the cutter's boat and boarded the Dane. He also demanded from the latter and took from him four cases of foreign Geneva, which was part of The Three Sisters' cargo. In spite of Carlssen's opposition, Oliver put these into his boat and rowed off with them to the Hunter. Riches was obviously party to this transaction, and was accused "that contrary to the solemn oath taken at his admission into office, he did not only neglect to report to the Collector and Controller of Yarmouth or to the Board the misconduct of his Mate, in unlawfully taking from the said ship the four cases of Geneva in question, but did take out of them for his own use, and by so doing did connive at and sanction the aforesaid unproper conduct of his Mate." It was also brought against Riches that he had not entered any account of this incident into his ship's journal, or made any record of the mate boarding the Dane.
In the end Riches was adjudged by the Board guilty of not giving information regarding his mate's conduct and of receiving one case of Geneva for his own use, but he was acquitted of connivance for want of evidence. He was found guilty also of not having entered the incident in his journal. Oliver was acquitted of having boarded the Danish ship for want of proof, but found guilty of having failed to keep a complete journal of his proceedings. But a further charge was made that Riches caused a case of foreign spirits, which had been taken out of the Danish ship, to be brought ashore from the cutter and taken to his home at Yarmouth without paying the duty thereon. Oliver was also accused of a similar crime with regard to two cases. Riches was acquitted for want of proof of having caused the gin to be taken to his house, but found guilty of having received it, knowing the duty had not been paid. Oliver was also found guilty, and both were accordingly dismissed.
And there was the case of a man named Thomas Rouse, who was accused of having been privy to the landing of a number of large casks of spirits and other goods from a brig then lying off the Watch-house at Folkestone. This was on the night of May 20 and the early hours of May 21, 1806. He was further accused of being either in collusion with the smugglers in that transaction or criminally negligent in not preventing the same. It was still further brought against him that he had not stopped and detained the master of the brig after going on board, although the master was actually pointed out to him by a boat's crew belonging to the Nimble Revenue cutter. Rouse was found guilty of the criminal negligence and ordered to be dismissed. And, in addition, the chief boatmen, five boatmen, and two riding-officers of the Preventive Service at that port were also dismissed for failing to do their utmost to prevent this smuggling, which had, in fact, been done collusively. Those were certainly anxious times for the Customs Commissioners, and we cannot but feel for them in their difficulties. On the one hand, they had to wrestle with an evil that was national in its importance, while on the other they had a service that was anything but incorruptible, and required the utmost vigilance to cause it to be instant in its elementary duties.
One of the reforms recommended towards the end of 1809 had reference to the supply of stores and the building and repairing of Custom House boats in London. The object aimed at was to obtain a more complete check on the quantities and quality of the stores required for cruisers and Preventive boats. And the example of the outports was accordingly adopted that, when articles were required for these craft that were of any value, the Collector and Controller of the particular port first sent estimates to the Board, and permission was not allowed until the Surveyor of Sloops had certified that the estimates were reasonable. Nor were the bills paid until both the commander and mate of the cruiser, or else the Tide Surveyor or the Sitter of the Boat, as the case might be, had certified that the work was properly carried out. And the same rule applied to the supply of cordage and to the carrying out of repairs.
As one looks through the old records of the Custom House one finds that a Revenue officer who was incapable of yielding to bribery, who was incorruptible and vigilant in his duty, possessed both courage and initiative, and was favoured with even moderate luck, could certainly rely on a fair income from his activities. In the year we are speaking of, for instance, Thomas Story, one of the Revenue officers petitioned to be paid his share of the penalty recovered from William Lambert and William Taylor for smuggling, and he was accordingly awarded the sum of £162, 2s. It was at this time also that the salaries of the Collectors, Controllers, and Landing Surveyors of the outports were increased so that the Collectors were to receive not less than £150 per annum, the Controller not less than £120, and the Landing Surveyor not less than £100. And in addition to this, of course, there were their shares in any seizures that might be made. Sometimes, however, the Revenue officers suffered not from negligence but from excess of zeal, as, for instance, on that occasion when they espied a rowing-boat containing a couple of seafaring men approach and land on the beach at Eastbourne. The Revenue officials made quite certain that these were a couple of smugglers and seized their boat. But it was subsequently discovered that they were just two Portuguese sailors who had escaped from Dieppe and rowed all the way across the Channel. The Admiralty interfered in the matter and requested the release of the boat, which was presently made. But two other Revenue officers, named respectively Tahourdin and Savery, in August of 1809 had much better luck when they were able to make a seizure that was highly profitable. We have already referred to the considerable exportation which went on from this country in specie and the national danger which this represented. In the present instance these two officials were able to seize a large quantity of coin consisting of guineas, half guineas, and seven shilling pieces, which were being illegally transported out of the kingdom. When this amount came to be reckoned up it totalled the sum of £10,812, 14s. 6d., so that their share must have run into very high figures.