King's Cutters and Smugglers 1700-1855

by E. Keble Chatterton

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 scrapers 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.

But apart from all the manifold difficulties and anxieties, both general and detailed, which arose in connection with these cruisers so long as they were at sea or in the shipwrights' hands, in commission or out of commission, there were others which applied more strictly to their crews. Such an incident as occurred in the year 1785 needed very close attention. In that year the English Ambassador at the Court of France had been informed by Monsieur de Vergennes that parties of sailors belonging to our Revenue cruisers had recently landed near Boulogne in pursuit of some smugglers who had taken to the shore. Monsieur de Vergennes added that if any British sailors or other armed men should be taken in such acts of violence the French Government would unhesitatingly sentence them immediately to be hanged.

Of course the French Government were well within their rights in making such representations, for natural enough as no doubt it was to chase the smugglers when they escaped ashore, yet the trespass was indefensible. The Board of Customs therefore instructed their cruisers, as well as those of the Admiralty "whose commanders are furnished with commissions from this Board," to make a note of the matter, in order that neither they nor their men might inadvertently expose themselves to the severity denounced against them by the French laws upon acts of the like nature.

In 1812 one of the mariners belonging to a cruiser happened to go ashore, and whilst there was seized by the press-gang for his Majesty's Navy. Such an occurrence as this was highly inconvenient not only to the man but to the Board of Customs, who resolved that henceforth the commanders of cruisers were not to allow any of their mariners shore leave unless in case of absolute necessity "until the protections which may be applied for shall have been received and in possession of such mariners."

Another matter that required rectification was the practice of taking on board some of their friends and relatives who had no right to be there. Whether this was done for pleasure or profit the carrying of these passengers was deemed to be to the great detriment of the service, and the Board put a stop to it. It was not merely confined to the cruisers, but the boats and galleys of the Waterguard were just as badly abused. The one exception allowed was, that when officers of the Waterguard were removing from one station to another, they might use such a boat to convey their families with them provided it did not interfere with the duties of these officers. So also some of the commanders of the cruisers had even taken on board apprentices and been dishonest enough to have them borne on the books as able seamen, and drawn their pay as such. The Board not unnaturally deemed this practice highly improper, and immediately to be discontinued. No apprentices were to be borne on the books except the boy allowed to all cruisers.

After a smuggling vessel's cargo had been seized and it was decided to send the goods to London, this was done by placing the tobacco, spirits, &c., in a suitable coaster and despatching her to the Thames. But in order to prevent her being attacked on the sea by would-be rescuers she was ordered to be convoyed by the Revenue cutters. The commander of whatever cruiser was in the neighbourhood was ordered "to accompany and guard" her to the Nore or Sea Reach as the case might be. Every quarter the cruisers were also to send a list of the seizures made, giving particulars of the cruiser—her name, burthen, number of guns, number of men, commander's name, number of days at sea during that quarter, how many days spent in port and why, the quantity of goods and nature of each seizure, the number and names of all smuggling vessels captured, both when and where. There was also to be sent the number of men who had been detained, how they had been disposed of, and if the men had not been detained how it was they had escaped.

"Their Lordships are induced to call for these returns," ran the instruction, "in order to have before them, quarterly, a comparative view of the exertions of the several commanders of the Revenue cruisers.... They have determined, as a further inducement to diligence and activity in the said officers, to grant a reward of £500 to the commander of the Revenue cruiser who, in the course of the year ending 1st October 1808, shall have so secured and delivered over to his Majesty's Naval Service the greatest number of smugglers; a reward of £300 to the commander who shall have secured and delivered over the next greatest number, and a reward of £200 to the commander who shall be third on the list in those respects." That was in September of 1887.

During the year ending October 1, 1810, Captain Gunthorpe, commander of the Excise cutter Viper, succeeded in handing over to his Majesty's Navy thirteen smugglers whom he had seized. As this was the highest number for that year he thus became entitled to the premium of £500. Captains Curling and Dobbin, two Revenue officers, were together concerned in transferring six men to the Navy, but inasmuch as Captain Patmour had been able to transfer five men during this same year it was he to whom the £300 were awarded. Captain Morgan of the Excise cutter and Captain Haddock of the Custom House cutter Stag each transferred four men during that year.

"But my Lords," states a Treasury minute of December 13, 1811, "understanding that the nature of the service at Deal frequently requires the Revenue vessels to co-operate with each other, do not think it equitable that such a circumstance should deprive Messrs. Curling and Dobbin of a fair remuneration for their diligence, and are therefore pleased to direct warrants likewise to be prepared granting to each of those gentlemen the sum of £100." In spite of the above numbers, however, the Treasury were not satisfied, and did not think that the number of men by this means transferred to the Navy had been at all proportionate to the encouragement which they had held out. They therefore altered the previous arrangement so as to embrace those cases only in which the exertions of the cruisers' commanders had been of an exceptionally distinguished nature. Thus during 1812 and the succeeding years, until some further provision might be made, it was decided that "the sum of £500 will be paid to such person commanding a Revenue cutter as shall in any one year transfer to the Navy the greatest number of smugglers, not being less than twenty." The sum of £300 was to be paid to the persons commanding a Revenue cutter who in any year should transfer the next greatest number of smugglers, not being less than fifteen. And £200 were to be paid to the commander who in one year should have transferred the third largest, not being less than ten. This decision was made in January of 1812, and in the following year it was directed that in future the rewards granted to the commanders of the Revenue cruisers for delivering the greatest number of smugglers should be made not exclusively to the commanders but distributed among the commander, officers, and crew according to the scale which has already been given on an earlier page in this volume. At the end of the year 1813 it was further decided that when vessels and boats of above four tons measurement were seized in ballast and afterwards broken up, not owing to their build, their construction, or their denomination, but simply because they had been engaged in smuggling, the seizing officers should become entitled to 30s. a ton.