The facts of this case may be summarised as follows. On Sunday afternoon, the 17th of February 1833, the Revenue cutter Lively was cruising at the back of the Goodwins, when about three o'clock she descried a vessel about five or six miles off which somehow aroused suspicions. The name of the latter was eventually found to be the Admiral Hood. At this time the sloop was about midway between England and France, her commander being Lieutenant James Sharnbler, R.N. The Admiral Hood was a small dandy-rigged fore-and-after, that is to say, she was a cutter with a small mizzen on which she would set a lugsail. The Lively gave chase, and gradually began to gain on the other. When the Admiral Hood was within about a mile of the Lively, the former hauled across the latter, and when she had got on the Lively's weather-bow the Revenue craft immediately tacked, whereupon the Admiral Hood put about again and headed for the French coast. After vainly attempting to cause her to heave-to by the usual Revenue signals, the Lively was compelled to fire on her, and one shot was so well placed that it went clean through the dandy's sail, and thinking that this was quite near enough the Admiral Hood hove-to.
But just prior to this, Lieutenant Sharnbler had ordered an officer and two men to take spyglasses and watch her. At this time they were about fifteen or sixteen miles away from the North Foreland. One of the men looking through his glass observed that the Admiral Hood was heaving tubs overboard, and it was then that the first musket was fired for her to heave-to, but as the tubs were still thrown overboard for the next three-quarters of an hour, the long gun and the muskets were directed towards her. The two vessels had sailed on parallel lines for a good hour's chase before the firing began, and the chase went on till about a quarter to five, the tide at this time ebbing to the westward and a fine strong sailing breeze. There was no doubt at all now that she was a smuggler, for one of the Lively's crew distinctly saw a man standing in the Admiral Hood's hatchway taking tubs and depositing them on deck, whilst some one else was taking them from the deck and heaving them overboard, the tubs being painted a dark green so as to resemble the colour of the waves. As the Lively came ramping on, she found numbers of these tubs in the wake of the Admiral Hood, and lowered a boat to pick them up, and about twenty-two were found a hundred yards from the smuggler, and the Lively also threw out a mark-buoy to locate two other tubs which they passed. And, inasmuch as there was no other vessel within six miles distance, the Admiral Hood beyond a shadow of doubt was carrying contraband.
"The Admiral Hood was heaving tubs overboard."[ToList]
After the vessel was at length hove-to, she was seized and ultimately taken into Rochester, and information was duly laid against the persons who had been engaged in this smuggling adventure. But it is here that Sir William Courtenay comes into the story. This gentleman, who had his seat at Powderham Castle, Devon, came forward and swore positively that the tubs, which the Lively was supposed to have picked up, had been seen floating off the coast. He himself was staying on a visit to Canterbury, and on that Sunday afternoon happened to be sailing about off the Kentish coast, and sighted the Lively about two o'clock. He kept her in sight, he said, until four o'clock. He also saw the Admiral Hood, and witnessed her being chased by the Lively, but he had seen the tubs for most of the day, as they had come up with the tide from the westward. With his own eyes, and not through a spy-glass, he witnessed the Admiral Hood being captured by the cruiser, and followed up this evidence by remarking that "the tubs I saw picked up did not come out of the Lord Hood. I say so sterling and plump."
This was exactly the reverse of the testimony as given by the crew of the Lively, so it was evident that some one was lying. But to make a long story short, it was afterwards found that Sir William was not only not afloat that afternoon, did not see the tubs, did not see the two crafts, but was miles away from the scene, and at the time of the chase was in church. He was accordingly brought for trial, found guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned for three calendar months, and after the expiration of this, he was to be "transported to such a place beyond the seas as his Majesty may direct, for the term of seven years."
He was convicted on unmistakable testimony of having committed perjury; in fact, Mr. Justice Parke, in giving judgment at the time, remarked that it was the clearest evidence in a perjury case that had ever fallen to his lot to try. As to the motive, it was thought that it was done solely with a desire to obtain a certain amount of popularity among the smugglers. Sir William saw that the case would go against the latter unless some one could give evidence for their side. Therefore, abusing his own position and standing, he came forward and perjured himself. It is a curious case, but in the history of crime there is more than one instance of personal pride and vanity being at the root of wrong-doing.