Piracy
and smuggling
are both professions that date back to
ancient times. Contraband trade cropped up once
governments decided to
regulate
and tax consumable and luxury goods, for the imposed
tariffs increased
their
prices. For example, the British Parliament raised these
duty taxes to
finance
the War
of
Jenkins’ Ear (1739-1748), the War
of
the Austrian Succession
(1740-1748),
the Seven
Years’ War
(1756-1763), and the American
Revolution
(1775-1783).
Although consumers still wanted these goods, many could no
longer
afford them.1
Smugglers circumvented legal trade channels to provide
these products
at cheaper
prices, because no taxes inflated their cost or because
the items were
illegal
(banned from importation perhaps because of a war or an
embargo). Those
who
participated in smuggling, either directly or indirectly,
came from all
walks
of life and all occupations. Although smuggling occurred
around the
world, our
focus here is predominantly on England,
where the heyday of the
smuggler lasted
from the later decades of the seventeenth century into the
mid-nineteenth
century.
Each
tradesman smuggled or dealt in smuggled goods; each
public-house was
supported
by smugglers . . . each country gentleman . . . dabbled
a little in the
interesting traffic; almost every magistrate shared in
the proceeds or
partook
of the commodities. – G. P. R. James, a
nineteenth-century
historian
(Karras, 5)
Earlier in England,
practitioners of this illicit occupation
dealt in the smuggling of exports, taking goods from
within to markets
outside
their own country. For example, before and during the
Tudor period, the
government prohibited the exportation of wool because it
wanted to
bolster
weaving within the realm. In spite of these restrictions,
a large
percentage of
raw English wool found its way to Dutch and French
markets, and the
principal
suppliers were the “owlers” of Romney
Marsh.2
Illicit trade played a vital role in the British
economy as
a result of the Trade
and
Navigation Acts parliament passed. Smugglers
were
found in almost any coastal region, but Boston, New York,
Philadelphia,
London,
Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, Port Royal, Cork, Newport,
and the Isle of
Man
were particularly popular. Rather than pay steep tariffs
on items,
merchants
and buyers turned to smugglers and pirates to provide
needed and luxury
goods,
especially those from countries other than England. Laws
and edicts
dictated
that only Spanish ships could provide that country’s
colonists with
trade goods
in the New World, but the people rarely received what was
needed or
desired,
sometimes waiting one to three years for supply ships to
arrive. As a
result,
they purchased the plunder of French, English, and Dutch
pirates,
privateers, and
smugglers, who brought the items ashore in sheltered coves
and
displayed their
wares on makeshift tables, while the officers and crew
provided
protection and
hospitality.3
The Spaniards called this type of trade rescate,
which
referred to bartered,
ransomed, and traded goods. Payment for the contraband was
made in cash
or kind
only. Those colonists who participated in these
transactions knew what
they did
was wrong, but followed the saying Obedesio
pero non cumplo – I obey but I do not comply.
What smugglers offered for sale depended on the region
in
which they conducted their business and the needs of their
clientele.
Among the
contraband offered for sale in Puerto
Rico
were slaves, fine cloth, linens, dry goods, soap, wax, and
mercury.
Among the favored
goods that found their way into British markets were
silks, lace, tea,
brandy,
wine, and cinnamon. Leeches were popular “imports” in the
1840s in the
Strait
of Gibraltar. Moroccan officials at Tangier discovered
24,000 leeches
aboard a
Spanish falucha in 1847.
The general rule of thumb was if a product was taxed,
it was
potentially an item to be smuggled. One of the most
popular commodities
sold in
Britain and her colonies around 1740 was tea. For every
pound sold, the
government collected a tax of four shillings, a steep
price for the
poor to pay.
That’s why tea became a favorite product of smugglers, as
did many
items from
the East Indies. English smugglers purchased tea in the
Netherlands for
two
shillings a pound then sold it to their fellow countrymen
for five to
seven
shillings, a price cheaper than legitimate merchants
offered, for they
usually sold
tea for eight to ten shillings per pound. The tariffs on
tea added from
sixty-five to 119 percent to the initial cost of the
beverage. The 1794
tax on
tobacco was five times the value of the crop.
French brandy was also popular. It came in either a tub
or a
half-anker (equivalent to four gallons) and cost as little
as sixteen
shillings. The smuggler sold a tub of brandy for
twenty-five shillings,
whereas
if purchased legally, the consumer paid eight shillings a
gallon or
thirty-two
shillings a tub. Rum cost five shillings a gallon, but
once the tariff
was
imposed, the cheapest it could be had for was eight
shillings six
pence. Port
and sherry cost two shillings six pence a gallon before
importation,
but
afterward the cost was at least four shillings.
Not all smuggled goods were sold to customers. A small
portion of the contraband found its way into the homes of
people who
assisted
the smugglers. James Woodforde, a parson, kept a detailed
journal of
daily life
in Weston Longville. On March 1777, he wrote:
Andrews
the smuggler brought me this night about 11 o’clock a
bag of Hyson Tea
6 Pd
weight. He frightened us a little by whistling under the
parlour window
just as
we were going to bed. I gave him some Geneva and paid
for the tea at
10/6 a Pd.
(Platt, 21)
Just who might that smuggler be in real life? The
records of
tried smuggling cases in Dorset
reveal that the
accused were a:
quarryman,
dressmaker, tin-plate worker, ferryman, laborer, cooper,
needlewoman,
butcher,
flax dresser, innkeeper, chairwoman, pig jobber, miller,
shoemaker,
twine
spinner, fell-monger, and bricklayer. While this list
included women,
females
were always based on the land side of the operation as
opposed to being
on a
vessel. If they didn’t sell, transport, or hide the
smuggled goods,
they
provided protection, alibis, or assistance to those who
did.
Cornwall,
England was a notorious smuggling center in the
eighteenth century. Most contraband brought ashore went to
local
markets, but
elsewhere in southern England, smuggling
was comprised of complex
networks that
permitted the illicit goods to reach more distant markets,
including
London. Regular
convoys of carts and pack horses journeyed at night
accompanied by
hired thugs
for protection.
Interference from revenue agents was rare. In Cornwall
most smugglers
were fishermen by trade. They were considered too poor to
pay the fines
associated with prosecution or too old to be impressed
into the Royal
Navy if
convicted. Elsewhere, gangs did the smuggling and their
members often
outnumbered
the officers and were better armed. Thus agents preferred
to watch the
criminal
activities from a distance, rather than face humiliation.
In June 1744,
customs
officers stationed at Eastbourne received word of
smugglers near
Pevensey. They
set off with five dragoons to capture the criminals, but
found
themselves
prisoners instead. Following a brief skirmish where shots
were fired
and swords
were crossed, the hundred smugglers quickly overwhelmed
the agents and
officers. The smugglers loaded their contraband onto their
horses and
departed.
Such confrontations, however, were rare. In Britain the
worst penalty a smuggler could receive if caught was the
loss of his
ship and
her cargo. Then parliament enacted the Smugglers Act of
1736 to curtail
the illicit
trade. If a revenuer was wounded or if the smugglers used
arms against
him and
were caught, the court was entitled to impose the death
penalty.
Resisters who
didn’t use weapons could be transported, sentenced to hard
labor,
whipped, or
pressed into the Royal Navy. This was one reason why
smugglers
refrained from
violence and worked clandestinely to accomplish their
objectives. This
differentiated them from pirates, who either threatened to
hurt or
inflicted
brutality on their victims to obtain the plunder.
Smugglers, either on a
vessel or on shore, weren’t usually
the major players in this shadowy business. Those tended
to be highly
organized
“operators,” who often had some standing in their
communities. They
didn’t see
themselves as criminals, but considered themselves good
citizens
providing a
much-needed service to the public. An operator, who could
be either
male or
female, always took into account the amount of risk in a
venture before
setting
it into motion. He often had an “investor,” someone who
remained in the
shadows
and fronted the necessary funds for the scheme to go
forward. This
silent
partner was often a man or woman of wealth whose
reputation was beyond
reproach
– the least likely person in a community to be in league
with smugglers
– and the
operator made certain this person’s identity remained
hidden.
His contacts in the country or countries from which he
imported goods secured the desired contraband. He also
owned, or had
access to,
a boat to transport his cargo. He relied on a lander, a
person who
handled
contraband once it was delivered ashore. Half of those in
his employ,
often
numbering more than 200, offloaded the cargo, stowed it,
and led the
pack
animals and/or wagons along the route to the distribution
point.4
The rest of his men, known as batsmen, flanked the landing
site and
caravan.
Their only purpose was to protect the contraband from
revenuers. They
usually
carried cudgels, although many also had pistols.
Few smuggling ventures would have succeeded if the
operators
and landers lacked the support of the locals. Villagers,
both along the
shore
and inland, provided transportation to convey the
contraband to market
and hiding
places to store it. In 1799 George Lipcomb described an
encounter with
several
such women.
We
met several females, whose appearance was so grotesque
and
extraordinary, that
I could not imagine, in what manner they had contrived
to alter their
natural
shapes so completely; till, upon enquiry, we found that
they were
smugglers of
spirituous liquors; which they were at that time
conveying from their
Cutter to
Plymouth, by means of bladders fastened under their
petticoats; and,
indeed
they were so heavily laden, that it was with great
apparent difficulty
they
waddled along. (Karras, 21)
Villagers also warned smugglers about the movements of
the
customs officers. Few citizens opted to inform on their
fellow
countrymen.
English smugglers either ran their vessels aground to
unload, or anchored offshore and ferried the cargo on
smaller boats,
sometimes
called “tub-boats” because the smuggled product was often
alcohol
stored in
tubs. Both methods took time, which increased the risk of
detection.
Eventually,
smugglers created another means of delivering cargo that
involved less
risk.
The tubs were tied together and weighted with sinking
stones, then
dumped
overboard at a pre-arranged location just offshore. While
the
contraband sank,
the end of the line bobbed on or close to the surface
where someone,
who knew
to look for it, could easily spot it. Boats, disguised as
fishing
vessels,
recovered the tubs whenever it suited. This was known as
“sowing the
crop,” and
was used more frequently after the Napoleonic
Wars. Another method
involved
lashing the tubs together to form a pyramid, which would
“float low in
the
water and [was] anchored to the sea-bed by a grapnel.”
(Phillipson, 62)
The
pyramid was painted a sea-green color, while the top tubs
were painted
white.
This made them almost invisible in choppy water.
There were five ways to signal a boat that it was safe
to
offload
her smuggled cargo. At night someone stood on a hill, in a
cave, or at
another
prominent landmark and waved a lantern visible only to
those at sea. Or
he might
ignite a straw bundle near the edge of a cliff overlooking
the water.
He could
burn a blue light or fire a pistol. In daylight hours, the
lander might
display
a pre-arranged signal flag at a mill. The warning was
visible to those
at sea,
but didn’t interfere with the miller’s work. As one
witness testified:
The
master-smugglers contract for the goods, either abroad,
or with the
master of a
cutter which fetches them . . . and the captain of the
cutter fixes a
time and
a place where he designs to land, and seldom or never
fails, being
pretty
punctual as to the time, if the weather permits, as the
master-smugglers cannot
fetch all the goods themselves, so they hire men whom
they call
‘riders’, and
they allow each man half a guinea a journey, and bear
all expenses of
eating
and drinking, and horse, and allowance of a dollop of
tea, which is
forty
pounds weight, being half of a bag, the profit of which
dollop, even of
the
most ordinary sort, is worth more than a guinea, and
some 25s, and some
more;
and they always make one journey, sometimes two, and
sometimes three in
a week,
which is indeed such a temptation that very few people
in the country
can
withstand, and which has been the cause of so many
turning.5
(Phillipson, 25)
The citizenry might find smuggling tolerable, but not
so the
government. Unpaid tariffs meant less money in royal or
national
coffers. Jean
Laffite, who history has labeled as either a pirate
or a privateer,
was
a
smuggler in the early 1800s. He offered the people of New
Orleans
needed commodities
(such as slaves and cinnamon) at cheaper prices than
regular merchants
did.6
While the Creoles saw smuggling as an acceptable part of
their everyday
lives,
the American government did not, and Governor
William
C. C. Claiborne
attempted
numerous times to deal with the problem.
With smuggling so popular in some English counties and
so
many people involved in such operations, a revenue agent
was often seen
as the
guilty party, especially if a smuggler was killed in the
confrontation.
While
arguing as to whether or not to pass the Smuggling Bill of
1736,
members of
parliament heard this testimony:
In
some parts of the maritime counties the whole people are
so generally
engaged
in smuggling that it is impossible to find a jury that
will, upon
trial, do
justice to an officer of the revenue in any case
whatever. In those
counties
where smuggling has become general, the majority of the
coroner’s
inquests
always consist of smugglers, so that it has been found
by experience
that these
inquests always bring the officer and his assistants in
guilty of
murder, even
though it be made clearly to appear, by the most
undoubted testimonies,
that
the killing happened ‘de defendendo.’7
(Phillipson, 28)
Revenuers received good salaries, and many men applied
for
the positions.8
When contraband was confiscated, the officer
received a reward on top of his yearly salary of £30 to
£40. In 1786 those
agents who captured tea on which no duties had been paid
were awarded
more than
£3,000, but that reward amount was a rarity. By 1820 a
revenuer
also received a
pension.
These agents didn’t just patrol on land. A few were
present
on the eight revenue cutters that guarded the British
coastline from
North
Foreland to the Bristol Channel in 1703.9
Until
the mid 1700s, the
government contracted with private ships to patrol coastal
waters.
These
contractors received half the profits realized from the
sale of
confiscated
cargo. The other half went into the royal treasury. The
crews of such
boats
consisted of a master, one or two mates, and seamen (the
number varied
according to the vessel’s size), one of whom was chosen to
act as the
customs
officer. This gave him the right to legally detain and
search a ship
and seize any
contraband. After 1816 most revenue cutters sailed under
the command of
a
lieutenant in the Royal Navy because there were too many
officers to
man the
regular fleet.
In 1783 William
Pitt
the Younger became Prime Minister of
the United Kingdom. He felt the best way to curb smuggling
was to lower
the
duties paid on goods. The following year he reduced the
tariff on tea
from 119%
to 12 1/2%. This policy of reduction would continue into
the next
century until
the 1840s when Britain instituted free trade, which
drastically reduced
the
duties assessed on imports. Sir
Robert
Peel, who became Prime Minister
in 1841
eliminated tariffs on more than 600 products while
decreasing those
added to
many others. He did this at a time when the nation’s
coffers were
nearly
bankrupt, but realized this was the best way to curb
smuggling. To
compensate
for the loss of revenue, he instituted the income tax.
Although illegal
contraband still continued to enter the country, it had a
far less
impact on
the economy and citizens changed how they viewed the
smuggler.
With
the reduction of duties and the removal of all needless
and vexatious
restrictions, smuggling has greatly diminished and the
public
sentiments with
regard to it have undergone a very creditable change. The
smuggler’s no
longer
an object of public sympathy, or a hero of romance, and
people are
beginning to
awake to the perception of the fact that the offence is
less a fraud on
the Revenue
than a robbery of the fair trades. (Smith, 26)
Pirates
and Privateers