On
Smugglers, Free Traders and other Fake Heroes...
I
n
the early 'sixties my parents took me to see a film about smuggling.
Dr Syn, alias the Scarecrow was the rousing story of a Kentish
parson who led a double life as a dashing “free trader”. Of
course I was terrified – no surprise there: previously another
Disney film, this time the cartoon 101 Dalmatians, had given
me sleepless nights for a month, (although how anyone can consider
skinning puppies to make a fur coat children’s entertainment is
still beyond me – but I digress). Besides a temporary mistrust of
anyone who sold religion for a living, the film also left me with one
major impression: that smuggling was somehow right, and the
perpetrators brave, resourceful and possibly even romantic heroes who
could only be admired. Taxes are, after all, inherently unfair and
anyone who evades them is doing a good job, and should be encouraged.

Today most of us
grudgingly accept that some degree of taxation is necessary, but the
levels to which levies rose during the turn of the nineteenth century
was really quite excessive. And not only were the rates high, so many
seemingly random items became affected, from playing cards to hair
powder; even such basic essentials as light and air, as demonstrated
by the Window Tax (1696-1851), cost money to enjoy.
The
revenue raised was partially used to fund a succession of wars. Some
carried public support but, whether approved of or not, there was no
choice when it came to paying for, or fighting them. Taxation also
financed the monarchy and at a time when France was busy executing
their royal family, this might have been a dangerous move. However,
despite many attributes that might have made him less so, George III
remained popular with Britain's tax payers. Once, on a trip to the
South Coast, he was even followed by a crowd continually singing God
Save the King. But with taxes so high and pretty much universal,
who could blame anyone if they evaded a little duty now and then? And
inevitably the folk who made such deception possible – initially
fishermen looking to earn more on the side – found themselves held
in high regard and even affection by the many who benefited from
their exploits.
Unfortunately it did
not end there. During the Golden Age of Smuggling (roughly 1750 –
1830) organised gangs, similar to that of the fictitious clergyman's,
began to appear. A few might have been founded on purely altruistic
lines, providing a public service at negligible gain, but most were
far more greedy and quickly grew rich from the high profits
available. With wealth came power and even status – the latter
heightened by contact with prominent people in the local community
who frequently supported smuggling, both as customers and backers.
It soon became
apparent that the activity took place at little personal risk.
Statistically a smuggler was more likely to be shipwrecked than
caught by the impressment men while the financiers (or “venturers”,
as they were known) were almost totally safe, and had the added bonus
of access to a regular supply of highly taxed or unavailable items
for their own use. Were a gang member captured, influence could be
usually brought to bear on a magistrate, whilst few local juries
would convict for fear of repercussions. Of course some were caught
and convicted; a few hanged, their bodies later to be gibbeted as a
stern warning, but most suffered nothing worse than a fine, while
more than a few found themselves in the Navy, where they usually
prospered remarkably well.

From just before the
turn of the nineteenth century gold attracted a high premium on the
continent, leading to the creation of a special type of smuggling
craft. Guinea Boats were large, oared vessels that could quickly
cross the Channel, often being rowed directly into the wind to evade
pursuit by sail. Quick and cheap to make, they could be abandoned
after one trip; the profits achieved more than offsetting
construction costs. The nett result of this activity was upwards of
£10,000 a week being delivered to directly to the French, just at a
time when Britain was bracing itself for defeat.

Poorly equipped and
heavily outnumbered, the Customs and Excise services (both separate,
and often competing bodies at that time) fought a desperate battle.
There were successes, such as when the notorious Hawkhurst gang was
finally defeated, but rather more failures, all too frequently
brought about by the corruption that even infiltrated the preventive
forces themselves. In fact it was not until a lasting peace with
France was finally achieved, taxes reduced, and the revenue service
started to be properly manned and funded, that any reasonable control
could be exerted on what had become a major industry.
And as for those
dashing characters who fought so bravely against the spoilsport
revenue officers: the local heroes who brought wickedly expensive
items into the reach of the working man – they might have appeared
like latter-day Robin Hoods, but in reality were nothing more than
treacherous criminals. Forget any impressions of valour or romance,
few were adverse to any form of crime if it produced a profit and
their activities caused untold damage to both the morale and economy
of a country that was deep in the miseries of war. Smugglers might
have been bold, and even enterprising, but as heroes they deserve a
place slightly behind the likes of Cruella de Vil.
My new novel, Turn a
Blind Eye explores the effect of smuggling on a small British
community during the turn of the nineteenth century.
I appreciated your information about smugglers and their trade, as I had recently been involved (in a writerly fashion) in the free trade facilities offered in some ports in the 1800s and the blatant smuggling carried out at others. It's a great subject and makes good reading.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear, Margaret. One of the sad aspects of finishing a book is leaving your research - if you need any material or resources, just let me know.
ReplyDeleteNot as bad as Cruella de Vil, I hope :) Entertaining read. I rather like the idea of dashing smugglers, but I guess you're right; criminals the lot of them!
ReplyDeleteWhat a fantastic Voyage this Blog Hop has been! The third part of my Blog Hop article is now up - please do share in this final phase of the Nautical On Line Voyage http://ofhistoryandkings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/weigh-anchor-nautical-blog-hop.html
ReplyDeleteAnd...
Thank you to all who participated, authors and visitors alike. The Voyage has been wonderful!
A great post about the period after that of which I am writing about. The point I would take an issue with however is your assertion that Organised gangs appeared only after 1750. In fact, The period before 1750 was a greater "golden age" with many organised gangs. Gabriel Tomkin's Mayfield and Groombridge gangs, The Wingham gang, Jack Dymer's Chichester men and above all, the greatest (and my subject matter) Grey and Kingsmill's Hawkhurst Gang. Organisation, support etc for all these were given by landowners with Jacobite sympathies, and the money trail for what they bought from the continent led back to the Jacobins and the 1745 invasions. The 1750 Hanging of Kingsmill etc really brought a curtain down on this first Golden age, (as did a reduction in the tea taxes). The Free Trade did not pick up again to these levels until after taxes had been raised again to pay for more wars against the French.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the pre 1750's, this time, the revenue were better organised.
Hi Andy
ReplyDeleteYes, I take your point, I suppose you could say there were two golden ages; I'm obviously centring on the latter, as it is more in my period. The revenue may well have been better organised, but still rarely a match for a determined gang.