A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



and masters of merchantmen for goods of different values. 1 If an officer could neither be bribed 

 nor terrorized the ruffians who feared him did not hesitate at torture or murder ; in 1727 they caught 

 one such near Snape and cut off his nose. 2 In July, 1732, the Customs Commissioners represented 

 to the Treasury the excessive smuggling in Suffolk and asked that more cavalry should be stationed 

 round the coast to assist the officers. By way of emphasizing their request the comptroller at 

 Southwold reported a desperate fight by his men with a gang of forty smugglers. 3 Two years later 

 Mr. Walter Plummer, member for Appleby, told the House that he had recently been in Suffolk, 

 where the smugglers rode about forty or fifty strong, ' and give such excessive wages to the men 

 that will engage with them that the landed interest suffers considerably by it.' 4 While waiting for 

 the smuggling vessel a labourer would receive 2s. 6d. a day, and a guinea a day while running the 

 cargo inland. 8 It was no wonder that, compared with the eighteenpence a day they could earn on 

 the land, the lavish pay of the smugglers brought the farm hands down in crowds to help. It was 

 noticed publicly in 1735 that the customs officers in Norfolk and Suffolk had given up the struggle 

 and ran away when they met a gang, 6 but the official papers give us the same information two years 

 earlier. 7 At Ipswich, in 1733, the smugglerswere ' very numerous and so insolent in the town and 

 country that they bid defiance to the officers and threaten their lives.' One smuggler passing 

 through Ipswich, on his way to London to give information, was murdered there in December. 



Ill-considered legislation was all in favour of the smugglers ; the customs officers, afloat or 

 ashore, were not entitled to any pensions for themselves or their families if disabled or killed, so that 

 they had every inducement to save their lives. By law a captured smuggling vessel should be burnt, 

 therefore when taken at sea it was more profitable to the captors to remove the cargo and receive a 

 gratuity to let the vessel escape. Later yet, the law made it more advantageous to the revenue 

 officers to take only part of the cargo and save themselves the trouble and risk of prosecution which 

 had to be carried on at their own expense. In time of war Suffolk smuggling became even more 

 frequent than during peace because, although somewhat farther than Kent or Sussex from the ports 

 of embarkation, it was less covered by men-of-war. During hostilities there was usually more or 

 less fear of invasion in Kent and Sussex ; consequently the south-eastern coast was always vigilantly 

 watched by small war vessels who, although not averse from running goods for themselves, could 

 not be trusted to deal kindly with business rivals. Nor, either then or much later, were they very 

 eager to help anywhere. Captain Chamier relates that while cruising between Orfordness and 

 Yarmouth he brought-to a smuggler in bad weather. The smuggler took his chance and the 

 opportunity of a squall to run ashore at Lowestoft, where he landed his cargo but lost his vessel and 

 two lives. As for Chamier, ' I took the liberty of going to bed again and allowing my friend to 

 make the best use he could of his local knowledge.' 8 



In 1745 war existed with France and Spain ; invasion by the former was anticipated, and the 

 revenue boats were taken off their stations and collected at the Nore to act as tenders to the 

 squadron assembled there for the protection of the east coast. In view of the free hand thus afforded 

 it is not surprising to find Suffolk more prominent than ever in the daily record of smuggling. In 

 November Admiral Vernon and Mr. Sparrow of Ipswich wrote to the Secretary of the Admiralty 

 about the ' numbers and insolence ' of the smugglers and, writing with Sparrow, Vernon may be 

 presumed to have referred to Suffolk as well as to his immediate station in Kent. The Admiralty 

 sent on this letter to the Treasury, who replied rather hopelessly that if the Admiralty could suggest 

 any fresh remedies they should be adopted. 9 Sparrow, at any rate, may have been thinking of a case 

 that had just happened at Beccles, where a man the smugglers had reason to dislike had been taken 

 from his bed, whipped, and then abducted. It was estimated that during the second six months of 

 1745, there had been 4,551 horseloads run in Suffolk, 10 and it was proposed, without apparently any 

 appreciation of the whimsical side of the suggestion, to form an association of which the members 

 should bind themselves to buy nothing of smugglers ' without real necessity.' r Between 1 1 and 

 31 July, 1745, three cargoes were run at Benacre, and two at Kessingland, the customs officers 

 being present but afraid to interfere. In 1741, however, one smuggler was hanged at Ipswich for 

 the murder of an officer of the town who had arrested him. In part from sympathy, and in part 

 from fear, juries rarely convicted a smuggler accused of injuring or killing a customs officer, but their 

 interest in their own safety may have been more keenly excited when ordinary town officials were 

 victims. Another reason why smugglers got off and prosecutions were compounded may be found 

 in applications from voters ' who cannot be refused.' 



In 1780 there were two revenue cruisers attached to Harwich and one to Yarmouth, the next 

 station north being Boston. The Harwich vessels also worked to the south, therefore this was a 



1 Treas. Papers, ccxl. 8 1. * Ibid, cclxi. 7. 



* Treas. Papers and Bks. cclxxix, 62, 77. * Gent. Mag. July, 1734. 



4 The duty on tea was then 4*. yd. a pound, while the smugglers bought it in Holland at 2t. 

 ' Gent. Mag, 21 August, 1735. ' Treas. Bd. Papers, cclxxxviii, 53. 



* Chamier, Life of a Sat/or, ii, 255. ' Treas. Min. Bks. 19 Nov. 1745. 

 " Gent. Mag. " Ibid. 1746, p. 615. 



236 



