This precedent opened up an important question; for if a neutral vessel, or indeed any craft similarly circumstanced as the above, were to anchor off the English coast it was hardly possible to detect her in running goods, as it seldom took more than an hour to land a whole cargo, owing to the great assistance which was given from the people on the shore.  For, as it was officially pointed out, as soon as one of these vessels was sighted 300 people could usually be relied on with 200 or more carts and waggons to render the necessary service.  Therefore the commanders of the cutters sought legal advice as to how they should act on meeting with luggers and cutters without Admiralty passes on the English coast but more or less protected with foreign papers and sailing under foreign colours.

The matter was referred to the Attorney-General, who gave his opinion that vessels were forfeitable only in the event of their being the property in whole or part of his Majesty’s subjects; but where the crew of such a vessel appeared all to be English subjects, or at any rate the greatest part of them, it was his opinion that there was a sufficient reason for seizing the vessel if she was near the English coast.  She was then to be brought into port so that, if she could, she might prove that she belonged wholly to foreigners.  “A British subject,” continued the opinion, “being made a burgher of Ostend does not thereby cease to be a subject.  Vessels hovering within four leagues of the British coast, with an illicit cargo, as that of this vessel appears to have been, are forfeited whether they are the property of Britons or foreigners.”

It was not once but on various occasions that the Customs Board expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the amount of success which their cruisers had attained in respect of the work allotted to them.  At the beginning of the year 1782 they referred to “the enormous increase of smuggling, the outrages with which it is carried on, the mischiefs it occasions to the country, the discouragement it creates to all fair traders, and the prodigious loss the Revenue sustains by it.”  The Board went on to state that “diligent and vigorous exertions by the cruising vessels employed in the service of the Customs certainly might very much lessen it.”  The Commissioners expressed themselves as dissatisfied with the lack of success, and ordered that the officers of the Waterguard were especially to see that the commander and mate of every Revenue vessel or boat bringing in a seizure were actually on board when such seizure was made.

A few days later—­the date is January 16, 1788—­the Board, having received information that great quantities of tobacco and spirits were about to be smuggled in from France, Flanders, Guernsey, and Alderney, warned the Preventive officers of the various ports, and directed the commanders of the Admiralty cruisers, which happened to be stationed near the ports, to be especially vigilant to intercept