pprehension of those persons who had
been concerned in smuggling, no one had come forward to give
information for the reason that, even if he would, he dared not. And
so fascinating was the call of smuggling, that although there were
those who had willingly embraced the pardon granted them by the recent
Act, forsaken this illegal trade and settled down on farms or devoted
themselves to other occupations which were within the law, yet there
were many others who had returned to their former practices.

After accumulating this evidence, the Committee issued their first
report on March 24, 1745, and expressed themselves of the opinion that
the high duties charged on tea and other commodities had certainly
been one cause of smuggling. But they also added that the exposing for
sale of those boats and vessels which had been seized from the
smugglers was certainly another potent reason, for these craft were
frequently bought back by the men; they therefore recommended that all
captured craft should be burned. Furthermore, the Commission condemned
the custom of allowing penalties to be compounded so easily. As an
instance of this last-mentioned custom we might call attention to
three smugglers belonging to the county of Hampshire. There is a
reference to them in the Southampton Letters under date of April 28,
1730, from which it appears that Matthew Barton, John Gibort, and
William Moadon of Fordingbridge were under prosecution for running
goods ashore. They subsequently offered to compound for the said
offence on the following terms: Barton to pay the sum of L35, Gibort
to pay L25, and Moadon L15. But before allowing the matter to be
settled straight away the Collector and Comptroller at Southampton
were ordered to look carefully into the affair and to inquire what
these men were generally esteemed to be worth.

CHAPTER IV

THE SMUGGLERS' METHODS

It was not till June of 1746 that the Committee issued their second
report, and the evidence therein contained is even more interesting to
us than any which had hitherto been given. After the Solicitor to the
Commissioners had shown how biassed juries frequently were towards
prisoners brought up on charges connected with smuggling, how they
declined to bring in a verdict against them even in spite of the
clearest of evidence, another official (the Surveyor of the Searchers
in the Port of London) stated that when he had received information
that there had been a run of goo