Smuggling at Minehead

SMUGGLING AT MINEHEAD

The Minehead port area, which stretched from the Devon boundary to Shurton Barrs near Stogursey, was full of small creeks and landing places where goods could be illegally landed. Such goods might be luxuries but were usually basic commodities like salt and soap. Smuggling was not just a question of evading paying duty but also harbour dues for the upkeep of quays, restrictions on foreign imports in war, restrictions on cattle movements during cattle plague and laws against dumping of cheap Irish manufactures. It was not only the government that lost revenue but ordinary working people whose jobs were jeopardised by the import of goods made with cheaper labour elsewhere or who livestock market was ruined. Ironically wealthy families who supported smuggling to obtain luxury goods often, like the Luttrell, owned the quays that lost revenue by smuggling.

COLLUSION

Collusion between local magistrates, excise officers and smugglers was rife in the later 17th century. After his dismissal in 1679 a Minehead Collector claimed to have discovered abuses at the port. In 1682 an investigation discovered abuse in all Somerset ports including Minehead where two officers confessed to smuggling. However, one of the men, who also kept an alehouse, was persuaded to withdraw his confession by Francis Luttrell who promised to keep him in post. Luttrell was reputed to have acquired great wealth by smuggling and was in a position to bribe or intimidate the customs officers.[1]

AN EXCISE CASE

The case of the dismissal of William May, supervisor of the excise at Bridgwater, in 1759 and representations for his reinstatement unearthed a can of worms. His methods of discovering smuggling, especially of tea, were considered unethical but this may have been an excuse to remove him. His work in the ports of Bridgwater, Minehead and Watchet had earned him many enemies locally but also much support including from the Mayor and Corporation of Bridgwater. Manufacturers claimed William May made more seizures than any officer in the previous 26 years.

Many simply wanted all such officers removed so as toprevent interference with their trade, which often included hiding smuggled goods amongst those that were declared. One Thomas Withers of Stogumber,a butcher, was described as a low smuggler who had been provided with a horse and pistols to shoot officers and his wife ran at an officer with a spit when he was searching their house.

However the officers had the support of soapboilers who wanted to stop the smuggling of Irish soap and did not want officers removed. In a petition from Bridgwater petition soapboilers it was stated that ‘Minehead is the fountain that supplies the whole country with Irish soap and most other run’d goods’ but few seizures were made there as the officers of the custom house were ‘as great smugglers as any in the place’ and even sold smuggled Irish soap.

Thomas Withers was said to have planned to plant smuggled goods in Sir Thomas Dyke Acland’s house at Holnicote but May was accused of offering to pay Thomas Withers’ fine if he gave information leading to the discovery of at least 10 dozen of soap or othersmuggled goods.

Not all landowners supported smuggling. Thomas Carew of Crowcombe supported May and tried in vain to get the Commissioners of Excise to reinstate him, saying that great quantities of smuggled soap, brandy and tea were sold from Minehead. John Trevelyan of Nettlecombe wrote to William Pitt saying great quantities of soap, candles, starch and other goods liable to duty were daily smuggled in from Ireland to the prejudice of honest manufacturers and traders who have paid duty and with the loss of about £1,000 a year to government revenues.

Smuggling was said to be rife in the 1750s at Minehead but to have been stopped by 1764![2]

However by the 1800s it was a problem again and seized goods sold at the Customs House in 1804 comprised 2,776 gallons of spirits and wine, 106 lb of black pepper and over 32 tons of salt.[3] The Royal Navy were in the area in 1807 trying to prevent smuggling,[4]

copyright

All rights, including copyright ©, of the content of this document are owned or controlled by the University of London. For further information refer to

Mary SirautPage 1Somerset Reference

[1] Cal. Treas. Bks, 1679—80, 193, 555; VCH Som. II, 261, 325.

[2] SHC, DD/TB 16/11; BL, Add. MS 9293 transcribed in SHC, DD/FA 11/1.

[3] SHC, DD/L 1/5/18.

[4] Nat. Army Museum, 6807/178/106—7.