Cowes Letter Collector to Board 1902 - 1905A partial transcription from the Book held in the National Archives reference CUST61/68 Transcribed entries are in Black, entries in Blue relate to other material included the Book, which has not specifically been transcribed. Uncertain wording is in italics. Unless otherwise stated the Letters are signed by Collector, A H Drumgoole.
17 October 1902 Collector granted increment from £340 to £355 from 1 January 1903.
17 December 1902 The enclosed application by the Vice Consul for Sweden and Norway at this port is made by him on behalf of the Master of the “Helios” of Sweden whose request for the issue, free of duty, of stores from his Surplus stock under seal I refused yesterday. The “Helios” is a salvage steamer never carrying cargo, but fitted and maintained exclusively for the raising, removal &c. of wrecked vessel, and it is apparently, the intention of the Master to make this port the headquarters of his vessel for some months while she is kept available for contracts which may be offered to her owners. She arrived here from Ouistreham on the 11th instant and was duly rummaged inwards, on which occasion allowances of dutiable stores within those prescribed by the Regulations were left out for the use of the crew. It appears to me that while the vessel is employed, or lies waiting for employment, in British waters, the Master and crew are not, under General Order 93/1894, entitled to the further issue, free of duty, for which the Vice Consul, on their behalf, asks, but I beg that I may receive your Honours directions in the matter. (The Board stated the vessel should be treated as if it were on the coasting trade, but that they would have no objection to an issue on payment of duty.)
17 January 1903 I beg to report that the s/s “Pandie Dimmont” (late of Portsmouth Official Number 53398) sailed from Bembridge, within this Port, on the 14th instant, for Rotterdam in ballast, without due clearance outward. The vessel left Bembridge Harbour in tow of the tug “Sandringham”, of Portsmouth, and when about, according to the estimate of the Coast Guard Officer at Bembridge, two or three miles outside the harbour was transferred to the Dutch tug “Hollander”, in tow of which she proceeded. The “Pandie Dimmont” was in charge of Mr Vernon Toogood, who states, in response to my request for an explanation of his conduct, that the manager of the Company late owning the vessel informed him that she had been cleared outwards at Portsmouth. The Manager, having also been called upon for an explanation by the Collector at Portsmouth, represents that he was under the impression that all the requirements of the law had been complied with when he had notified the sale of the vessel to foreign subjects, and returned the Certificate of Registry. The matter is now for your Honours directions. (The Board asked the Collector to obtain a further explanation from the Master.)
22 January 1903 I beg to report that there are now in the process of construction at this port, in the building yards of Messrs J Samuel White and Co Limited, the undermentioned small steam craft for foreign Navies: 1 56ft Wood Pinnace for the American Navy 1 56ft Wood Pinnace for the Chilean Navy 1 56ft Wood Pinnace for the Chilean Navy 2 36ft Wood Cutters for the Chilean Navy 2 36ft Wood Cutters for the Chilean Navy 7 Total It is not the intention of the builders to arm any of the craft specified. (The Board wrote to the Foreign Office giving particulars of the boats and stating they presumed no further action was required by the Department. The Foreign Office replied that the American Charge d’ Affairs had confirmed that the 56 ft Wood Pinnace was for the use of the American Government.)
31 January 1903 Having called on Mr Vernon Toogood for a further explanation on this matter I have received from him on the subject dated 28th instant, which I enclose herewith. By the same post I also received from the manager of the Company lately owning the steamer a letter in which he represents that Mr Toogood was not required to be on board the “Pandie Dimmont” when she left Bembridge, in as must as she was actually taken away by a Dutch Master and crew. I have referred this question to the Chief Officer of Coast Guard at Bembridge who states nothing is known there as to a Dutch Master sailing in charge of the vessel. It seems, therefore, to be the case that no such person did actually take her over until she had (in Mr Toogood’s charge) been taken outside by the “Sandringham” tug, and handed over to the Dutch tug “Hollander”. The Chief Officer of Coast Guard at Bembridge furnishes information as to Mr Toogood from which it would appear that, although a shipmaster, his experience in that capacity has been entirely local, and not of a character to enlighten him as to the obligations of a Master trading to foreign Ports. (The Board instructed that no further action be taken.)
3 February 1903 The unregistered barge “Advent”, a craft over 15 tons berthen, arrived here on the 29th ult. with a cargo of coal from Southampton, having sailed from that port without clearance. Discharge was allowed to proceed on deposit of £2 to abide by your Honours decision, and the person who came across in charge of the barge has furnished an explanation in which he represents he was ignorant of the requirements of the law. This I believe to be correct, but I do not think that the explanation furnished by the brokers (and shippers of the cargo) in Southampton – that they thought that “the clearing of a tug covered the hulk as well” – can be regarded as seriously offered, inasmuch as the tug itself by which the “Advent” was brought across was not cleared for the trip. Moreover it appears, from the endorsement by the Collector at Southampton in their explanation, that they sought from him the issue of a transire for the “Advent”, and, on being refused clearance, despatched the vessel on her passage in what seems to have been defiance of the law. (The Solicitor ruled that no further action should be taken beyond retaining the £2 deposit as a fine. A further appeal was made and the fine reduced to 10/-.)
14 March 1903 I submit for your Honours favourable consideration the enclosed application by Messrs Dean and Morgan, Ships Store dealers at this port, to be allowed to pay duty on a remnant, 3 lbs in weigh, of British manufactured Cavendish Tobacco, which was originally deposited in the Warehouse on the 10th January 1901. Eight drawings for Ships Stores have been made from the 80 lbs of which the case originally consisted, but their seems no prospect of the applicant clearing the small remnant subject of their application. (Permission was allowed as a “Special Indulgence” subject to the usual conditions as to labelling.)
1 April 1903 J Richie, Clerk, Class II, Upper Section granted increment from £200 to £220 from 21 June and E J Osborne, Boatman, from £82 – 10 – 0 to £85 from 22 June.
1 April 1903 I have examined the records at this port, and also been in communication with the Medical Officer of Health, and other Officers of the Port Sanitary Authority who have permitted me to examine the Minutes of their proceedings since the constitution of the body in 1885. From this, it appears that, in December of the year, a place for the mooring of infected vessels was decided upon in consultation with the Collector here, and the Minute of the Authority’s proceedings recording this also records a direction that a chart should be marked accordingly. When the Clerk, however, caused a search to be made this day for this chart it could not be found anywhere, and, the terms of the minute being exceedingly brief and condensed, the only definite information forthcoming on the subject is from the Medical Officer of Health who tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the place selected was a spot in the Roads near the Western end of the Brambles Shoal, about 2 miles distant from the shore. There is no record whatever, either in the Custom House, or in the Minutes of the Port Sanitary Authority of the question having again been taken into consideration after the issue of the Local Government Board’s Order in 1896, and I can only conclude that it did not come up again at that time between the Port Sanitary Authority and the Collector here, the decision of the Authority was to maintain their former selection of a place for that purpose. I am unable to trace that the question has ever been before your Honours for approval of a selected place. I may add that the last occasion on which an infected vessel (Yellow Fever) was here was in July 1893, - on which occasion, I gather from the Medical officer of Health, she was not ordered to the selected place to moor, but lay in the outer Roads while the direction of the Council was sought as to her treatment.
4 April 1903 I am unable to trace either the approval of any quay or quays at Yarmouth, or the receipt of any application for such approval. I enclose a copy of a Warrant from the Lords of the Treasury, dated 12th June 1868, setting out the limits of this port, with its legal quays, which is drawn in terms identical with those of the Warrant of the 3rd March 1855 except for the substitution of “miles” for “leagues” in the 13th line. It is clear from these documents that no landing place has been recognised as a legal quay since, at any rate, the year 1855 – a date three years antecedent to the Yar Bridge Act to which Messrs. Ward Bowie & Co. refer in their letter. I find, moreover, that so far back as June 1847 special application was made to the Board for permission to land a cargo of fat cattle from a French port at Yarmouth, which was granted as an indulgence. In the return of Landing Places called for by Circular 35782/1888, and sent hence on the 11th March 1889, the only landing place reported under “Yarmouth” is the “Town Quay and Slipway of the late Mr J Long”; described as being neither Legal Quay nor Sufferance Wharf. From the same return it appears that no standing authority existed for the practice of permitting small cargoes of free goods to be discharges at this place, the Collector here granting the requisite permission in each instance, and subsequently reporting the proceedings for approval. The Officer of Principal Coast Officer at Yarmouth was abolished by Board’s Order dated 2nd April 1850 and from the correspondence recorded on that occasion it would seem that the Trade which the Officer supervised was exclusively Coastwise. (The correspondence which led to this report is illegible, although it appears to result from a High Court case between the Yarmouth Town Trust and the Freshwater Gas Company.) Limit of Port and Legal Quays (referred to above) We the undersigned Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland do hereby under the Authority of “The Customs Consolidation 1853” appoint Cowes to be a Port in that part of the United Kingdom called England and do hereby declare that the limits of the said Port shall commence at the extreme Western point of the Brambles Shoal, and then as a supposed straight line to Hurst Castle light, thence round the Western, Southern and Eastern side of the Isle of Wight to the extent of 3 miles from low water until they terminate at a point 3 miles from the low water mark of Bembridge Point in the said Isle being the Eastern limit of the Port of Portsmouth and then westwards along the inner edge of Motherbank between the mainland and the said Isle till they terminate at the said Western point of the Bramble Shoal together with the Harbours Rivers Creeks Streams Channels Roads Bays and places within the said limits respectively. And we the said Lords Commissioners do hereby appoint the following places within the said Port of Cowes to be Legal Quays for the landing and loading of Goods that is to say all that open place Quay or Wharf with the stages projecting therefrom situated at West Cowes called “Medina Commercial Wharf” extending in length Southerly from the North end of the Stage on the South East side of the said Wharf Two Hundred and Six feet or thereabouts and extending in length Southerly from the North end of the Stage on the North West side of the said Wharf One Hundred and Sixty Seven feet or thereabouts and being in breadth at the widest part One Hundred and Six feet or thereabouts. And we the said Lords Commissioners do hereby annul all former limits of the said Port of Cowes and all former Legal Quays set out and appointed within the said Port of Cowes. Whitehall, Treasury Chambers Dated this 12th day of June 1868 (signed) G G Montgomery (Signed) Henry Whitmore (The Solicitor subsequently stated “The 63rd Section of the Yar Bridge Act 1858 appears to have created the then existing Quay of the Borough of Yarmouth a legal Quay; but I submit that the applicant be merely informed in answer to their direct question, that no trace can be found of any approval by the Treasury of legal Quays in the Harbour of Yarmouth”. The Treasury subsequently wrote accordingly.)
14 April 1903 I beg that your Honours will be pleased to give directions for the re-binding, in a sufficiently strong manner, of “Register of Shipping” No. 2 at this port, which contains the entries 1/1866 to 15/1876. The book has become so dilapidated, with broken covers and loose leaves, that it is absolutely necessary to take steps to restore it to the security in which its important records should be kept. (This was approved, and done locally, by Messrs W & G Gubbins, at the cost of 17/6. The work was carried out on the official premises.)
25 April 1903 The Collector was instructed by the Board that the usual respect be shown to her Highness the Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg on her arrival on the Isle of Wight.
28 April 1903 With reference to General Orders 89/1887 and 52/1891, I venture to ask whether your Honours would be prepared to relax at this port the Regulation which forbids the employment of Civil Pensioners as Extramen. Very great difficult has been experienced lately in obtaining the services of any one at all when the Employment of an Extraman has been necessary, and such men as it has been possible to obtain have not been of an entirely satisfactory class. I now approach your Honours, however, for the reason that the services of a highly respectable Civil Pensioner are available, and as he is hale and intelligent man it would be and advantage to the Service if it were possible to employ him here. His name is William Pearce, and he has produced to me excellent testimonials as to his character and ability. He has just retired from employment as Assistant Gatekeeper at Parkhurst Prison on a Superannuation Allowance of £44 – 8 – 9 per annum. The wages of his office were £97 – 7 – 0 per annum, and, as I find from an examination of the Check Book that Extramen were employed on 105 days last year, which may be taken as being the average period per annum for which Pearce’s services would be required, his pay as an Extraman plus his Superannuation Allowance would not equal in amount the wages of his former office. (The Collector was instructed to liaise with the Collector Portsmouth about obtaining a Watcher (Naval Pensioner) to act as an Extraman.)
14 May 1903 On the 23rd Ultimo there was washed ashore at Ryde, and salved by John Way, a Commissioned Boatman of Coast Guard at that place, a small jar containing about a quarter of a gallon of Spirit. A sample thereof having be tested by the Officers at Southampton, the article is described by them as a Plain, Unsweetened, Unenumerated Spirit of a strength of 65.5 over proof. Not being able to find a purchaser for it, I sought and obtained permission from the Board of Trade to destroy the Spirits subject to your Honours consent, for which I now beg to make application. (The Collector was instructed to pour them down a public sewer or drain a give a Certificate of Destruction.)
18 May 1903 To the Collector, Portsmouth I regret to have to trouble you further of this matter, but I do not think that Bird, who came over to see me on Saturday in response to an urgent message which I sent to him, has the least intention of taking up duty at this port. I should be much obliged if you would, if possible, put me into communication with some other man, as I have an application for leave from one of the Officers pending which I cannot grant under the current conditions.
22 May 1903 To the Collector, Portsmouth I am sorry to say that Burtenshaw’s candidacy does not advance us any further in this matter. He came over this morning, and saw me, only to tell me that he had given the matter consideration and had decided that he would not take the employment. May I ask you, therefore, to make another selection, if possible.
22 May 1903 I submit for your Honours’ directions the enclosed application by Captain J.E. Mundell, Honorary Secretary to the Committee of Cowes Cottage Hospital, for permission to place a collecting box in the Mercantile Marine Office in this Custom House for the reception of contributions on behalf of the Institution. A large number of yachtsmen are discharged in this office each year and many of them would doubtless contribute to by such means to the funds of Hospital, the “Frank James” or East Cowes branch of which has been recently established under the auspices of Her Royal Highness Princess Henry of Battenberg and other distinguished residents of this neighbourhood. (This was granted subject to the Collector not making himself responsible for the safe custody of the box, nor for him, his Clerks and Officers to solicit contributions.)
25 May 1903 To the Collector, Portsmouth I am much obliged to you for ending over Charles Lawrence, who saw me this afternoon. Unfortunately, however, he declines to accept employment on the terms authorised, and I am compelled to again ask you to select another candidate, if possible.
30 May 1903 Immediately on receipt of your directions, I communicated with the Collector at Portsmouth, who has taken a great deal of trouble in endeavouring to select a suitable man. He has sent over three Naval Pensioners, to whom I have explained the conditions &c. of the employment offered, but none of them will undertake the work. I now submit a final letter received this morning from the Collector at Portsmouth from which it would appear that he is not able to select another candidate for employment here. (The Board did not object to the employment of William Pearce.)
2 June 1903 Mr Richie, late Clerk Class II, U S, at Cowes admitted to duty as Clerk in Charge at Port Talbot (Swansea).
4 June 1903 In accordance with the practice followed at this port for some years past, I beg that your Honours will be pleased to sanction the hire of a small steam launch, for boarding purposes during the approaching yachting season, for a period of ten weeks commencing on the 22nd instant, this would expire on the 30th August and would cover practically the busiest part of the season. I have obtained the enclosed tenders from three firms who let out craft of the description required, and submit that that of Saunders Patent Launch Building Syndicate Limited may be accepted. They offer to provide fuel and stores, with a man to drive and steer, and to accept all navigation risks for the sum of £10 per week. I have personally inspected the boats offered by this firm and by Mr Guy, and am satisfied that the former is more suitable. She is a strong boat, 27 feet in length, 4 foot longer than Mr Guy’s, of wider beam and will steam 9 miles against only 6 guaranteed in the case of Mr Guy’s boat. The launch which was hired last year was supplied by the Saunders Syndicate and was, on the whole, satisfactory, though the experience gained by her employment was not in favour of electrically driven launches in their present stage of development, for the rough work of boarding in an open roadstead such as this. The proprietors, however, proved themselves to be a reliable and accommodating firm and I have no hesitation in recommending their present tender for acceptance. (The tender of Saunders was accepted.)
9 June 1903 Will you allow me to point out that Mr A P Miskin’s salary is given in the enclosed Order as £122 – 10 – 0, while in his statement of Age, Service &c. which I have received from the Accountant and Controller General the Officers Salary is given as £130 – 0 – 0 per annum from the 1st ult., and to ask whether you desire to have the Order amended? (The Board requested that the letter be amended. Miskin was transferred from London as a Clerk, Second Division on 1st June. He was subsequently appointed Deputy Superintendent of Mercantile Marine after approval from the Board of Trade.)
1 July 1903 Increments granted to J Atkinson, Assistant, from £90 to £95 from 24 August, A J H Titheridge, Boatman, £82 – 10 – 0 to £85 from 1 September and A S Cassell, Boatman, from £80 to £82 – 10 – 0 from 31 August.
2 July 1903 With reference to the provisions of General Order 25/1903 and Circular of the 1st instant, may I ask you to inform me whether, in the case of Charles A Fry, a Boatman, qualifying service towards the grant of a star should be reckoned from the date of his appointment as a Quarantine Mariner, (11th September 1893), or as a Customs Boatman, (7th November 1896).
2 July 1903 Mr A P Miskin (Clerk and Examining Officer) will proceed to Newport by the 10 am train on the 3rd instant & check the attached claim by Messrs. W B Mew Langton and Co. Limited for return of the duty on 4742 cwts. Barley by: 1. Examining the Contract or Contracts (should such be in existence), for delivery of the goods, to prove their foreign origin. 2. Examining the Invoice or Invoices, by which the goods were consigned to the Claimants, with a view to ascertaining the port or ports through which the barley was imported and at which duty was paid. 3. Examining the Claimant’s Warehouse Register with a view to ascertaining the dates on which the Barley was received into stock, and, as to the last two items of the claim, was converted into malt. 4. Examining the Stock itself, with a special view to ascertaining whether any of the malt referred to in the last sentence of the preceding instruction was used for brewing before the 30th ult. (This appears to have resulted from the withdrawal of duty on imported Corn.)
3 July 1903 Report by A P Miskin (Clerk and Examining Officer) In accordance with your Orders I have today visited the stores for the rebate of duty claimed and wish to report as follows: (1) The manager states that Messrs. Mew Langton have no contacts by which the foreign origin of the goods can be proved, but the grain is purchased from time to time by sample from the importing firms. (2) The invoices for the good was produced, but they do not shew the port at which the duty was paid, and the manager informed me that he had no documents which would furnish this information. I examined receipted bills for the whole of the goods, which gave the purchase money, including (according to the manager’s statement) the duty, which has been paid to the importing firms. (3) The Warehouse Registers shew the following transactions in respect of the items mentioned in the claim for rebate: (a) Barley, 800 cwts received from Messrs Liebmann & Co on 1st & 4th April 1903. Malting operations were commenced on 124 cwts of this quantity on 22/4/1903 (malting occupies 14 days.) (b), (c), (d), and (e) (other deliveries and maltings) are not legible. (4) Only a rough check of the stock itself was possible as items (a), (b), (c) and (d) were stored in bulk in large bins 25 feet deep, the respective quantities of which were 283, 568, 568 and 200 quarters, but calculations based on the proportion of unoccupied space in each bin shew that the quantities set out in the claim are roughly correct. Item (e) – 30 cwts Malted Barley – was stored in sacks on the Brewery floor and found correct.
23 July 1903 Letter from the Surveyor General to the Board In my Inspection Report for Cowes dated 1st April last, I drew attention to the fact that Waterguard Officers did not appear to have relief from Sunday attendance to the extent desired by the Board as a minimum. At my request the Collector drew up a scheme which has not yet been put in force but is now enclosed. By adopting the proposals of the Collector two out of six Waterguard Officers would be entirely relieved from duty on each Sunday and each man would then get one entirely clear Sunday out of three. This can only be done by employing an Extraman on Sundays when the state of the weather demands a third hand in the boat, or on occasions of extra pressure in the summer months. I submit that the Collectors proposals be accepted and that authority be given for the employment of an Extraman when necessary to carry them out. (This was authorised by the Board.)
25 July 1903 I venture, with reference to General Orders 18/1902 and 39/1903 to ask whether your Honours would be prepared to sanction the issue of a pocket plumbing machine at this port in substitution for the present method of securing surplus dutiable Stores by wax seals. My reason for approaching your Honours with this request is that the use of such a machine would obviate the risk of damage and annoyance to yacht owners which is involved in the present method of sealing up the surplus Stores on board vessels with increasingly costly and elaborate fittings as are now found on board yachts which report at this port, and on which, almost exclusively, seals are used here. (After some discussion at the Board, the request was approved. It was received on 2nd September from Buck and Hickman Limited, Whitechapel Road, London. It was certified as being satisfactory in May 1904.)
2 September 1903 A period of three months having elapsed since the admission to duty at this port of Mr Alfred P Miskin, Clerk, Second Division, appointed to fill the place of a Clerk, Class II, Upper Section, I beg, as directed by your Honours Order of the 18th May last, to report that Mr Miskin has proved himself qualified to act as Examining Officer and has satisfactorily discharged the duties of that grade which have fallen to be performed by him since he has taken up duty here.
10 September 1903 The small unregistered sailing yacht “Tolosa”, of about 15 Tons, owned and commanded by Mr Thomas Huggins of Toulouse, arrived at Portsmouth on the 18th ult. from Cherbourg, and does not appear to have brought to at the Boarding Station there, or to have hoisted any signal to indicate arrival from a foreign port. On the 19th ult. she sailed from Portsmouth to St Helens at the Eastern end of this Island where she remained till the 8th instant, she came hither from St Helens and was boarded by the Waterguard Officers, where these facts were ascertained and reported to me. I therefore called on Mr Huggins for an explanation as to his failure to comply with the law, and have received from him the enclosed letter, which I submit for your Honours directions. As Mr Huggins will be sailing for France on the 12th instant, he deposited Two Pounds to abide by your Honours decision on the matter. He states that he is His Majesty’s Vice Consul at Toulouse, an told me that he has resided in France for the last 23 years and has never visited this country in a yacht before. In his letter he represents that his omission to comply with the law was due to ignorance of its requirements and I am satisfied that this was the case, I submit that a portion only of his deposit be retained. (The Board accepted his explanation and ordered the deposit to be returned.) 23 September 1903 Having communicated your Honours Order of the 16th instant to the Preventive Officer and Boatman at this port, I beg to report that these Officers express a unanimous desire, if your Honours will permit such an arrangement, they may continue to be supplied with ordinary uniform jackets as at present, leaving the question of the intervals at which serge jackets should be supplied – if at all – entirely open. Should your Honours, therefore, favourably consider the Officers’ views in this matter, no Serge jackets will be required here during the financial year 1904 – 1905.
28 September 1903 On No. 1 Warehouse at this port being opened this morning for delivery of goods on which duty had been paid, it was seen that a cask of claret 01/1546, No. 2, which had been warehoused on 18th September 1901, was leaking very badly and the attention of the proprietors was immediately drawn to the fact, - the escaped wine “lying in” a puddle on the floor of the warehouse. The leakage had apparently taken place from the head of the cask at the point where on of the staves is grooved into it. Duty was immediately paid by the proprietor, Messrs. R H Matthews & Sons on the whole quantity originally brought to account including a chargeable deficiency of 7 gallons, and in the enclosed letter they seek remission of of the amount involved 8/9. My last premises visit to the warehouse was on the 4th instant which occasion the cask was still sound. It is one of a parcel of three which I have rarely failed to inspect when visiting the warehouse, and there is no doubt that the leak to which the loss is due came about quite suddenly. The warehouse was last opened on the 21st instant, and the Officer who was then delivering duty paid goods to Messrs Matthews & Sons drew the attention of their representatives to the fact that the cask in question was showing signs of weakness, but the warehouseman seems to have come to the conclusion that such leakage as may have taken place had stopped, and the firm took no steps to have the cask repaired. (The duty was remitted.)
1 October 1903 Increments granted to A H Drumgoole, Collector and Surveyor, from £355 to £370 from 1 October and C A Fry, Boatman, from £77 to £79 – 10 – 0 from 7 November.
5 October 1903 No infected vessels have called at this port during the past ten years. There has been one case of a vessel calling from an infected port. This ship was actually bound for Antwerp but, when passing Shanklin on 14th July 1895, she sent five passengers with baggage in shore boats and steamed away without further communication with the shore. The matter was reported to the Board, and the Master was cautioned on his arrival at Newport, Mon., on 30 July 1895. (The letter was signed by A P Miskin, Acting Collector.)
8 October 1903 The transire of the “David and Mary” was presented here for signature on the 24th instant, but its issue was withheld pending the production of the C.E. Certificate (G.O.110/1864). In the meantime the vessel left this port without clearance. On the 28th instant the C.E. Certificate and Certificate of Registry were produced here by the local agent for the vessel and further copies of the transire were presented for signature. The agent was informed that the document could not now be issued as the Master had acted in contravention of the C.E. Act 1876 and his offence would be dealt with at Southampton. It was then stated by the agent that, while the vessel was lying at Cowes, he warned the Master that he should not leave the port until the transire was granted. (The letter was signed by A P Miskin, Acting Collector. The vessel was an open registered barge of 34 Tons normally used within the Port of Southampton, but on this occasion towed to Cowes to load scrap Iron. It was said to be in charge of a youth who had never been on a similar errand. A fine of 5/- was imposed.)
10 November 1903 A statement shewing how far the permanent records for this port extend.
The Collector added the following comment about the discrepancy between this list and the previous return (1883). Thorough search, in which I have taken personal part, has been made throughout the premises but no trace can be found of the books from 1740 – the date given in my predecessors return, nor can I find any record of them being sent elsewhere.
28 November 1903 Boards Minute. The Board appoint Mr Lawrence Daly to fill a vacancy of Assistant at Cowes. Note the Appointment Book and Vacancy List. Letter to the Candidate directing him to attend for duty. Upon his arrival he is to be placed on probation for twelve months from the date of his first employment being reported in due course. Of this period, one month is to be allotted to the Waterguard Branch on duties generally assigned to the grade of Preventive Officer. Mr Daly is to receive instructions with a rummaging crew, and is to be made acquainted with the Regulations relating to Baggage, the measurement of deck cargoes, the requirements as to health of persons on vessels from Foreign, and the importation of Animals and Explosives. He is to keep a Precedent or Note Book to be produced for examination by the Collector before a report is made as to his qualifications, and he will be expected at the expiration of the month in question to be able to take charge of a boat’s crew, as well as, if called upon, the undertake the ordinary duties of a Preventive Officer. Before commencing duty Mr Daly is to signify on the enclosed Memorandum his acceptance of the conditions as to duties &c. of Assistant at Cowes, and he is called upon to fill up the enclosed form A. Inform the Collector, Cowes and the Accountant and Controller General. Date of Birth: 13 December 1883. (He commenced duty on the 5th December)
3 December 1903 J L Atkinson, Assistant, Cowes promoted to Examining Officer, Class II, Liverpool.
15 December 1903 Before remittances are made from this port, for which purpose Bank drafts payable in London are obtained, all the receipts are, in the first instance, credited to the local public account of the Department, and appear in the Bank pass book; and a cheque is signed by the Second Officer and myself for any such remittance.
18 January 1904 In accordance with the directions contained in Code par.602, I submit for your Honours information and directions the enclosed letter which I have this day received from the proprietors of Warehouses Nos. 1 and 2 at this port. From this communication, it appears that the constitution of the firm owning the warehouses has been altered by: The retirement of Felix Walter Matthews and Richard Green. The inclusion of Messrs. Mew Langton and Co. Limited, Brewers and Wine and Spirit Merchants of Cowes and Newport, I W. Should your Honours request a fresh bond to be given in respect of these premises, I have to say that I am satisfied as to the sufficiency of the proposed sureties to meet the Penalty. (A fresh bond was requested by the Board with a Penalty of £3000. The sureties were Joseph Henry Atkey, Alfred James Matthews and Francis Templeman Mew.)
20 February 1904 Order from the Board marked Immediate and Confidential. The Board having received information that certain person (believed to be foreigners) are about negotiating the purchase of a view to disturbing the peace in Haitian waters, - Collectors at the Outports are directed to make discreet enquiries within their respective Ports and Districts in order to ascertain whether any such transaction is taking place, and to report to the Board thereon, as early as possible, the results of their enquiries, giving the particulars of any information which they may obtain and also anything of a suspicious nature that may transpire. 2 March 1904 In the interval since the receipt of your Honours directions, careful enquiries have been made, but I have not been able to learn that any negotiations whatever are pending at this port as to the purchase of a vessel for the purpose referred to. Due watchfulness shall, however, be exercised in the matter in the future and I will not fail to immediately communicate to your Honours information of any kind which may come to me relevant to the subject in question.
7 March 1904 I submit for your Honours favourable consideration the enclosed application by Mr A E Frogbrook, late Master of the steam yacht “Camelo” to be allowed to pay duty on 2¼ lbs Tobacco other sorts, Surplus Stores, which lave been lying in the Kings Warehouse at this port since the 17th March 1902 and have now become overtime goods. (This was approved by the Board on payment of duty and Kings Warehouse charges.)
25 March 1904 Letter from the Board. Collectors and other Officers in Charge of Ports are directed to report hereon, for the information of the Board, whether any member of their staff holds an appointment as Assistant Inspector of Nuisances under a Local Sanitary Authority, and, if so, to furnish particulars of such appointment, quoting any papers on the subject. (The Collector replied in the negative.)
1 April 1904 Increment granted to A P Miskin, Clerk Second Division, from £130 to £137 – 10 from 1st May.
9 April 1904 I beg to report, in reply to the Circular of the 24th ultimo, that no Boatman at this port has attained the age of 50 years on the 1st instant. (The letter was signed by A P Miskin, Acting Collector.)
9 April 1904 Two days ago my attention was drawn to local rumours respecting the destination and nature of employment of the steam yacht “Cavalier” (Official Number 67590). This vessel, which has during the past few days, been hurriedly fitting out at this port, is a screw schooner with a registered tonnage of 182. It was reported that she was to be engaged in a filibustering expedition in the Far East. I immediately caused enquiries to be made, but was unable to trace this report to any reliable source. I was informed, however, in confidence, by the agent who had just negotiated the sale of the vessel, that the present owner, Major Maud of 12 Embankment Gardens, S W (who has not yet registered his title) has stated that she was to be engaged in commercial enterprise and was bound for the direction of Cape Horn. Further, the Secretary of this Gentleman stated that the yacht would not return to British waters. Major Maud himself called here this morning and assured me that his final destination was the Galapagos Islands where he had obtained a concession from the Government. I have no reason to doubt this statement, but with reference to the Boards Order of 20th February, I deemed it advisable to submit the matter for your Honours directions. Under present arrangements the “Cavalier” will leave the port tomorrow for Tilbury, where extensive alterations are to be made in her steering gear. (The letter was signed by A P Miskin, Acting Collector. Further enquiries were made at Millwall Docks, London but the Board deemed no further action necessary.)
22 April 1904 I beg to report a breach of Section 5 of the Revenue Act 1883 on the part of the barge “Leslie” of London, from whose Master I have taken a deposit of £2 pending your Honours decision on the case. I was informed yesterday afternoon by the Coastguard at Bembridge that this vessel had arrived from Antwerp with a cargo of glass and cement, and was lying at St Helen’s Quay, an unapproved place about 10 miles from this port. As it was then too late for the Customs Officer to reach St Helen’s, I instructed the Coastguard to take charge of the vessel. This morning the Waterguard Officers proceeded to the Quay, rummaged the barge & found everything in order. The Master arrived here to report this morning, when I pointed out his liability to a Penalty of £20 for failing to bring to at an appointing Boarding Station and called upon him for a written explanation which I annex. In this, he attempts to throw some responsibility on the Coastguard, who probably took it for granted that he had received permission to discharge at St Helen’s; but his verbal plea this morning was that he was ignorant of the fact that Bembridge was not an approved Boarding Station and St Helen’s not an approved place for discharge. I have no reason to doubt his plea of ignorance, as the Master states he has not visited the Isle of Wight previously, but I submit whether, in view of the danger to the Revenue and the trouble caused to Officers of the Department and the Coastguard, some portion of the deposit of £2 may not be retained as a fine. (The letter was signed by A P Miskin, Acting Collector. He was fined 7/6. The Agent subsequently claimed Demurrage of £6 (compensation for delay), and return of the deposit, see below.)
7 May 1904 On the 21st Ultimo the barge “Leslie” arrived at St Helen’s, and without calling at an approved Boarding Station ran up to St Helen’s Quay, a place unapproved for the landing of foreign cargoes, but the following day an application for permission to discharge at the latter place was received here and I was asked to allow discharge to proceed. I declined on the following grounds to undertake this responsibility until your Honours directions were received. (1) That, although your Honours permission had been granted on many occasions for the discharge of free goods in bulk at unapproved places, this was the first instance and application to discharge package goods at such a place within this district (even in the case of bulk goods the application is usually forwarded and the Boards permission received before the vessel arrives). (2) That the “Leslie” had arrived from Antwerp, vessels from which place are to be subjected to “more strict supervision than other vessels” (G O 94/1887 para 1). (3) That the Master had violated Sect 5 of the Revenue Act 1883 as previously reported. The vessel therefore lay silent until 25th ultimo when I received your Honours directions by telegram and immediately wired to the Coastguard at Bembridge to allow discharge to proceed. I submit that the question of demurrage lies entirely between the Master and his agents, and that if Messrs. Walker, Morley & Co undertook the responsibility of acting as agents for the “Leslie” they should have made themselves acquainted with the Customs requirements as to approved places for landing cargoes and should have ascertained whether St Helen’s was such an approved place. The Master informed me that this firm knew early in March that the goods in question were to be consigned to St Helen’s and this statement, if correct, shews that steps might have been taken several weeks before the “Leslie” arrived to obtain your Honours permission to discharge, thereby avoiding both the delay in working the vessel and the fine imposed. With reference to the owners claim of £2, the amount deposited with Customs, I beg to report that the balance of £1 – 12 – 6, after bringing to account the fine of 7/6 impose, has been handed to Mr G Dover, the agent at this port who made the deposit on behalf of the Master. (The letter was signed by A P Miskin, Acting Collector. The Board rejected the return of the fine and stated “The delay referred to appears to have arisen in obtaining the concession of being allowed to discharge cargo at an unapproved place, and the question of demurrage does not concern the Department”.)
25 May 1904 I beg to make application for your Honours sanction to the hire of a small steam launch which is required at this port for boarding &c. purposes during the approaching yachting season, and to suggest that the craft should be engaged for a period of ten weeks, 23 proximo to 31 August which would embrace the busiest part of the season. I have made enquiries of all the firms here doing business of this description, but cannot obtain the offer of a launch locally on suitable terms, and I therefore recommend for acceptance an offer of Mr W Rice, of Southampton, to supply a launch for the required period at a charge of £10 per week to include hands, coal, all stores, and navigation risks &c., acceptance being made subject to the launch offered satisfactorily the trial after re-fit suggested by the Surveyor at Southampton. Mr Rice supplied on hire the launch which was used here in the season of 1900, and I am informed that the boat which he then supplied was found quite satisfactory. (The Collectors recommendation was accepted by the Board.)
1 July 1904 Increment A S Cassell, Boatman, £82 – 10 – 0 to £85 from 1 September.
1 July 1904 The barge “Pegusus” of Rochester, 69 tons net register, arrived here on the evening of 2nd ult. with a cargo of 150 tons of Bog Ore in bulk, intended for the gas works in this town and at Newport, the latter 5 miles from Cowes on the River Medina. On the application of the agent, I allowed the vessel to discharge at the Gas works jetty in this river, where she put out 40 tons of her cargo, and to discharge the balance of 110 tons at Newport, and I now submit my proceedings for your Honours approval. The first named place is within easy reach of the Watch House, and the barge, after being rummaged on arrival, was visited and re-rummaged on the 23rd ult. On the 25 she proceeded to Newport and at that place she was visited and re-rummaged on the 27th and 29th ult, and finally cleared inwards on the 30th ult. Owing to the fact the steam launch is now at the disposal of the Waterguard staff, no expenses have been incurred for travelling or on any other account.
4 August 1904 As directed by your reference of the 2nd instant, I beg to report that the issue of Special Instructions to Collectors of 26 May last involved no change of practice whatsoever in regard to signatures to cheques on the Departmental Banking Account here. I have made it an invariable practice since I took charge at this port that a Second Officer should always be on duty, and even before the issue of the Special Instructions referred to I always arranged that official cheques should bear two signatures. Strictly this was not necessary under the conditions formerly obtaining, since, under their Honours Order to the port of 20th 1901 only one signature to drawings on the official account need to have been furnished when the Collector or Second Officer happened to be absent on leave; by sickness; or one on duty elsewhere. I thought, however, that even in the circumstances set forth, there could be no objection to the adoption of a permanent arrangement of the character I have described, which seemed to me reasonable and desirable.
9 August 1904 On any occasion on which the appointed Second Officer has been absent from duty, I have written to the Manager of the Bank asking him to honour the signatures of the Acting Collector and Acting Second Officer during such absences (giving him particulars of the dates between which absence would in each case extend). He has always complied with my request. Should your Honours see fit to approve such an arrangement, I would suggest that the Manager should be authorised to accept the signature of the Preventive Officer (Mr W T Stokes) as Acting Second Officer during the brief periods of absence as are permissible without your Honours special sanction. When leave for longer intervals is granted to either the appointed Second Officer or myself and an Officer sent to the port in aid, a special communication is, of course, sent to the Bank on each occasion bearing the name of the Acting Officer. I can only, at present, suggest such an arrangement in respect of the Preventive Officer, as the probation of the Assistant here will not expire until the 4 December next. (This was approved.)
Extract from the Deputy Chairman’s Inspection Notes August 1904 “Both Stokes, the Cowes Preventive Officer, and Gawn, the excellent Ryde Preventive Officer, objected to the new system of fining Sailors (especially yachtsmen) who declare their Tobacco. Effect is that the men, who are willing to pay the Duty only, refuse do pay the Duty + Fine, and either surrender the Tobacco or let it be sealed up indefinitely with the other ships-stores. The men do not understand what they are being fined for, or why they should be treated worse than passengers. Query possible incentive to smuggling.” 25 August 1904 It is not easy to suggest how any distinction could be made, in the application of this Regulation between seamen serving in yachts and those employed on ordinary mercantile vessels, but there is no doubt that, in practice, the effect of General Order 36/1904 has been to very materially reduce the amount of Duty paid on Surplus Stores by the crews of yachts arriving in these waters from foreign. Your Honours will see this is so by the following comparative table, showing the Duty ex ship collected here (entirely on small parcels of Surplus Stores) between 1st May and 25th August 1903 and the corresponding period this year:
I do not think that it is the increase in Duty payable on Cigars and Cigarettes which is alone responsible for this shrinkage. I was present at the interview which the Deputy Chairman gave to Mr W T Stokes, the Preventive Officer stationed here, and it did not appear to me that the latter in the least degree exaggerated the impression produced in seamen’s minds. The yachtsman is of no higher intelligence than the average seafaring man, and the fact that, if he offers duty on a pound and a half of Cavendish Tobacco or Cigars which the owner of the yacht may have given him as a present, and which he wishes to land for his own use ashore , he is liable to be fined an additional 2/- or 1/- excites him in perplexity and resentment which, I learn, have found free expression of late to the Waterguard officers. There have been very many cases indeed, since the beginning of the present season; in which such little parcels of Surplus Stores have been assessed, and the owners, having tendered the amount to which their goods were liable to duty, have refused to pay the additional sum demanded by way of fine, giving up their Tobacco or Cigars for sealing, or, in one or two cases, removal to the Kings Warehouse. With regard to the Deputy Chairman’s final observation, I must say I fear that, on the whole, the result of this Regulation will be to lead to some increase in attempts at petty smuggling. There are, I believe, in every yachts complement officers and seamen who are, undoubtedly, and from a variety of motives, invariably honest in their dealings with dutiable goods. Such persons will now, possibly, do no more than grumble against the Regulations, and some of them will refrain from paying Duty on Surplus Stores which they would otherwise have cleared. There are others who always have taken, and, under any conditions, always would take a less than straightforward course. But, besides these two classes there are, I think, a large number of men unwilling, from fear of the consequences, to take the risk of being detected in smuggling, and preferring to pay Duty on their Surplus Stores. As to men of this class – perhaps the majority in every crew – I fear the effect of the Regulation will be to induce many of them to try to withhold tobacco and cigars from production and to take their chance of landing their goods uncustomed. If your Honours will permit me to express a conviction which, after no inconsiderable period of service, and close observation of seafaring men with whom I have been brought in contact, I hold very strongly, I should like to say that it appears to me to be distinctly for the benefit of the Revenue that every reasonable facility should be given to encouragement of payment of Duty on such goods as are now under reference. Feeling this to be so, I am satisfied that the resentment at the idea of being “fined” for paying Duty, to which I have alluded above, and which, I assure your Honours, is deeply felt by these men, will constitute a real obstacle to them tendering these small contributions to the Revenue.
Extract from the Deputy Chairman’s Inspection Notes August 1904 The Portsmouth Motor Launch is a disgrace to the Service. It makes a noise like a traction-engine, the engine usually refuses to start, and it cannot go outside the Harbour. It might be possible to combine the work with that of the Cowes Launch (which is hired for the 3 month yachting season), if a decently seaworthy boat was obtained. I have asked the Cowes Collector to consider this point. The Lady Primrose has a petroleum stove which fills the cabin with such pestilent fumes that it can rarely be used. Considering the rough work she does in all weathers; I think a spirit stove may be substituted. 27 August 1904 Extract from letter from F W Wood, Collector, Portsmouth. The oil motor launch (the Gnat) has all the faults described by the Deputy Chairman, and is moreover so slow that it has great difficulty to stem against the tide in the Harbour. It is an open boat built by Messrs. Vosper and Co., Portsmouth, in may 1899, for Harbour work only, at the cost of £260, and repairs during the last two years have cost £46 – 2 – 6 and £45 – 18 – 6 respectively. What is required here is a steam launch efficiently seaworthy to assist the Officers stationed at Ryde Pier in boarding duties at Spithead on occasions where a large number of ships arrive at one time, such as the return of the Channel, Home and Cruiser Squadrons, Naval Reviews &c. But it would not be possible to let the Collector at Cowes have use of it during the three months yachting season at that port, as a launch of some kind is absolutely necessary for the Waterguard work here, visits having to be made generally twice daily to Flathouse Quay – 2½ mile from the Watch House – and almost daily to Fareham, some 6 miles up the Harbour. A regards a new stove for the cutter “Lady Primrose”; I affix a drawing and description of a methylated spirit stove I have seen at Messrs. Atkey & Sons, Cowes, and which Mr Gawn, the Preventive Officer at Ryde, thinks suitable and just what is required. I therefore submit that I may be authorised to obtain one, with oven, from Messrs. Atkey & Sons, at the price listed, viz £3 -15 – 0. 30 August 1904 I have complied with the directions which, before leaving Cowes, the Deputy Chairman gave to me, and have carefully considered this matter. I have also conferred with the Collector at Portsmouth on the subject, and find that, unfortunately, it will not be possible to work a service launch in combination between the two ports. The months on June, July and August, in which a launch is so much needed here, usually constitute also, I learn from the Collector at Portsmouth, a very busy season at that port, and the launch could not be spared at such a period. I have, therefore, to submit to your Honours the alternatives of continuing the present system of hiring a launch yearly for use in the summer weeks of greatest pressure in yachting work, or having a suitable craft built, and maintained at the port, for use annually during June, July and August. The expenditure under the system first indicated averages nearly £100 per annum, and for this substantial outlay very unsatisfactory vessels are obtained. Neither the craft, nor the men supplied to work them, nave been, in my experience, all that could be wished for – even on a very moderate standard of requirement – and though, fortunately no occasion for complaint by yacht owners has arisen, the constant break downs and delays with these hired craft are most harassing and trying to those responsible for maintenance of satisfactory boarding arrangements. In any judgement, the requirement of the Service would, in every respect, be much better met if a launch were, as suggested above, built and maintained for use here. There would, I believe, be some saving in annual cost, but this would be so small that I feel some hesitation in recommending so large a capital outlay as would in this event be necessary. On the other hand, the sum which has been spent on hire – no less than £568 in six years – is very large, and, in view of the disappointing and inadequate results usually obtained from that expenditure, your Honours might think it is more economical to adopt these alternatives and ensure a more efficient, and infinitely more reliable boarding service. I have reason to believe that a first class steam launch, a safe and substantial boat, about 26 feet by 6 feet, guaranteed to steam 7/8 knots, could be built here (the launch builders of Cowes have a high and established reputation) for about £380, and, allowing for expenditure on other fittings which would be consequently necessary, such as a travelling cradle and winch for hauling up &c., £400 should, I think, be the limit of capital outlay suggested. On such a figure, the annual charges (for three months use of the boat) should work out roughly, as below:
α (Steering by one of the established Officers) β (If against total loss only, much less – probably not more than £1 for three months.)
|