Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Tea, Taxes and Smuggling

The tea tax wasn't just a pain in the New World. Today's case at the Old Bailey is actually a two-parter, involving the same man apparently involved in evaded import taxes.

The first time Samuel Mitchell is charged, it's with stealing and hiding tea to avoid paying taxes. Or, as its described in the transcripts, "rescuing" the tea, which I find a very interesting choice of word.

It seems a bit of a twisted set of circumstances. Sam took the tea from the house of one James Langly, who hadn't paid the duty.

How did James Langly get the tea? Two "land-waters...having information of a large quantity of run tea, lodged in a barn in the parish of Harverton, on the 25th of February, 1766, went with Richard Viney , a waterman, and other assistance, and brought away the quantity mentioned in the indictment, and lodged it in the house of James Langly."

I can't find any explanation for "land-waters," but the transcripts aren't in the best of readable shape, so I'm wondering if the word is really "land-rakers." That means vagabond, especially one who steals (akin to "land-pirate" or "land-rat").

So two guys and Richard Viney took the tea from the barn to Langly's house, from which Sam supposedly "liberated" it.

"The evidence not amounting to the charge in the indictment," Sam's acquitted.

Then he's charged with being in a gang of smugglers who assaulted a couple of customs men.

The evidence against him comes from two other men, Thomas Gush (seriously, I cannot get over some of the names I'm finding in these transcripts!) and John Downs, who claim he was part of the gang. They also provide the interesting information that smugglers generally carry whips, although some had clubs.

It seems that their testimony isn't sufficient, or they must have seemed like shady characters, or maybe Sam had an innocent face, because Sam's acquitted again. I note he never spoke in his own defense, which seems a little unusual.

Here are what I'd be thinking about if this was a potential seedling:

Why doesn't Sam speak in his own defense?
Is it possible Sam wasn't involved and Gush and Downs had other reasons to testify against him? What if they're genuinely mistaken?
What if Sam was found guilty, but wasn't?
What if he is guilty? Why does he smuggle and how does he keep getting off? Or why does he keep getting caught?
What if Sam's the leader of a smuggling gang like the Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (loved that Disney movie!)?
What if Sam's a woman?
What role does James Langly play in all this? He is like a fence? Is he good or evil?
What about the "land-rakers?" What more could they do in a story? What about the customs guys? Are they just civil servants trying to do their job? Or are they brutal in the enforcement of tax payments? Could that be why Sam's acquitted and doesn't speak in his own defense? Could the jury sympathize with him more than the tax men?
Were they really gangs of smugglers riding around assaulting tax men? What else did they smuggle? And what if the land-rakers and smuggling gangs were rivals, like in West Side Story?

And now I've got those songs stuck in my head...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Locations of visitors to this page