loop, except that the former has her mast
longer, and inclined further aft, and has greater sail-area. The
cutter also has but little freeboard, and in order to carry her large
sail-area she draws more water. This authority then goes on to mention
that such craft as these cutters are employed by the smugglers of the
English Channel, "and being able to carry a good deal of sail they can
easily escape from the guardships. The English Government, for the
same reason, maintain a good many of these craft so as to stop these
smugglers." Our English authority, Falconer, described the cutter as
having one mast and a straight-running bowsprit that could be run
inboard on deck. But for this, and the fact that the cutter's
sail-area was larger, these craft were much the same as sloops.
Falconer also states that a sloop differs from a cutter by having a
fixed steeving bowsprit and a jib-stay. Moore, who was also a
contemporary, makes similar definitions in almost identical language.
The real difference, then, was that the cutter could run her bowsprit
inboard, but the sloop could not.

Now, in the year 1785, a very interesting matter occupied the
attention of the Board of Customs in this connection. It appeared that
in an important trial concerning a certain vessel the defence was set
up that this vessel had changed her character by so altering her
"boltsprit" that it became fixed and could not be run inboard. It was
found that all which her owners had done was to pass an iron bolt
through the bits and heel of the bowsprit, clenching it. The defendant
insisted that thus he had rendered it a complete standing "boltsprit,"
and not a running one: and that, therefore, by such alteration, his
vessel became transformed from a cutter to a sloop. And, according to
the definitions which we have just brought forward, one would have
thought that this was a good defence. However, the Crown thought
otherwise, and contended that the alteration was a mere evasion of
the Act in question, and that the vessel remained a cutter because
such fastening could be removed at pleasure, and then the "boltsprit"
would run in and out as it did before the alteration. The jury also
took this view, and the cutter, which thought herself a sloop, was
condemned. The Revenue officers and commanders of Admiralty sloops
were accordingly warned to make a note of this. For a number of years
the matter was evidently left at that. But in 1822 the Attorney and
Solicitor-G