od_, and lowered a boat to pick them up, and about
twenty-two were found a hundred yards from the smuggler, and the
_Lively_ also threw out a mark-buoy to locate two other tubs which
they passed. And, inasmuch as there was no other vessel within six
miles distance, the _Admiral Hood_ beyond a shadow of doubt was
carrying contraband.

[Illustration: "The _Admiral Hood_ was heaving tubs overboard."]

After the vessel was at length hove-to, she was seized and ultimately
taken into Rochester, and information was duly laid against the
persons who had been engaged in this smuggling adventure. But it is
here that Sir William Courtenay comes into the story. This gentleman,
who had his seat at Powderham Castle, Devon, came forward and swore
positively that the tubs, which the _Lively_ was supposed to have
picked up, had been seen floating off the coast. He himself was
staying on a visit to Canterbury, and on that Sunday afternoon
happened to be sailing about off the Kentish coast, and sighted the
_Lively_ about two o'clock. He kept her in sight, he said, until four
o'clock. He also saw the _Admiral Hood_, and witnessed her being
chased by the _Lively_, but he had seen the tubs for most of the day,
as they had come up with the tide from the westward. With his own
eyes, and not through a spy-glass, he witnessed the _Admiral Hood_
being captured by the cruiser, and followed up this evidence by
remarking that "the tubs I saw picked up did not come out of the _Lord
Hood_. I say so sterling and plump."

This was exactly the reverse of the testimony as given by the crew of
the _Lively_, so it was evident that some one was lying. But to make a
long story short, it was afterwards found that Sir William was not
only _not_ afloat that afternoon, did not see the tubs, did not see
the two crafts, but was miles away from the scene, and at the time of
the chase was in church. He was accordingly brought for trial, found
guilty, and sentenced to be imprisoned for three calendar months, and
after the expiration of this, he was to be "transported to such a
place beyond the seas as his Majesty may direct, for the term of seven
years."

He was convicted on unmistakable testimony of having committed
perjury; in fact, Mr. Justice Parke, in giving judgment at the time,
remarked that it was the clearest evidence in a perjury case that had
ever fallen to his lot to try. As to the motive, it was thought that
it was done solely with a desire to obtain