The late Tony Pawlyn analysed Robert Coath’s petition, cross-referencing it with known records.
By some of the phrasing and vocabulary I do not think this account was written personally by Coath, but was possibly dictated, or related, to a notary of some other who wrote it for him. This could account for the fact that Coath’s recollection of the names of the smugglers encountered appears somewhat loose. However, this may have been deliberate, although as some are accurate I assume this to be a problem of phonetic interpretation by the writer.
A number of the incidents quoted by Coath are partially confirmed by other records and accounts. One such is the account of the encounter with 5 smugglers. His account here seems a fair one, and resulted in an Old Bailey trial on January 9th 1799,1 which dates the incident as occurring on April 12th 1798. The trial record accords reasonably with Coath’s account here. There is some ambiguity over names, the trial record naming Samuel Morris, John Hicks [Hickes], and Robert Coath [Couthe] as being the Crown witnesses. The defendants, named as John Heals [Yeals] (46), Peter Avery [Every] (54), and John Chapman (36), were found guilty and sentenced to ‘be confined to hard labour on the Thames for three years.’ A shorthand record of this trial of Heals, Avery & Chapman January 10th 1799, [National Archives: CUST 103/43 pp.1-74[/efn_note] and in this their names are more correctly spelt. More to the point, Coath is described by John Hicks as being ‘… a pupil an expectant a man bringing up to be an Officer…’ in April 1798.
Another such account is that concerning the arrest of Richard Oliver of Polperro. Coath’s account of this incident appears less satisfactory, as there is some confusion as to his status and part in this previous incident. In his petition Coath implies that he was then an Excise Officer – but by the above evidence of John Hicks, he clearly was not. Indeed, in the transcript of the trial in the Court of Exchequer, 2 Robert Coath makes no mention of being an Excise Officer, saying he was employed ‘In the Woollen Manufacture.’ The trial record dates Oliver’s offence as occurring on September 26th 1796, and although then supposedly an independent witness, Coath was the lead Crown witness. His testimony was supported by that of Samuel Morris [Supervisor of Excise], and John Hickes [Excise Officer]. Oliver was found guilty and fined treble the value of the goods: £366. 12s., or £1,099. 16s.- close enough to the £1,090 stated by Coath.
The following day two more Polperro smugglers were brought to trial in the Court of Exchequer – William and John Quiller. Coath makes no mention of these trials in his petition, which is not surprising given their outcome. William Quiller was tried first (for a smuggling offence occurring in May 1796), and Robert Coath was again the lead witness for the Crown: indeed he was their only material witness. Of Robert Coath, Zephaniah Job, the primary smuggling agent of Polperro said in the days leading up to these trials (November 1797), that – ‘if this Rascal was not to be silenced he would ruin every Smuggler in this place.’
Defence counsel went all out to try and discredit Robert Coath’s character. He alluded to Robert’s father having been condemned for sheep stealing – one Francis Coath (presumably Robert’s father) was tried at the Lent Assize for Cornwall, which opened at Launceston on March 25th 1786. One of six indicted for similar offences, the Cornwall Gaol Delivery record notes –
Sheepst.g
Francis Coath – For stealing one Ewe Sheep prc. 10.s the Goods of Richard Searle.
po: se: Guilty
To be hanged – Resp.d for 14 days from 6th April 1786 by order of M.r Baron Eyre dat. 1st said April.
Afterw.ds executed.
Despite the cost the defendant had brought up a number of witnesses from Polperro to blacken Coath’s character – including his Uncle George Coath. William Quiller was acquitted.
Immediately following, on the same day, the trial of John Quiller came on, but such had been the defence counsel’s attack on Robert Coath’s character, that he was not called to give evidence in this trial. Instead convicted smuggler Richard Mutton was called as the lead witness for the Crown. It came out that the Quillers, Mutton, Coath, and a Mr. R [Rean?] had all travelled up to London in the same coach – make of that what you will. From the outset Mutton behaved as a hostile witness, and gave answers so obtuse that the Attorney General ultimately abandoned the prosecution.
Quite how these trials and the events leading up to them, fit the chronology of Coath’s career as an Excise Officer has yet to be revealed. But, it would appear that while the Excise authorities were not operating a witness protection programme as such, they were looking after such witnesses in some degree by offering them subsequent employment. This too needs to be verified, but there are other similar instances, including that of Joseph George from Sennen Cove, who, having given capital evidence against his brother, was later a crew man on board an Excise Cutter operating out of Dover.
The run in with Lark and Binnitha and six other smugglers, appears reasonably accurate, and accords generally with the account given in a King’s Bench affidavit sworn by Coath and Uglow on May 30th 1802. 3 This encounter took place on February 18th 1802, about six o’clock in the morning – when Coath and Uglow encountered seven smugglers with seven laden horses near St. Columb. A general fracas ensued, and five ankers of spirits were seized and carried to the Excise Office to be secured. But, before they could be carried into the office five of the smugglers fell upon Coath and Uglow again, and during a desperate encounter rescued four of the casks. During this encounter Robert Coath was ‘… very severely cut and wounded and much bruised…’ The one anker they managed to secure contained seven gallons of foreign Geneva, and Coath was able to identify three of the smugglers – Thomas Benneta, James Lark, and John Snell, all of the parish of St. Stephens.
It is almost impossible to identify Captain Richards’ vessel. She would appear to be one of the ‘constant traders,’ or ‘market boats,’ that ran a shuttle service between rural out-ports and larger centres of trade and commerce. Bristol wine & spirit merchants King & Wills should be relatively easy to trace, and possibly the Wills partner in this firm was related to the great tobacco merchants, if not one of them.
The Earl St. Vincent mentioned is another anchor point in Coath’s Excise career. She is mentioned in a number of contemporary sources, including:
- Customs Intelligence of smuggling vessels loading at Guernsey – Nov. 22nd 1806.
- Bideford & Ilfracombe Custom House correspondence, when she was being shadowed by the Revenue Cutter Shark, Matthews, in April 1807.
- Carteret Priaulx correspondence from Nicholas Randle of St. Teath, North Cornwall, reporting that there was no sign of the Earl St. Vincent
The Earl St. Vincent was boarded and while she was being searched, commander Matthews took her captain and some of her crew on board the Shark. While his men were still on board the Earl, another suspicious vessel was seen in the offing. An abstract from the log of the Shark for Thursday April 23rd 1807 reading:
Fresh Breezes and fair. At 10 AM Trevose bearing [?] dis.t about 5 Leagues, saw a Cutter rigged vessel standing off the Land when the Captain of the Earl St. Vincent of Hastings, he being on board the Shark with 12 of his men, informed me it was the Valiant smuggling cutter of Fowey when I called immediately on board the Earl St. Vincent to Mr. Crockford Mate of the Shark to Chace, as did the Shark until 9 PM when thro’ the darkness of the night, and weather being very hazey lost sight of her. Smalls Light by Estimate SbE.t dis.t 3 Leagues, stood both vessels to the NW all night … Friday 24th. Thick foggy wea.r, at 1 AM Tack.d and stood to the SSW expecting to fall in with the Chace, At 7 AM haild Mr. Crockford requested him to make a strict search on board the Earl St. Vincent to find if anything was Illegal, when he hailed me and said there was not but that she was in every respect Agreeable to the Act, thought it proper to detain her no longer.
The duration of some of Coath’s claimed hand to hand battles seems excessive, and his ability to frequently overcome great odds seems to be almost boastful. Few of these accounts ring true, but it is clear that he did survive many close encounters with some pretty desperate smugglers, and his final list of injuries speaks volumes for his persistent zeal, and diligent attention to duty. Even so, despite his claims to greater seizures than any/many of his fellow officers, the quantities mentioned are quite insignificant when compared with the total volumes of goods being smuggled in this period – vide Job and Priaulx and others, 1780 – 1810. They are also trivial amounts compared with the quantities then being seized afloat. Despite the Excise Officers’ despised reputation ashore, they were more of an irritant than a real scourge of the smugglers. At the same time so many of the contemporary accounts and affidavits of Excise seizures, assaults, obstructions and rescues, are couched in such formulaic terms as to raise great suspicion of collusion and token seizures being permitted by the smugglers for the sake of form in many cases.