Maritime negotiation

Industrial relations involving seamen in Australia have a reputation for being robust. The tale of the Persia indicates that this situation has a long history.

The story begins with an incident during the voyage when two sailors broke into the single women's quarters. Apparently the Captain decided that the offenders would be dealt with at the end of the voyage.

True to his word, Captain Smith contacted the authorities in Gladstone on the day the ship anchored to have the two men taken into custody. When the local police came on board, they were surrounded by more than a dozen crewmates of the accused, who challenged that if the locals were to arrest any of them it would mean taking them all.

The matter was settled without violence and 15 men, all from the same watch on the Persia, were taken off the ship, tried for insubordination and sentenced to three months imprisonment. They were duly transferred to Brisbane under guard on another vessel.

It was claimed that the arrest of the first two offenders had been used by their mates as a convenient excuse and the threats to the Police were simply a ruse to get themselves arrested as well. The men were reportedly unhappy with the Mate who oversaw their watch and decided that a spell in Brisbane's new Green Hills Gaol (on the site of the Petrie Terrace Barracks entertainment complex) would be preferable to continuing the voyage to China and then on to South America.

This cynical view was reinforced when after serving a little under a month of their sentence, the men were released into the custody of Captain Smith and returned to the Persia. The Courier of 28 December carried a report of the almost inevitable outcome.

It is amazing that this trouble did not boil over at sea between Plymouth and Gladstone with terrible consequences for the immigrants (and for our family history!)

A full life at sea

The voyage of the Persia from Plymouth to Brisbane in 1861 was considered a good one in that "only" 20 of the 454 emigrants who embarked died en route. The Moreton Bay Courier reported that "on the whole they had been well treated and well cared for on the passage—every one of them speaking in the highest commendation alike of captain (Smyth), doctor, and chief officer."

The doctor in question was Surgeon-Superintendent Clarence Chapman. The Surgeon-Superintendent was to responsible for the welfare of the immigrants as the agent of the ship's hirer (in this case, the Queensland Goverment). In theory at least, Dr Chapman had the authority to over-rule Captain Smyth in circumstances where the business interests of the ship's owners conflicted with the needs of the people on board.

In some cases, the Surgeon-Superintendent was supported by a Matron who took principal responsibility for "women's issues" with a particular focus on the moral well-being of the single women.

To ensure the Surgeon-Superintendent carried out his duties with due care and attention, his fee was based upon the number of "statute adults" disembarked alive at the end of the journey. For delivering 438 persons including 4 born at sea, Chapman would probably have earned £387.10.0 (since children were paid as fractions).

It would not have been easy to secure the services of a suitably qualified and experienced medical practitioner prepared to be on call for more than 400 patients 24 hours a day for up to 100 days in very challenging conditions. In an ordinary voyage, he might need to deal with difficult births, various infectious "fevers", the consequences of poor nutrition and questionable hygiene, and have to perform surgery for accidental injuries. Hiring the "wrong" man as Surgeon-Superintendent could have literally fatal consequences.

Unless a young doctor undertook the role as a means of moving to the colonies to begin a new life, he faced another 100 day journey home before he could resume his usual practice. Little wonder then that migration agents needed to devise ever more elaborate schemes to make it attractive for a proven man to undertake more than one trip.

In this respect, the immigrants of the Persia were very well served. In 1861, Dr Chapman was making his sixth voyage from England to Australia in just eight years.

• July 1854 Plantagenet 247 adults and 72 children (1 death) to Sydney
• April 1855 Speedy 302 adults and 114 children (2 deaths) to Sydney
• July 1856 Ben Nevis 269 adults and 65 children (no deaths) to NSW
• September 1857 Admiral Lyons 371 adults and 77 children (12 deaths) to NSW
• December 1858 John and Lucy 334 adults and 59 children (no deaths) to Melbourne

From The Sydney Morning Herald 16 Sept 1857

Dr Chapman had not lazed away 1859-60 at home. He sailed aboard the Euxine carrying the wives and families of soldiers to India. In a 101 day journey, only one of 224 adults was lost, but 74 of the 238 children who boarded the vessel on 14 October 1859 did not complete the journey to be reunited with their fathers.

When the Persia sailed from Brisbane for China in December 1861, Dr Chapman remained on board. He served as Surgeon-Superintendent when she transported a large group of indentured labourers to Georgetown (Guyana) to work as cane cutters.

After his eventual return to England, Clarence Chapman undertook at least three four more voyages to Australia. He arrived in Port Adelaide aboard the Mary Shepherd in April 1863, then in Sydney on the Castle Eden in November 1864, and sailed into Sydney once again on 14 October 1865 aboard the Venilia.

In July of 1870, Clarence Chapman was commended in the Melbourne press for his work in bring more than 400 new settlers to Victoria aboard the Corona

Time before the mast

My list of migrant ships spanning 80 years caused me to wonder how the length of the voyage had changed in that time. The journeys undertaken differ slightly in their ports of departure (Plymouth, Hamburg, London) and landfall (Rockhampton, Maryborough, Moreton Bay, Sydney) but against the length of a Europe-Australia voyage, these are minor.

The chart shows clearly the group of voyages under sail that lasted more than 100 days and those driven by steam that were completed in less than 70 days.

The Dorunda that carried 3xgreat grandmother Mary CREASE in 1882 was our family's first experience of travel in a motor-driven ship. Two years later, 2xgreat grandmother Jane and 3xgreat grandfather John DAVIES were aboard the Corona when it made the long journey under sail as it had done when carrying convicts 20 years earlier. Their trip (116 days) was more than twice as long as Mary's (52 days)

Two trips stand out by falling between these two extremes.

The Indus was originally built with steam-driven paddle wheels but her engines had been removed before she began service to the Southern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, her 1870 voyage carrying 3xgreat grandfather Henry SUDDABY and his brother John in 92 days was very fast for that period.

The 1919 sailing of the Beltana carrying great grandmother Eva Elsie and 2xgreat grandfather Frederick THORPE was the first after the owners received the ship back from military use in World War I. Uncertainty about the availability of coal would have meant very conservative use and some long refuelling stops that combined to make a very long voyage of 94 days.

If we wanted to recreate these voyages today on a passenger-carrying freighter, we would need to allow between 32 and 40 days for the trip. While that may seem no improvement on the late 1920s, it is important to note that the current cost is quoted as £3200-4000 rather than £33 in 1926.

Can you spell that?

In the course of Friday's (excellent) seminar on Shipping Records, discussion turned to the many and varied versions of ships' names that may be found. The Rajahgopaul was cited as one example of a name that is often mangled by family historians.

This is a vessel close to my heart because it was the birthplace of Catherine Corry. So I was interested to find the definitive answer to how it should be named.

A Google search [rajahgopaul] produces an immediate suggestion that I may have it wrong; followed by an array of "hits" on different spelling forms.

Employing the time-honoured maxim that he who agrees with me must be correct, I went to the New South Wales State Records result first.

There I found that the image of the passenger list includes (in a beautiful copperplate hand) yet another spelling.

So the name could be one word (with two internal variants) or two capitalised words (with or without a hyphen)!

When you need a definitive ruling, you should seek an authoritative source and what could be more authoritative in the maritime field than Lloyd's Register, available for search through Google Books.

The 1855 edition includes our vessel and the issue is resolved — one word, with a "u".

Now to confirm that fact by referring to the 1860 edition of Lloyd's (because you cannot have too many supporting references).

And the conclusion? The ways in which the names of ships are recorded are no more (or less) reliable than those of the names of the people and places we seek out.

Take care that you consider all the obvious variations (and even some not so obvious). The obituary of Mrs Maria Holgate (eldest sister of Catherine Corry) in The Central Queensland Herald of 5 October 1933 reported that she had "come to Australia with her parents in the ship, Rajah de Paul".

Down to the sea in ships

I am looking forward to spending today in a seminar Shipping Records for Family Historians with staff from the Archives.

It is difficult to over-state the importance of shipping records to Australian family historians when so many of our ancestors came here by sea.

In the case of our family, we have confirmed connections with 15 vessels:

• 1852 Rajahgopaul
• 1855 Pacific
• 1861 Persia
• 1866 Wandrahm
• 1866 Southern Ocean
• 1870 Indus (shown at right)
• 1882 Dorunda
• 1884 Corona
• 1887 Duke of Bucchleuch
• 1887 Waroonga
• 1919 Beltana
• 1924 Hobson's Bay
• 1926 Orama
• 1928 Demosthenes
• 1929 Themistocles

and at least five more are under investigation.