Go to the Home Page
|
The ‘Honourable’ East
India Company (1600-1857)
- A realistic guide to
what is available
to those looking into the
careers of seagoing servants
(1600-1834)
by Len Barnett
|
Go to the Indian Marine and successors
|
|
|
Go to an academic paper on Valentine Joyce with mention to the HEIC |
|
Introduction
As a professional
maritime researcher, with a sound knowledge of sources useful to those seeking
genealogical information, for those both in armed and/or mercantile service on
British vessels, I receive enquiries of a great variety. Sometimes only armed with
a person’s name, happily I am able to provide a wealth of information from
original documents. At other times, even with more information to hand no
records survive and I have to tactfully explain that there is nowhere to go.
There is no doubt that
genealogy has become a popular pastime. There certainly seems to be evermore
people using the facilities of museums and archives to trace their ancestors.
The media too has realised this. A number of television documentaries and ‘how
to’ programmes have recently been aired on British screens. Often these tell
amazing tales, with polished ease.
For those who have
spent days trawling through tens of thousands of entries, red-eyed and tired,
in the vain hope of finding one single piece of
information, it is realised that research can be distinctly hard work! So,
the following is based on years of working on various classes of original
records and is meant as an aid to people who are interested in finding out
about their East India Company mariner forebears. I cover the main collection
at the British Library, with some additional sources and pointers to others.
How to use this
web-site
This begins with a
brief history of the H.E.I.C., in order to give an historical background to
those serving at sea. Following on is an introduction into the maritime
service. Having a significantly different organisation to both the Royal Navy
and other mercantile services, this is gone into in some detail. Aspects of the
ownership of the vessels, known as Indiamen, are also mentioned. Readers of The Family and Local
History Handbook may recognise some of
this, as a shortened but different form will appear in the eleventh edition (as
far as I understand now due for publication in the spring of 2008).
Some subjects are
highly complex and for these there are links to separate pages with more
detailed information, examples of documents and suggestions as to further
reading. This is intended to allow people to assess what records, if any, are
potentially of use to them.
People within the
United Kingdom who are easily able to travel around the London area may then
want to conduct their own searches. As these often take a considerable time and
therefore can cost much in time, money and effort, people from further away may
want to invest in the expertise of a professional researcher. This is
especially pertinent for people from overseas, where a trip to the U.K. may
well cost a great deal of money.
Of course engaging a
researcher is a matter of choice and requires trust. Some of the main
institutions mentioned have lists of researchers. A number of researchers
advertise that they are expert in a number of fields, both military and civil.
However, as some of these bodies of records are immensely complicated
personally I find it difficult to believe that these people can be truly
‘expert’ in all these areas. For those potentially interested in my services, I
can be contacted at len@barnettmaritime.co.uk. Please note that I earn my living as a freelance researcher
and therefore charge professional fees.
‘The Company’
What precisely was the
H.E.I.C., or ‘the Company’ as known by its servants? A difficult question to
answer, especially in a short piece, over its long life span it was many things.
It should be noted that the term ‘Honourable’ was one used internally, the
Company directors referring to themselves in this not
necessarily accurate manner when issuing orders to their servants.
Originally it began as
a (form of) speculative joint-stock trading venture by London merchants in 1599
with a fifteen-year charter from the Crown, to voyage to the East Indies for
pepper and spices. Sailing from the Thames in early 1601 (accounts differ as
whether it was in January or February), the survivors returned in September
1603. Opinions as to the remuneration from that first operation differ. Some
accounts reckon that this was highly encouraging
to the shareholders, even if the trading had not exactly gone to plan. Others,
including those that have gone into the matter in great
detail, give less sanguine assessments.
Apart from anything
else, these English adventurers were challenging the perceived preserves of
others who were far from pleased at further competition. The Dutch had recently
gained influence in the East Indies, trading there on a relatively large scale
since 1595 and this in itself had been theoretically ‘taken’ from the
Portuguese. Although fading, as a superpower Portugal still regarded mainland
India as the centre of it’s own sphere: even if the Mughals and other native rulers thought otherwise!
Not unnaturally after initial very poor relations in the
opening decades, sporadic, low-intensity warfare (although only through the
relatively few assets involved) characterised relations between the European
rivals. Having originally been at war, the English engaged in privateering against the Portuguese even before the first
official Company voyage (partly forming
the basis of the profit for this first voyage) and this continued, by all, even
after the European states had made their peace. Already having dispatched
heavier-armed vessels (than seemingly in some previous voyages) shortly before,
in 1613 a ‘naval’ coastal defence organisation, the East India Company’s
Marine, better known in it’s shortened title as the Indian
Marine,
was formed. (It should be noted that most of the general histories ignore the
activities of the Company’s naval forces. So, reference to the linked page may
be of interest to readers.)
Often
highly dynamic even in severe adversity and wildly fluctuating profitability, through the efforts
of its servants on station during the seventeenth century, commercial
operations expanded greatly, if not at all uniformly. As well as gaining a not
insignificant presence variously around India early on (including in Bengal in
the north east) and engaging in local politics from the start, the Company was
also active in southern Arabia very early and within the Persian Gulf by the
1620s (important tactically, politically and financially). Also looking
eastward, trade was initiated spasmodically even from the very early voyages
with Siam, Japan, Formosa and by the latter 1690s even
on the Chinese mainland, at Canton: encountering the usual opposition from
fellow Europeans, including the Spanish, already established. Nevertheless, the
Dutch proved too strong in the East Indies and the Company backed off there (at
least for the foreseeable future).
At
home there had been vociferous opposition to the monopolistic companies, as
well as interlopers into the Company areas (and others sniping from the
sidelines) that needed to be seen off. And, having been associated closely with
royal house of Stuart, the demise of James II in 1688 meant further trouble for
the gentlemen of Leadenhall Street (in the City of
London) as the Directors were known. With the government in want of funds and
the throne in the hands of William of Orange, a new English E.I.C. (as opposed
to the existing London E.I.C.) had been raised in 1698. Two such companies in
direct competition proved mutually disastrous in practice and when the E.E.I.C.
failed to raise the £2,000,000 pledged to the government as a loan it was not seen
as so useful after all and lost political interest. Therefore, after prolonged
negotiations the upstart was swallowed up in 1709 and ‘amalgamated’ became the
United East India Company.
Initially
the Company in India had not challenged the powerful Moslem Mughal
rulers and instead, being utterly essential, had entered into various treaties,
often to the detriment of the Portuguese. However, a punitive expedition to
Bengal in 1686, employing all of 308 specifically raised Company troops, had
ended this. An unsuccessful venture in many ways, the tiny English force under
the then senior factor, ‘Honest’ Job Charnock (along
with Portuguese mercenaries and Rajputs), was
massively outnumbered by the Nabob of Dacca’s army. Unsurprisingly, the Indians
put effective military pressure on their enemies; resulting in Charnock being recalled and Bengal being evacuated.
(Bizarrely, this evacuation was apparently all part of the London Directors’
plan and the Mughal Empire was supposed to be
assaulted through the invasion and occupation of Chittagong around the Bay of
Bengal!)
The
Nabob’s overlord, the Mughal Emperor Aurangzib, was said to have been magnanimous in victory and
allowed the English back into Bengal. (Of course, another explanation can be
found, namely that by this time the English were useful in two ways - in the
export of calicoes and the import of specie. Both of these will be explained
below.) Saliently, Aurangzib’s death in 1707, with
considerable pressure from the Hindus and Europeans, spelt the slow disintegration
of this Moslem Empire though.
By
this time the Portuguese had effectively lost all influence on the
sub-continent, but as of the 1660s the French had entered the fray. Their
company (merging three smaller entities in 1719) lacked political support back
at home, under capitalised and struggling financially
had previously diversified into acquiring Indian land - deliberately as a way
of raising funds through taxation. This meant the French getting deeper
involved in Indian politics. Interestingly, the earlier Anglo-French Wars of
1688-97 and 1702-13 had not been fought on Indian
soil. Nevertheless, this changed during the War of the Austrian Succession
(1740-48).
Although
the French had been keen to engage in combat against the British, it was the deployment
in theatre by the Royal Navy of four men-o-war that
brought the first clash - in capturing French vessels in 1745. In claimed
retaliation and with political support from the Nawab
of the Carnatic, on the orders of Joseph Dupleix, the
French briefly bombarded Madras, leading to British surrender there. There was
then the further humiliation of the destruction of Fort Saint David. Admiral
Boscawen’s naval blockade of the French Pondicherry was also abandoned, as it
was ineffective. Soon after the war in Europe was over, with
Madras returned to the British in the subsequent peace treaty.
Even
so, with both the French and British highly active in local politics by this
time, the fighting between the two companies was not over, whatever the
governments in London and Paris wanted. Robert Clive had already made an
appearance in the Company’s troops (having originally been a clerk). It was in
the continued fighting over the Carnatic succession
that Clive was initially to make his name. The French under Dupleix had gained
the initiative, to be wrested away militarily in the early 1750s, in actions
such as those of Clive at Arcot and Stringer Lawrence
at Trichinopoly. Although the scale of fighting had
seemingly lessened considerable, by 1754 the French there were in dire straits
and a truce between the two nations’ companies ensued. It was short-lived, but
the British had secured not-insignificant land in the south.
The
Seven Years War (1756-1763) although again initially disastrous to the British
in losing Calcutta to the Nawab of Bengal, ultimately
triumphed. Although largely forgotten nowadays, for a long time this conflict
in India was often remembered for the infamous happenings in the ‘Black Hole of
Calcutta’. Looked at dispassionately, this may be seen as more the result of
misunderstandings than anything, but what occurred was indeed terrible.
Equally, victories such as Plassey, again through
Clive’s command, are now not often remembered. Nevertheless, by the end of this
particular war, not only had the French been ejected (until allowed to return
under the general peace terms in 1763), but the Company had received a
‘favoured’ status in Bengal.
Additionally,
back in the south the First Anglo-Mysore War between 1767 and 1769 had
occurred. In concluding peace with Haidar Ali, a
promise of Company support in his conflict against the Marathas was made, but
broken. This was to lead to further bloodshed.
All
these military adventures masked a fundamental financial weakness. British
goods, mainly coarse woollens (and ironware to a lesser degree) had never been
wanted in these East Indies markets, or necessarily elsewhere such as in Japan
that had been so optimistically approached in the early seventeenth century
voyages. Eastern traders generally required bullion, or other products, such as
the Indian calicoes that were already a routine part of their trading
activities. Plundering Portuguese ships (whether for bullion or calicoes, the
latter as in the privateering of 1602) was not a
long-term solution. Nor indeed was the export of specie from England a lot of
the time. (Certainly by the eighteenth century, it can be reasonably argued
that there was already a complex ‘global’ system of trade. In peacetime at
least, Britain acquired it’s specie in directly trading manufactured goods with
Spain and Portugal, that had in turn obtained these from within their empires
in South America.) The Company later found opium to be the answer to this
conundrum for a time. Grown in India and indirectly exported to China by
‘country’ ships (explained in the next section), it was ‘bartered’ for the tea,
so popular in Britain, the American colonies and Europe. Regionally various
‘country’ trades contributed significantly to the Company’s liquidity. And, of
course, there was also the export to Britain of cheaply manufactured Indian
cotton goods (greatly resented in the British textiles industry). For all the
fabulous wealth amassed by some of its servants, by
1772 the Company was in dire financial straits. Reversing earlier events, in London
the Directors approached the government for a loan of £1.5 million. In
acceptance His Majesty’s Government was given indirect control of all the
Indian possessions.
From
the mid 18th century onwards these, or similar themes recur with
depressing regularity. Time and again, both H.M.G. and London Directors issued
orders stating that there were to be no more wars and territorial expansion,
but were ignored in theatre. Whether in direct acquisition, or through status
of ‘protection’, areas immediately adjacent to Company activities would become
problematical. Sometimes this was due to the perceived or actual anti-British
behaviour of the local rulers. If not, it was the reverse - that is a claimed
or actual state of anarchy. Border, or other incidents required ‘satisfaction’
through military expeditions, that in turn brought fighting and ultimately,
further acquisition of favour and/or territory and the whole process began once
again...
From
late 1778 the British and French resumed combat on land and sea in southern
India, originally due to the American War of Independence. Interestingly,
although enemies in their own rights, the Marathas and Haidar
Ali had formed a temporary alliance in order to get rid of the British. In the Carnatic, Haidar Ali’s forces
(often under the command of his famous son Sultan Tipu)
were fought as the Second Anglo-Mysore War of 1780-84; and also to the
north-west with the Marathas besieging Bombay. Although suffering serious
reverses, such as being forced back to Madras and besieged, generally the
Company (on land and sea), supported by Royal troops and the Royal Navy when
appropriate, eventually prevailed. This can be seen in terms of superior
discipline, firepower and tactics (the latter imported from Europe, such as the
very effective infantry-square in defence against cavalry attacks). In great
debt again through these exertions though the 1784 India Act foisted a
government Board of Control over the gentlemen of Leadenhall
Street, in the City of London, where the Company headquarters were.
Governor-Generals
of Bengal (and later India) came and went. Major-General Lord
Charles Cornwallis although a soldier (with a not entirely successful career in
the Colonies) proved to be an able administrator and tax-collector. An
Imperialist, with a loathing for Indians he is said to have begun the process
of ‘Europeanising’ the Company’s trading. All Indian officials were dismissed;
a separation of roles into Judicial, Revenue collecting and Commercial was
made; and in some ways most importantly, private trading by Company servants
was abolished. (See the next section on the Maritime Service for more on this).
He also presided over the Third Anglo-Mysore War of 1790-92. After the usual
reverses (in the Carnatic), Cornwallis took command
of the situation. In combination with the Marahatas
and after mixed experiences, in 1792 a massive army of 22,000 Company troops
and 18,000 of the Nizam of Hyderabad’s besieged and
successfully attacked the fabled fortress of Seringapatam.
Sultan Tipu’s surrender was humiliating, with a
massive indemnity and half of his land being taken by the victors. Of the three
constituents, both the Marathas and the Nizam lost
out greatly to the Company, which acquired the majority. Incidentally, to
ensure compliance Cornwallis had had Tipu’s two of
his young sons taken hostage.
But,
it was Richard Wellesley, as Governor-General of Bengal, (along with his
younger brother, Arthur, an officer in the Royal Army) who oversaw massive territorial expansion
between 1793 and 1805. Severely alarming the Directors in London, the Company’s
armies in the Carnatic and Bengal were overhauled and
enlarged. The invasion of Tipu’s remaining lands
opened hostilities, on the largely dubious ground that the Sultan was under
French influence. Seringapatam was again taken and
Sultan Tipu killed in the process. By the end of this
period not only had the French been seen off by Company and government troops,
the Marathas of central India were also badly weakened. India had never been a
country as such, but by the time the Wellesley’s were finished, between the
territories directly owned, the subsidiary states and those partly under
British ‘supervision’ it was beginning to look not unlike one!
Increasingly
the Company was called on to provide martial resources for the British State’s
operations. In the hideously complex Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
(1793-1815) the Bombay Marine was employed
variously, from Perim (1799) and Suez (1801) in the
west, to the taking of Ceylon (1795), Mauritius (1810) and Java (1811) in the
east.
Although
Europe post Bonaparte was a continent of peace, this was not necessarily the
case elsewhere and in Asia the British martial acquisitions continued for all
the reasons already articulated. In aggregate, with ever greater military
strength, in time British sights were set on the Punjab and Nepal to the north;
Burma to the east; and variously in the East Indies and Malaya to the
south-east. Conflict with China, partly relating to British merchants’ ‘rights’
to export opium there also followed. For other reasons, Aden was also acquired.
(When there was a maritime input in these wars, they are discussed in more
detail in the other Indian guide - see links above for the ‘Bombay Marine’ and
‘Indian Navy’ below.)
Nevertheless,
the basic nature of the Company changed further and inherently. Due to effects
of the Napoleonic Wars on shipping, the Company’s monopoly on trade with India
was abolished in 1813. With the idea of ‘Free Trade’ gaining in political
currency, twenty years later, not only was this ended for China as well, the
Company was also ordered to desist from trading completely. Instead, it was to
concentrate on administering the territories under its control. That is not to
say that it did not engage in some lesser commercial
activities, in mail and passenger services operated by the then Indian Navy (as the Bombay Marine was re-styled in 1830) -
by 1840 in competition with the Peninsular &
Oriental Steam Navigation Company and others. The Company
itself ceased in the aftermath of the horrific great Sepoy
Mutiny of 1857, although the I.N.’s commercial operation continued certainly
until 1870.
As
a point of interest, contrary to what is currently being propagated widely in
the U.K. in 2007, even when the 1833 Act outlawing the owning of slaves was enacted, this only covered the
West Indies. While Stamford Raffles, an interesting Company man, without
authority in the early 1820s freed the Company slaves at Fort Malborough, in Sumatra and fought for abolition, this was
not necessarily the Company line. In fact, although slavery had not had blanket
support for a long time, the H.E.I.C.’s 1833 charter only required more
restrictions. It was a full ten years on, in 1843, that slavery in Company administered territory was
abolished!
The Company’s Maritime
Service
This was a term to
cover the direct mercantile shipping between England and the Company’s
far-flung possessions. The long-haul voyages to and from the east were made
annually by the Indiamen and although armed, sailed together for protection. In
wartime they tended to be convoyed by the Royal Navy to
and from the Company island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic; and by the Indian Marine (and successor organisations) when threatened by
privateers, pirates and the like in Indian and Persian waters.
In
some respects the Maritime Service was similar to the Royal Navy, especially in
shows of pseudo-military behaviour. For instance, there were gun salutes for
captains when on station and their own flags were worn when within Company
areas. (It must be pointed out that gun salutes were not unknown of on other
merchantmen in the 17th and 18th centuries though.) Their
officers’ uniforms, introduced in 1781, initially closely resembled the more
junior ranks of the navy: although there were changes in 1787 that made these
much less so (with red breeches). In time (certainly by the late eighteenth
century) there were also the formal requirements for professional qualification
for officers. An important element of this was in time put in for the Company.
Candidates as mates and captains had to show past time either on ‘regular’
ships (that is East Indiamen proper), or ‘extra’ ships (those taken up for
particular charters). It should also be noted that considerable wealth was
required to gain commands though, as payment of sums up to £10,000 to the
owners, past captain or his family was required (depending on the age of the
vessel and the era).
Structures
of rank were far simpler than in the monarch’s
service,
primarily because there was no need for commissions and warrants. In the 1790s
the officers on larger Indiamen comprised not only of the mates and commander
(as the captain could also be termed), but also the surgeon, one surgeon’s
mate, the purser, one midshipman-coxswain and four midshipmen. The remaining
specialist heads of department, that of the boatswain,
carpenter and gunner, were rated as petty officers. The lesser specialists,
such as the sailmaker and armourer, were lumped in with the mass of ‘the
people’. Readers may find it interesting to note that midshipmen were regarded
as junior officers in the Company, as opposed to senior petty officers in the
Royal Navy; and also that the term ‘the people’ is actually used in Company
documents, something that I have never ever seen in any naval records.
Not
entirely unheard of in the Royal Navy (and not just officially sanctioned
specie); or in other mercantile service (being prevalent in some types, such as
in slaving and short-sea voyages to the Baltic and Mediterranean); in time
private trade came to be highly important to seagoing Company servants as a way of trying
to fostering loyalty and maintaining their claimed commercial right. (Although the Company was armed with impressive
monopolistic charters covering massive areas of the planet, in real terms these
were unenforceable. Even if lobbying the government saw off some of the occasional threats from British
interlopers from ports such as Bristol and Liverpool, this was only one danger.
For a start, numerous Company servants simply broke the rules by having
business relationships with British masters that had the gall to sail to the
East Indies anyway. Similarly, British merchants could merely use foreign
tonnage to ship the fabulous cargoes from the east: both in peace and war. And, at least some of this was
‘clandestine’ - technically from northern Europe such as Antwerp, but actually
owned and manned by Britons.) Up until 1694 private trade (or ‘indulgence’ as
also known) on Indiamen was theoretically limited to officers, but after this
year limited space was also made for ‘seamen’ to engage in their own
speculative dealings. This can be seen as merely legalising what was already
going on though (as evidenced in High Court of Admiralty documents for
instance), in the hope of curbing the worst excesses. Barring shipwreck,
combat, capture and other misfortunes like the vagaries of ‘the market,’
fortunes could and were made. Considering the
money needed for commands, this can be seen as not unimportant. Porcelain from
China was one variety of goods used in private trade, sometimes shipped as ballast!
Already
touched on briefly, by necessity the trade the Company was involved in was far more complicated than wished for in London.
Early on the Indiamen attempted to secure their own cargoes locally, calling at
ports variously: although for some wares, shipped by the Chinese especially to
points westward, it was more a matter of being in the right place at the right
time to buy up these exports. However, this generally gave way to the
‘country trade’, whereby ‘free merchants’ were licenced
to conduct coastal and regional shipping: eventually as far as the Red Sea,
east coast of Africa, China and even Australia. Often these ‘free’ merchants
and mariners were past European Company servants and in conjunction with
servants ashore, the real money could be made.
For a variety of reasons, this trade tended to be centred on Bengal. In all
likelihood, the majority of the great web of regional trades they tapped into were ancient and their business colleagues were multifarious
and exotic. It should be noted that the British activities were only ever a
small constituent within the total. Nevertheless,
saliently these dealings provided the exchange of goods that gave the Company
access to some specie (such as silver
from the Persian Gulf) and other precious commodities that it required for its
own transactions. Additionally it meant that regular services (subject to
seasonal natural occurrences like monsoons) could be maintained, such as for
mail (until post 1815) and vessels could also be utilised as transports (for
military operations) when required. Occasionally ‘country’ vessels were even
employed as ‘extra’ ships, venturing to England (but as far as can be made out
the charters normally did not extend to the return voyage back to the east).
Their
trade with China requires some specific comment. In the 1650s the Company had
begun exporting opium there. Due to the detrimental effects on their
population, the Chinese authorities had tried to stop the import and even sale
of this drug during the eighteenth century. In order that the ‘Honourable’
E.I.C. did not to lose it’s
trading rights Indiamen stopped shifting opium. Instead, it was auctioned at
Calcutta; bought by ‘independent’ traders; shifted in ‘country’ ships and
subsequently sold to Chinese traders that smuggled it ashore. Paid for in
specie, this was this that eventually was used by Indiamen to buy the tea for
export to London and re-export to Europe and the Americas. Incidentally, before
tea became synonymous with the ‘English’, this was mostly acquired by the
Company for re-export to Europe and the Americas.
Although
substantially relaxed during times of war, especially in the Revolutionary and
Napoleonic Wars, sailing from the Thames the ships’ companies of East Indiamen
were overwhelmingly of British subjects. By the time they returned they were
often very different indeed though. For a start there were all the
normal risks of illness and accident at sea, resulting at worst in incapacity,
or death. Desertion and tropical illness, as well as
the effects venereal disease could and did take their toll. And, others gaoled
ashore made further inroads into companies. In wartime, impressment
into naval service was also a factor (as well as those that legitimately
volunteered). Technically, if outward bound and especially if protection orders
had been procured, impressment should not have been
significant, although there are cases recorded of this happening. At the time
of writing I am not aware how prevalent this practice genuinely was, but the
London Directors are on record as reckoning that this was serious. Anyway, out
in the east pressing was more serious to commanders, particularly when petty
officers were taken, as there was little chance of securing equally qualified
replacements. Of necessity, substitutes, as they were called were indeed
shipped. There were Britons, Europeans apparently of all varieties (potentially including subjects of
enemy nations), Americans and apparently increasingly from the late eighteenth
century onwards, Lascars. This was then a loose term for natives of the
sub-continent, through Malaya and beyond, sometimes even covering those from
China. Until 1803, by law, slightly less than twenty-five percent were to be
Lascars, but with wartime shortages this officially became almost seventy-five
percent! The toll on Lascars through illness and mortality on inbound voyages
could be heavy. And, in wartime, for the others there was a higher risk of impressment in the final stages, particularly in the
English Channel. At least when paid off, they could be regarded as free. The
Lascars instead found themselves in a strange limbo ashore, where it was
exceptionally difficult to be returned to their homelands.
Indiamen - a few
pointers
Initially East Indiamen
were built and maintained by the Company itself, in it’s own yard leased at Deptford (on the south side
of the Thames), between 1607 and c.1627 supplied from a Company timber yard at
Reading. Abandoned due to the considerable costs from these activities, from
then onwards they chartered vessels built to tight specifications. They were
then constructed increasingly at Blackwall, on the
northern side of the Thames (immediately to the east of the Isle of Dogs), by
ships’ husbands that were also their (part or total) owners. By the end of the
eighteenth century one person characterised the dynamism of this breed - Sir
Robert Wigram. As an example of the social fluidity
of the time, his first association with the Company had been as a lowly
surgeon’s mate.
Tonnage versus size
relating to East Indiamen is a complex subject in its own right and will only
be briefly mentioned here, in order to bring to readers’ attention the concept.
Events, including Acts of 1773 and 1774 that normalised the ‘builder’s
measurement’ for the registration of tonnage, basically meant that Indiamen
would have to be described more accurately than they had been for almost a
century. Previously, their royal charter of 1698 had required East Indiamen of
500 registered tons or more to carry a chaplain. So, seemingly on grounds of
cost the Company registered all affected vessels as 499 tons: in spite of the
fact that increasingly these could be seen to be very much larger. The fiction
was that the Company was only chartering the
lower figure though, which makes me wonder whether the particularly generous
allowances of ‘indulgences’ became linked.
In 1772 the Company had
been allowed to build ships in India, but only for local trade. However,
because of various strains brought about by war with France in 1793, two years
later and contrary to the Navigation Acts (when not relaxed during war), the
Company was authorised to utilise ‘proper’ ships constructed in the East Indies
for trade to the United Kingdom. So began the building at Bombay of Indiamen
that were in many ways superior
in sailing qualities to the London-built vessels.
Incidentally, the name
of Wigram continued to be associated with the trade
to India and the Far East, even after the loss of the Company’s monopoly. This
was through the building of the famous ‘Blackwall frigates’, that still resembled the beautiful Indiamen well
into the nineteenth century.
Ownership should also
be mentioned. The traditional view is that the ‘principal’ owners as shown in Hardy’s
are accurate. However, a friend of mine, Hugh Lyon, has been conducting greatly
in-depth research into the ‘Transcripts’ - that is the registers
of ships’ certificates, in this case for London registered vessels. This has
thrown up considerably different results and this dovetails
with other research (as part of an as yet unpublished doctoral thesis).
According to Hugh’s work, the ownership was far more complicated, with the
named owners seemingly only being those convenient for the purposes of
certification. To a greater, or lesser degree, these
were men with a considerable spread of investments. An example of this can be
seen in Sir William Mellish; who made an immense
fortune from the family butcher’s business as a naval contractor of meat to the
Royal Navy, based on the Isle of Dogs; and who was also associated with Wigram (mentioned previously). One of Sir William’s
brothers was also involved in shipbuilding nearby. Also, Indiamen’s commanders
that had made good at sea could and did buy into ownership as well.
Finally, as an
associated point of interest, the owners of the country ships were just as
likely to be Parsis, Moslems or Hindus as British.
This then potentially widens the picture even
further.
Tracing Individuals in
Company Service and Further Research
For most researchers’
purposes, the main collection of papers for the ‘Honourable’ East India Company
is housed together in one collection. However, this is at the British Library
and for those that do not have experience of this institution, numerous
difficulties can be encountered there. Also, between a fire in the nineteenth
century and more recent destruction of records by civil servants, there are
very large gaps in these. Also, it should be noted that with exceptions,
realistically only officers can be researched. Even with all these weaknesses,
what has survived is frequently both fascinating and when produced, a joy to
study.
Although the Company
records are generally well indexed (as compared to the later India Office
records that are a mess in places), pertinent documents for individuals can be
spread across numerous classes. Unfortunately, finding these within the
multifarious catalogues on the shelves can prove a time-consuming and confusing
process. So, once found, if at all possible one should memorise where within
the shelves the approximate positions of required catalogues are and pray that
users return catalogues to the proper places.
Thankfully a small
number of guides and indexes to the British Library catalogues have been
produced that are invaluable in getting started. For genealogists of all things
Indian, Baxter’s Guide
should be referred to at an early stage. Nevertheless, this is general in
nature as delving into the actual documents soon shows. Overseen by Anthony
Farrington, his biographical and ships’ indexes are particularly useful. Other
researchers, such as Tony Fuller and Anne Bulley have
also contributed further on specific topics and their publications can be of
real use in some types of investigations. Of course, there is always Horatio
Hardy’s register, the original standard. While still handy, in some respects
this has been superseded by the modern titles.
It is difficult to
determine quite when the Company began producing recognisable officers’
records of service, but they are now surviving from the early 1770s. It is
interesting, that some of these are not dissimilar to certificates of service
as used in the Royal Navy. (For the earlier periods, the indexes and catalogues
overseen by Anthony Farrington are particularly useful in tying individual
officers to ships served on.) It would seem that it was not until the Company
was ordered to wind up its maritime trade that similar records of service were constructed for petty officers.
There
are other listings that give limited info
on officers and sometimes petty officers. One possibly useful series on
commanders begins in 1737 and runs through to 1832, giving dates of
resignation, or death. Another, from 1828 to 1834 gives some salient details of
service for both officers and petty officers. Of slight use is a nominal list
of masters and mates of ‘extra’ ships 1796 to 1825, this is arranged by rank
chronologically, but only dates and names are given. A not dissimilar nominal list
of commanders and officers on ‘proper’ ships for 1796 to 1828,
is of even less use, simply because there is a giant hole between 1797 and
1813.
Of
course, Hardy’s can also be trawled
through. Consolidating information from considerably earlier than their years
of publication; for annual voyages of Indiamen sailing from the United Kingdom
between 1708 and 1759 commanders only are recorded; and from 1760 to 1790
commanders, the first four mates, surgeons and pursers are shown.
Officers’
appointments can apparently be found through Court Minutes and Committee of
Shipping Minutes (the latter from 1802 to 1834). At the time of writing I have
not had cause to investigate this particular avenue and suspect, as in naval
officers and using Admiralty records, that this needs a great deal of time and
effort. Additionally, there are a few documents directly relating to
appointments, being a list of applications from officers from ‘proper’
ships 1763 to 1810 and two volumes of nominations of surgeons and surgeons’
mates 1801 to 1833, giving such appointments.
Before
moving onto operational and administrative records for those aboard Indiamen,
two other types of documents are worthy of some space. Firstly, there are four
volumes of certificates of birth and/or baptism, mostly of midshipmen
(apparently known as ‘guinea pigs’), but also including some more senior
officers from c.1780 through to c.1830.
Then
there are those relating to the Poplar fund that may be highly useful. In explanation, through a mandatory
scheme, from 1625 until c.1783 Company mariners of all ranks and rates paid tuppence
in the pound; and subsequently thruppence or 11/4 per
cent of their pay. From this temporary or permanent relief, including widows’
pensions or admission to almhouses was doled out
frugally. Open to all mariners in Company service, it was not only those of the
lower orders that made such representations. From 1809 onwards these are
externally indexed and entries can give important genealogical details. At
first sight these records are far from simple to get to grips with.
Nevertheless, the registers of applications should be used to find the relevant
case number(s). From there the actual pension records can be found. Also, there
is a printed list of pensions awarded to seagoing Company personnel, 1793 to
1833, by order of Parliament that can be of material use.
When
progressing on to the actual operational and administrative documents for named
Indiamen, although there can be other varieties there tend to be three types.
Two of these should be used in conjunction.
The
books of printed receipts for wages, probably maintained
by Indiamen’s pursers, not only give the sums signed for by individual members
of Indiamen’s companies, may also contain other
interesting, or useful snippets. Officers were personally responsible for their
servants and so, also drew their pay as well. Some officers, petty officers and
men signed for their own, but wives are commonly shown as taking possession of
their husband’s pay on discharge in London. Occasionally, other family members,
such as sons, also feature in this way. Attorneys are also shown, some of which
will have been lawyers proper. But, there are also others described in this way
that may, or may not have been. After all there were also other people that had
call on returning mariners’ pay, that is those that
the sailors had gone into debt with prior to sailing - lodging housekeepers
and/or crimps. (According to one modern source, crimps were not the anti-social
nuisance in earlier centuries that they had become by the nineteenth century. I
am not entirely convinced by this argument though.) Sadly, sometimes there were
also administrators, dealing with the proceeds of the deceased. Indiamen’s pay ledgers can be used in conjunction with the receipts of
wages, giving a little more info on the breakdown of individuals’ pay. .
The
third of type were ships’ journals and were detailed navigational logs, kept by chief mates and are highly technical in nature and may be daunting to the
general researcher. Nevertheless, for those that understand the navigation of
the time, the information logged has been in my experience far superior to that of most naval masters’ logs.
As well as giving their location, or where bound; weather; principal events;
stores and individuals embarked/dis-embarked; ships
in company and their relative movements etc., etc., are noted. Occasionally
individual seamen are mentioned by name, although at the time of writing I have
only seen this when recording their deaths. Also, for the casual reader,
weather terms such as ‘gale’, or ‘pleasant gale’ should not be understood in
their modern sense. Proper study of such journals may take many days, or even
weeks each.
These
are not the only varieties of original records that can be drawn on when
studying the careers of officers either. Among the vast collection of administrative papers, for
example, there are also the Company’s letter books. These are the orders
from the Directors in London to Company servants ‘in the East’. Fascinating, in
total they cover all the main aspects of business. It should be pointed out
that a general knowledge of business of the time is a pre-requisite to fully
understanding these. Pertinent to this particular aspect is the concept of
corruption. For instance the Company’s history is peppered with such charges
levelled at homecoming Governor-Generals, sometimes proven in inquisitions, at
other times not. Often Company servants said that they were misunderstood and
were merely adopting the customs of trade in the East. Nevertheless, original
instructions show that the Directors could and did take a poor view to
pilferage by their servants.
There
are other potential sources as well. The Guildhall Library in the City of
London has a considerable number of documents relating directly,
or indirectly with the Company. One of these is devoted to the Society of East
India Commanders, as something of a mutual aid society. The documents
themselves are bound, all higglety-pigglety,
hand-written and printed, covering numerous subjects of interest to the
members, including aspects of private trade. Incidentally, there were
apparently also minute books for this society that were held by the Baltic Exchange.
These may now also be at the
Guildhall Library - but uncatalogued. Another of
these ‘secondary’ sources, if only in the closing stages of the eighteenth
century and into the nineteenth, are the surviving ledgers devoted to boys
coming into contact with the Marine
Society.
It should be noted, that the first entry that I have found was in 1777 and this
possibly reflected the personal attitudes of commanders in recruiting their own
(ships’) companies.
Books
too, can provide relevant information. Apart from those now in print and
judging from those on the bookshelves at the Indian and Oriental Collection at
the British Library, Camden, London and the National Maritime Museum’s Library,
Greenwich there is a not inconsiderable number of these. When delving further,
there are also antique titles and these can be worthwhile tracking down. One of
these produced contemporaneously was by a Company writer named Grose. Entitled Voyages
to the East Indies
it is rich in description of the wonders of his travels. All the same, for
readers not used to eighteenth century English and their spellings (that are
not dissimilar to more modern German in Gothic script) this and others may
prove difficult to read!
Having
touched briefly on the H.E.I.C. and surviving records, as a general note in
researching its servants, as elsewhere in society, interest or patronage was of
extreme importance in the
centuries that the Company was in existence: even towards the end. This should
be taken into consideration when researching individuals and can sometimes be
clearly seen even in basic searches, such as when using Anthony Farrington’s
biographical and ships’ indexes. Past brother officers not infrequently turn up
later in terms of owning Indiamen (in full or part). For those that made good
and returned to London as ‘Nabobs’ (wealthy former Company servants), they were
among that part of Society that invested widely across the board in the City.
It is, therefore, not surprising to find their names cropping up in all sorts
of other entities, in other areas of shipping (obviously including slaving) for
instance, or the great insurance companies. Of course, there was also the
political angle to think of, with more potentially lucrative deals arising from
this. With such cross-fertilisation in investment circles, it is therefore not
unnatural for this to also perhaps occasionally show itself in the careers of
sea-going followers, whether as officers or petty officer levels at least and
probably wider to some of ‘the people’.
Also,
although not even just English, but initially very much centred around London, certainly by the mid-eighteenth century the
Company was drawing its servants far wider within the
British Isles. From my researches so far, Scots and Irish families were well
represented. Once involved, it was not unusual for there to be generation after
generation of these families in subsequent service. What is more, they could be
spread across the differing fields of endeavour - as civil servants and soldiers.
Apart
from where already mentioned, the main sources of information
for this guide has come from the following published works:-
Jaap R. Bruijn and Femme
S. Gaastra (Editors): Ships, Sailors and Spices: East India Companies and
their Shipping in the 16th, 17th and 18th
Centuries
(Amsterdam,
Neha, 1993)
Anne
Bulley: The
Bombay Country Ships 1790-1833 (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2000)
K.N.
Chaudhuri: The
East India Company: The Study of an Early Joint-Company 1600-1640 (London: Frank Cass
& Co. Ltd., 1965)
K.N.
Chaudhuri: The
Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company 1660-1760 (London: CUP, 1978)
Sir
Evan Cotton (edited by Sir Charles Fawcett): East Indiamen: The East India Company’s
Maritime Service
(London: The Batchworth Press, 1949)
Brian
Gardner: The East India Company (London: Rupert
Hart-Davis, 1971)
Lawrence
A. Harper: The English Navigation Laws:
A Seventeenth-Century Experiment in Social Engineering (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1939)
Lawrence
James: Raj: The Making and Unmaking of
British India
(London:
Little, Brown & Co., 1997)
John
Keay: The
Honourable Company: A History of the English East
India Company
(London:
Harper Collins, 1993 in paperback)
B.B.
Misra: The
Central Administration of the East India Company 1773-1834 (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1959)
R.H.
Mottram: Traders’
Dream: The Romance of the East India Company (London: D.
Appleton-Century Co., 1939)
There
were also more minor (or indirect) consultations from others including:-
Annals of
Lloyd’s Register
(In
house publication, 1934)
Brian
Lavery: Nelson’s
Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation 1793-1815 (London: Conway Press,
1989)
N.A.M.
Rodger: The Wooden World: An Anatomy
of the Georgian Navy (London:
Fontana Press, 1986)
There
was also one other current book that I drew a few snippets from (and
subsequently checked in original legislation and documents), not mentioned in
this list because the general standard of understanding of the seamen has been
shown by the author to be absolutely woeful.
Return to the Company’s Maritime Service
Return to pointers on Indiamen