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