Ship delivery in the 1800's

[Vatersay]

Hello everybody

It is me all puzzled again, We know now thanks to roots chat that the Annie Jane was built in the Anse au Foulon shipyard in Quebec and launched in May 1853. Now I assumed that she would have been crewed up and sailed across the Atlantic with some kind of cargo but I don't think this was the case?
My first question is the owner said at the inquiry, She was built under special inspection, under a contract.   What does that mean?

Second question is the second steward a James Taylor at the inquiry said.
Q, What voyage have you been?
A, I have not been on one lately I came here with Captain Rose on the Earl of Elgin.
Q, Did the Canadian crew in the Annie Jane come over in that vessel?
A, The French Canadians came over in that ship with me.
He also mentions how well the French Canadian crew performed under the French Captain.

So it looks like the Annie Jane just got delivered over the Atlantic by a crew that did not stay with her. Captain Mason says he joined her 6 weeks before she sailed so that would be the beginning of July and she was in the graving dock.   Why would a brand new ship that had just sailed over the Atlantic be in the graving dock? And what would be the standard practice for crewing and delivering a ship from Quebec to Liverpool?

Third puzzle is one of the Stewards describing the crew says there were four carpenters James Boyd, Belfast (without wages) James Marshall, Sunderland (without wages) Uhalt Gagon, Canada (without wages) and Edward Durrant, Canada (without wages)  WHY!! would people work and spend a month on a ship without wages???

Thanks for reading.

Regards Allan

[waiteohman]

Hello Allan

The partners of the shipyard, William Henry Baldwin and his stepbrother Henry Dinning were entitled to take £150 annually from the proceeds of the yard; from time to time the profits were to be divided up. G. B. Symes and Company acted as a shipbroker for the sale of the ships, mostly in Liverpool.

The vessel produced and launched in 1853 was likely for George Burns Symes and possibly jointly with David Young. Symes was a timber merchant, traded in commodities. Symes with Young, a president of the Quebec Bank was an owner or part owner of 16 ships and advertised passage on sailing vessels making the return voyage to Liverpool and Hull, England. Banks were a crucial part of the commercial process for timber merchants, since their businesses required extensive credit advances to the timber-cutting companies. Symes had a least one issue and legal suit related to his timber business dealings.

In 1852 Sir George Simpson, Governor of the Hudson Bay Company was associated with Hugh Allan, shipbuilder and shipper in the formation of the syndicate that became the Montreal Ocean Steamship Company. Symes invested in this company in 1853 and became a director in 1854. Allan advocated the establishment of a government-subsidized, regular steamship line between Montreal and British ports. Their company lost the contract, awarded to the Canadian Steam Navigation Company in 1853. It was the first government subsidy of £24,000 for the Montreal-Liverpool run, which began that year. I wonder if Symes was counting heavily on winning the contract and it would seem the Annie Jane launched in 1853 might have been expected to make the voyage if the contract was won. Allan decided to utilize new technology (steam, screw propellors, and iron hulls) in his continuing attempt to capture the contract. It appears large sums of money were being expended by this company. They won the contract in 1856. It would be interesting to view the company's accounts. Was there an insurance claim? Was damage to the Annie Jane considered questionable?

The unpaid carpenters I expect they are indentured servants, apprenticed to the owners  of the shipyard, William Henry Baldwin and his stepbrother Henry Dinning. It was common to be apprenticed to learn a trade and one would be required to serve a master for several years in exchange for training. Mr. Baldwin, himself apprenticed to learn the trade of pump and block making. Interesting the Annie Jane was the name of William Baldwin's wife.

Source of above is from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography:
William Henry Baldwin:
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/baldwin_william_henry_12E.html
Henry Dinning:
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/dinning_henry_11E.html
G. B. Symes and Company
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/symes_george_burns_9E.html
Sir George Simpson:
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/simpson_george_8E.html
Sir Hugh Allan:
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/allan_hugh_11E.html

Linda

[waiteohman]

Hello Allan

The ship was owned by Messrs Holderness of Liverpool.

There was an account of the inquiry in the Liverpool Mercury 14 March 1854. The accident occurred on her 2nd attempt of passage to Quebec. She was a ship of 1294 tons and carried 1100 tons of iron. The cause of the wreck was accounted by Captain W.F. Beechey R.N. in his investigation of the accident to improper stowage of cargo and the inefficiency of the crew. With the ship's log unrecovered and the ship's chief officer drown, he does not attach too much importance to the apparent negligence of the crew. Inefficiencies are noted, relates to their actions and communications. The improper disposition of weight caused the vessel to roll and lurch, causing the masks to tear off and the vessel to leak under the strains. There is mention in other newspapers of beliefs of no fewer than 400 drowned as children are not entered on manifests. Those passengers that disembarked on August 31st after the unsuccessful first attempt for Quebec on August 24th and chose not to continue their voyage were replaced by others when the ship left for Quebec the second time September 9th. The ships crew increased from 35 to 41 for the second departure with half being Canadians. This might explain a crew change, if there is a difference in crew members.

Details of the ship. Not sure, you may already have this:
Record of Canadian shipping : a list of square-rigged vessels, mainly 500 tons and over, built in the eastern provinces of British North America from the year 1786 to 1920
ANNIE JANE, ship, 1294 tons, 178.0 X 31.9 X 22.8. Built 1853, Quebec, by Baldwin & Dinning.
https://archive.org/stream/recordofcanadian00wall/recordofcanadian00wall_djvu.txt

I understand your handle now ;-)

Linda

[waiteohman]

Hello Allan

The owner and agent of the Annie Jane, Thomas Hunter Holderness according to his testimony before the inquiry in Parliamentary paper #60 says although "we" are agents of the Annie Jane, brokers are employed and names Mr. Gurvin as the broker. I also see other references elsewhere to Holderness and Chilton as owners, which could be the we or maybe there was some arrangement/contract with the Canadians.

Interestingly Symes, Simpson and Allan all held railway interests along with shipping interests in common with Holderness. It seems reasonable that the iron cargo on the Annie Jane would have been destined for them and that there was some business relationship existed amongst them.

List of Persons Saved:
Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons and Command, Volume 60 / by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons, 1854 - page ix
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01gfp/

Linda

[dbree]

Some very fine research, waiteohman.

Cheers,
DB

[Vatersay]

Hello Linda
Thanks for your help you seem to have put a lot of time into it and I appreciate that

Holderness and Chilton did own the Annie Jane they also owned the Argonaut that was built in the same yard in 1853. Which was built on identical lines to the Annie Jane and which he sold straight away after the tragedy. Was he scared there was a design flaw? who knows? Might also have been for financial reasons, the Annie Jane was not insured for her full value.
Thomas Holderness's wife's name in the 1851 census was Anne Jane, I am inclined to think that his first purpose built ship was named after her? Its noticeable he was only 35 at the time of the disaster, I did wonder where the money had come from, maybe you have gone some way to explaining that. When I revisited some of my articles including the original advert for the Annie Jane's maiden voyage for the first time I noticed on that advert it has "Apply to Messrs Hoderness and Chilton, Owners". The two adverts above are for the ships Otterspool and Amy Ann they have "Apply to Messr's Holderness and Chilton" but no proud owners attached. So looks like they were agents for your Canadian owners.
The more I find out the less I know, I do not think I am the first to discover that.
I am hoping to go to Liverpool next month to try and find out more about Thomas Holderness and the elusive Chilton.
As for without wages I think even people who were working an apprentiship/indentured would have been paid, It has been suggested and it seems more likely that they were working their passage. How many times have I heard that expression and never thought what it meant, it seem to have been a common practice up to fairly recent times.

Thanks again for your interest and your help.

Kindest regards Allan

[waiteohman]

Hi Allan

Your welcome Allan and thanks DB, much appreciated.

It definitely should be named for Thomas Holderness, the owner’s wife, or heaven help him ;-). Interestingly both wives had the same name.

Holderness and Chilton dissolved their partnership in 1847. Mr. Chilton retired. I don’t believe the company owned the boat, as according to Beechey’s report, “Messrs. Holderness owned the boat”, page iii. Thomas Hunter Holderness and at least one other Holderness, per question 5 when he answers “although ‘we’ are agents”.
The London Gazette, December 17, 1847, p.4647
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/20807/page/4647

I noticed Thomas Markham’s inquiry response mentions his ticket included the indentures (Questions 576-580). One would question why the indentured men would continue on a voyage for passage, knowing the state of the vessel. The passengers petitioned for their money back. Those being refused their monies refunded they had not much choice but to continue. The 4 carpenters must have been bound to the owner by some contract. Why else would the 4 carpenters not abandon passage? Personally, I suspect to apprentice. It was a common practice with room & board included and did occur in the 1800s. To a lesser degree, The British Home Children might be considered of a similar practice in that they received room and board for work, learned farming, etc.

Hugh Allan has connections to Glasgow, Liverpool and Montreal. It would be interesting to see if any relations, business or otherwise existed between Syme, Allan(s) and Holderness(s). Allan’s brother Andrew immigrated to Montreal in 1839 to join Hugh while two other brothers, James and Bryce, handled business in Greenock and Liverpool.

The government contract for the ocean mail service was a lucrative contract. The service became weekly, between the ports of Liverpool and Quebec. You would think a fleet would be required. It would be interesting to investigate the number of boats Allan had. Why did he not win the contract at first. Was he counting on other ships, possibly the Annie Jane?? In the Province of Canada Public Accounts (page 181),  it shows the 1859-1860 estimates for the ocean mail service and the contract being with Hugh Allan of Glasgow. The service was enacted by Parliament as “An Act respecting the Ocean Mail Services”.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=pDdEAQAAMAAJ

Holderness with Henry Jordon worked on making better boats with the invention of " improvements applicable to the construction of ships or other navigable vessels, the hulls of which are built with metallic frames and wood planking, part of which may be applied to vessels constructed entirely of wood or with wood frames and planking and iron deck beams patent recorded 23 April 1864.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/22891/page/4326
Wonder if Holderness’ was the funding for above, as Jordan has further developed improvements applicable to the construction of ships with a US patent in 1871.
https://www.google.com/patents/US118458

Cheers,
Linda

[waiteohman]

Allan

Looking closer at The London Gazette, December 17, 1847, p.4647, Thos. Chilton retires and Thos Holderness (to liquidate accounts at Hull) and Thos H Holderness (to liquidate accounts at Liverpool). So many Thomas'! Looks like it could be Thomas Holderness of Hull and Thomas Hunter Holderness of Liverpool who own the Annie Jane. Would account for Messrs Holderness, the "we" and Chilton not mentioned as owner by Beechey in his report. What relationship are the two Thomas Holderness' - are they father/son?

Linda

[Vatersay]

Hello Linda

And thanks again for your interest

It looks like Thomas Hunter Holderness took over the family business, I will look into that more. Thomas gets married in 1847 as well one wonders if he was waiting for his father to step down??

I am not sure if seamen could leave a ship during that period I know it was punishable with a jail sentence of up to three months with the merchant shipping act of 1870. Not sure what the punishment was prior to that but I am sure they would have been in breach of contract.
In the Beechey report they are all described as carpenters not apprentices. In Thomas Holderness's evidence he says four apprentices were on the ship. I have the names of three, two gave evidence at the inquiry, Mathew Irwin and Charles Lee, looks like one may have been among the casualties.
I think the carpenters were working their passage as ordinary seamen it might go some way to explain the reluctance of some of the crew to climb the mast and furl the sails.


Remember the Annie Jane was a fine looking new ship. I have found out that a group of the cabin passengers had asked for their money back a total of 70 pounds, they were refused. They were then persuaded by Lieutenant Rose that with the reloading of the cargo and the redistribution of weight that there would be no more problems. I am sure that similar assurances were made to the crew and all the other passengers.
Captain Roses powers of persuasion were considerable. He is the one that seems to be blamed by the surviving crew members, on the second voyage William Mason had turned back to Liverpool when Lieutenant Rose persuaded him he could make it to Quebec.

For all his entrepreneurship it did not go smoothly for Thomas I have found his bankruptcy in 1883 but that could be part of a retirement plan as he would have been sixty five by then.

Regards Allan