Tony Fuller

Nestling in the archive of the Baltic Exchange, which is now at the Guildhall, London, I came across the records of The Society of East India Commanders.  It was founded around 1773 as something akin to a London club and mutual society for East India ships’ captains.

The information, which is contained in one volume (Mss 31376), is probably one of the most exciting finds I have made in connection with my research.  It contains around 100 separate manuscripts and printed documents, ranging from a copy of the Society’s Articles of Agreement between the members, to rather obscure summonses to meetings and discussions about membership.  It also contains several lengthy lists of the Company’s maritime commanders and shows how they developed from a pseudo gentlemen’s club into a body which represented their views and later negotiated pensions and compensation when the Company lost its tea monopoly in 1833.  The documents, all of which are pasted or written into the one volume, also outline the structure of the Society and contain a short run of the Society’s minutes, their representations and petitions to the EIC.  The cataloguing of the individual documents has been made slightly difficult because one group of the documents starts at the front of the book and other starts at the back.  These are identified as Front and Back in the catalogue of the individual items which appears as Appendix 1.

It is evident from gaps in the dates of the material that there is a substantial amount of material missing.  However, there is no similar volume or any other information about the Society at the main repository of East India Company material, the Oriental and India Office Collection, which is now part of the British Library in Euston, London.  Their resident expert on this subject, Ian Baxter, had not heard of the Society so this appears to be new and previously unused research material. As ever, thanks to Ian Baxter for being willing to share his knowledge of this obscure but nevertheless important part of East India Company activity.

My special thanks go to my colleagues in both the Manuscripts and Printed Book Departments at the Guildhall Library for their willingness to put up with my discussing this collection with them and for their advice and guidance on using the original material.

The information contained in this paper is used with the permission of the Corporation of London via the Manuscripts Section of the Guildhall Library.
 
 

The original list of subscribers reflects the names of ships’ commanders from a time that may rightly be regarded as the heyday of the East India Company (EIC/EIC’s) maritime service.  Whilst the maritime service was in place, the EIC was able to exercise its monopoly but, by around 1790, the monopoly was being increasingly threatened by other commercial interests and the governments of the day.  In 1803, the Company lost its overall trading monopoly with the Far East but retained control of its most economically viable trade, that of tea from Canton in China.

East India Company officers could make extensive fortunes through their personal trade with the East, which the Company allowed to supplement their somewhat meagre salaries.  However, the personal trading did not stop some commanders and their families from falling back on the Company’s pension fund, usually described as the Poplar Fund.  In 1803, the loss of the general trading monopoly threw the whole of the service into confusion causing the Company to institute a new pension fund, the Consolidated Poplar Fund, for the benefit of more senior officers who had their livelihoods taken away or who had their circumstances reduced.

From c. 1825, many of the ships’ officers became aware that even though the EIC continued to employ them, their long-term futures were far from assured.  The subsequent loss of the tea monopoly in 1833 caused an even greater furore than that of 1803/1804.  The Company had continued to provide contracts to a large number of its notionally independent ship owners and marine personnel of all ranks, making commitments for employment after the ten-year review date of Company activity in 1833.  The outcome was that when the tea monopoly was lost many of the sailors were unable to find new ships because there were so many mariners without ships.  This forced them to fall back on their mutual societies and the EIC’s pension funds.

There is a good deal of primary and secondary materials about the loss of the tea trade in various archives across the United Kingdom.  There is also a good deal of secondary historical material available concerning the Captain’s collective negotiations with the Company.  However, as far as I can tell, this is the first time that primary evidence has been found which answers questions raised by examining the secondary material. For example, what authority did the negotiators who represented the captains in 1833/1834 have in their discussions with the EIC?  Why was there a concentration of effort at the Jerusalem Coffee House and what benefits, other than the Poplar Fund and the subsequently established Marine Compensation Fund, were available to the senior seamen?

The most important factor in any organisation of this type was its membership roll and the original members are named, together with their respective parish of residence in their governing document, the Articles of Agreement. The names of the original subscribers appear in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 lists members elected between 1795 and 1819 together with subsequent elections where commander’s names have appeared in the manuscript.

Between December 1773 and October 1775, the Society met at the Queens Arms Tavern in St Paul’s Churchyard, at the west end of St Paul’s on Ludgate Hill.  It then moved to the Antwerp Tavern behind the Royal Exchange in Threadneedle Street where it remained until 5 January 1780. Interestingly, both venues were also used for meetings of the recently burgeoned Masonic Lodges in London.

The Society then moved to the Jerusalem Coffee House where it remained until it ceased to function sometime after 1833.  Not much is known about the Jerusalem’s early history and it has been the subject of some speculation rather than historical fact but some facts are known.  According to the street directories of the early 18th century the Jerusalem Coffee House was in Fleece Passage, Cornhill, where it stood next to the Fleece Tavern.  In Jeffrey’s Plan of the City of London, which was drawn up after the Cornhill Fire of 1747, the coffee house is identified as being in Fleece Passage with a back entrance into Exchange Alley.  It was after the fire that the street name was changed to Cowper Court and by the time of the publication of the street directory of 1767, the address is given as 3 Cowper’s Court.

By 1768 the building was being given as an address for a variety of merchants, all of whom were involved in maritime business, whether as merchants, traders, insurance merchants or as mariners.  The building was well known among the higher classes and it is mentioned in several books of memoirs relating to India.

The building was an important meeting place for the London-based EIC mariners which is reflected by the fact that between 1796 and 1833 it was usually referred to as the Jerusalem and East India Coffee House.  In the 1798 street directory of London the coffee house is described as being:
 

“Frequented by gentlemen who are, or have been in the service of the honourable East India Company and by the managing owners of ships employed in their service; also by the merchants, policy and insurance brokers concerned with the East India trade, and to this coffee-house and Lloyd’s are transmitted the earliest accounts of the departure, arrival and loss of ships in the company’s service and of all important events that happen.”

According to the street directories the coffee house had a number of owners.  However, its specialist role in the commerce of London was reflected in the entries for 1801-1803 when the coffee house is described as having subscribers.  This was repeated in publications in 1819-1822 when again members of the house were described as subscribers and were able to obtain information on East India commanders and shipping “at the bar.”  In fact there is one report that mariners’ subscriptions to the coffee house were less than those paid by non-mariners.  There is a vast range of historical material bearing the address “Jerusalem Coffee House” in the East India Company’s records and the majority are endorsed with the legend “available by subscription.”

For several years the coffee house was either owned or managed by members of the Hardy family.  By 1838, the proprietor was identified as Horatio Charles Hardy but he was not the first member of his family to be involved with the EIC or the coffee house.  Charles Hardy was responsible for publishing the East India service’s equivalent of Lloyd’s Register, which, in a similar way, is usually called Hardy’s Register.

After Charles Hardy died the business and the responsibility for producing the Register was taken over by his son, Horatio Charles Hardy, who continued publication until 1834 when the maritime service ceased to exist.  In his book London Coffee Houses, Lillywhite quotes from a letter in which Horatio Hardy is described as being “that grand pompous bit of mud.”  However Hardy’s assistant, Alexander Miller, who is elsewhere described as Hardy’s “invaluable factotum” would provide shipping news as required.  They were still described as working together in The City of October 1845 and that (despite the loss of the maritime tea monopoly with China) the premises were “exclusively devoted to the interests of the merchants and others engaged in the trade of China, India and Australia.”

The link between the Society and the Hardy family was illustrated by several of the Society’s communications bearing the legend:
 

“The favour of an answer, left with Mr Horatio Hardy at the Bar,
  on or before 31st instant, will oblige.”

By 1845 the coffee house had a list of between 300 and 400 subscribers each paying 2 guineas per year for the exclusive use of the upper part of the building.  Whilst the later history of the house is better documented, it is the pre-1834 era that is of importance to this study.  However, almost as an extension of the Society of East India Commanders, in 1845 the coffee house accommodated the office of the East India and China Association, Mr Stikeman being the organisation’s Secretary.

The role of the coffee house was also important because much of the information published about the EIC maritime service was generated from the building. Whilst the Jerusalem was the social and informal business centre for the EIC commanders in London, it also served, with the Virginia Coffee House, as the original base for what later became the Baltic Exchange. Many of the coffee house’s notices about sailing and lists of ships were retained in the archives of the Baltic Exchange, augmenting the more extensive collection at the OIOC.  What is interesting is that much of the information at the Guildhall appears to be unique and much does not appear in the same form, if at all, in the OIOC.

The Society was managed by a standing committee, which, like the Society as a whole, met monthly.  The members were elected to be chairman of the standing committee by an elaborate system of balloting.  In an undated manuscript, Richard Pain the Society’s secretary, wrote to the members enclosing a list of twenty names.  He asked the members to strike out eight names, giving a final list of twelve names to serve on the standing committee.   He then wrote to each of the successful candidates informing them that they should attend a meeting at the Jerusalem when they would take part in a further lottery to determine in which month they would act as chairman of the committee.  By holding the post for just one month every year, they ensured that no particular interest or faction could develop within the Society as it had in the Company and that in the event of their being abroad, a replacement could be found relatively easily.  It also ensured that the commanders could fit their duties to the Company in with their duties to the Society and vice versa, no captain being detained in London because of his non-maritime commitments.   Lists of the appointments to chairman in 1827 and 1828 appear in Appendix 3.

Apart from the individual captain’s involvement in the Society, they employed what appears to have been a permanent secretary to the Society to ensure, as their EIC masters did, that their discussions were recorded and that examples of even their most mundane papers were kept. The secretaries were:
 

• John Richardson, until 31 January 1776.  No starting date is given for Richardson’s employment but as his name appears on an undated list of all the Society’s secretaries, it is likely that he was with the organisation from its establishment.
• John Murray of Fleet Street, who replaced Richardson and served until November 1793.
• John Cordery who was appointed 13 November 1793 and who retired 4 April 1810.
• John Hammond, who was appointed 11 April 1810.  He then elected to undertake a voyage with Captain Rush, returning to his post on 7 July 1813.  Whilst he was abroad, his place was taken temporarily by his predecessor, John Cordery.  Hammond subsequently resigned on 6 October 1813 so that he could undertake another voyage.
• William Milburn was appointed 17 November 1813.  He resigned on 5 August 1818.
• William Ferron was appointed on 6 August 1818 and resigned on 1 March 1826.  He gave six months notice but died suddenly on 16 March 1826.
• Richard G Pain’s name is the last to appear on the manuscript list of secretaries, which was almost certainly compiled by Pain.  In addition it is his name that appears on much of the draft and printed information in the manuscript.  However, on a document dated 28 November 1828, the secretary is shown as D Cannan so it would appear that although Pain kept many of the documents for which he was responsible, he did not remain in post for long.

What is interesting about this group of documents is the amount of small pieces of information that it contains which cover the structure and management of the East India Company, its election process and its rules and regulations.  It also contains what may appear to be extraneous information that the Society felt was appropriate to keep.  For example, the ranking order of officers within the service, the necessity for a midshipman and bits of what is little more than gossip.  More appropriately perhaps it contains more pertinent information, for example, charges for carrying passengers and information on the tea trade.   Some of the material is clearly copied from Hardy’s List but other information is new and does not appear elsewhere in this form.

According to a manuscript notice left by Richard Pain, the entrance fee to the Society was five guineas, paid on admission.  The full Society met weekly at the Jerusalem Coffee House from the first Wednesday in November to the first Wednesday in May. Thereafter it met monthly until the following November, the schedule of meetings reflecting the time when the majority of officers were more likely to be in London rather than on their respective ships.  Members were informed that their meal would be on the table promptly at 4.00 pm.

The meetings were both business and social events and, when circumstances dictated, they would meet in other hostelries around London.  On 29 March 1827 the Society invited Sir James Urmston, lately the “President of the Honourable Company’s Factory at Canton to dine with the Society” on 19 April.  Urmston came from a family of EIC mariners, his father and several of his uncles having served in EIC ships for many years and his role in Canton would have been crucial to the commander’s interests.  Similarly, other invitations show that the Society entertained special guests all of whom were involved in providing services or trade to the commanders whilst they were abroad.

Of great importance to the commanders was their position in the structure of the EIC’s maritime service, whether they be on land, at sea or leaving or entering port.  This reflected the social structure and mores of the time. It was a matter of great importance to the officers how many guns were fired in salute to them and how many guns they should fire in respect of other officers or EIC employees.  In a memorandum dated 22 May 1804 the order of seniority was given as:
 

Commodore (of the convoy)
Commander of Regular Ships
Captain in the Marine (viz. the EIC’s navy based in Bombay and
Bengal, later the foundation of the Indian Navy)
Commander of Regular Packets (the EIC owned ships that carried
staff and ran the mail service outside of the chartered shipping mercantile service)
Master of Extra Ships (ships that were specially chartered by the
Company outside their regular trading terms)
Lieutenants in the Marine with the temporary rank of Captains
Commanding vessels
Established Captains in the Service during their Command of Extra
Ships are to be considered as the Junior Commanders when sailing in company with the Regular Ships.

Therefore, everybody knew their place and to whom they were both superior and subservient.  Equally, where money was concerned, there was strict differentiation and structures, which depended on rank and status.  The sworn officers were allowed to trade on their own behalf and, to facilitate this, were given a set percentage of space in the hold for the carriage of their own goods.  If they did not use it all they could sell it on, usually to the Company but also to each other.  This enabled them to compensate for the quite appalling wages that the Company paid them and many of their number accumulated substantial fortunes trading on their own behalf.  The system was made more complex because the Company also put a monetary value on the amount of material that could be carried.  This “Certificate Money” was, like all other things in the EIC, graded by rank, the higher the rank, the more you could carry in monetary value:
 
 

Perhaps of more importance to the commanders after 1803 was the price of tea and the Company’s system for dealing with tea sales because their monopoly effected the commanders’ ability to trade in tea on their own account.  The importation of tea was also important to the Company because by then this was the most important and the only viable part of the Company’s operation.  The Company’s monopoly of the Canton run, with increasingly bigger ships, ensured that they continued to control the tea import trade.  However, the development of other sources for the commodity especially in India and Ceylon where the Company had lost their monopoly meant the Canton monopoly was increasingly under threat. In an undated note, the Society described the system employed by the Company for disposing of their import:
 

“Tea Sales

The Company have two sales in the year, March and September, though they take place at the quarters, say March, June, September and December.  June sale is a continuation of March.  Same with the other.  After that sale about the first of the following month or second week (sic).  The June sale is declared and takes place the first week in said month. Same with September.”

On 2 April 1828 the Secretary noted the levels of import of tea in tons:

“Tea and Printed Account, 2 April 1828

	1826	1827
Imported	29,840,401	39,746,237
Exported	4,806,835	4,142,949
Retained for Home Consumption	25,238,006	26,043,227

Excess of Imports 1827 on 1826 was £9,905,836.”

Even whilst the commanders were on their voyages, they continued to act in concert as either sailors in convoy or in their trading activities.  In a petition dated “Canton, 12 November 1827” a committee of four commanders, elected by their fellow officers, petitioned the Company about the loss of actual income that they had suffered over the past 25 years.  They compared the income of the Captain of the Glatton in 1806 with the Farquarson and Lowther Castle in 1826, arguing that a captain would be financially disadvantaged in the trading circumstances which then prevailed.  The petition, which was subsequently printed for a more general distribution and presumably for public consumption, was signed by Captains William Hay, John Charettie, Robert Locke and John C Whiteman.
 
 

The Bye-Laws of the Society, as laid down in the Articles of Agreement, outline the mutual nature of the organisation. The fact that the Society saw itself as having a mutual context was also outlined in two manuscript notes, which are included in Mss 31376.  The first, which is undated, states:

 
£50 to be paid by every Commander at subscribing and £25 annually for 11 years and no longer.  In consideration of which each subscriber, from the date of his first payment, will be entitled (provided he conforms himself to the other necessary regulations which will be stipulated in the deed of Trust and hereafter to be executed) to bequeath £500 to any person he may choose to appoint.”

The note is followed by a double page document, dated October 1827, which gives details of another ‘benefit package.’

• That the sum of £10 each members be immediately subscribed of the number of members of one hundred.
• That £2 be paid annually by each member for eleven years.
• That the amount subscribed be vested in 4% CB (probably Company Bond)
• That the above will enable the members after the first annual subscription is paid up, to distribute £100 annually and £10 to cover incidental expenses and should it so happen that the full amount disposable is not called for, the surplus be added to the Capital to meet any deficiency that may arise from the Absence of Members during a voyage.
• That the capital be invested in the names of Two members.
• That a Committee be appointed to consist of Five Members, three to be a quorum.
• That all applications be made to the Committee who will report to the Members at a general Meeting.
• That the Secretary to the Society of East India Commanders be appointed to attend to the interests of this fund, and the £10 allowed to cover the expenses of stationery, printing, etc.”

Interestingly, there is no other information about this projected benefit, nor is there any criteria establishing for what or how the money would be used.  Who would receive the £100 available in any year?  Would it be distributed as a charitable benefit to Commanders who found themselves in financial straits?  Unfortunately, there is no evidence from any of the other material that is available that either of these benefits were ever put into operation and, even if they were, they would have been of short duration and wound up when the Society was disbanded shortly after 1834.

The overall position of the Marine Service is also reflected in the Society recording information about the Poplar Fund, the Company’s pension’s service for all their mariners.  This was a combination of employer and employee contributions, the accumulated funds being used to support a large number of out-pensioners and in-pensioners who lived in the Company’s almshouses in Poplar, East London.  In addition to the original Poplar Fund, which had been established in the early 17th century, the Company also established the Consolidated Poplar Fund, which was specially funded and used exclusively for the Company’s officers.  The Maritime Compensation Fund, which was used to finance the beaching and retirement of officers after 1833 replaced the Consolidated Fund.

Although the Company repeatedly projected that the Poplar Funds would run out, they always remained healthy and in substantial surplus.  For example, the Society’s secretary recorded:

One of what may be regarded as the more bizarre benefits bestowed by the Society on its members was the award of a piece of engraved plate to the wife of any commander who gave birth to a tenth child, the previous nine children still being alive.

At a meeting of the Society held on 14 November 1787, which was probably a general meeting, Captain Mackintosh “made the following motion which was carried unanimously in the affirmative.”
 

“That every gentleman belonging to this Society, who has ten children born to him in wedlock, be presented by the members with a piece of plate value 50 guineas.”

On Wednesday 1 November 1820 the members of a committee appointed to look at the state of the Society’s funds raised the matter.

“… wishing to keep the expenses as much under as possible - Do recommend that in future the Bye Law, for giving a piece of plate to any member having ten children should be rescinded.

At Dinner the Recommendation of the Committee for rescinding the Bye Law for giving a Piece of Plate to members of the Society having ten living children, being read and the Question being put by the Chairman, it was unanimously rejected.”

The fact that the Society had problems over funds seemed to stem from the activities of the members themselves in relation to the claret discussed above, rather than their procreational ability, seems beyond doubt.  However, that said, a number of women were presented with the plate.

“Mrs Money, £67/10 paid 10 December 1787, the plate exhibited to the Society 6 January 1788 “As a mark of respect to the wife of a Worthy Brother Officer and the mother of thirteen children”.”

• 1796, to Mrs Cotton, the wife of Joseph Cotton
• 1801, to Mrs Fraser
• 1804, to Mrs Hutt
• 1809, to Mrs Agnew
• undated, to Captain Jackson on behalf of his wife
• undated, to Mrs Clark, the wife of William Stanley Clark
• 1823, to Mrs Saunders the child having been born 14 July 1820
• 1826, to Mrs Pelly
• undated, to Mrs Lockner
• 1828, to Mrs F J Timms of Paternoster Row, London.

In all the Society spent £691 7s 10d on just eleven pieces of plate.

However, it was from 1832 to 1834 that the strength of the Society was really seen at its greatest.  The loss of the trading monopoly in tea meant that may of the ship’s officers of whatever rank faced financial ruin and, unless they could find employment with other companies trading to the east, a total loss of income.

The Society was able to mobilise itself and some public and political opinion to ensure that the sworn officers of all grades, many of whom used the Jerusalem Coffee House as a base, were able to dispute and to oppose the levels of pension being proposed by the Company.  As a result of their representation and their not inconsiderable influence in the realms of parliamentary politics, they were able to put pressure on the Company for better pensions, which led to the foundation of the Company’s Maritime Compensation Scheme.

This seems to have been the final activity of the Society.  Essentially, the end of the maritime service obviated the need for a Society of Commanders.  There is no hard evidence to identify when the Society ceased to function but it would appear that the Society quietly wound itself up some time after the Maritime Compensation Fund was established.

ABERCROMBY, Burnet   St James’ Westminster
BENDY, Richard    Sittingbourne, Kent
BROADLEY, John   Inner Temple
COOK, John    Middle Temple
CARR, Robert    Twickenham, Middlesex
DUNDAS, James    Inner Temple
FRASER, William    Inner Temple
HAMBLY, William   Sunbury, Middlesex
HOUGH, Samuel    Inner Temple
HOARE, Daniel Griffiths  Bathford, Somerset
JACKSON, Jeffrey   Woodford Bridge, Essex
MEARS, Charles    Queen Street, Bloomsbury
MITCHELL, David   Middle Temple
MONEY, William    James Street, Bedford Row
NAIRNE, Fasham    St James’ Westminster
NEWTE, Thomas    Inner Temple
OGILVIE, James    Eltham, Surrey
PIERCE, Richard    Kingston, Surrey
PRESTON, Robert    Cornhill, London
RICE, Henry    Adelphi, London
RICHARDSON, George   Adelphi, London
ROGERS, John    Bloomsbury Square, London
ROUS, Robert    Berner Street, Oxford Road
SCOTT, Robert    York Buildings, Strand
SEALY, John    Inner Temple
STEWART, John    Bartholomew Lane, London
STOAKES, Peter    Boxley, Kent
SUTTON, John    Middle Temple
THOMSON, William   Duke Street, Westminster
THOMSON, David   Fludyer Street, Westminster

ALTMAN, Robertson   18 March 1795
PALMER, George    17 February 1796
LOCKE, John    2 December 1801
HUGHES, Philip    10 February 1802
GILSTON, William   12 January 1803
LARKINS, Thomas   2 March 1803
PATERSON, John    28 March 1804
SAMSON, Henry D   21 November 1804
WILSTEAD, George   15 October 1806
CARNEGIE, James   10 December 1806
NISBETT, Richard   21 October 1807
LOCKNER, John C   21 October 1807
PATTERSON, William   4 October 1809
O’MAYNE, Charles   5 October 1814
NAIRNE, Alexander   9 November 1814
McTAGGART, Thomas   18 January 1815
YOUNGHUSBAND, William  22 January 1817
ALSAYARD, Richard   12 February 1817
STURROCK, Henry   31 March 1819
TEMPLER, Henry    31 March 1819
RIPLEY, Philip    31 March 1819
PRICE, Thomas    7 April 1819
GOOCH, George    14 April 1819
FREEMAN, Thomas   11 August 1819

9 November 1825: Ballot to admit Captains Henry BAX of the Edinburgh, Gilson R FOX of the Marquis Camden and Joseph STANTON of the General Harris.
22 February 1827: Ballot to admit Captain Walter H WHITEHEAD of Duke of Sussex.
2 August 1827: Ballot to admit Captain John Orr McTAGGART of the Sir David Scott.
8 November 1827: Ballot to admit Captains Timothy SMITH of the London, Philip BAYLIS of the Canning and Frederick MADAN of the Berwickshire.
28 February 1828: Ballot to admit Captain Thomas DUNKIN of the Castle Huntly.
 
 

WOOLMORE, probably John  1787
STRONG     1789
FARQUARSON, J    3 April 1793
JONES, C     3 April 1793
BULLOCK, H    12 March 1794
TWEEDALE, James   8 October 1794
LINDSAY, M and ROBERTSON, George
      25 March 1795
CUMBERLEDGE, J   27 January 1796
PALMER, G    24 February 1796
TIMBRELL, A    23 March 1796
BARROW, Thomas   23 November 1796
BRADFORD, E    21 December 1796
RAMSDEN, Jonathan   1 February 1797
HARRIMAN, Edward   28 March 1798
SWINTON, A    16 October 1799
BOULDERSON, Joseph   12 November 1800
LOCKE, John, Jnr    2 December 1801
PATTERSON, Robert   20 January 1802
HUGHES, P     10 February 1802
TIMMS, J     29 September 1802
HAMILTON, A    20 October 1802
LONDON, S    1 December 1802
GELSTON, W    12 January 1803
PELLY, J H     2 March 1803
LARKINS, T    2 March 1803
BIRCH, J     21 September 1803
?PATERSON, J    11 April 1804
ISACKE, M     21 November 1804
SAMSON, H M    28 November 1804
Le BLANC, C    6 November 1805
?KYMER, C    4 December 1805
WELSTEAD, George   15 October 1806
WELBANK, R    5 November 1806
EASTFIELD, W    5 November 1806
?CARNYARD, James   17 December 1806
ROBERTSON, Alexander  18 March 1807
NESBITT, Richard   21 October 1807
?LOCKNER, J C    28 October 1807
PATTERSON, W    4 October 1809
CRABB, J G    6 March 1811
?MAYON, C O    2 November 1814
McTAGGART, J    7 December 1814
LARKINS, Thomas, Jnr.   2 October 1816
ALSAYER, R    2 October 1816
PRICE, Thomas    14 April 1819
STORROCK, H    21 April 1819
GOOCH, G     28 April 1819
TEMPLER, H    7 July 1819
FREEMAN, John    1 September 1819
RIPLEY, P     8 December 1819
MITCHELL, W    4 October 1820
COBB, H     1 November 1820

Richard Pain, Secretary to the Society gave notice of the ballot for 1827 in his memorandum dated 22 November 1826 with the ballot being held at the Jerusalem Coffee House on 6 December. There is a manuscript notice to the successful candidates, which appears to be a pro forma used in the following years.  There is also a manuscript notice, which was to be sent to the various chairmen one month in advance of their undertaking the role, reminding them of their obligation. The appointment year ran from January to December 1827 and the successful candidates were listed by their month of office:
 

PATTERSON, Robert
SAMSON, H M
CARNEGIE
HUGHES
BIRCH
ROBERTSON AIKMAN
GOOCH
LOCKE, J
STURROCK
LARKINS
JONES
? PELETON

LARKINS
LOCKE, J
PATTERSON, R
GELSTON
TEMPLER
CARNEGIE
RIPLEY
HUGHES
ROBERTSON AIKMAN
GOOCH
STURROCK
SAMSON

Captains:

TIMMS, J F (Chairman)
COBB    DALRYMPLE, C
DORMER, Sir N  SNOW
SMITH, W    RICHARDSON
BULLOCK    CARNEGIE
TIMMS, C    SAMSON
LOCK(?E)    FAIRFAX
McTAGGART   BRYCE
HOPE    FREEMAN
HAMILTON, W   O’BROOKS
ALSAGAR    TEMPLER
MITCHELL, William (?Deputy)
 

1 pair blankets
6 pairs sheets
1 quilt
1 pillow
2 dozen shirts
1 dozen check shirts
6 white neckerchiefs
4 black neckerchiefs
2 dozen pairs, brown cotton stockings
½ dozen pairs, white cotton stockings
1 dozen, worsted stockings
6 pairs shoes
3 pairs strong shoes
3 blue jackets and 3 blue waistcoats
3 pairs blue trousers, 1 watch coat, 2 glazed hats, 1 beaver hat
1 coat with uniform buttons
1 buff waistcoat with uniform buttons
6 pairs trousers and as many waistcoats
½ dozen Banyans or jackets with strings
6 light jackets, 1 dozen drawers
1 set shoe brushes, 1 dozen cakes blacking, 1 clothes brush
½ dozen toilet soap, ½ hundredweight for occasional washing
Combs - a set
Shaving utensils - if required
1 small shaving glass
Pens and ink stand - journal and writing desk
1 chest

Tony Fuller,
tfuller.tfresearch@virgin.net

East India     Index

20.04.02ef