Not everyone who arrived on the Storm King was “happy” with the voyage.
As detailed below in detail and verbatim from the Queenslander of February 5th 1870 we hear the complaints of a William Eglington, a non-Anglican, who took great umbrage at the treatment of the non-Anglicans on the voyage. This culminated in an altercation on the second of November 1869. William felt compelled to take the captain to court after arrival, but did not recruit the witnesses who might corroborate his story. There is no record of the court’s decision, but believe that it was in favor of the captain.
Despite the following, the two people known to have kept a journal only recorded “flying fish” on the day/days in question
SEVERAL complaints having been made against the captain and other officers of the ship Storm King, which arrived at Brisbane Roads with immigrants from London, on the 19th ultimo, by one of the passengers, an inquiry was commenced at the Immigration offices, on Jan. 31, before Messrs. F. O. Darvall (Chairman of the Board), John McDonnell (Immigration Agent), and Dr. Hancock. Captain Holden and Dr. Roper were present. The following evidence was taken: — William Eglington, a full-paying steerage passenger, stated the paper produced was in his handwriting, and contained the complaints he desired to make against the captain and doctor.
[A long list of serious complaints was here read, and it was decided to deal with them seriatim.
The first was “the refusal on the part of the surgeon superintendent to afford decent and proper accommodation for the religious worship of those passengers who dissented from the forms and ceremonies of the Church of England.”]
He said the only accommodation he had was under the tables of the married persons’ cabins, where there was not room to kneel down or worship decently together;
the tables were elevated close to the upper deck, sufficiently high for him to stand under; he requested to have accommodation on the upper deck, and it was refused; there was some misunderstanding about the matter; the surgeon superintendent appeared to understand him to ask for accommodation on the poop; he asked him to be allowed to use the forms on deck after the service of the Church of England was over ; this was while the forms were being removed; the surgeon-superintendent said he had not promised him the use of the forms, and on witness again requesting that he should be allowed proper accommodation, and stating that a gross indignity had been inflicted upon him, the officer named contemptuously replied, ” I cannot help it;” the same state of things continued during the whole of the voyage; it was a piece of discourtesy and unfeeling conduct towards the persons who did not worship according to the forms and ceremonies of the Church of England, and it was so felt by a great many ; did not specify the accommodation required, but asked to be allowed to conduct the service on deck because the temperature was increasing; he conducted the services because there was no other person there to do so, and because he was requested by several of the passengers ; specifically and clearly asked the surgeon-superintendent to have the benches left on deck; he believed the greater number of the steerage passengers were Dissenters; many of them wished him to hold service in their own cabins, but he did not do so because it had been expressly forbidden by the surgeon-superintendent.
The surgeon-superintendent, in reply to the charge, said that Eglington had never asked his permission to hold service on the quarter-deck, and when he came to him and told him that he had made a promise to that effect he was astonished; the benches were removed, but not by his orders; and he took no steps to prevent their removal, because he thought the majority of the people belonged to the Church of England.
The Captain said the reason the benches were removed was because he had been conducting service on deck, and it lasted until nearly noon, at which hour dinner took place; the forms were required to be replaced for dinner before that time; no representation was made to him that the forms were required for religious service by any person, and no complaint was made to him on the point.
Eglington here requested a witness named Taylor to be called, but he did not appear. Mr. McDonnell stated that out of the sixteen witnesses named by Eglington, twelve had not come to the depot, and three of the others had left before the receipt of the letter; he had made every effort to secure their attendance, but only some of them had come; the letter ought to have been sent in before the passengers landed, as that was the only chance he had of seeing them.
The second charge, “prohibition on the part of the surgeon-superintendent to discuss grievances on board ship,” was then proceeded with.
William Eglinton’s statement was to the effect that he was told by the surgeon-superintendent that no meeting of the passengers could be allowed to discuss grievances;
had held a meeting to consider the draft of a letter proposed to be addressed to that officer, calling his attention to certain grievances which it was thought he could remedy; he considered that Englishmen possessed the same privileges on board ship as on land, and that the prohibition was exceedingly improper, and a very clumsy and ineffectual means of preventing complaints; this was on the 3rd November; was present at a meeting of passengers in his cabin on the 2nd November ; the proceedings were not stopped by the captain, but be was requested by him to go into his cabin; as far as he was concerned, the meeting was over when Captain Holden addressed him; the captain did not say such meetings were not permissible; did not use any violent language towards Captain Holden; he did use an expression which he regretted, because he was not in the habit of using violent language, but in the excitement of the moment he thought any gentleman would consider the words warranted.
The seventh charge, “Gross intimidation of the master and surgeon-superintendent towards myself on the 2nd and 3rd November, 1869,” was then taken in conjunction with the second charge.
The Chairman: Having amalgamated these, will you tell the language of which you complain?
Witness: What I complain of is, that after holding that simple, harmless, and, I think, strictly legal meeting with fellow-occupants of my own cabin as to matters I was desirous of bringing under the notice of the surgeon-superintendent, Captain Holden requested me to go into his cabin; he led the way into the saloon, and I followed; when I got there, the surgeon superintendent was sitting there, and Captain Holden turned to me in a very peculiar manner and said, ” Now, my man, I have got to caution you; I have had complaints against you; I have been warned against you by Mr. Allen, one of the emigration—l think he said—commissioners;”
I said, “Sir, do you threaten me?” and, turning to the surgeon-superintendent, I asked him if he heard what was said; he replied that he heard no threat;
I said, “Then you call me in about something said to you about me by a man named Allen.” [Witness here persisted in narrating circumstances that occurred between himself and Allen, but which did not in any way bear on the charge.] I added ” Mr.” or “Captain Holden, I am a passenger, and paid my full fare, and I am entitled to be treated with respect, and I will bring you under the notice of the Queensland Government;” he ordered me to leave the cabin, which I did immediately ; there were a great many persons on deck, and as I was making my way to my cabin, and I admit being rather excited, I said ” Well, gentlemen, here I am, safe and sound; the captain, it appears, called me into the cabin about Allen, and made some vague threat;” the captain then spoke out loudly, and said, ” I did not threaten you;” I turned round indignantly.
The Chairman: You have not told us of any threat.
Witness: The threat was contained in the word “caution;” what is caution but a threat? The Chairman: You are stretching the word “caution” considerably if you apply it as a threat.
Witness: That was the meaning I applied to it.
The Chairman: The eighth charge—”the personal violence of the mate on the 2nd of November”—is also a portion of this matter.
Witness: The captain then said something, and I was taken into the saloon by the mate Lindsay, who produced a pair of handcuffs ; I said, ” Are you doing that to intimidate me?” and he said ” I am ;”
I said, ” Do you intend to put them on me ?” and he said ” Yes;” I said ” I must caution yon that it is an extremely illegal act;” I do not think a more gross piece of violence could have been done ; he did not say by whose orders the handcuffs were put on ; they were on about half an hour when Lindsay came and took them off; he did not say by whose orders they were taken off; I have no more to say about this complaint.
The medical log was here put in, and Dr. Roper certified to the correctness of the entry on November 2.
It was to the effect that between 7 and 8 o’clock p.m., as he was visiting the sick, he saw Eglington addressing a large assemblage of the steerage passengers, in a manner calculated to create dissatisfaction and cause a disturbance. He informed Captain Holden, who ordered Eglington into the saloon, when he was told that meetings of that kind were not permissible; that if he had any grievance, it was to be made to Capt. Holden or himself. He (Eglington) then became very abusive, and was ordered on deck; there he grossly insulted the captain, and called him a liar and other opprobrious names, in the presence of nearly two hundred steerage passengers; Lindsay took him away, and put him in handcuffs, which were removed as soon as quietness was restored. His conduct was calculated to cause a mutiny.
Eglington said the captain’s statement was false and malicious, and requested that any of the married steerage passengers might be called as witnesses. Some persons he named were called, but did not appear. George Eales, examined by Eglington, deposed that a dozen persons, more or less, more he should think, were present when Eglington addressed them; heard nothing calculated to cause a mutiny, and nothing otherwise than of a peaceable character took place; the papers produced were those he read [the papers were put in; they were the draft of the letter to the surgeon-superintendent before referred to] ; Eglington did not address the passengers at all on coming from the cabin, but only his own friends.
The Chairman, to Eales: Were you reprimanded for taking part in the proceedings?
Eales: No, I was not reprimanded. The captain asked me if I was one of the ringleaders in the attempt to mutiny, and I said that there was nothing of the sort, and that if he had not interfered there would have been no disturbance.
One of the married steerage passengers, Wm. Nicholls, was then called.
The witness deposed that he attended the meeting which was addressed by Eglington, and his language was neither peaceable nor quiet, but calculated to cause disturbances amongst the passengers; heard Eglington call the captain ” a downright liar,” after he came out of the cabin; there were from sixty to eighty persons there in a very excited state; the single men were there, and they were not usually allowed in that part of the ship; the constables were ordered to send them back. John Raby also deposed to hearing Eglington call the captain “a liar.”
Charles Lambert Dupree, a saloon passenger, deposed that his attention was attracted by the disturbance, and on going on deck he heard Eglington complaining to the captain, as he understood, about provisions; in reply to something the captain said, he said it was ” a downright lie;” he was then taken in charge by Lindsay and handcuffed.
After some discussion, Eglington undertook to produce his witnesses the next day. The adjourned inquiry was concluded on February 2, at the Immigration offices, before Messrs. F. O. Darvall, Chairman of the Immigration Board; J. McDonnell, Immigration Agent; and Dr. Hancock. The complainant, Eglington, was not present.
Mr. Lyons, solicitor, said that, with the permission of the Board, he would appear on be- half of Mr. Eglington. The Chairman said he could not allow such a proceeding, but he had no objection to Mr. Lyons being present, and suggesting questions to Mr. Eglington. Mr. Lyons explained that he merely wished to make a statement on behalf of Mr. Eglinton, which would probably shorten the proceedings. The Chairman said he had no objection to hear such a statement, but by doing so it was not to be presumed that he accepted Mr. Lyons as the representative of Mr. Eglington, and the permission was not to be made the basis of any further proceedings. Before the statement was made, it would be as well to read a letter received from three of the passengers, who had been requested to attend as witnesses.
Letter read. It was signed by John Edwards, Richard Southall, and Isaac Nash, who stated that they declined to attend because they felt no interest in the proceedings, and did not think with Mr. Eglington in the matters under investigation.
Mr. Lyons then stated that Mr. Eglington had been unable to procure the attendance of the witnesses he desired, and there was no means to compel their attendance. They said they would not attend unless they received compensation for the loss of time, and he could not afford to compensate them.
Under these circumstances he (Mr. Lyons) had advised him not to proceed with the charges. In making them he had been actuated only by what he considered was his duty. He thought he had just cause for complaint, and that it was his duty to bring the matters under notice of the Board. He (Mr. Lyons) respectfully submitted that it was the duty of the Board to have inquired into the nature of the charges, and see if there was any ground for them, before bringing the captain and doctor there. He (Mr. Lyons) would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Board.
The Chairman said Mr. Eglington had mistaken the functions of the Board. It was established by the Immigration Act for the purpose of inquiring into general complaints by passengers, and not individual grievances, except of a very aggravated nature.
Indeed, so far the complaints had been simply of a personal nature. It was evident from the letter read that the complaints were not general. The Board would look over the charges, and if there was anything in them respecting the general treatment of the passengers it would be inquired into.
Mr. McDonnell said that when on board the Storm King, as Immigration Agent, it was with considerable difficulty that he could persuade; or rather compel, Mr. Eglington—for he almost did so—to make these complaints. He said the complaints were embodied in a memorial to the Queensland Government, and also in another to the House of Commons, and he considered them of so much importance that he was not disposed to lay them before any but the highest tribunal. He (Mr. McDonnell) told him the Legislative Assembly would not meet for several months, and that it was of the utmost importance that the Government should be made aware of the facts, so as to institute an inquiry. He then made certain complaints, and although he (Mr. McDonnell) informed him that he was there as Immigration Agent to report to the Government, Eglington did not give him a list of witnesses, and neglected to do so until several days afterwards, when the immigrants had scattered, and several who had been re- quested to give evidence had declined to do so. In one instance, a man on Redbank Plains expressed a wish to be able to attend, and give evidence that that there was ample accommodation for religious worship on board. He was a Wesleyan. He (Mr. McDonnell) was extremely sorry Eglington was not present, as he felt bound to bring under the notice of the Board the way in which he (Mr. Eglington), his wife, and family of eight persons, some of whom were twenty years of age, were located in one cabin in the married people’s department. He considered it was most improper, and told Mr. Ellington so on board, but he did not seem to think anything of it.
In answer to the Chairman, The surgeon-superintendent said in reference to this matter that he went on board the ship at the last moment, and found that they had been allowed, by the person who held the office before him to occupy the same cabin, and he made no alteration because there was no more room in the single females’ department. He had caused four new berths to be put up, but Mr. Eglington refused to allow his niece to leave his cabin. There was no room for more berths in the single men’s department.
The Chairman said it appeared that they had more single men on board than they had accommodation for.
The captain also stated that Mr. Eglington refused to allow his niece to leave his cabin; he was made aware that the niece occupied the same cabin in the early part of the voyage, but the passage was about half over when he learned that the sons also occupied it; he took no steps to stop it, because it appeared that some arrangement had been made with the Emigration Agent that they were to occupy the same cabin. Mr. Lyons said there was an endorsement to that effect on Mr. Eglington’s passenger-ticket. The captain said it must have occurred through some misunderstanding. Mr. Wheeler was very ill, and unable to come on board, when he left England.
The Chairman said he was sure Mr. Wheeler would not have sanctioned it.
Christopher Chapland, and John Green, two married steerage passengers, denied that there was any fault to find either with the provisioning or cleanliness of the ship, and Captain Holden handed in a testimonial to the purser, signed by every passenger except Eglington and Eales.
George Eales, the passenger referred to, then made a long statement in which he complained of the quantity and quality of the provisions, and said that he had shown some salt meat to the doctor on one occasion, which the doctor denied. Eales next complained of the badness of the water served out, the interference of officers, the violence of the purser, general want of rule and order, lack of sanitary precautions, and the dirty state of the ship. The evidence offered by Eales on all these points was excessively trivial, and the Chairman had to tell him that he was ” taxing the credulity of the Board ” when he made a statement to the effect that the purser had threatened to throw him over the ship’s side.
Captain Holden, on being asked by the Board for a reply, said that every morning, at half past 6 o’clock, the decks were washed down, except on Tuesdays and Fridays, which were washing days, and then the work was done as soon as the washing was over, about 10 or 11 o’clock. They were never left eight days without washing. He had never heard any complaints except with regard to the water, which was at once attended to. He had advised the passengers to lay their personal grievances before him. He also stated that he had been several times to Brisbane with immigrants, and knew how they should be treated.
The doctor said he went over the ship three times every day, in the morning, afternoon, and night, and inquired after the health of the passengers. He was also careful in directing his constables if there were any complaints or faults to inform him of them. Eales always refused to clean his cabin, and a constable did it. In answer to the Board he said there were 343 passengers; there were three births and three deaths, all infants, which occurred about the middle of the voyage; there was no infectious disease on board, and nothing more than the usual amount of sickness. The deck was never in a filthy state, and was never left eight days without being washed. He wished to flatly contradict the statement that he had endeavored to induce the passengers to give him testimonials. Dr. Hancock made a statement similar to that made by Mr. McDonnell as to what took place on board the ship. The inquiry then closed.