Uncle Robbie

There’s a character in one of Michael Innes’s detective stories who claims his grandfather was born in 1720, the year of the South Sea Bubble. The book is set in the late 1960s. Martyn Ashmore is an octogenarian and considers he might just about be reaching the age when he should think about having children himself. Too bad he gets murdered before he has a chance.

But if both his father and grandfather had (as he said they had) put off marriage until they were in their 80s, the existence of an octogenarian alive in the 1960s whose grandfather was born little more than a hundred years after Shakespeare died is just about conceivable.

In fact there are some well documented cases of generations being stretched beyond normal limits. The Daily Mail published an article a year ago about the grandsons of John Tyler, the tenth president of the US, who are still alive. Tyler was born in 1790. He was about 63 when his son Lyon was born, and Lyon was about 75 when his younger son was born in 1928. That’s an average gap of 69 years between generations.

In the light of that example I suppose my claim that the poet Robert Burns, who died in 1796, was a friend of my great great grandfather Archibald Richardson pales into insignificance. Archibald was born in 1767. His son (also Archibald) was born in 1836. His grandson (Maul) was born in 1888. His great granddaughter (Monica) was born in 1924. And his great great grandson (me) was born in 1964. (In fact his youngest great great grandchild was born about six or seven years later still, but never mind that.) The average gap between generations from Archibald to me is therefore a mere 49.25 years.

Still, I suspect it’s a bit more than the overall human average generation gap. If we compare the generations in my family with those in a similar family chosen at random, we can see that my family tends to leave it a bit later to have children than is perhaps the norm.

Of course it was Archibald (senior) who made most of the running. But others have played their part too in making sure the generation gap was nice and big. Archibald’s father John waited until he was in his mid-40s to have Archibald, and Archibald’s son Archibald (doh) didn’t get round to completing his family (with my grandfather) until he was 42. My mum was 40 when she had me. No one, though, has done as well as Archibald, who was still firing on all cylinders at the age of 69.

Fast - reliable - strong - and defunct

It’s hardly worth mentioning because I don’t suppose anyone visits this site regularly, but if anyone did, they would have noticed a few problems with it lately. One very noticeable problem is that it simply wasn’t there for a week or so. Before that it was undergoing some serious speed issues and intermittent downtime (as we web professionals call it when the server doesn’t work).

The problem seems to have been with the service I was using to host the site, Ninjalion. They have been uncontactable for a few weeks now (although they did send me a reminder about my monthly payment a few days ago, which I’m afraid I’ve chosen to ignore). In fact they are now doing a passable imitation of having gone bust. I’m not particularly surprised – they didn’t charge very much.

Well, I’ve now made other hosting arrangements for copwick.net. But unfortunately, although I had a recent backup of the main family history website, I didn’t have one for the Webtrees site. That’s a bit of a pain, because I’ve put in quite a bit of time updating people’s details, uploading pictures etc. Without access to the database files on the old server, all that work is lost.

I’ve restored a basic version of the Webtrees pages, and I’ll gradually try and return them to the position they were at before everything went into meltdown. But it may take a while.

If anyone happens to have downloaded a GEDCOM file from the Webtrees site, that would help a lot in restoring all the data, so please get in touch. But I won’t be holding my breath.

I refer, of course, to the Gogango Divisional Board, who held their usual monthly meeting on 1 September 1896. I quote from the report of their meeting in the following Saturday’s edition of The Capricornian:

Mr A J Richardson wrote informing the Board that he had placed a finger board “To the township of Herbert” on the road from Rockhampton to Balnagowan Station at the place where the road to the township of Herbert turned off, and he had also blazed a line of trees from that place to Thompson’s or Deadman’s Point, from whence people riding or driving to Herbert simply had to follow the bank of the river downwards. He suggested that this information be made public. Later on he would survey that part of the branch road which passed through the reserve at Thompson’s Point, but for the present the blazed line would sufficiently meet the wants of the public. He believed he had acted according to the desire of the Board.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Richardson had instructions to re-survey that road and he has marked the trees for the present. He wishes to let the public know of this and they will be informed through the press.

MR BEAK: It is very satisfactory.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is very useful. Contracts have been let for several buildings down there and they could not get the material there. …

MR BEAK: I think we ought to accord a vote of thanks to Mr Richardson.

MR CARPENTER [Boo!]: What’s that? He has to do it. It is part of his professional business.

MR BEAK: It is very satisfactory at all events.

THE CHAIRMAN: Will you move that a vote of thanks be accorded to Mr Richardson for his action?

MR BEAK: Yes.

MR BOYER seconded the motion, and it was carried.

Well done Beak, well done Boyer. And as for you, Carpenter, I’d advise you not to cross my path, or I shall have a few words to say to you about your petty and small-minded behaviour!

The Great Comet of 1861, which may have been witnessed by Archibald Richardson while on a voyage to Australia

It seems A J Richardson was an armchair scientist in his spare time. Or possibly an amateur astronomer. In any case, he sent a letter to the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin in 1896, in which he attempted to allay people’s fears of the imminent catastrophe of a comet striking the earth. Apparently the end of the world was nigh, even that long ago.

It may be that Archibald began thinking about comets after witnessing one during his voyage to Australia in 1861.

I’m not sure how well Archie’s theory about the head of a comet acting as a giant lens and creating the optical illusion of a tail (as opposed to possessing a real tail) would play with modern astronomers, but he had clearly done some research and some hard thinking on the subject.

(Archibald refers to a book by Ignatius Donnelly, a US congressman and doom-merchant, called Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel, which was published in 1883. See this page for more details.)

Here’s his letter:

Morning Bulletin, Rockhampton, Tuesday 3 March 1896

COMETS

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—Several letters were published in your columns a little while ago directing public attention to the prediction of a French scientist that a comet was about to strike the earth. Proctor, in his book Our Place among Infinities, arrives at the conclusion that meteors or shooting stars are fragments of comets, and says the earth passes each year through more than a hundred meteor systems, and yet suffers no injury; and that it appears evident the comet, and not our earth would suffer from a collision. Professor Young says “as regards the possibility of a collision with a comet, it is to be admitted that such an event is possible. In fact if the earth lasts long enough, it is practically sure to happen. Such encounters will, however, be very rare. If we accept the estimate of Batinet, they will occur about once in every fifteen million years in the long run. The essential part of a comet is the coma or nebulosity, usually nearly spherical or oval in shape; next the nucleus, which may be single, double, or even multiple; and lastly the tail or train, which is a streamer of light. As the comet, he says, approaches the sun the tail follows it much as the smoke from a locomotive engine trails after it. But that the tail does not really consist of matter simply left behind in that way, is obvious from the fact that as the comet recedes from the sun, the tail precedes it instead of following. Of the dimensions, as a general rule the head or coma of a telescopic comet is from 40,000 to 100,000 miles in diameter. The comet of 1680 had a head 600,000 miles across. The head of the comet of 1811 measured nearly 1,200,000 miles. That of Donali’s comet of 1858 was 250,000 miles in diameter. The head of the comet of 1882 (which many people here would remember) had a diameter of only 150,000 miles, but its tail was at one time one hundred million miles in length. Regarding the nature of comets, he further says, “The density is probably much less than that of the best air pump vacuum, an estimate which is borne out by the fact that small stars can be seen through the head of a comet 100,000 miles in diameter. The spectrum of a comet is more or less faint and continuous, may be due to reflected sunlight, and almost beyond question indicates the presence of some gaseous hydrocarbon.” The author of Ragnarok seems to suppose that a comet and its tail are composed of vast quantities of gravel! It occurred to me some years ago that the head of a comet, which, according to scientific authorities, is

composed of a vast mass of gas, may possibly form one or more gigantic lenses, and that the tail consequently has no material existence, but is merely formed of concentrated sunbeams. Astronomers are satisfied that there are myriads of small bodies in interplanetary space, quite invisible to telescopic vision, circling round the sun, and it is probable these would be found in greater numbers towards that luminary, than towards the limits of the solar system. A small lens or pocket microscope half an inch in diameter will concentrate the rays of the sun, and set fire to paper in a minute. Imagine then the power of a lens, infinitely more transparent than the clearest crystal, half a million miles in diameter. Would not such a lens enormously intensify the sun’s rays, instantly vaporise the multitudes of small bodies falling within its scope? The vapours or gases so formed would instantaneously condense when the sunbeam passed on. Many of the peculiarities of comets may be explained on this hypothesis, as, for instance, the spectrum, the direction of the tail, variations in brightness, and the extraordinary velocity of the tail at Perihelion. Several comets at Perihelion travelled at the rate of 300 miles per second, the velocity of the extremity of the comet’s tail being then 40,000 miles per second. It is easy to understand that a beam of light could travel at this speed, but it is beyond credence that any material substance could attain such a great velocity. Assuming that these views are correct what consequences would ensue from a collision of earth and comet? The earth’s passage through the head of the comet would be performed in say forty minutes, during which time, if it happened in the night, we should perhaps see one shooting star more than usual. If the head really is gaseous the gas would be so highly attenuated that it could not affect us in  the slightest. The results following our passage through the intense beam of light forming the tail would depend on our position with regard to the focus of the lens and had better be left to conjecture.

I may fairly ask you to publish this letter on the ground that it treats of a subject of great interest to many, and, although of a superficial nature, furnishes food for thought.

I am, &c.,

A. J. RICHARDSON

Rockhampton, 29th February, 1896

I’ve avoided trying to present family trees here until now because I didn’t have a clue how to go about it in a way that would be easily viewed on a normal-sized computer screen. In fact, I don’t think there is a satisfactory way. However, I’ve decided to take the plunge anyway. I’ve started uploading the data I have on my relatives, ancestors and connections into a Webtrees server.

Webtrees is a sophisticated piece of software that uses PHP (whatever that is) to display genealogical data in a variety of ways.  Family tree data is stored in a database, so you can track down the details of a specific individual in a database browser. You can also view a tree-type diagram showing the ancestors and descendants of any individual in the database. And Webtrees will also do useful things like working out the relationship between two different people in the database. It can produce reports of various kinds and display things such as fan charts that I don’t understand at all but which might be useful to someone I suppose.

It’s also possible to export data to a GEDCOM file (a widely compatible format for transferring genealogical data – but if you need to be told that you probably don’t care what it is). This is done by collecting individuals and groups of people as “clippings” in your “clippings cart”. Unfortunately this procedure won’t export any media files that may be associated with the individuals selected, only the data I’ve entered, which is (I hope) usually correct. But help yourself if you want to do this. Disseminating information more widely is what this site is for.

Living family members are not identified to casual visitors. Anyone wanting to gain access to the full available data will have to sign up for an account (click the login link at the top right of the page) and if I know who they are I may be persuaded to allow it. If anyone would care to be given a login that will allow them to edit and add to the existing data here, they need only ask. If I know and trust them I’ll allow it. But I won’t be expecting a stampede.

Finally, an apology. As it stands, the Webtrees pages are plug ugly. I can’t be bothered to fiddle around with them at this stage though. Maybe one day I’ll make them look pretty …

Readers should be warned that this text is rather long and technical, and immensely dull for anyone not completely absorbed by their interest in the life and doings of molasses. But surely very few people fall into that category.

 

Mr. Archibald Richardson, called in; and Examined.

2104. WHERE do you reside?—At Liverpool.

2105. What is your occupation?—A distiller.

2106. In what firm do you carry on your business?—William Preston and
Company.

2107. Are you an extensive distiller?—We consume about 18,000 to 20,000
quarters annually.

2108. You have also been a brewer, have you not?—Yes, a number of years ago.

2109. Have you and your partner taken into consideration the advantages or disadvantages that would arise to you, provided the permission were given to introduce molasses into the distillery?—We have; and we have no objection to molasses being used in the distillery.

2110. Do you think it would be an advantage to your trade, as a distiller, to have the option to use them?—If the distiller is not obliged to use them, I think it would be an advantage, if he can use them when he thinks proper.

2111. What occurs to you as to the advantages that might arise under certain circumstances, from the use of molasses?—It gives the distiller a greater choice of articles for distillation, and it may help, in a season when the grain is not very good, to strengthen the worts, and to make them richer and better for fermentation.

2112. Have you made any experiment, by which you can reason by analogy as to its effect?—I have not fermented any molasses, except on a small scale, by way of experiment; I have never fermented a large quantity.

2113. Have the goodness to state the result of the experiment you have made, and from which you form your judgment?—It is more than 20 years ago, and I can only speak from memory; I do not recollect the quantity; it was merely to ascertain the fermentation on the content.

2114. You found the fermentation improved?—Yes, I found the fermentation answer very well on a small quantity.

2115. Was it a fermentation of molasses alone, or a fermentation of molasses mixed with grain or malt?—It was a fermentation of molasses alone; I never used them mixed with anything.

2116. When you say it would assist in making a richer spirit of unsound grain, what do you mean by that?—I do not mean unsound grain; grain that is light and has not so much saccharine matter in it as in years when it is of good quality.

2117. In seasons when the harvest has been injured, do you find that the spirit distilled from grain that is so injured is of harsh quality?—We seldom use grain that is very deficient; we generally get some of good quality and mix with it.

21 18. The tendency of that grain that is so damaged is to make a harsher spirit, is it not?—I do not know that that is so; it is not so good a spirit certainly.

2119. You would introduce molasses into that mash for the purpose of improving the saccharine matter, would you not?—Yes, if I could not get a better quality of grain at a cheaper rate to mix with it.

2120. By so doing you calculate that you would improve the general quality of the spirit reduced?—Yes, I think so; but I cannot speak positively as to that.

2121. Do you apprehend that the introduction of molasses would facilitate smuggling very much?—I do not suppose that the introduction of molasses would give a greater facility to smug ling than the present mode of working.

2122. State your reasons or forming that opinion?—At present a distiller may put in anything into the fermenting backs he thinks proper; there is nothing to hinder him if the officer of excise does not stop it, and he can introduce sugar or molasses with the same facility now as if he were working either from the one or the other.

2123. What deters him from doing it now?—I think no respectable distiller would ever risk his character and capital with trying anything of the kind; it is hardly possible.

2124. Is there anything to prevent his introducing sugar or molasses, if he chooses to pay the duty upon the sugar or molasses?—There is nothing to prevent his putting them in, but it is not his interest, for it is impossible to take the spirit away; the excise officer has every thing under lock and key, and he can prevent it, there are so many checks.

2125. You mean that he can prevent it after the fermentation is begun, but there is nothing to preclude his introducing it into the mashing?—He can prevent the spirit being taken away, but there is nothing to hinder the distiller putting in the ingredients.

2126. As there would be an increase by introducing it at an improper time, either now or hereafter, the check is as good now as if the permission were given?—The check is just as good now as then, and then as now; no distiller would think of adding anything of that kind, and risk his capital in the prospect of a trifling gain.

2127. At present, suppose he introduces sugar or molasses into the wash before the fermentation begins, inasmuch as the Excise have the choice of the manner in which it shall estimate the duty, either upon the wash or upon the quantity of spirit, what is there that deters at present a distiller from introducing either molasses or sugar in small quantities into the wash, for the purpose of aiding the fermentation of inferior grain?—If he does that he must pay duty upon the spirit.

2128. Is it because the duty on sugar and molasses are so high that he will not get an equivalent return in spirit for the cost of the article?—He could not do it without smuggling, and therefore he would never attempt anything of the kind.

2129. You are aware that a large quantity of foreign grain is annually imported into this country, are you not?—Yes, I have no return of the quantity, but we purchase a considerable quantity ourselves at the distillery.

2130. You have done so for a succession of years, have you not?—I think for the last three years, since the corn laws were altered.

2131. Knowing, therefore, that a limited quantity of molasses are annually brought from the British colonies to this country, for the use of breweries and distilleries, do you think that permission to use them might be very detrimental to the agriculture of this country?—I do not; if the molasses took the place of foreign grain it would be no injury to the agricultural interests of this country.

2132. Have you used in your own distillery much foreign grain of late years?—We purchased the last twelvemonth upwards of 15,000 quarters of foreign barley.

2133. Have you found it good for malting?—No, none of it; I would not have ventured to malt any of it.

2134. From seeing the quality of the grain, do you consider that by any process on the continent it might be fitted for introduction into this country, and afterwards malted?—Yes, I think it would be very easy to do that.

2135. There is a very small quantity of barley on hand at present, is there not?—I really do not know the quantity.

2136. If in succeeding years there is as large a market for foreign grain as has existed of late, does it appear to you it may become the interest of the foreigner to prepare the material in the way you think he might do, it to come into this country, and be afterwards malted?—I think it is very probable it might be so.

2137. What is the process by which you think the foreign barley might be prepared for introduction into this country, suitable to malting?—The process is very simple; it is kiln-drying it after it is threshed out.

2138. Would it germinate after it had been kiln-dried?—Yes, and it may be carried to any distance on board ship.

2139. Have you any experience as to the germination of kiln-dried corn?—Yes; I was a maltster for a number of years, and I kiln-dried all the barley I malted from harvest to the month of January, and it would not malt well without that being done.

2140. You were a brewer for 20 years prior to your being a distiller, were you not?—I carried on brewing and malting.

2141. Do you think that if the use of molasses were permitted: in the breweries-it would be a great advantage to the brewer?—I think it might be used in considerable quantities in porter, but I do not think much could be used in strong ale.

2142. In table beer?—In table beer a small quantity might be used, or perhaps a considerable quantity if the fermentation is good, but in strong beer the fermentation is incomplete, and the taste of molasses would be felt, very probably, in the ale; in porter it would not, because the fermentation is brought down much lower.

2143. Sugar might be useful in pale ale, might it not, if the duty permitted it?—Yes, that would have no taste.

2144. Is there a great tendency in the liquor brewed from molasses to turn acid?—I have not brewed from molasses for beer, and; therefore I cannot say; but the wash I fermented was not more acid than wash from grain or malt, or anything of that kind.

2145. From any experiments you have made, you would not be deterred by that apprehension from the use of it?—I would have no fears on that head at all.

2146. In making good beer, what proportion of molasses and what proportion of malt do you think might be fitly used?—I cannot exactly state that; but I think I should have no hesitation in putting in one cwt. of molasses to three quarters of malt for porter; perhaps much more night he put in, but I would not be afraid of trying that quantity.

2147. The molasses so used would save the expense of the present colouring, would it not?—Yes, I am of that opinion.

2148. If you used that proportion, do you think there would be any remains of the taste of molasses in the porter?—I think not; the porters, generally fermented, are attenuated down to 8 or 10 per cent. above water; and strong ale is very seldom below 30 degrees on the saccharometer.

2149. By what saccharometer do you mean?—By Bate’s or Allen’s.

2150. Should you have any apprehension that beer brewed from malt and molasses would not keep, if used in those quantities?—I would not have any apprehension of its spoiling.

2151. If permission were given to use molasses in the breweries, do you apprehend that it would increase the facility of introducing deleterious ingredients into the beer or porter so made?—I do not know what is introduced into the porter or ale just now; but when I was a brewer, it was very common to introduce different things; I paid a gentleman from this town 10 l. for different articles that he said the London brewers used; and I was obliged to throw them all down the river.

2152. What were the articles?—They were grains of Paradise and Coeulus Indicus; I tried them once or twice, and I found the beer injured by them; and I threw them into the river.

2153. Do you find that a drinkable beer can be made with those articles?—I think it cannot.

2154. Was opium one of those articles?—No, that was at too high a price to be used at that time.

2155. You do not believe that deleterious ingredients are used to any extent?—I do not think that any respectable brewer will use them ; I think they are more apt to be used after the beer goes from the brewer.

2156. Do you not think that if he is disposed to make use of them, he has ample means, without the use of molasses, for introducing them?—He has plenty of opportunities for introducing them if he chooses it; but I do not think they do it; I have conversed with a number of brewers, who had no cause to conceal anything of the kind, and they denied that anything was used by them; I think they are principally used after the beer goes to the retailer.

2157. What object has the retailer in using them?—To intoxicate, I suppose; to make the people drunk, that they may call for another quart.

2158. Can palatable beer be made from such ingredients, if mixed with other beer by the retailer?—When people get a certain length, they do not mind the taste of anything of that kind.

2159. What was your method of so regulating the heat in drying the grain, that the should be capable of germination in the manner you spoke of?—I was in the habit of drying at 120 to 130 degrees of heat.

2160. How did you dry the grain?—With charcoal.

2161. By what apparatus did you contrive to regulate the heat?—0n the common malt kiln, where I dried the malt.

2162. You used charcoal instead of Welch culm?—Yes; barley will not malt if it is not dried immediately after harvest; there is a great proportion of it that is soft, and that being put into water, is totally destroyed for malting, it absorbs so much water.

2163. How soon is it after the harvest, in a wet season, that it is capable of germinating?—If the grain is so dry that it can be thrashed out from the straw, and dried, it will malt immediately.

2164. Without kiln drying, how soon is it after the harvest that it is capable of germinating?—It may be kept six or eight weeks, and then malted, if not exposed to the air.

2165. What is the shortest period after the harvest that it is capable of used for malt?—If it is not kiln dried, it would require two months.

2166. It will differ in some degree. according as the harvest has been wet or dry?—It would require to be stacked for two months.

2167. What quantity of proof spirit do you extract from a quarter of grain containing a portion of malt?—That will depend altogether on the quality of the and the malt.

2168. Have you not stated, at a meeting of distillers, that you can produce from one quarter of grain, partly malted, 27 gallons of proof spirits?—I have produced 22 imperial gallons.

2169. Which is equal to 27 old gallons?—I do not know what it is equal to.

2170. Have you not stated, at a meeting of distillers, that you could produce from one quarter of grain, partly malted, 27 gallons of proof spirits?—I never stated any thing of the kind; I stated 22 imperial gallons of proof spirit.

2171. What quantity of proof spirits can you extract from an hundred weight of molasses?—I do not know that.

2172. You never have tried that?—I have tried, but it is 20 years ago; I never tried it on a large scale, and I do not remember.

2173. You have no reason for supposing that by using molasses with inferior corn, you would improve your fermentation?—I have no doubt of it. I do not know with regard to improving the fermentation; if I used molasses and raw grain together, the one would ferment quicker than the other; they ferment very well separately, and I have no reason to believe they would not ferment together.

2174. Did you ever try them together?—No, never.

2175. What reason have you for supposing they would ferment together?—Grain and malt ferment very well together; though they ferment differently when separate.

2176. You have stated that a distiller cannot take away spirits improperly produced, by putting molasses into his tun; cannot the distiller take away spirits from the end of the worm?—A distiller may do that once or twice; he will never do it again.

2177. Why not?—Because the Excise would soon get information of it, and he would be punished.

2178. Is there any way in which an excise officer who happens to be out of the way at the moment, can know if the distiller has taken away spirits from the end of the worm; has he any check by which he can tell it, supposing the distiller had improperly introduced molasses into his fermentation?—I think the distiller’s character is the best check. I think no man will think of doing anything of the kind.

2179. If a man was inclined to do so, there is no check?—If he is foolish enough to do it.

2180. You have stated that there would be no greater facility to fraud, if molasses was allowed to be distilled; would not the distiller have a better opportunity of putting molasses, dissolved in water, into his back, provided he was inclined to take away spirits from the end of the worm, than he could of putting new wort into his vat?—He would not have a better opportunity than he has at present.

2181. Does not the Act of Parliament prevent his having any molasses on his premises?—If a distiller thinks proper, he can introduce molasses or sugar into his premises now, without a chance of detection.

2182. How can he do that?—He may bring it in casks as barm, or anything.

2183. Do you mean fraudulently?—Yes.

2184. Have you ever tried any means by which you can ascertain the different quality of molasses?—I never have.

2185. You are not aware of there being any check?—I know no way but by the saccharometer, or the weighing the molasses; I do not know any other check.

2186. Were you engaged in a distillery when the distilleries were prohibited the use of corn?—I was a distiller when sugar was used.

2187. From your experience in the fermentation of sugar, do you conceive sugar and corn could be used together with advantage?—I never tried it; I never fermented any together.

2188. What is your opinion?—I would not be afraid of doing it; I do not know whether they would ferment well together; but I think there is no doubt about it.

2189. Do not you think the process of fermentation of sugar is very different?—So is the fermentation of malt and grain; they are different, and yet they ferment well together.

2190. Do you think that you would use the same quantity of yeast in distilling from molasses as from corn?—I think distilling from molasses and sugar wants a little more yeast.

2191. Do you think that you would have to use such a quantity of yeast as to injure your corn wort?—No.

2192. You do not think it would bring on the fermentation too rapidly?—No, you cannot bring that on too rapidly.

2193. You think the yeast necessary to work the sugar would not retard the fermentation?—Yes; if a large quantity was put in at once; not if it was put in as it required it.

The Waterloo, painted by D. Macfarlane

I’ve been trying for some time to find out exactly when (and where) Archibald John Richardson arrived in Australia, but evidence was elusive for some reason. At last, however, I’m pretty sure I have the answer. Whether the record has only just shown up in the ancestry.com.au archives, or whether I didn’t use the right search terms before, I don’t know.

Archie sailed for Australia on board the Waterloo, embarking at Gravesend in late April or early May 1861. He arrived at Sydney in the early morning of 15 August.

The date  fits with what we knew about Archie’s whereabouts: he was still in England (living in Hampshire) for the 1861 census, which took place on the 7th/8th April 1861. He sailed for Australia just a few weeks later.

The picture on the right is a painting of the Waterloo from the National Maritime Gallery website. It seems the ship is ‘decorated’ with fake gun ports to deter pirates.

Rather amazingly there is a diary, written by a Miss Robertson who sailed from Gravesend to Sydney on the Waterloo at the same time as Archibald, which is held by the maritime museum in Sydney.  If anyone happens to be going that way and fancies doing a spot of photocopying …

The Waterloo towards the end of her life. She was broken up in 1910.

Joseph Swift and Jennie Brown appearing together. The Era, 27 May 1882.

You need a bit of help when you’re researching the history of someone with a name like Brown. Trying to find a specific Brown in a morass of similarly-named people feels like wading through treacle and it’s hard to keep motivated amidst so much uncertainty. Is this Jennie Brown your Jennie Brown? Does she always spell her name that way, or does she sometimes spell it Jenny? Or is it short for Jennifer, or Genevieve, or something else? It will be a lot easier in the future when we’re all identified by unique 26-digit numbers (presumably this will happen at around the same time as we all start wearing silver suits and driving flying cars).

The Jennie Brown I was searching for was an actress, who was born in Rochester (according to her entry in the 1901 census) but possibly had  some connection with Australia (her father was reputed to have built the Bijou Theatre in Melbourne – or, possibly, somewhere else).

She was born about 1856 (working back from her age in the census) and by about 1881 (when her eldest son was born) had married Joseph William Sarl, also an actor – his stage name was Joseph Swift.

Unfortunately, tracking her down through official records proved difficult. For a start there was a doubt about her name - though normally referred to as Jennie (and, perhaps, occasionally Jenny), she appears on at least one birth certificate as Jane. And then, of course, there was her surname. Not one of the least common British surnames.

Well, old newspapers helped out again. A Jennie Brown is referred to several times in The Era, the authoritative stage newspaper in Victorian times, starting in 1876 (when the Jennie Brown I was looking for should have been about 20). It’s still by no means certain that these are references to the right Jennie Brown. However, a little encouragement comes from the fact that in 1882, a series of adverts for a tour by Holt & Wilmot’s Youth Company shows Jennie Brown and Joseph Swift appearing together (above right). Joseph’s brother Sidney Sarl, who was working for a different Holt & Wilmot company, appears in another advert on the same page.

The Era, 9 June 1888

By this time Joseph and Jennie’s son Arthur would have been around a year old. Jennie’s name does not appear in The Era‘s columns again for several years after 1882 – very likely she retired from the stage as their family started to grow (another three children were born between 1883 and 1888).

Joseph carried on acting, and seems to have established a good reputation judging from reviews of his work that appeared in the contemporary press. However, in March 1888, when their youngest son, Ernest, was about a year old, Joseph committed suicide during a brief engagement in Bristol.

The acting community, one hopes, rallied round following this tragedy; at any rate they were invited to by a letter from Fred Merer in The Era:

A few weeks ago the death was announced of Joseph William Sarl, better known to the profession as Joseph Swift. He was well known in the provinces as being a thoroughly conscientious and sound actor, also possessing literary attainments of a high order. He was educated at Merchant Taylor’s School, and left in 1866 to follow a commercial pursuit. This proving distasteful, he embarked in theatrical life, which he continued until the time of his decease. The majority of his friends, even, are doubtless ignorant of his having left a widow and three [sic] children almost destitute. If there be any reason attaching to benefits, one would suppose that dire poverty in conjunction with honest antecedents would constitute a forcible claim to such attentions. If you will kindly insert this, the monetary result, I apprehend, will be favourable.

(Fred Merer was an acting colleague who had appeared alongside Joseph in several productions during the 1880s. He is incorrectly identified as ‘T. Merer’ at the foot of his letter.) There was at least one response: on 7 July, The Era reported that ‘Mr Frederick Merer acknowledges receipt of £1 for the Joseph Swift fund from “Admirers of Joe and Visitors to the Garrick”.’

Who knows what kind of privations Jennie’s family suffered after Joseph’s death. It is probable that his family (he was the son of a silversmith) provided some support. Jennie’s own family, however, seems to have lost touch with her. In 1890 another advert appeared in The Era:

WANTED, Address, Mrs Joseph Swift or (Miss Jenny Maxwell Brown). Apply to her sister from Australia. Mrs A Miles, Pickwick, Corsham.

The connection with Australia seems to confirm the story that Jennie’s father had been involved in the theatre there. Whether the advert was successful in tracking Jennie down is unknown. However, it seems that the family may have left the country by the following year – there is no trace of them in the 1891 census. It is even possible that Jennie returned to Australia. There are a couple of mentions in Australian newspapers of an actress (or actresses) named Jennie Brown – and apparently only in the year or so after 1891. We cannot of course be sure that these refer to our Jennie Brown, but it is at least possible.

Another family legend – that Joseph and Jennie were actors in Sir Henry Irving’s company – may come into play here. There is no evidence at all that either of them ever appeared with Sir Henry. However, one of the references to Jennie Brown in the Australian papers relates to a performance by the ‘New Irving Dramatic Society’. Could the family legend be based on a misunderstanding of this fact? Like so much else here, it is just conjecture.

Sydney Morning Herald, 30 August 1888

Nevertheless, there proves to be some truth in the story about Jennie’s father being involved in the theatre management business. Newspapers come to the rescue here again. A marriage notice for Jennie’s sister Maggie, the sister who was looking for her in 1890, shows that their father was William Maxwell Brown, who had at one time lived in Ballarat (where, as it happens, there was also a Bijou Theatre – though it was probably not called that when he was living in the town).

Searching for William Maxwell Brown turns up a few scraps of information. Before leaving England, he had been stage manager of the Surrey Theatre, London. In Ballarat he had managed the Theatre Royal. Unfortunately this venture seems to have concluded with his bankruptcy in 1860. He was discharged just two years later, but his subsequent career as a restaurateur seems to have been similarly unsuccessful, ending in another bankruptcy in 1867.

A return to the stage seems to have been his next move – as ‘Professor Maxwell Brown’, he advertised himself in Melbourne the following year as ‘joint creator of the Indian basket trick’, in which a person climbs into a wicker basket which is then run through several times with swords.

In 1883, William Maxwell Brown appeared as a witness in a court case in which an actor was suing a manager for terminating his contract early. He is described at the time as living in Adelaide. He seems to have charmed the court, and engaged in a bout of badinage with the judge and counsel that might have come directly from the pages of A. P. Herbert:

Witness – I have belonged to the theatrical profession for 43 years. Have played everything connected with the stage from leading man to prompter.

His Honor – And not crushed yet?

Witness – No, not crushed yet, your Honor. (Laughter.) In England a season meant three months, and was taken to apply to the four seasons of the year. In England the Christmas season would include the winter season, and would commence from Boxing Night, and be terminable three months after. Have managed many theatres, the last in 1860.

Mr. Stock – What are you doing now?

Witness – I am simply waiting for judgement in this case. I have nothing else to do. (Laughter.)

Mr Stock – You say you discarded management in 1860.

Witness – No; management discarded me. (Laughter.)

Three years later, in June 1886, William Maxwell Brown died, aged 54. By this time he had moved to Woolloomooloo, a suburb of Sydney. At least three of his children – J.C., W.B. and E.P. Brown – appear to have been still living in Australia; clearly Jennie was not there at this time, and seemingly Maggie was not either. A son, George, had died in 1875 at the age of 8.

Whether Jennie returned to Australia in the early 1890s or not, she was back in London by 1901 along with her four sons. (She may have been back by 1896, when a Jennie Brown becomes visible again in the theatre adverts of The Era; but it is not at all clear that this Jennie Brown is the same one: one notice, in 1899, indicates that Jennie Brown was also the stage name of a Mrs C May.) She lived on for many years, finally dying in Kingston in 1933, at the age of 78.

Beta in 1918

Auntie B was a bit of a character, by all accounts. I never met her (as far as I know) – she died either before or soon after I was born. But I heard a bit about her. She was cantankerous and generous and tight-fisted and warm-hearted, as far as I can make out.

The latter attribute seems to be confirmed by the following story, which appeared in a 1920 issue of the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin:

PRESENTATION TO MISS BETA RICHARDSON

Central Queensland soldiers who were the recipients of many kindnesses at the hands of Miss Beta Richardson, formerly of Rockhampton, while they were resident in the mother country, have had an album, containing about 120 photographs, prepared for presentation to her. The photographs include one of Eastcote, on The Range, where Miss Richardson lived for many years with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Richardson; Redwood, the well-known vineyard in the Yeppoon district, which was at one time the property of a member of her family; beauty spots in the Rockhampton Botanic Gardens and other parts of the district; views of the leading public buildings in Rockhampton; and the Fitzroy and Alexandra bridges; a fine set of flood pictures; and a most interesting series of views of the doings of a party of Rockhampton and Mount Morgan residents catching and riding turtles on Peak Island, off Emu Park. On the front of the album is a silver shield bearing the inscription

Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, Tuesday 27 July 1920

“To Miss Beta Richardson from some of her ‘digger’ friends, 1920″ and on the back is a reproduction, in gold, of the Australian coat of arms. On the inside of the cover appears the following:-

“Rockhampton, Queensland, June 1, 1920, Miss Beta Richardson, 73 Clarence Gate Gardens, London. This small token is sent from a few of the members of the A.I.F.who were welcomed and entertained at your mother’s house in London during the period of the Great War. It may serve to recall days spent in your homeland and is offered in appreciation of your untiring energy and tactful service, which was always at the disposal of any member of the A.I.F., be his rank what it may. To the ‘digger’ in trouble, when he over-stayed his leave or otherwise offended against military laws, your ready help and advice were always forthcoming even to the extent of bearding the military authority in his den.” On the opening page there are water-colour pictures, by Mrs. C. White, of Emu Park and Yeppoon. The album will no doubt be a most welcome reminder to Miss Richardson of many days spent in Rockhampton as well as tangible evidence that the services she was able to render soldiers from Central Queensland on the other side of the world were heartily appreciated by them.

Way to go, Beta.

Lancrigg, Grasmere, where Archibald Richardson may have lived as a child

Might this charming house in the Lake District have been home to Archibald Richardson, after the death of his father and sister in the 1840s? It’s beginning to look like it.

The work of the Australian Newspapers Digitisation Program goes on. Last October they notched up 3 million scanned newspaper pages. They are scheduled to finish in July this year, after adding another million pages or so to the total.

One thing that seems to have shown up in a recent wave of digitizations is a death notice for Archibald, who died in Rockhampton in December 1900.

After his  father died, we don’t know exactly what happened to Archibald. But according to the article from the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, ‘at an early age he went to live in Westmorland’. If this is true, it’s possible that he went to live at a house called Lancrigg, near Grasmere. The house belonged to a woman called Elizabeth Fletcher, a friend of the poet Wordsworth. Elizabeth’s daughter Mary married Sir John Richardson, the arctic explorer, naturalist and surgeon, who was Archibald’s first cousin.

After his father’s death in 1846, it may be that Archibald moved with his sister to Melrose in the Scottish borders. At any rate his sister died there in the summer of 1847. Might Archibald – having suffered this double loss – have been taken pity on by the mother-in-law of his cousin, Sir John?

We don’t know, of course. But Lancrigg is in Westmorland (or used to be) and given the family connection it certainly seems possible. And a letter written to Elizabeth Fletcher by Sir John Richardson in 1848 may just give a hint that supports the theory. Sir John, who was in Northern Canada searching for the lost Franklin expedition, wrote to his mother-in-law: ‘I hope to hear that you travelled safely and comfortably to Lancrigg, and that Mary, with her charge, speedily followed.’

At the time Sir John and his family were resident at the Haslar Hospital in Hampshire. Who knows what the purpose of this visit to Lancrigg might have been. Lady Richardson’s ‘charge’ could have been anyone (a sick son or daughter, being taken off to the country to recuperate) or anything (a pet dog). But it might have been little Archie.

It is interesting that the Morning Bulletin obituary mentions that Archibald was a cousin of Sir John Franklin’s as well as Sir John Richardson’s. I know of no evidence for this – but it would be great to find some. However, it probably belongs in the ‘journalistic misunderstandings’ category. Along with Archibald’s reported age at the time of his death – he was not 65. In fact he died the day before his 64th birthday.

Archie’s putative childhood home can still be visited – it’s now a vegetarian hotel. The distinctive round chimneys were – apparently – retained from the original farmhouse building at the insistence of Wordswsorth himself, with whom Archibald’s possible temporary guardian Mrs Fletcher was very close. And, much as it pains me to discover this connection with yet another poet, I would like this little speculation about Archibald’s history to turn out to be true.

Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, 8 December 1900