INDIA-L Archives
Archiver > INDIA > 2004-06 > 1087810451
From: "Peter Bailey" <>
Subject: Re: [India-L] Ship Dodington 1755 - List of Military Officers & story of shipwreck PART 2
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:34:11 +0100
References: <s0d2b78d.036@dae.kzntl.gov.za>
I was enthralled by Stewart Green's message on this subject. Really
excellent!
For anyone interested in looking further into this story, I should state
that I have transcribed the 'List of Recruits embarked in Dodington (IOR
Ref. L/MIL/9/85) and can add the following observations that may be helpful:
1. Due allowance being made for differences in spelling and difficulties in
interpretation of 18th C. writing, there are some inconsistencies between
Stewart Green's List (Geoffrey & Dave Allen's List) and the Embarkation
List. Essentially, those in the former marked "DISCHd, DISOBd or RUN" do not
feature in the Embarkation List. One might, therefore, reasonably suppose
that these men were discharged or ran before Dodington sailed from England
and thereby were spared the fate of most of the others.
2. According to L/MIL/9/85 Dodington seems to have been the only ship of the
fleet bound for Fort St. George. Pelham, Edgecote, Houghton, Stretham, are
listed as bound for Bombay, Duke of Dorset and Eastcourt for Bengal. Also,
they are included in the sailings for the 1754 'Season'. This may mean that
the lists were completed at some time later than indicated and that errors
crept in!
3. It might be useful to indicate that comparison between the lists shows
(Stewart's list first)
* Cadet Durham = Cadet Charles Hunton of Durham
* William Kate = William Hate
* William Pope = William Rope
* John Walkins = John Watkins
* Joseph Laton = Josiah Lalon
* Joseph Witton = Joseph Wilton
* William Bishop is, indeed, 'Apothecary'
Please note that truth is not claimed for either list or transcription.
4. The 'Embarkation List' includes only HEIC Recruits, including the HEIC
Officers embarked. However, Stewart's List would, presumably include Seamen
and the 'Royal Regiment of Artillery' quoted as embarked also. However, the
comparison of the two lists effectively accounts for the first two
categories, but nowhere is a single soldier of the RRA mentioned - except
possibly the Matross DYSOU. There seems to be an inconsistency here. Was a
detachment of RRA really aboard?
5. The 23 Survivors in Stewart's List essentially include seamen only! Can
this be true? It is well-known that 18th c. seamen were no better swimmers
than the population at large. That means that they could not swim at all. I
hope that, for the reputation of seamen in general, the list is inaccurate
in its inference that the lifeboats were filled with seamen!
Evidently I shall have to read the book - but hope that these points add a
little to the debate.
I look forward to the comments of others.
Good Hunting!
Peter Bailey
Secretary, Families in British India Society
www.fibis.org
This thread: