Samuel Armstrong

Other Events and Attributes:

• Baptism: 26 Oct 1823, Kirkhaugh, Northumberland, England
• Census: 6 Jun 1841, Knowhead, Knarsdale, Northumberland, England
• Census: 30 Mar 1851, Wanwood Well House, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Immigration: 14 Jul 1854, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1856, Hiscock's Gully, Buninyong, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 4 May 1867, Sebastopol, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 4 Mar 1875, Albert and Ophir St, Sebastopol, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 4 Feb 1887, Ligar St, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia

Notes:

Banner (Melbourne, Vic. : 1853 - 1854), Friday 21 July 1854, page 10

THE RED JACKET MUTINY CASE.

On the 17th instant, Captain Samuel Reed, of the clipper ship Red Jacket, which arrived here from Liverpool on the 16th, preferred a charge of riotous and insubordinate conduct (amounting to assault and mutiny) against five of his cabin passengers, named John Barnett, Francisco Romero, John Hickey, William Hickey, and Alfred Kinahan be fore the Water Police Court, Williamstown. The defendants pleaded not guilty; and, after an investigation which occupied two days, the decision of the Court was : That John Barnett and John Hickey be fined £2 and costs: and that the other defendants be discharged. The Magistrates on the Bench were Crawford A D. Pasco, Esq. R.N. and P.M, and Francis Orme, Esq. J P. From a careful examination of the testimony on both sides, we submit the following statement as a correct and impartial summary of the case. The ship left Liverpool on the 4th of May, and everything seemed to have gone on quietly enough till about the 25th of that month. On that day, in consequence of being ordered out of the after saloon by the ladies, a requisition. signed by ten of the male cabin passengers, was presented to the captain, selling forth that great inconvenience and annoyance had arisen from want of some definite rules for their guidance, and requesting him to supply this desideratum by drawing up a distinct code of regulations regard ing the hours of meals, the hours during which the after-saloon was to vacated for the exclusive use of the ladies, the putting out of the lights at night, etc, stipulating, at the same time, that the regulations should, in the first place, he submitted for their approval, and, if adopted, then to be posted up in a conspicuous part of the cabin, and adhered to strictly by all parties.
After the receipt of this requisition, Captain Reed drew up a series of regulations, but decidedly objected In submitting them for the approval of the requisitionists. They were as follows: - l. Breakfast at nine o’clock, dinner at two o clock, tea at six o'clock,, as hitherto. 2. All gentlemen to rise on the ringing of the first bell (half past seven o clock) and be dressed by breakfast time. 3. All gentlemen are expected, in courtesy to the ladies, to come to table in a becoming dress, and not, as hitherto, without coats. 4. Gentlemen will attend to the dinner bell, and, in deference to the ladies, it is hoped that more punctuality than hitherto will be observed. 5. All lights in the saloon and state rooms to be out at 11. The after saloon is exclusively set apart for the ladies; unless gentle men are especially invited there, their presence will in future be considered an insult to them. 7. In con sequence of card playing having led to gambling, insobriety, and conduct too disgraceful to repeat, the commander forbids its continuance, and he cautions those who would set aside his power and authority. These two last regulations gave instant offence to the male passengers generally; and as the captain was proceeding to retire in the after saloon, Mr Barnet (one of the defendants) requested him to stay and hear what the passengers had to say. This the captain declined doing, hoping that the passengers would attend to his regulations, and he then retired, Burnett then said he would be—if he would recognise these regulations,, and if all the passengers were of his opinion, they would not submit to them; and now that war was declared, it would be war to the knife. Mr. John Hickey said that he had a sword in his cabin, and as long as he could wield it he would defend his rights, and would never submit to such insulting regulations. Barnett and John Hickey then proceeded to enter the after saloon, followed by Francisco Romero, William Hickey, Alfred Kinahan, Clements Hanbury, John Sk-ing, and John Reld. A scuffle ensued, in consequence of the captain calling in some of his officers, and employing force to eject the passengers. Of course this scene alarmed the ladies, who fled to their state rooms. The result of this resistance was that the captain ordered Barnett, Romero and Hickeys, Hanbury, and Reed, to be confined to their respective cabins, placing a guard over them for the night, and telling his men to cut them down if they attempted to escape. On the night of the 27th, in consequence of some menacing language which had been used he ordered the two Hickeys and Romero to be put in irons, from which they were next day released on their parole of honour to observe the captain's orders. The captain, however, gave the defendants notice, that they were to consider them selves under arrest during the remainder of the voyage, and forbid them holding any communication whatever with any of the passengers on any occasion. And so matters stood between the belligerent parties till the ship readied Hobson's Bay.
The captain alleged that some of the gentlemen (Barnett and Romero) had been drunk, and using improper language, rendering them unfit for the company of ladies. But Doctor Robinson, the surgeon of the ship, distinctly testifies that he never heard the defendants use any obscene or improper language in the presence of the ladies. He states that he saw Burnett drunk and Romero in a high state of excitement from liquor. Mr Yaxoll, a married cabin passenger, who remained neutral; or rather (as he admits) from policy sided with the captain, testifies that he considers the Messrs. Hickey and Kinahan are most harmless young men! and that Mr. Barnett and Mr, Romero when excited on the deck, have used language which was not suitable for a drawing room. He considers the conduct of Captain Reed was quite the reverse to that of being kind to his passengers. His wife and child had received most brutal conduct from the captain. He only once saw Mr, Barnett intoxicated, and has seen Mr. Romero under the influence of liquor. He has heard Mr. Barnett, on the occasion of his being intoxicated, use improper language on the deck, but not in presence of any lady. And in explanation of his apparent acquiescence with the captain, he states that, although no threat was used to him, he acquiesced, thinking that he might meet with the same fate as the other passengers if he did not do so. The question in this case seems to be, as to the right of the male passengers to enter the after saloon! and that was fully admitted by Captain Reed himself on his cross examination. He says, 'It was distinctly understood by the passengers, that the cabin was to be open to all, as long as they conducted themselves properly,' The berths of several of the male unmarried passengers were off the after saloon, and could not be entered except through the saloon. Several passengers called as witnesses, state that, when they took their passages, the agent told them distinctly that they were to have the free use of the cabin termed the Iadies' saloon. Mr. Skilling, a witness, states, that there was an agreement among themselves, for the convenience of the ladies, that they (the gentlemen] should vacate the after cabin for a certain time during the day, and that they adhered to that agreement. Doctor Robinson says, that he considers Messrs. Hickey and Kinahan as sober men: and he does not believe that any of the defendants were habitual drunkards. He says that Capt. Reed, about 3 weeks after they sailed, got into an irritable and nervous state of mind, and this was previous to the disturbance. After put ting Romero and the two Hickeys in irons, the capt. explained to the doctor his reason for doing so. His reason for putting William Hickey in irons was because his brother was in irons, and occupied the same cabin ; and he thought the safely of the ship and the passengers required it. At the same time the doctor said to the captain that he believed a hair of his head would not he touched by any of the gentlemen ; but if he thought the safety of the ship required it, he had better exercise his authority as he thought best. He states, also, that had the power rested with him, he would not have placed the gentlemen in irons; on the contrary, he should have prevented the captain’s doing so. The doctor declared that he had never read the Passengers Act.
To prevent if possible, such errors occurring again, and for the instruction of all captains and surgeons of passenger-ships we shall conclude this report by extracting the 56th section of the Act, 15 and 16, Viet., cap. 44;—"In every passenger-ship, the medical practitioner on board aided by the master thereof, or in the absence of such medical practitioner, the master of the ship, is hereby empowered to exact obedience to all such rules and regulations (as may be prescribed by any order of Her Majesty's Privy Council); and any person who shall neglect or refuse to obey any such rules or regulations, or who shall obstruct the medical practitioner or master of the ship in the execution of any duty imposed upon him by any such rules or regulations, or who shall be guilty of riotous or insubordinate con duct shall be liable, for each offence, to a penalty not exceeding two pounds sterling, and in addition thereto, to be confined in the common gaol for any period, not exceeding one month, at the direction of the justices who shall adjudicate on the complaint.’ This was the law on which the Court fined John Barnett and John Hickey £2 each. Such then is the sum and sub stance of the great case of the Red Jacket mutiny, which turns out (as far as the accusation against the passengers is concerned) to be a mere bottle of smoke. We understand that the defendants in the case intend to commence actions for damages against Captain Reed in the Supreme Court. It was under stood by the Court at Williamstown, that the com plaint ol the third mate of the Red Jacket against the captain, for keeping him in irons forty days, was to have been heard yesterday ; but when the complainant’s lawyer appeared, he found that a compromise had been effected, and that the case would not come into court. - 'Argus.'

Samuel married Agnes Thompson in Feb 1850 in Gretna Green, Scotland. Agnes (daughter of Daniel Thompson and Anna Unknown) was born about 1828 in Skelgill Plains, Alston, Cumberland, England; died on 20 Jul 1863 in Sebastopol, Victoria, Australia; was buried on 23 Jul 1863 in Ballarat Old Cemetery, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Samuel married Rebecca Thomason on 4 May 1867 in Eyre St, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Rebecca (daughter of William Thomason and Elizabeth Lancaster) was born in 1836 in Garrigill, Cumberland, England. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Baptism: 10 Feb 1849, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Census: 30 Mar 1851, Skelgill Plains, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Immigration: 3 Nov 1857, Hobsons Bay, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Notes:

I cannot find Henry in the 1851 Census

Other Events and Attributes:

• Census: 30 Mar 1851, Hill Top, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Baptism: 4 Apr 1852, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Immigration: 3 Nov 1857, Hobsons Bay, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Notes:

At age 15 Daniel was admitted to the Ballarat Base Hospital from 25 January to 6 February 1866. He was living at Sebastopol. His occupation wasgivenas labourer and that he was born at Alston.

Daniel married Winifred Mary O’Dwyer in 1877 in Forbes, New South Wales, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Baptism: 4 Apr 1852, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Immigration: 3 Nov 1857, Hobsons Bay, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 25 Oct 1882, Pakenham, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 11 May 1903, Cowan’s Rd, Wendouree, Ballarat, Victoria Australia

Elizabeth married Ralph Stout in 1870 in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. Ralph was born in 1848 in Durham, England; died on 11 May 1903 in Wendouree, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia; was buried on 12 May 1903 in Ballarat Old Cemetery, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Baptism: 2 Jul 1854, Alston, Cumberland, England
• Immigration: 3 Nov 1857, Hobsons Bay, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Samuel married Sarah Wright on 6 Feb 1886 in The Manse, Ararat, Victoria, Australia. Sarah (daughter of Robert Lee Wright and Elizabeth Lucas) was born about 1864 in Woodford, Victoria, Australia; died on 5 Jun 1942 in Ararat, Victoria, Australia; was buried after 5 Jun 1942 in Ararat Cemetery, Ararat, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Residence: 24 Dec 1895, Hargreaves St, Bendigo, Australia
• Residence: 1901, Fosterville, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1903, Wattle St, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1905-1913, Bridgewater, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1913-1924, Arnold, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1924-1937, Inglewood, Victoria, Australia

Anna married James Spark on 1 Jun 1878 in Wedderburn, Victoria, Australia. James (son of John Spark and Ann (Annie) Whitehill) was born about 1844 in Dysart, Wemyss, Fife, Scotland; died on 26 Oct 1922 in Arnold, Victoria, Australia; was buried on 27 Oct 1922 in Inglewood Cemetery, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Residence: 1 Mar 1893, Clunes, Victoria, Australia
• Witness: 12 Mar 1900, Kalgoorlie Cemetery, Western Australia, Australia

Notes:

Cambrian Hill School Register 1880-1881:
Age 7 years 8 months in 1880. Father's occupation, Miner

John married Catherine Ann Spark on 10 Feb 1882 in Wesleyan Parsonage, Creswick, Victoria, Australia. Catherine (daughter of James Spark and Catherine Shomack) was born on 2 Jul 1863 in Learmonth, Victoria, Australia; died on 23 Jan 1945 in Western Australia, Australia; was buried in Karrakatta Cemetery, Perth, Western Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Residence: 1912-1914, 85 Barkly St, Carlton, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1925-1943, Picnic Rd, Ararat, Victoria, Australia

George married Caroline Minnie Every on 14 Feb 1945 in Ararat, Victoria, Australia. Caroline was born about 1901. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Residence: 28 Feb 1900, Black Swan Hotel, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 1904, Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: Aft 1904, Balranald, New South Wales, Australia
• Residence: 1908, Wunghnu,, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 19 Jan 1925, Tyntynder, Victoria, Australia
• Residence: 15 Feb 1940, Swan Hill, Victoria, Australia

Florence married John William Keating on 24 Dec 1895 in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. John died on 6 May 1932 in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Florence married Donald Hendry on 15 Feb 1940 in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Donald (son of James Hendry and Margaret Dowling) was born about 1877 in Derby, Victoria, Australia; died on 31 Dec 1970 in Inglewood, Victoria, Australia; was buried on 4 Jan 1971 in Swan Hill Cemetery, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Other Events and Attributes:

• Residence: 1924, Arnold, Victoria, Australia

Doris married James Hayes in 1923 in Victoria, Australia. James was born in Arnold, Victoria, Australia; died in 1973 in Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Family/Spouse: Wilbur Darby. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]