My family's Phelan bloodline in Australia dates back to 1855, the year my 2x great-grandfather Jeremiah Phelan arrived in Sydney. Jeremiah was an Irishman from Queens County (modern day Laois), born in Abbeyleix in about 1821 and living nearby in Clonenagh. I have yet to uncover much about his life in Ireland but what we do know that is that on the 21st of April 1855, aged 34, he left Liverpool as one of 98 policemen on board the Exodus.
Why were there so many policemen on board this ship? Just four years earlier, significant gold finds in the colonies of New South Wales and Victoria had led to enormous rushes of men eager to make their fortune. The population in these colonies boomed with overseas arrivals, while whole towns and cities were almost emptied of professional men. The police forces were not spared, and the government's ability to maintain law and order was seriously tested as a result of such a loss in numbers. The New South Wales government needed to attract men to the force, formulating the Police Recruiting Act in 1853, which aimed to entice policemen in Britain and Ireland by offering free passage to the colony and a three year contract.
Captain Hammond organised the first contingent, who prior to being approved were put through a 'searching examination as to moral character and intelligence'. The Sydney Morning Herald stated that the men were selected from the police forces of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Birkenhead, Liverpool and Edinburgh. There were two inspectors, five sergeants and ninety-one constables making up the 98. There was no mention of anyone being selected from Ireland, but we know from the Exodus passenger list that Jeremiah listed Clonenagh as his 'native place'. It is not known whether Jeremiah was already employed as a policeman, but one way or another Jeremiah must have found his way to be selected. There is no doubt the offer would have been attractive; Ireland was still struggling from the effects of the potato famine, and his parents were already deceased, so there was little to keep him bound to his native Ireland.
As a side note, the Exodus also had on board Garrett Beresfort, the 'notorious robber' of the Victoria Bank in Melbourne, who had been apprehended in London and was being sent back to Australia to stand trial.
The arrival of the policemen in Sydney on Thursday 26 July 1855 was reported in the newspapers, but soon they would dominate the pages for all the wrong reasons. 78 of the recruits refused to swear the oath and take up their positions once they discovered that accommodation, promised to them for two shillings per week, was not to be forthcoming. 42 were locked up, and sent to the Water Police Court by the government, who charged two of the constables with breaching the Act and the rest for conspiracy.
The 42 men first appeared in the Water Police Court on Tuesday 31 July and the case would continue to be heard over the following two days. Several of the policemen who had signed the oath and taken up their positions in the force gave evidence that there had indeed been a promise made by Captain Hammond that lodgings would be found, as it could be 'very dear' in Sydney. The issue was complicated however by the fact that the written agreements that the men had signed made no mention of any such accommodation arrangements. One of the Sergeants claimed to have documents signed by Captain Hammond that embodied the terms of the promised lodgings. On the Thursday (2 August) a set of queries written to Hammond was produced and it included his answer explicitly stating the lodgings would be provided. It was said that this promise of lodgings had been a reason that many of the men had agreed to make the journey, The case of conspiracy - based upon the fact that the men had met on the Exodus the previous Sunday to consider signing the oath and had agreed not to - was thrown out. However the prisoners were told that they could still be tried individually on a case of misdemeanour, and were sent back to the ship and given the chance to reconsider and sign the oath.
On the following Wednesday (8 August) 12 of the constables were brought before the court, but the case was postponed until the next Monday upon application by the lawyer acting for the defendants. The next day the issue was debated in the Legislative Council, the Governor General having recommended, via the Inspector General of Police, that it would be desirable if barrack accommodation could be found for the men. The House went into Committee but the move was beaten 21 votes to 16, mainly because it was feared that all policemen already serving would soon demand similar treatment. The tone of the newspaper article covering this decision did convey a sentiment of sympathy for the situation these men found themselves in.
The Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday August 11 makes interesting reading. On Page 2, 61 of the men were named under a notice in which they pleaded their case, making the point that without the promise of accommodation being fulfilled, they were now worse off than if they had stayed in Britain, and expressed their desire to procure whatever work they could. But on the very next page the Inspector General of Police placed his own notice presenting the other side of the case and warning the public to not provide work for any of 69 men listed for fear of legal consequences. Interestingly Jeremiah Phelan was one of those listed, even though he was not a signatory to the notice on Page 2).
The weekend must have brought more discussion and reconsideration, because by Monday August 13 it was reported that almost all of the police had been sworn in, and when the 12 constables (who had been remanded to appear on this day) were brought to court, no-one appeared to prosecute them, so they were discharged. Bail was granted to the two constables who had been originally detained on their separate charge. Notices continued to appear in the paper (on 15 and 16 August) warning the public not to give the listed men work, though the number was down to 31 names. Ultimately all the charges were dropped, and the accommodation provided, to the embarrassment of the authorities. An attempt was made in the Legislative Council to make the Colonial Secretary, who had been responsible for initiating the recruitment, resign over the matter but this was withdrawn a couple of weeks later.
It wouldn't be too long before Jeremiah would leave his job in the police force - it would appear that he didn't see out the full three years of the contract. By 1857 he and Mary Ann had moved south to Victoria to start a new life - again. And it wouldn't necessarily be an easy life, but that can be a story for a separate post.
Why were there so many policemen on board this ship? Just four years earlier, significant gold finds in the colonies of New South Wales and Victoria had led to enormous rushes of men eager to make their fortune. The population in these colonies boomed with overseas arrivals, while whole towns and cities were almost emptied of professional men. The police forces were not spared, and the government's ability to maintain law and order was seriously tested as a result of such a loss in numbers. The New South Wales government needed to attract men to the force, formulating the Police Recruiting Act in 1853, which aimed to entice policemen in Britain and Ireland by offering free passage to the colony and a three year contract.
Captain Hammond organised the first contingent, who prior to being approved were put through a 'searching examination as to moral character and intelligence'. The Sydney Morning Herald stated that the men were selected from the police forces of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Birkenhead, Liverpool and Edinburgh. There were two inspectors, five sergeants and ninety-one constables making up the 98. There was no mention of anyone being selected from Ireland, but we know from the Exodus passenger list that Jeremiah listed Clonenagh as his 'native place'. It is not known whether Jeremiah was already employed as a policeman, but one way or another Jeremiah must have found his way to be selected. There is no doubt the offer would have been attractive; Ireland was still struggling from the effects of the potato famine, and his parents were already deceased, so there was little to keep him bound to his native Ireland.
As a side note, the Exodus also had on board Garrett Beresfort, the 'notorious robber' of the Victoria Bank in Melbourne, who had been apprehended in London and was being sent back to Australia to stand trial.
The arrival of the policemen in Sydney on Thursday 26 July 1855 was reported in the newspapers, but soon they would dominate the pages for all the wrong reasons. 78 of the recruits refused to swear the oath and take up their positions once they discovered that accommodation, promised to them for two shillings per week, was not to be forthcoming. 42 were locked up, and sent to the Water Police Court by the government, who charged two of the constables with breaching the Act and the rest for conspiracy.
The 42 men first appeared in the Water Police Court on Tuesday 31 July and the case would continue to be heard over the following two days. Several of the policemen who had signed the oath and taken up their positions in the force gave evidence that there had indeed been a promise made by Captain Hammond that lodgings would be found, as it could be 'very dear' in Sydney. The issue was complicated however by the fact that the written agreements that the men had signed made no mention of any such accommodation arrangements. One of the Sergeants claimed to have documents signed by Captain Hammond that embodied the terms of the promised lodgings. On the Thursday (2 August) a set of queries written to Hammond was produced and it included his answer explicitly stating the lodgings would be provided. It was said that this promise of lodgings had been a reason that many of the men had agreed to make the journey, The case of conspiracy - based upon the fact that the men had met on the Exodus the previous Sunday to consider signing the oath and had agreed not to - was thrown out. However the prisoners were told that they could still be tried individually on a case of misdemeanour, and were sent back to the ship and given the chance to reconsider and sign the oath.
On the following Wednesday (8 August) 12 of the constables were brought before the court, but the case was postponed until the next Monday upon application by the lawyer acting for the defendants. The next day the issue was debated in the Legislative Council, the Governor General having recommended, via the Inspector General of Police, that it would be desirable if barrack accommodation could be found for the men. The House went into Committee but the move was beaten 21 votes to 16, mainly because it was feared that all policemen already serving would soon demand similar treatment. The tone of the newspaper article covering this decision did convey a sentiment of sympathy for the situation these men found themselves in.
The Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday August 11 makes interesting reading. On Page 2, 61 of the men were named under a notice in which they pleaded their case, making the point that without the promise of accommodation being fulfilled, they were now worse off than if they had stayed in Britain, and expressed their desire to procure whatever work they could. But on the very next page the Inspector General of Police placed his own notice presenting the other side of the case and warning the public to not provide work for any of 69 men listed for fear of legal consequences. Interestingly Jeremiah Phelan was one of those listed, even though he was not a signatory to the notice on Page 2).
The weekend must have brought more discussion and reconsideration, because by Monday August 13 it was reported that almost all of the police had been sworn in, and when the 12 constables (who had been remanded to appear on this day) were brought to court, no-one appeared to prosecute them, so they were discharged. Bail was granted to the two constables who had been originally detained on their separate charge. Notices continued to appear in the paper (on 15 and 16 August) warning the public not to give the listed men work, though the number was down to 31 names. Ultimately all the charges were dropped, and the accommodation provided, to the embarrassment of the authorities. An attempt was made in the Legislative Council to make the Colonial Secretary, who had been responsible for initiating the recruitment, resign over the matter but this was withdrawn a couple of weeks later.
Epilogue:
There was a happier side to the story of Jeremiah and the Exodus. Also on board the ship was a 22-year old Irish woman by the name of Mary Ann Wilson, from Tyrrelspass in County Westmeath. Presumably she and Jeremiah met on the voyage, and little over a year after their arrival in Sydney they were married at St Mary's Cathedral, on 5 August 1856. On the marriage certificate Jeremiah's occupation was recorded as yes, a Sergeant of the City Police. His address was Riley Street, Sydney and Mary Ann listed hers as Francis Street, Sydney. Looking these streets up today, the two intersect in Darlinghurst, and in a quirk of fate, Francis Street is today the address of my cousins (albeit on my Mum's side) Bob and Anne Watson, whom I visited in Sydney for the first time just a few weeks ago!It wouldn't be too long before Jeremiah would leave his job in the police force - it would appear that he didn't see out the full three years of the contract. By 1857 he and Mary Ann had moved south to Victoria to start a new life - again. And it wouldn't necessarily be an easy life, but that can be a story for a separate post.
Comments
Post a Comment