Private Charles Smith (1816-1858)

Charles Smith was the husband of Jane Smith (nee Sadler) and father of Jeanetta Sadler Smith (who married George Menzies in Sydney in 1864). Geoff Brew has been actively researching Charles for the last year or so and here updates us on what we now know.

Marriage

In April 1839 Charles married Jane Sadler in North London. In January 1840 he enlisted as an infantry Private in the 80th Regiment of Foot, known as the Staffordshire Volunteers, at Chatham near London. The Army recorded him as 24 years old, 5ft 8¾ inches tall, occupation a shoemaker, and was born at in Coventry, County Warwick (AJCP Reel M815 page 310).

The Regiment had been headquartered at Windsor in New South Wales since 1837 and the couple would have known that Charles would receive regular pay, evidently a great attraction for many living with the poor laws in the south of England. Pay was a shilling a day, less stoppages for clothing and deductions for drunkenness (P Baillie, UK Researcher).

They may have thought he could leave the Army and stay on in Australia for a better life. In fact of the 90 British army Units to be sent to Australia in the 19th century, about 9.000 soldiers and 4,000 family members eventually settled permanently in the country. Apart from health issues, a soldier could purchase his way out ( £12 to £24 ) or be fully pensioned off at age 29 at 10/6d per week (Donohoe, James (1993). The British Army in Australia).

NSW

The Regiment deployed to Sydney gradually over a six-year period in 16 detachments of convict guards beginning in 1836. Charles would have been in one of the last detachments or a replenishment force arriving in NSW on the Baretto Junior in November 1841, with 180 rank and file and 11 women (AJCP Reel M815).

The Regimental Commander commented in 1841:

“It is difficult to conceive any employment more calculated to destroy the discipline of a Corps. Here in succession as the Convict vessels arrived from Europe, the Guards generally young soldiers or recruits were sent into the interior in charge of Road Gangs without ever having seen or been seen by the major part of the officers of their Regiment.

These Guards, with few exceptions were commanded by Subalterns, many of them without experience and who from want of other sources of adjustment, gladly availed themselves of the society of such of the settlers, as casually fell in their way, and gradually acquired their habits.”

The voyage out from England and experience of the Regiment in Windsor is recorded in a book: Journal of Ensign Best. Best and others appears to have spent a fine time at Windsor “hunting and fishing” until sent to Norfolk Island for guard duty. However the Regiment is fondly remembered in James Steele’s Early Days of Windsor …in particular the Regimental Band which must have been pretty famous.

Apart from the Windsor HQ, the Regiment was dispersed in Detachments to many different areas following the population growth, including Bathurst, Berrima, Blue Mountains (Hassans Walls and Twenty Mile Hollow) Campbelltown, Cox’s River, Emu Plains, Illawarra, Liverpool, Maitland, Morton Bay, Newcastle, Port Phillip, Sydney, Wingello and Norfolk Island (and later New Zealand)

Charles' detachment of 20 young lads was soon deployed to Twenty Mile Hollow (sometimes called Seventeen Mile Hollow) on the Bathurst Road near Woodford in the Blue Mountains for convict chain gang guard duty and bushranger control.

The work was tough. Across the country, numerous soldiers were killed in chases after convicts. Many soldiers guarding convicts were murdered; some dying of appalling wounds. Scores were drowned in escape pursuits. Some were killed defending a community from the assaults by Bushrangers and Aborigines (Donohoe).

He may have moved between Detachments (particularly to Bathurst) as this was not uncommon. There seems to be evidence that soldiers and convicts on the mountain road made use of the Bathurst Hospital when in need.

The quarterly Army paybooks record Charles Smith at Twenty Mile Hollow from June 1841 to October 1842. His location is not listed again until October 1844, when he is listed on the ship HMS Britton, bound for India.

He may have had a spell in the Mounted Police. The 80th was the first Regiment to form a separate specialist Unit of Mounted Police; the Military mounted Police was not disbanded until 1850; then replaced by Civil Mounted Police. There appears to have been six separate Units (Donohoe but a search of the records continues).

The 80th’ Regiments’ Detachment at Twenty Mile Hollow was replaced on 18 November 1842 when the 80th was relieved by a detachment of the 99th Regiment of Foot.

Jane

Approximately nine months later, on 9 August 1843, Charles' wife Jane gave birth to a Jeanetta Smith in Bathurst. There is no father mentioned on the birth certificate.

Currently (2017), a military re-enactment group (“80th Regiment of Foot”) exists in Morpeth in the Hunter Valley. The carry out re-enactments of the Regiment. They also publish the following views about the Wives and Children of Soldiers in the 19th century:

“There is no doubt that the ordinary rank and file did marry. Wives who were "on the strength" (that is approved) lived inside the barracks, fed free on army rations, and could enrol their children in the regimental schools. Separate married quarters were only provided in 20 of the 251 stations, which sent returns to the Sanitary Commission in 1857. Marriages were consummated and babies were born in communal barrack-rooms, in the presence of other soldiers, screened by a flimsy curtain usually no more than a blanket strung up around their bunk.

These conditions, though difficult, involved less heartbreak and suffering than those endured by the couples who married "off the strength." The wives of these marriages were neither allowed in barracks, nor granted separation allowances, nor entitled to accompany their husband's abroad (though this rule was sometimes evaded.) Undoubtedly these women suffered considerably from the regulations imposed by the army. Unofficial accommodation often known as 'married patches' comprising whatever small huts that could be cobbled together sprung up around encampments.

Considering that the only concession to married couples in barracks was that they were allowed to drape a blanket around their bed for privacy it is surprising, that there seems to have been little problems with love triangles. In spite of the harsh living conditions, marriages were sacred and God help a common soldier making advances toward another's wife. Such acts usually resulted in death. The Regiment would investigate, determining that the deceased did indeed violate or attempted to make improper advances, then ignore the incident.

The wives of the Regulars served a very necessary function. They washed, cooked, mended uniforms and served as nurses in the time of battle or sickness. They also helped keep the morale of the men up. The women were expected to cook the meals for the company, clean the mess and wash the company laundry. At times the accepted women of the regiment were permitted to work for the Officers as well. Their additional duties were to be paid but it seems unlikely that they would have ever actually received any money for their work other than for sewing etc. for other men in the company.”

Whist the above may represent formal policy, day to day living would have been very difficult for wives and children of soldiers living in such dispersed areas.

Manslaughter and birth

Prior to Jeanetta’s birth on 9th August 1843, matters with Charles were unfolding rapidly:

On 14 July, Charles injures a convict named Brownhill at the Sydney Barracks
On 11th August, Brownhill dies
On 14th August, a civil inquest is held into the death in Sydney
On 15th August, a warrant is issued for the arrest of Charles Smith for manslaughter
On 16th August, newspapers report “Charles Smith has been sent to New Zealand and will have to be dragged back as a prisoner”
On 17th September Jeanetta’s actual baptism ceremony was held. The Baptism Certificate has no father mentioned. We don’t know why?

One could assume that by September, Jane knew all the details concerning Charles. She should have had information through the Army. Perhaps though the distance to Bathurst muddled some of the information. Presumably she was pretty anxious. She could have easily constructed a situation in which she could somehow protect her husband by not disclosing his name. In which case she and he may not have been well known in Bathurst. Perhaps she was just sent there or her confinement.

Perhaps she thought the civil authorities were after him. Maybe she thought that the trip to New Zealand merely postponed his sentence and that the civil authorities would gaol him upon his return.

We need to know more about the relations between the civil and army authorities, which had jurisdiction where (wouldn’t a Barracks be Army jurisdiction?), how and when the Army penalized its people, did they interchange the ownership of felons, what were likely punishments for civil manslaughter offences. Perhaps TROVE could have something more from the newspapers between 14th August and 17th September.

Charles is absent from the Army muster books from November 1842 to August 1844. In the early part he could have been in the Mounted Police, or in another detachment of the 80th (in Sydney perhaps) or indeed in another regiment (such as the 28th, 50th, 58th or the 99th) They moved soldiers around a lot …the Army had a major human resource problem, often having to respond quickly to crime.

Evidently the muster books record soldiers being paid in another regiment if they were moved temporarily.

In the Army paybook records is this indication of Charles' conviction::

Account for Soldiers in confinement for Civil and Military offences:

(Seems to be Private 671 - the number 1 is missing before the number)

Under column: “Date of first confinement” it seems to say “20th August”

Under column: ”Whether acquitted or released without trial, or convicted, and date of conviction;” it seems to say: “Convicted 24th August”

New Zealand

On 1st August 1843, a detachment of 52 men and officers of the 80th were deployed to Wellington New Zealand aboard HMS North Star. It arrived on 10 August, a day after Charles' daughter was born.

Although regimental muster and pay records provide no evidence, Charles is believed to have been on the ship. The newspaper report also states that "Charles is one of a detachment lately sent to New Zealand.”

To date we have been unable to locate other evidence to support Charles' movement to New Zealand. He could be recorded in the paybook of another regiment. Perhaps the Army:

hid him from the civil authorities and eventually sent him to China with the rest of the Regiment;
punished him in New Zealand, but if so, how?
brought him back for punishment in NSW (short gaol term or flogging perhaps?)

By 1843 New Zealand had had a very different history to Australia. It was not required as a penal settlement and thus had no convicts. It was not wanted for settlement by the Crown and was not declared a sovereign state. It also had no real British army representation.

The New Zealand Company was formed to assist emigrants to settle in New Zealand despite the Crown was not interested.

Its plans to buy large quantities of (cheap) land for settlement led to concerns in the UK that the Māori would be defrauded. The Colonial Office in UK had sent out a William Hobson to New Zealand in 1841 with instructions to obtain sovereignty over all or part of New Zealand with the consent of Chiefs. Once he had done so, New Zealand was to come under the jurisdiction of the Governor of New South Wales.

The eventual result was the Treaty of Waitangi, signed after the Company had purchased some 8 million hectares of land.

There had been some skirmishes such as the “massacre” of 19 whites at the Wairau Valley on the north of the South Island. This was the result of an argument over land between Maori chiefs and the New Zealand company. The whites were surveying the valley.

The NSW Magazine reported in October 1843:

“Intelligence from Wellington to 5 August has reached Sydney. The principle discussion is the massacre at Wairau. . ….There was a great dread of a general rising of the natives, and the arrival of HMS North Star, with a detachment of soldiers will be hailed with great satisfaction”

The Detachment of the 80th was however not caught up in strife.

Dealing with the fallout from the incident was one of the first tasks facing the new Governor, Robert FitzRoy, when he arrived in the colony in December 1843. FitzRoy resisted calls to bring to justice those responsible. The official view was that the Ngāti Toa had been provoked by the reckless actions of the New Zealand Company in continuing the survey despite the lack of evidence that the Nelson settlers had any legitimate claims to land beyond Tasman Bay.

The Regimental commander commented on the soldiers experience from 1841 (AJCP Reel M815):

“The detachments at New Zealand remained there for four years – the strength was never greater than from 80 to 100 men – and during that period in addition to the military duties which were very arduous they were employed under the Ordinance Department as Artisans felling and sawing timber and conveying it to the station in boats manned by themselves. Some were also employed brick making and as Carpenters, Blacksmiths and Masons. They have left a record of these efforts in the stone barracks at Auckland every part of which edifice was erected by them without the addition of any other assistance. That work was considered highly creditable to them – the first two years they served in New Zealand they were necessarily under canvas until the Barracks was completed”.

Army punishment?

Well the entire Regiment was at that time guarding convicts in about 20 locations in NSW …they were not police …they were soldiers trained to kill. And the convicts murdered some of them in return to earn their liberty (Donohoe).

In the bush things were rough. In the city the civil authorities got involved.

Whilst looking after chain gang convicts he would have had orders to kill escapees if necessary (being armed with a rifle and bayonet), the killing of a convict in a canteen was a different matter. Not within the rules. But not murder (by definition premeditated) manslaughter being more crime of passion. At the time, the courts were no longer military courts but had become civil. Was there a friction between civil and military powers? Did the army knowingly spirit him away?

We need to know what the prescribed punishment for manslaughter was at the time.

Regimental muster records in the Mitchell Library Sydney list members of the regiment who have deserted, committed civil crimes, or otherwise forfeited their pensions. Can’t find Charles …so far … Worth another look.

The same muster records show that Charles was on board the Barque 'Briton' from August to December 1844,en route to India.

In 1844, His Excellency Lieutenant General Sir Maurice Charles O’Connell KGB commanding the forces in the Australian Colonies issued the following (AJCP Reel M815):

“General Order Sydney 18th May 1844:

…..As this will in all probability be the last half yearly inspection which it will be the Lieutenant General’s duty to make of the 80th Regiment prior to embarkation to India, His Excellency is anxious to mention emphatically his appreciation of the good conduct which has for a long time characterized the behaviour of the men and his Excellency accordingly is pleased to remit the remaining portions of the sentences of such prisoners are under confinement by award of Court’s Martial.”

This would suggest an Army culture where when there was a major confrontation coming up (war), the release of prisoners was practised. Seems plausible. Maybe this applied to Charles going to India, or to New Zealand. Maybe going to war was the only way he could legitimately escape punishment.

Maybe he promised Jane that he would return when it was all over.

India

The majority of the Regiment landed at Calcutta on 16 November 1844, but Charles' journey took two months longer. The reason for the extended journey was that the 'Briton' and a sister transport 'Runnymede' were wrecked on the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, south of Burma [Myanmar]. The crews and their passengers were stranded on the islands for fifty days; most were rescued.

80th Foot Muster Books and Pay Lists 1844-45, Muster of

12 August-31 October 1844, TNA WO 12/8486 (Image SB 21JUL16)

Major Bunbury, the regimental commander, described the journey in detail in his book "Reminiscences of a Veteran".

Charles and most of the three companies and their families eventually landed at Calcutta on January 1845.

80th Foot Muster Books and Pay Lists 1844-45, Muster of

1 January-31 March 1845,TNA WO 12/8486 (Image SB 21JUL16)

Charles was then sent with his colleagues up the river by steamer to Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. There was significant movement along the river between Calcutta and Allahabad, as it was a major trading route.

However, as deep water ended at Allahabad, it was necessary to disembark at the port and travel the remaining 300 miles to Agra overland. t is believed that Charles consequently did not join the main body of the Regiment in Agra until 5 April 1845.

In late 1845 Charles participated in the first Sikh War in the Punjab. On 10 Feb 1846, Charles fought in the battle of Sobraon. The battle is well documented in the book Colours, Battle Honours and Medals of a Staffordshire Regiment 80th Regiment of Foot, (Hope, 1999). Charles with the 80th was in the second line of attack against an army of 20,000 Sikhs. The battle was brutal hand-to-hand fighting.

In the words of His Excellency General Sir Hugh Gough, Commander in Chief, East Indies:

To return to the operations of the Campaign, the Sikh army had for some time been at Sobraon entrenching themselves at a bend in the river on the same side as ourselves, (the left bank). Their position naturally strong in front and flank was defended by numerous batteries on which were placed 70 guns and a most formidable entrenchment – towards their right however they were not quite completed - their trenches and inner defences were occupied by 32,000 men.

The Division of Sir R Dick (in which was the 80th Regiment) was named the Attacking Division and before daylight on the morning of 10th February 1846, was formed in position to attack the right flank of the enemy’s defences - Stacy’s Brigade (consisting of HM 10th, 53rd 43rd and 59th …) in front followed by Wilkinson’s about 400 yards in rear with the 80th on the right and with orders to overlap the 10th Regiment.

At daybreak our heavy guns opened on the enemy’s batteries and a heavy cannonade continued for two hours – the Rocket Brigade appeared to succeed better on former occasions.

But although they had been brought to bear on their position, Mortars, Pounders and Howitzers our Artillery could not succeed in silencing that of the enemy. The Infantry were therefore ordered to advance. The advance in line was steady and firm though exposed to a galling fire of grape and round shot. Not a shot was returned by our troops until the trenches in our front had been carried and the enemy driven back upon their interior defences.

The trenches having been gained the Brigade continued to advance towards the centre of their position, though in some degree broken from having to move over trenches cut in every direction, obstinately defended by Akalis (suicide squad) a class described as religious fanatics who wanted to conquer the Feringhee (British) or to die. These miscreants used every strategy to destroy our new positions. On entering the entrenchment into which were studded with zamburaks (falconets on camels) or camel swivels (gatling gun on a camel).

Part of the regiment by order of the Lieut Colonel inclined to the right and brought up their left shoulder and succeeded under a very heavy fire in carrying the enemy flack battery at the bayonet point. This entrenchment was defended with the greatest energy so much so that the whole of Stacey’s Brigade halted in the trenches until the remainder of the Division coming up charged over the parapet, the whole of them rushed forward together and took the batteries in succession – but however they were brought to a stand by a battery which commanded the one which had last been taken, and in which were two howitzers.

These guns were fired with such effect that that the men were obliged to take refuge behind a breastwork of which a party of about 100 men of the 10th and 80th Regiments re formed. This party was again ordered to advance and charge the battery. On perceiving it proceed up the entrenchment the enemy moved one of their guns out of the embrasure and pointed it down at the entrenchment. Others of the Division coming up at this time, the men advanced in gallant style and finally carried the battery, not however until three men had been killed and Captain Cookson, Lieut Crawley and a number of men wounded. Lieut Crawley died afterwoods of his wounds.

A remarkable feature was the system of defence planned by the Seikhs. Along this ditch was found a number of holes capable of containing 30 or 40 men each. Into these the Seikhs had so crowded themselves as to be scarcely able to move, and in one instance where the men had succeeded in driving them out by firing down upon them; they only passed into another in their rear of a similar description. It is supposed that they were thus stationed with a view to attacking us in our rear, had the troops advanced into the centre of their position, instead of keeping along the top of the parapet.

By showing desperation to retreat few of them escaped and subsequent inspection showed that many of these holes contained 30 or 40 dead bodies each; some more.

In the defence of the trenches, and in crossing the river it is supposed the enemy sustained a loss of not less than fifteen thousand men”.

The British only just won the day. Charles is recorded as wounded.

In April 1846 Charles received three campaign medals. In 1851 he is recorded as living in Dinapare East India.

Burma

In 1852 the Regiment was ordered to Burma and successfully fought off Burmese resistance at Prome.

Skipping forward, Charles was eventually invalided back to the UK in February 1853 from the war in Burma.

Perhaps by then Jane had passed away. Jeanetta was still in the Female orphan School (admitted 1848, left 1856) and considering the heavy regulations there it seems unlikely she would have been returned to him, if he had enquired.

The Regiment returned to the UK in 1854 after 15 years away. Charles Smith died in 1858 in Stafford England.

An anomaly

A letter in the NSW Colonial Secretary’s Register of Letters (21 July 1848), from WH Walsh, the Rector of Christ Church St. Laurence in George Street, Sydney, which states:

I have the honour to recommend to his Excellency the Governor’s approval for admission to the female Orphan School the under mentioned child of Jane Smith, widow who lost her husband by drowning a short time since (or hence) viz. Jeanetta Smith, daughter of Charles and Jane Smith, born at Bathurst in 1843, religion Church of England. There are no other children but the safe disposal of this child would enable the mother to into service and maintain herself at the low wages her labour is probably worth in consequence of her evidently suffering under some trifling mental capacity. It is this latter circumstance which has led me to make this present application. I have the honour etc et

Bibliography

The above update from Geoff Brew has been made after further research by consulting sources including:

Peter Stanley, a Historian working at the Australian War Memorial and responsible for several books, ie:

“The Remote Garrison – The British Army in Australia 1788 – 1870

“The Cunning Man” – a story of the Sikh Wars that Charles Smith participated in

The AJCP (Australian Joint Copying Project)

This document is available in The National and most State Libraries and is approx. 10,000 reels of records from British Institutions about Australia in the 19th century. The copying commenced in 1946 by agreement with the Australian National Library.