Ship St. Helena's History, Updated

By Wally Waits[i]

©2015

The ship St. Helena was built by Robert Watts in Beaufort, South Carolina.  It was “said to be the best Ship ever built in this Province.”[ii]  This multi-masted sailboat likely was named because Beaufort was located in St. Helena Parish which was established in 1712.

It was launched on October 15th, 1766 in what was then the British Colony of South Carolina. Captain George Perkins was its first master.  He died two weeks later at Beaufort, Port Royal.[iii]  George Arthar took command next and served for at least a decade.

The “St Halena” [sic] was listed in the Ship Registers of South Carolina as having the capacity of 170 tons.  The owners were Francis Stuart of Beaufort and Nathaniel Wraxall and George Abbot Hall & Co., merchants of Bristol.”[iv]

Francis Stuart was a prominent merchant who died on 22 Sep 1766[v] and therefore did not see the launch of the St. Helena.  He was a wealthy Beaufort businessman and farmer with business connections throughout the colony.[vi]  Nathaniel William Wraxall was the only son of Nathaniel Wraxall, a Bristol merchant.  The son worked for his father before he was employed by the East India Company between 1769 and 1771.  George Abbot Hall was born in 1737 in Bristol.  He became a Charlestown merchant as early as 1764.  He served as a revenue collector during the Revolutionary War.

The St. Helena was designed for carrying raw commodities to England.  It had a freight capacity of nearly 1,000 barrels (or about 3,000 bushels).[vii]  The crops exported to England included rice, corn, cotton and tobacco.

The British colonies in North America were still dependent on their mother country for finished goods that were of a higher value.  Books, manufactured items and woven clothes and fabrics were some of the items imported into South Carolina.

The St. Helena apparently only carried indigent Protestant settlers in January, 1768.  There is no other reference to the St. Helena carrying poor immigrants, despite making at least three more trips from Bristol to Charleston in 1768.  Any other travelers sailing aboard the ship had to have been paying passengers.  No record was kept of paying passengers as their ship’s captain was not being reimbursed for passenger’s fares.

The Waight passengers aboard the St. Helena arrived in the Charlestown harbor on February 3rd, 1768.[viii]  On the surface it looked like there was little left in the records.  Sifting through the dregs has helped to add additional details.

The St. Helena sailed out of the Charlestown harbor bound for Gosport, England on March 7th, 1767.  Its sleek design enabled her to slice rapidly through the water at better than 110 miles per day.  A vessel headed for American happened to have passed the St. Helena at Lat. 49° Long. 15°.  In the North Atlantic, the St. Helena was almost to England because the St. Helena was only a couple of days from sailing into port.

As a matter of fact, the England-bound ship was 3457 miles from Charlestown if the meeting occurred exactly at Lat. 49° North, Long. 15° West.  When the west-bound vessel hailed Captain George Arthur of the St. Helena, the captain yelled that he was “31 days out” of Charlestown.  To have travelled close to 3,500 miles in 31 days means that the St. Helena was sailing 111.5 miles per day.[ix]

Bristol, England and Charlestown, South Carolina are 3969 miles apart.  If the St. Helena travelled at the same speed, she could make the trip in a little over 35 days.  The ship proved be just as fast in 1768.[x]

The South Carolina Gazette reported the St. Helena docking February 3rd in the Charlestown harbor.  By calculating backwards, a 35 day trip across the Atlantic means that she departed Bristol on or about January 1st, 1768.

The Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, an English newspaper, was consistent in reporting vessels arriving and departing at the port of Bristol, England.  Issues of this newspaper survive all through December, 1767.  Yet, there are no reference to the St. Helena leaving Bristol before the end of the year.

How long did the St. Helena remain in port following arrival?  In 1768, Capt. Arthur spent two layovers in Charlestown and another in Bristol.  Following the arrival of the St. Helena on February 3rd, it returned to the sea after seven weeks in South Carolina.  The St. Helena laid over in port three weeks following another arrival in Charlestown in July, 1768.  After returning to Bristol, there was a four week lay over while Carolina cargo was unloaded and the loading of English goods for the return to South Carolina.

The English records are incomplete as to when the St. Helena arrived in the Port of Bristol.  It could have spent anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of months tied up to a wharf before sailing for Charlestown.

A search of the newspaper for January, 1768 turns up no references for the St. Helena.  As a matter of fact, the January issues of the Bath newspaper apparently do not survive.  With no references in December issues, and no issues at all for January, one can imagine a departure on the morning tide on New Year’s Day, or the next tide.  It would be unlikely to have departed from Bristol much later than this.

Here in summary, is the story.  The Waight passengers arrived in Bristol probably between the middle of December and the end of the year in 1767.  In all likelihood, they did not spend much time in town as lodging would have been expensive.  They likely met their fellow passengers – the Snead family and two adventurous lads named Lester and Townshend – about the time of boarding as no other connection has been found.[xi]

The newness of the St. Helena would have been reassuring to the passengers.  Capt. Arthur probably added to the sense of security because he seems like he knew how to command a freighter.  He also probably had a business-like relationship with forwarding agents on both coasts.

The trip to North America would have been shorter if New York was the destination.  But, the South Carolina colonial government was paying a bounty to ship captains, for the owners of the St. Helena, when the passengers themselves could not afford their fares.  This one time, Capt. Arthur took aboard these poor travelers, possibly because his freight load was lighter due to the season of the year.

After docking in the Charlestown harbor, the captain reported the names and ages to the clerk at the Governor’s Council office in order to receive compensation for their unpaid fares.  This was the only time he did this in 1768.

---

[i] 4404 Fondulac Street, Muskogee, OK 74401-1533, wwaits@gmail.com.

[ii] New York Mercury, 17 Nov 1766, p. 2.

[iii] Death Notices in the South Carolina Gazette 1732-1775, page 2.

[iv] London Booksellers and American Customers: Transatlantic Literary Community , page 428.

[v] www.familysearch.org, family tree.  He was born in 1728 in Scotland.

[vi] The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina: 1514 - 1861, p. 187.

[vii] New York Mercury, 17 Nov 1766, p. 2.

[viii] South Carolina Gazette, 8 Feb 1768 according to a transcription in Citizens and Immigrants – South Carolina 1768, p. 302.  I am indebted to Dick Waits of San Antonio, Texas for bringing this source to my attention.

[ix] New York Gazette, 12 May 1967, p. 3.

[x] Georgia Gazette, 17 Aug 1768, p. 2 and the English newspaper Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, 22 Sep 1768, p. 2.

[xi] A Jonathan Waight served in two Tory units during the 1781-82 period of the American Revolution, but research to date has not established any connection between the Waightes or the Lesters before this.

Missing 1768 Immigrant?

By Wally Waits[1]

©2014

The “Waight Emigrant Family Analysis” article is not the only way of looking at the data created when the Waight immigrants arrived in Charlestown in 1768.  Some may count the way the land was warranted as a true indication of the number of immigrants who walked off the St. Helena.  I believe this second view is invalid for reasons described below, but this theory needs to be aired in case other researchers raise questions.

John Waight and an extended family debarked from the St. Helena in early February.  As arriving Protestants, they were eligible for land grants offered by the Colony of South Carolina. 

The colony was using land donation to attract new settlers.  These immigrants were urged to build homes and farms in the Up Country.  They were to become a “buffer” between the Low Land plantations and the Native Americans because Indian raids posed a threat to the plantations.

On February 13^th, the colonial Council Journals recorded the following requests for Warrants of Survey.  These warrants show how the colonial government ranked the arriving immigrants. 

                   John Waight, Sr.          250 acres

                   John Waight, Jr.           100 acres

                   Samuel Waight            100 acres

                   Sarah Waight               100 acres

The St. Helena sailed from Bristol, England and is not known to traffic in slaves.  So, it is doubtful that there were any slaves debarking with the Waight cluster. 

The possibility that an indentured servant traveled on the St. Helena can also be eliminated.  This person would be listed as an immigrating passenger by the St. Helena captain, George Arthur. Since all identified passengers received warrants, there were no indentured people immigrating at this time.  The absence of slaves and indentured servants simplifies the problem of counting the immigrants. 

John Sr., John Jr., Samuel and Sarah Waight each received 100 acres because they were thought to be over 15 years of age.  The elder John was thought of as the “head of the household.”  As such, he could be given 50-acre allotments for a wife and for each minor child over the age of two years. 

John’s 250 acres, minus his own 100 acres, leaves 150 acres for additional passengers.  Dividing 150 acres by the 50-acre allotment allowed means that there were three wives and minor children who are the only ones not listed by name in the land granting.

These three are logically a wife and two children.  Had there been two wives under consideration, they would be the mates of John Sr. and John Jr.  This is not possible because the 50 acres for the wife of John Jr. would have been added to grant raising his amount from 100 to 150 acres.

A mate for Mary Waight would have also raised her amount to 150 acres as well.  Since the total allotted to John Jr. and Mary only equaled 100 acres, neither were accompanied by a mate.

According to the land warrants issued that day, there were a total of four adults, a wife and two minor children.  These seven people claimed to be eligible for 550 acres.

Infants under two years of age were not deemed worthy of counting by the colonial government.  It likely was a reflection of the belief that the mortality rate was higher in this young age group.

There is a second listing of passengers that can be used to double check this list of passengers.  This list of names and ages was used by the colony to pay out money for covering basic expenses such as paying for a surveyor to measure out the land the immigrant was obtaining.

This list passengers included the following:

                   John Waight                          60

                   Mary Waight                          52

                   John Waight                          19

                   Samuel Waight                      15

                   Benjamin Waight                   13

                   Sarah Waight                           8

I wrote in the previous article, “Waight Emigrant Family Analysis,” that this group would have only obtained 400 acres if this was a nuclear family.  Because of their ages and presumed relationships, Warrants for Survey would look like this:

John Waight, Sr.          300 acres

          John Waight, Jr.          100 acres

John Waight, Senior would have been eligible for 100 acres in his own right.  He was also given 50 acres for a wife.  Lastly, there was another 150 acres added for the three minor children.  John Sr.’s total would have been 300 acres. 

John Jr. was eligible for receiving a 100-acre allotment because was over 16 years of age.  A total of 400 acres was reached by his 100 acres being added with his presumed father’s 300 acres in a presumed nuclear family situation.

But, that is not what allotted for this emigrants cluster.  Warrants for Survey were issued the following individuals and for the corresponding amounts:

John Waight, Sr.          250 acres

                   John Waight, Jr.           100 acres

                   Samuel Waight            100 acres

                   Sarah Waight               100 acres

Here is how one counts heads in this list.  John Waight, Sr. is again allowed 100 acres for himself.  Then, add another three people who upped John’s total another 150 acres.  This makes a total of four people.

John Waight, Jr., Samuel Waight and Sarah Waight, who each are listed as eligible for 100 acres, are an additional three adults said to have arrived in 1768.  These three, plus the four mentioned just above, makes a group of seven getting off the boat.

Seven Waight individuals do not match the list of those seeking money for expenses.  Who is missing and who can be counted for?

These names appear as people who are receiving land.  Their ages are shown for identification purposes.

John Waight                          60

                   John Waight                          19

                   Samuel Waight                      15

                   Sarah Waight                           8

These four are two adults and two minor children.  Remember, however, that each of these were counted as adults when the colony issued warrants.

Those who are not counted in the Expenses List are:

                   Mary Waight                          52

                   Benjamin Waight                  13

These are likely listed with John Waight, Sr., who has three more people added to his land allotment.  Three unnamed immigrants minus the two who are named leaves one unidentified traveler.  Who could that person be?

That person logically would not likely be another wife.  That role is probably filled by the adult woman named Mary.  There is no other person recorded in any records who might be John’s wife.

If the missing immigrant was older than Samuel Waight’s 15 years, he/she would be eligible for requesting a 100 acres in their own name.  If this was the case, their name would appear as another adult requesting a Warrant for Survey.  However, there is no other request for a person who might be an older immigrant.

Therefore, it is possible that the missing person is a child over two and under 16 years of age.  A person with this age would cause an additional fifty acres to be added to the 100 acres allowed to John Waight, Sr.  By adding fifty acres each for Mary and Benjamin, John’s total rises to 250 acres. 

John Waight, Senior requested a warrant for the same 250 amount now calculated.  It would seem that the problem is now resolved.

The only problem with this conclusion crops up in the analysis of the land records.  This is where the truth becomes apparent.

First of all, Mary Waight had 100 acres surveyed in her own name.  Her deeding the same land to her son, Benjamin, years later confirms that the allotment was hers, not someone else’s.  This is despite the fact that no warrant was issued in her name.

At the same time, no land was surveyed for a person named Sarah.  One possibility is that Sarah died suddenly and was not able to follow up by having the warrant surveyed and platted.    This seems unlikely for the following reasons.

Sarah is described as young girl of eight years of age.  Her age would prevent a warrant from being surveyed and platted.  The deputy surveyor was not allowed to “give” government land to a minor without a warrant.[2]

The same situation existed for a 100 acre warrant being issued to Samuel Waight.  With an age listed as 15, he was just months under the age of eligibility for receiving land in his own name.  No survey was conducted in his name either.

Recapping the situation, there were two warrants that were not surveyed in the names of Samuel and Sarah.  Yet, one was surveyed in Mary Waight’s name for 100 acres.

Samuel and Sarah Waight’s names, when added to Benjamin’s, exactly total the number of children who each would receive fifty acre allotments.  This 150 acres was added to the amount allotted to John Waight, Sr.’s 100 acres.  This addition makes John’s total the 250 acres which was surveyed in his name.

Finally, there is young John’s warrant and allotment.  However, there was nothing that raised questions about John Waight, Jr.’s warrant and platting.  He was warranted 100 acres and that is how much was platted by the surveyor.

The land allotment process is the ultimate test of who arrived on the St. Helena.  Land was warranted for seven people.  However, the surveyor staked land for only six immigrants.  The conclusion is that there is no missing immigrant.

---

[1] 4404 Fondulac Street, Muskogee, OK 74401-1533, wwaits@gmail.com.

[2] If a settler possessed enough money, he could have purchased additional land from the colonial government.  Then the buyer would hire a surveyor to survey the desired acreage.  Homesteading, or “squatting,” did not convey ownership.