Immigrants Lost Spouses, Parents and Children

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Immigrants Lost Spouses, Parents and Children

Quarantine

Immigration barracks and quarantine had many features in common, though because of the nature of the facility, substantially less was written about quarantine. Naturally, information about it was not in publicity for intending migrants lest the spectre of illness should cause them to change their minds. A natural reluctance on the part of reporters to visit facilities and see them in operation as they’d done with the barracks was also a factor. The major descriptive accounts were of facilities prior to their opening

The outbreak of contagious disease such as scarlet fever, typhoid or low fever had a number of consequences for those aboard an immigrant vessel, none of them pleasant. The immediate risk was, of course, going down with the disease, but the steps taken by those on shore to avoid contact were a complicating factor. Quarantine was one such, the isolation of a ship and all on board or the isolation of passengers at a shore station until the illness burnt itself out. Vessels so affected raised the yellow flag to warn others of their plight. On the ill-fated 1863 voyage of the Lancashire witch it was reported that at ports of call no one would take the ship’s mail for posting and that a butcher who came alongside to collect money for meat which had somehow been delivered, washed the money before putting it in his pocket.25

Immigrants lost spouses, parents and children.

A man aged thirty died of scarlet fever. He had a little boy with him aged ten, and now left desolate.

Others died alone.

From Lancashire, a nice lass, her name Ann Howard, aged twenty-seven. Left her mother and sisters to come because there were so many at home and was taken ill with a fit this evening and died in the morning.25

As someone remarked of those in quarantine, it was a long way to come to be buried.

The chronicles of some voyages were little more than records of deaths and of burials at sea, though mercifully such burials were generally kept from the other passengers.

The first arrangements made for quarantine at Lyttelton were for shipboard isolation, probably in Camp Bay, and regulations were published in the Lyttelton Times December 27th 1851. Essentially these regulations empowered the Harbour Master to quarantine any vessel and control movement between it and the shore.

Shipboard quarantine had two major drawbacks; immigrants confined closely in frequently filthy conditions which did nothing to stop the spread of illness and, likely a more potent force for changing the system, it took a vessel out of service for possibly a prolonged period. The first quarantine station was not built until 1863 when increased numbers of settlers were arriving and the pressure for quick turnaround of vessels would have been greater.

Doubtless quarantine was a huge disappointment to new arrivals who were so close to their destination yet unable to reach it. A number had employment prearranged which may have been forfeit because they didn’t take it up by the appointed time and others faced delays in being reunited with friends and relations.

Money talked and was a persuasive advocate for the cabin passengers, so that it was the steerage passengers, those without the ready money to grease palms who found themselves in quarantine.8 Corruption was generally widespread and immigrants in isolation were in a poor position to defend themselves against it. Staff were paid less than their opposite numbers at the immigration barracks (master and matron 12.5% less) for a job which had the drawbacks of isolation and obvious health risks. Assuming the 1866 figures were typical and applied proportionally to other staff, backhanders may have been seen as a means of redressing any imbalance. On the other hand they may have been just another instance of the run-of-the-mill corruption which apparently flourished in provincial administration at that time.

Quarantine Stations

Camp Bay

Lying near the southern head of Lyttelton Harbour, Camp Bay or Quarantine Bay as it was sometimes known had the distinction of being the first quarantine station to serve the Canterbury settlement. The site was chosen because it was sheltered, had good deep water access and because it was well away from populated areas. The latter was subsequently a factor in the closure of Camp Bay as a quarantine facility.

The station is noted for the primitive conditions which prevailed there and the dead were buried on a projection of land into the bay that came to be known as Cemetery Point.

A start was made on buildings mid-1863 but they had not been finished by the time the Captain Cook arrived in September with ‘the usual typhoid’ and a case or two of smallpox, so tents were erected to house the passengers. The buildings were to be ready in a few days and it drew criticism that the immigrants were not housed there. A Lyttelton Times article said that it cannot be believed that they [the authorities] would inflict a serious inconvenience on immigrants without good cause. The most plausible explanation was that the government was, not unreasonably, concerned that if they let passengers stay in the buildings they would be unable to get builders to finish the work.

The standard of the buildings was poor, perhaps due partly to pressure to complete them quickly, but more likely as a result of the prevailing official attitude to immigrants, expressed thus: it is not so much the immigrants; comfort we worry about so long as they have a clean, wholesome room to sleep in, good water, wholesome food, and washing conveniences. The barracks accommodation is not to be considered a home. In reality immigrants at Camp Bay often had none of the above and it’s improbable that any would have considered it a home, though of course some knew no other in the province.

According to public opinion no one with regard for his horse would have used the Camp Bay buildings as a stables, and it may have come as no surprise to locals to read in The Press July 7th 1865. The whole of the buildings at Camp Bay which had been erected at a cost of several thousand pounds, were destroyed in a gale. The buildings were of poor standard it having been deemed economical to build them without an architect’s design.

When The Blue Jacket arrived four months later on November 18th with passengers infected with smallpox, the Immigration Department came in for a large amount of criticism as little or nothing had been done to remedy the damage at Camp Bay. Because of ‘the disgraceful state of the buildings’ only the single men were allowed ashore. The remaining passengers had to stay aboard the pest-stricken ship. Subsequently all passengers were landed, the well being housed in the derelict buildings, the ill under canvas in a gully opposite. Communication between the groups was forbidden and three special constables were appointed to prevent absconding.

Camp Bay had run into problems even before the demise of the buildings and its reputation as the ‘greatest blot’ on the record of local immigration was more broadly based. Six weeks after the arrival of the Lancashire Witch the Captain Cook brought passengers suffering from whooping cough and scarlet fever into port. A landing party of fifteen found no one at Camp Bay and no provisions there either. Communicated to the ship the passengers, not unnaturally, refused to land and the shore party had to walk around the bays to Lyttelton to notify authorities and arrived there in a famished state.

In the newspaper the lack of preparation was attributed to the Immigration Official being himself ill, though the opinion was expressed that it was insufficient reason for keeping people shipboard and that the indifference of the authorities amounted almost to cruelty (Lyttelton Times, 17th October, 1863).

Officials responsible for the site seem to have been inept, corrupt, or a combination of the two and they were cursed (as was the colony itself) in the despondency that prevailed there. According to Miss Rye the brutish behavior of those in quarantine developed as a consequence of treatment received rather than the treatment being a necessary consequence of immigrant behavour.

The station was rebuilt, though there were no accounts of when or to what extent. In June 1873 when the Edwin Fox arrived with several passengers suffering fever the newspaper reported that she was towed to the anchorage off the old quarantine station where ‘the barracks were ready for the reception of the immigrants’. Some improvements would seem to have been made as immigrants were reported to be very grateful for the arrangements made and to be very comfortable, two things which previous occupants hadn’t been.

A major problem at Camp Bay and one which was almost certainly an important consideration in siting later quarantine stations on islands, was keeping those quarantine within the physical boundaries of the facility. In 1864 Dr. Donald27 complained of gross irregularities at Camp Bay. Some of those quarantined were walking to Purau to buy drink at the hotel there, and others had spread themselves over much of the peninsula, even as far as Akaroa. He proposed that immigrants be quarantined shipboard but this wasn’t done, presumably because of the problem that it took ships out of service.

In spite what seem to have been appalling conditions, Camp Bay remained the sole quarantine facility for ten years until mid-1873, when operations were transferred to Ripapa Island.

Ripapa Island

Quarantine facilities on Ripapa (commonly abbreviated to Ripa) Island were completed in June 1873. They consisted of a two-storey wooden hospital in a ‘pleasant situation’ in which the ground floor was divided to make two wards, one each for men and women. The buildings were described in glowing terms in The Press at the time of their opening (June 6th). The building was dismantled in 1885 after the island became part of the coastal defense system and Fort Jervois was built in response to ‘the Russian scare’. Prison labour built the fort, housed in the barracks.

Within the first year of operation there was dissatisfaction among immigrants with the conditions. In a long letter to the Lyttelton Times (January 9th 1877) ‘Northampton’, an immigrant who arrived on a ship of that name in 1874, claimed that a prisoner’s life was preferable to a stay on the island. He put eleven questions that described by implication conditions prevailing in 1874. The questions were:

1. Is there sufficient accommodation for the immigrants on Ripa Island or are they huddled together like a lot of sheep, worse than they were on board ship?

2. Are sufficient rations allowed and do they receive them?

3. Are the rations issued of good quality, or do they contain two qualities – one for the immigrants and another for the staff?

4. Have they an allowance of tobacco, or do they have to resort to dried tea leaves?

5. Are there any books or papers to while away the tedious hours?

6. Is sufficient water, soap and fuel allowed for washing?

7. Are there sufficient lights and dormitories at night?

8. Is the milk, after arrival at Ripa Island, diluted with water?

9. Is there a regular lock-up for refractory persons or is the dead-house still the lock-up?

10. Are the immigrants allowed to send for things from shore? If so, are they exorbitantly charged for those things? 11. Is there any religious minister to attend them, or do they spend the Sabbath as any other day – working, card playing etc?

“Northampton” also suggested that the barracks master sold requisitions to immigrants at 100% above the normal rate.

Possibly in response to public criticism government carried out a program of reform – staff purged, buildings improved and rations upgraded.8

Ironically, in 1875 and before reform G.Kimber24 wrote of an island home fitted up with every convenience and the scene…quite a picture. This place should be called Humanity Island, for such it is. We had the best of treatment and food.

Immigrants were not a homogeneous group but had a variety of backgrounds and expectations and conditions varied due to a variety of factors, including the number using the facilities at any one time. In the year in which Kimber wrote the number of immigrants was less than half of that for the year of which ‘Northampton’ complained.

Other problems resulted from the sporadic overcrowding to which the facilities were subject. During an outbreak of smallpox and scarlet fever on the island in 1874 it was blamed for the rapid spread of disease. At the time it was proposed to build a new quarantine station, either on Quail Island or on the mainland. Dissatisfaction was also expressed with the closeness of Ripapa Island to the mainland and the opportunity this provided for absconding.

Quail Island

Accounts vary slightly as to the year in which Quail Island opened as a quarantine facility, from 1874 to 1876. The earlier appears to be correct as The Press for October 4th of that year describes how reporters had accompanied the Immigration Officer on an inspection of ‘the new convalescent station’ on the preceding Wednesday.

This accommodation marked a new phase in the quarantine system. The government, perhaps in response to questions raised, acknowledged that it was desirable to separate those actually suffering from contagious disease from fellow passengers who were well or convalescent. A convalescent ward had been built at Camp Bay but had been found unworkable, probably for much the same reason as the quarantine station itself failed. It was in use from June 1873 when Ripapa Island opened until October the following year when the convalescent ward was opened on Quail Island. Fever casualties buried at Camp Bay as late as 1877 were apparently ship’s crew, and not immigrants.

The previous owner of Quail Island, Thomas Potts, bought it in 1874. He had trouble with rabbit shooters causing damage and for this and perhaps other reasons is said to have talked the government into buying the island to use as a quarantine station. At the time he was the representative for Lytteltton on the Provincial Council. Given problems then being experienced with Ripapa Island the government may have taken little convincing as to Quail Island’s merits. In 1874 the buildings of the ‘human quarantine area’ consisted of two accommodation buildings, cook-house and hospital. Wooden buildings roofed with galvanized iron, they must have been uncomfortably hot in summer. Designed to take 200 people at a time, the site also included the building(s) on Swimmer’s Beach described as a ‘day room and kitchen’ in The Press report and ‘single men’s quarters and cook-house’ in the management committee document. The building was apparently unique when seen, as the sole surviving example of 19t century immigrant accommodation in Canterbury.

The buildings showed an attempt at saving money by the government, with much of the timber from the Carisbrook Castle, and the stove which was capable of cooking for 200 was 3 purchased from the Varuna. According to the Department of Lands and Survey the barracks on Quail Island were used only rarely due to the decline of sail and rise of steam power..

Quarantine Conditions

There is a natural tendency to think of quarantine facilities as being only for the ill but before the development of convalescent wards often only a small proportion of those quarantined were physically ill. Accordingly, in the early stations and in convalescent wards where large numbers of healthy immigrants were housed many of the same problems occurred as in the immigration barracks. As there, immigrants were segregated by gender and marital status.

The treatment of colonists, particularly in the early years, was notoriously bad. Ironically, the poor treatment of the quarantined has been blamed on the efficiency of the Canterbury immigration system by the standards of the day.30 As long as the demand for immigrants was being met, what did it matter if a few unfortunates were forgotten at Camp Bay?

A correspondent to the Lyttelton Times in 1877 asked if it was a criminal act for people to travel on a ship on which disease had broken out, evidently considering that was how they were treated on arrival in Canterbury. He said that the quarters were filthy and had not been inspected by officers of the Immigration Department.

Perhaps the greatest scandal at Camp Bay was inadequate provisioning. The master of the vessel on which immigrants arrived was responsible for provisioning them in quarantine. The arrangement minimized the need for local officials to have contact but was highly unsatisfactory. Camp Bay inmates resorted to seizing food destined for others, simply to survive. The problems were not unique to Canterbury however, and in a letter regarding quarantine facilities in Auckland W.D. Wood described the same problems of dirt, lack of contact with officials and shortage of food, which in that case was met from the personal supplies of the Barrack Master. Conduct of migrants in the immigration barracks, subject of such concern in the mid-1860s, had its parallel in the quarantine facilities. Conditions were more conducive to liaisons, with longer stays and people idle and bored much of the time and at Camp Bay immigrants were not strictly confined within the station’s boundaries.

As in the immigrants’ barracks and in line with mid-Victorian morality, blame was ascribed to the single women. In a report on the immigration system published in 1864,27 the Immigration Officer referred to ‘a few troublesome characters at Camp Bay’ and to the steps taken to prevent ‘the women mixing with the men’. The steps were to place the single women in the charge of a matron and to have them locked up at night. There was no question where the blame was laid. Rolleston was a little more charitable, finding only five per cent or so to be ‘bad characters’. Later years, as in the immigration barracks, saw segregation. The single women and the married couples at separate sites on Ripapa Island and the single men on Quail Island.

Finally, one other moral issue may be that of absconding from quarantine, with the risk that implies of spreading disease to the general public, though no case was found of disease transmission linked to absconders.

Recommended publications