{"id":3499,"date":"2022-10-31T15:09:25","date_gmt":"2022-10-31T14:09:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lorrendraaier.nl\/geen-onderdeel-van-een-categorie\/mysterious-19th-century-british-certificates-of-registry-for-a-cutter-named-argus\/"},"modified":"2022-11-05T14:17:50","modified_gmt":"2022-11-05T13:17:50","slug":"mysterious-19th-century-british-certificates-of-registry-for-a-cutter-named-argus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lorrendraaier.nl\/nl\/virtuele-collectie\/mysterious-19th-century-british-certificates-of-registry-for-a-cutter-named-argus\/","title":{"rendered":"Mysterious 19th Century British Certificates of Registry for a Cutter Named Argus"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Two mysterious British Certificates of Registry \u2014 partially illegible from wear, if not overzealous cursive \u2014 washed up on these foreign shores. Purchased from a dealer in antiquarian books, they both reference a cutter originally named Argus of London, built in Kent on the 17th of March 1813.<\/h4>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

by Caitlin Greyling<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]The vessel was then subsequently re-registered in 1848 under the name Victoria of Ramsgate. In the 1800s, it was necessary to note the vessel dimensions, including ton admeasures \u2014 as decreed by King George. However, at this point, things get a little interesting![\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”3476″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Transcript of the front page of the 1815 British Certificate of Registry No.1:<\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1667223793149{background-color: #ffffff !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]\u201cNo. 1
\n[Flourish]<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Certificate
\nBritish
\nRegistry
\n[Flourish]<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

R. Rotton1
\n[Illeg .]<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Rotton
\n[Illeg .]2<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NB.
\nAdmeasured
\nin a Dry Dock
\n[Two
\n<\/em>flourishes]<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ent\u2019d. in the
\nRegister
\nGenerals
\nOffice
\n16 June 1815
\n[Flourish]<\/em><\/p>\n

In pursuance of an Act passed in the 26th year of the reign of King George the 3rd entitled an Act for the further increase & encouragement of Shipping & Navigation John Rotton of Bunhill Row, Finsbury, Middlesex having taken and subscribed the Oath required by this Act, and having sworn together with Ann Rotton Senior of[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/2″][vc_column_text]Bunhill Row, Finsbury Middlesex are sole Owners of the Cutter or vessel called Argus of London whereof Edward Peregrine Rotton is at present Master and that the said Cutter or Vessel was built at Ramsgate in the County of Kent in one thousand eight hundred and thirteen as appears by a Certificate of Registry dated 17 March No. 73 now delivered up and cancelled and Richard Rotton surveyor for the Act of Navigation having certified to us that the said cutter is British Built has one Deck and one Mast, that her length from the forepart of her main stem, to the afterpart of the Stern Post aloft is one foot two and half inches her breadth at the Broadest part above the Main wales four and half inches and her heighth [sic] from floor of Hold to ceiling of Deck is three and half Inches and admeasures Forty 53\/94 Tons that she is a square sterned vessel has no Gallery and no figure head; and is pierced for eight Guns; and the said subscribing Owners having consented and agreed to the above description and Admeasurement and having caused sufficient security to be given as is required by the said Act the said Argus has been duly Registered at the Port of London.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Given under our hands and seals of Office at the Custom House, in the said Port of London this sixteenth of June one thousand eight hundred and fifteen.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Certificate of British Registry\u201d[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Things Aren\u2019t Measuring Up” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Open%20Sans%3A300%2C300italic%2Cregular%2Citalic%2C600%2C600italic%2C700%2C700italic%2C800%2C800italic|font_style:700%20bold%20regular%3A700%3Anormal”][vc_column_text]While all seems in order with both British Certificates of Registry, only some are above board. On closer inspection, the oldest certificate reveals some interesting details. Just 36.8 cm long, 11.43 cm wide, and 8.89 cm tall and calculated to admeasure \u201cForty 53 over 94 tons,\u201d the Argus is rather a curious vessel.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Note; tonnage admeasure <\/a>is generally a ship\u2019s capacity, not its actual weight. A little research also reveals that \u201cForty 53 over 94 short tons\u201d is a very tiny load<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The subsequent certificate is purportedly for the same boat, now named Victoria of Ramsgate three decades later. Similarly, its dimensions are just as astounding. At just 45.72 cm long, 15.88 cm wide, 7.87 cm tall, and admeasuring 120 tons new, it\u2019s decidedly pint-sized.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A ship of this load-bearing capacity should also be at least 70 feet long, Luca Rapisarda of the Lloyd\u2019s Register Foundation<\/a> commented. It\u2019s possible the admeasures mentioned were simply a fictional load or that the admeasure \u201cton new\u201d is a unique formula. Ships were also required to meet certain plank thickness standards<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

However, the dimensions on both British Certificates of Registry do specifically mention the vessel\u2019s length, breadth, and height, as required by the Act of General Registry 1786. The Registrar would have picked up any mistakes, Luca claims. So it\u2019s unlikely the small or mismatched measurements \u2014 or the differences between the two boats \u2014 are an error.[\/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Are the Argus and Victoria the Same Boat?” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Open%20Sans%3A300%2C300italic%2Cregular%2Citalic%2C600%2C600italic%2C700%2C700italic%2C800%2C800italic|font_style:700%20bold%20regular%3A700%3Anormal”][vc_column_text]Ultimately, the two Certificates of Registry seem to speak of the same mysteriously small boat. Both were built at Ramsgate in the County of Kent in 1813 and square-sterned with no gallery or a figurehead. Only the earliest certificate mentions the craft being pierced for eight guns. Perhaps a small omission in the second certificate, not any difference, as specifying gun ports may not have been a necessity.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The most notable difference is the change of boat type from a cutter in 1815 to a schooner in 1849. While the former generally featured one mast, the latter usually had two \u2014 as specified in the differing vessel descriptions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That said, the first registration certificate specifically mentions the Argus being built in 1813 and registered on the 17th of March under certificate No. 73. At the subsequent registration of the Victoria on the 19th of April 1848, Certificate No. 73 was also produced. Meaning that they should both be the same vessel. The second certificate also reveals that the year of initial registration under certificate No. 73 was 1814.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The most likely explanation for the additional mast is that the ship was modified in between registrations. Perhaps even just before being re-registered in 1848, as Kent is a well-known ship-building county.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Mary Jo Barber \u2014 who, thankfully, translated both certificates to modern English \u2014 had a few more fitting explanations to offer:<\/p>\n