The Mccoys Of

Pitcairn

Letter to the Editor I HAVE read with much interest an account of the Pitcairn Islanders, as related to you recently by Mr. F. H.

McCoy, and published in July “PIM”.

I assume that Mr. McCoy was relying on his memory; if so, it could hardly be expected that his account would be entirely free from inaccuracies. Most of the dates given are within a few days of the actual dates.

A particular exception is the date given for the arrival of the “Bounty” at Pitcairn Island—January 23, 1790. The “Bounty” actually arrived at Pitcairn in October or November, 1787. Several weeks were occupied in removing everything of value from the ship to the shore, little more than the framework of the vessel being left. Even the copper sheathing was taken off the hull, and many of the copper bolts removed.

The first entry in “The Pitcairn Island Register Book” reads: 1790. Jan. 23rd.

H.M.S. ‘Bounty’ burned at Pitcairn’s Island”. Obviously the vessel would not be destroyed on the day of arrival. (Regarding the copper sheathing and bolts of the “Bounty”; When the Pitcairn community of 87 persons removed to Tahiti in 1831, they took a quantity of this material with them. Unfortunately, within a few weeks of their arrival, 14 ©f their number died of fever. The condi tions of living in Tahiti were entirely dif ferent from those to which they had been accustomed in Pitcairn, and they were rendered very unhappy by the low stan dard of morality existing among many of the Tahitians with whom they came into contact. They therefore decided to

return to Pitcairn. The copper was sold, and the proceeds—together with a sum of money subscribed by friends in Tahiti —used to charter a vessel to take them back to Pitcairn. I am the proud pos sessor of a small piece of one of the cop per bolts. This was given to me many years ago in Tahiti by an old friend, who sawed it off a piece about a foot long, which had been in his possession for many years.) rERE are several versions of the manner in which the mutineers met their deaths, but most authorities agree that Christian, Brown, Martin, Mills and Williams were killed by the Tahitian men in 1794. I have never come across an account which gives the cause of Martin’s death as drowning.

The particulars given by Mr. McCoy regarding the deaths of McCoy, Quintal and Young are correct.

Mr. McCoy’s statement regarding the children born to the mutineers is cor rect, excepting in regard to Young and McCoy. Young left seven children, not six (Polly, Robert, George, William, Edward, Dolly or Dorothy, and James).

McCoy left two children, not three (Daniel and Catherine), Some accounts show a third child (Sarah).

There has been a good deal of confu sion regarding “the Tahitian child” who was included in the party which settled on Pitcairn. The Rev. T. B. Murray, probably the most reliable of those who wrote about the Pitcairners, says in his book, “Pitcairn: The Island, the People, and the Pastor”, that she was ten months old, and was afterwards the wife of Charles Christian, and the mother of Mrs. G. H. Nobbs. I have read some where that she. was the daughter of McCoy’s Tahitian wife; this would prob ably account for her being known as Sarah McCoy. It seems clear that she

was not the daughter of McCoy.

I cannot understand Mr. McCoy mak ing the statement that there are not more than two McCoys now alive. (I take it that he means male McCoys). I know five on Norfolk Island—namely Danny McCoy and his three sons (Leo, Phil, and Charlie), and William McCoy; and one in Sydney (John McCoy, a member of the Police Force). A list of inhabitants of Pitcairn, compiled in Octo ber, 1937, shows only one (Floyd H. Mc- Coy), probably the gentleman who called on you.

Nor can I understand the statement that there has not been more than one son in each of the five generations of McCoy. The original William McCoy had only one son (Daniel); but Daniel had six sons (William, Daniel 11, Hugh, Matthew, Samuel, and Daniel III).

Daniel II had only one son (Phillip), William and Hugh died unmarried; Mat thew had only one son (James Russell); Samuel appears to have had two sons (Russell and Jacob), and Daniel 111 left no issue. My family tables close with the departure of the Pitcairners for Norfolk Island in 1856; but the figures quoted above show that Daniel McCoy I had six sons, and I personally know Danny McCoy, of Norfolk Island, who has at least three sons.

I may state that I have for the past seven years been studying the history of the Pitcairn and Norfolk Islanders. I have read practically everything that has been published concerning them. My two visits to Norfolk Island covered a period of approximately two years. While there, through the courtesy of various islanders and of the Rector, I had the opportunity of perusing the family trees of the Pitcairners (compiled by the late Gustav Quintal, a Norfolk Island school teacher), some hundreds of letters and other documents left by the late Rev.

George Hunn Nobbs, and an old Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, com menced on Pitcairn Island and continued for many years on Norfolk Island. I should be very pleased of an opportunity to meet Mr. McCoy and discuss the his tory of his people with him.

Yours faithfully,

Captain J. D. Mccomish.

7 Ceilings Street, Wahroonga, NSW. 25/7/1942

Editorial Note: Mr. F. H. Mccoy

is a merchant seaman, and does not visit Sydney often. He was quite definite about “one son in each generation”; and the point should be cleared up.