Convict Assignment and Prosecution Risk in Van Diemen’s Land, 1830–1835 by Rebecca Rose Read BA Hons School of Humanities in the College of Arts, Law and Education Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) University of Tasmania, 28 November 2019 Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. Rebecca Rose Read 28 November 2019 Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Rebecca Rose Read 28 November 2019 i Abstract Focussing primarily on the years 1830 to 1835, this thesis investigates the inner workings of the convict assignment system in Van Diemen’s Land by examining its record-keeping practices, the rationale for labour allocation within the private sector and the functioning of the magisterial system. It also assesses private-sector demand for convict labour, examines urban assignment, and compares the turnover and prosecution risk of convicts assigned to residents of an urban and a rural area. The aims are to enhance understanding of the assignment system, counter misconceptions, and improve the ability to contextualise individual convict and settler experiences. The detailed reconstruction of the initial distribution of all 10,653 men and boys and 1,490 women and girls who arrived in Van Diemen’s Land as convicts between 1 January 1830 and 31 December 1835 underpins this study. This constitutes a sample comprising about one-sixth of all convicts known to have arrived in the fifty-year period of transportation to the island colony. The very high concentration of surviving archival records strongly influenced the choice of study period, and electronic access to high quality images that the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office and the ARC-funded ‘Founders & Survivors’ research group had already indexed and cross-referenced greatly facilitated the research. The thesis argues that the allocation of convicts was rational and well-organised, that the system facilitated access to magistrates, that many townspeople depended on assigned servants as much as their rural counterparts did, and that the frequency with which convicts appeared in court charged with an offence depended in part on their sex, occupation and assignment location. ii Acknowledgments During the highs and lows of researching and writing this thesis, I have enjoyed the support of a varied group of people. My sincere and heartfelt thanks go to all who rendered advice, encouragement and practical assistance during my candidature. I will name but a few. My two supervisors were always approachable, maintained their interest and enthusiasm for my project and consistently provided constructive feedback. Professor Hamish Maxwell- Stewart suggested the temporal and thematic focus of my research. He also suggested some of the research questions and methodologies. Associate Professor Kristyn Harman was equally supportive, reminding me more than once that it was my thesis. Thank you to you both. My thanks also go to Trudy Cowley, manager of the Founders & Survivors database, for her careful cleansing of the data I transcribed into two spreadsheets of more than thirty columns each from nearly one hundred appropriation lists. During my candidature, the circle of post-graduate students of which I was part became known as Convict Club. While the make-up of the group changed over time, our intermittent meetings were always a source of stimulation and inspiration. My thanks go to Hamish for organising them and to the various participants for attending and sharing their research findings and insights. It was also therapeutic to indulge weekly in another of my interests: singing in a choir. Thank you to all my fellow singers, and to Cecily Watson and Sarah Jack for their direction and accompaniment. I felt renewed after every choir practice. My thanks go also to my husband, Ken, who has been an emotional and practical support throughout. As well as being a sounding board and offering encouragement and expressions of confidence, he has borne the brunt of the housework, particularly since his unanticipated early retirement six months after the start of my candidature. It must be time for that holiday. Rebecca R Read iii Table of Contents Declaration of originality and Authority of Access .................................................................. i Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... x Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1. The archive ........................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2. The more prisoners the better ............................................................................... 57 Chapter 3. Labour allocation: ‘A most perfect lottery’? ........................................................ 93 Chapter 4. Geographies of rural punishment ....................................................................... 123 Chapter 5. Urban assignment ............................................................................................... 157 Chapter 6. Conduct in context ............................................................................................. 191 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 221 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 227 Appendix 1. Male convict ships, their dates of arrival and extant appropriation lists ......... 248 Appendix 2. Female convict ships, their dates of arrival and extant appropriation lists .... 249 Appendix 3. Incidence of trades/occupations on male appropriation lists, 1830–35 .......... 250 Appendix 4. Incidence of trades/occupations on female appropriation lists, 1830–35 ....... 264 iv List of Tables Table 1.1 Surviving 1830–35 appropriation lists and number of ships covered Table 1.2 Sample of convicts’ trades recorded on the TP and CSO1 appropriation lists for the Waterloo, 1835 Table 1.3 Occupations of Eliza, 1830, convicts on description and appropriation lists Table 1.4 Comparison between two appropriation lists for the America, 1831 Table 1.5 Comparison between two appropriation lists for the Prince Regent, 1830 Table 1.6 Comparison between two appropriation lists for the Elizabeth, 1832 Table 1.7 Evolving appropriation proposals for sixteen male convicts per Layton, 16 December 1835 Table 1.8 Percentages appropriated from each of five ships as per different appropriation lists Table 1.9 Comparison between appropriation lists and the Hobart Town Gazette for fourteen prisoners per Lord William Bentinck, 1832 Table 1.10 Comparison between Lord William Bentinck appropriations and reassignments Table 1.11 Surviving annual musters, 1830–1835 Table 1.12 Distribution of convicts according to the 1832 nominal return or ‘muster’ Table 1.13 The published list of male convicts transferred in October 1833 compared with the annual nominal return dated 31 December 1833 Table 1.14 Prisoners per Lord William Bentinck, 1832, in appropriation lists, HTG and 1832 nominal return Table 2.1 Female convict appropriation from ten ships that arrived 1830–35 v Table 2.2 Male convict appropriation from forty-seven ships that arrived 1830–35 Table 2.3 Numbers and proportions of ‘vacant’ able-bodied juvenile males, 1830–35 Table 2.4 Numbers of males who arrived 1830–33 aged under nineteen and described as boy, labourer or labouring boy Table 3.1 A coachbuilder, a shoemaker, a tailor and a farmer with the same family name and the convicts assigned to them, together with their trades as recorded on appropriation lists Table 3.2 Newspaper proprietors and convicts assigned to them on arrival, 1830–35 Table 3.3 Occupations of recipients of convicts assigned on arrival in 1830−35 who claimed to have experience working as or with blacksmiths Table 4.1 Number of cases against male and female assigned servants of masters and mistresses in the Richmond district that magistrates heard alone and as benches of two within the district in the period 1 May 1832 to 30 April 1833 Table 4.2 Outcomes of cases against assigned male servants who appeared before Dawson or Parramore in the Richmond police district in the period 1 May 1832 to 30 April 1833 Table 5.1 Directories