The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
This is Mary's third appearance before the courts. No stranger crime, she must have been afraid as this was her third offence. Standing before a large room full of elegantly dressed men must have been intimidating. These men are her jury. The well-fed bewigged judge would pass judgment on her. They sat in their finery, and she stood in a dowdy prison dress, her grey cap hiding her blonde hair.
She is small, not quite five feet high. She is seventeen. Twice before, she had stood in line with other desperate souls. She was acquitted at fifteen, did three months at sixteen. Her third offence marked her as a habitual criminal. She must have known she was in deep trouble.
Mary is indicted for stealing a shawl valued at two pence, a coat, waistcoat, and a pair of unmade trousers all valued at 26 shillings from Samuel Marshal, a tailor.
Marshal testified, "I live in Rosemary Lane. On April 11, between eleven and twelve o'clock at night. I was on the Pavement, Moorfield's opposite Albion Chapel."
He continued saying Mary asked him to "give her a glass of gin". After taking her to a watering hole, he gave her a glass of gin. Having done so, walked on, telling Mary to go away. Mary walked off one way, and he headed towards the London Wall. It was there as he urinated against the wall she came and took the bundle from under his arm and ran away—the roll of clothes was valued at twenty-six shillings.
The nightwatchman on patrol Richard Morris gave evidence against her stating he found her and took her to the Mansion House on suspicion of being up to no good. It was here that Samuel Marshal found her. She was then placed in the Watchhouse by Constable Eberhart, responsible for finding the prosecutor. In 1824 she faced her prosecutor Samuel Marshall in court.
It appears she was caught red-handed with the inference that she had solicited his attention and planned to rob him. While prostitution was not a crime, it was the activity of a person of low moral character. She was quickly found guilty, and her protestations of innocence dismissed. She was young and of childbearing age. She fit the criteria for transportation.
In her defence, Mary states Marshall was drunk and gave her the bundle. Under the justice system of the time, two things were against her. Firstly, as a woman, she was considered an unreliable witness. Meeting him "on the Pavement" suggests she solicited him. The Pavement in Finsbury was close to the Bethlehem Hospital. It was lined with various stores and grog shops. Second, as a female offender, she is no longer protected by womanly virtue. She is no longer deemed respectable. Women who found themselves in court had often
“broken not only the law but gendered codes of social expectation."[i] If the court saw her as a drunkard and low sort of woman, she was doubly damned. Previous offences would also be brought before the court. Mary had been acquitted once and later spent a month in prison for pickpocketing.
MARY DAVIS, Theft > pocketpicking, 19th May 1825.
987. MARY DAVIS was indicted for stealing, on the 11th of April , a shawl, value 2 d.; a coat, value 5 s.; a waistcoat, value 3 s., and a pair of unmade trowsers, value 18 s., the goods of Samuel Marshall , from his person .
SAMUEL MARSHALL. I am a tailor , and live in Rosemary-lane. On the 11th of April, between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, I was on the Pavement, Moorfields, opposite to Albion chapel, and saw the prisoner there - she asked me to give her a glass of gin; I took her into a watering house opposite the chapel, gave her a glass of gin, and desired her to go about her business; I was sober; I had a bundle under my arm, containing a shirt, a coat, a waistcoat, and a pair of unmade trowsers; she turned one way, and I went towards London-wall, and stood against a wall for a necessary purpose; she came and took the bundle from under my arm, and ran away with it; I turned round, but lost her. I found her at the Mansion House four days after, with all the property; it was a very fine night: I am certain of her being the person I gave the liquor to. My face was towards the wall when the bundle was taken; I could only see that it was a female who took it.
RICHARD MORRIS. I am a patrol of Bishopsgate. On the 11th of April, at half-past twelve o'clock at night, the prisoner came round into Broad-street-buildings, in a hurried manner - I told her it was no thoroughfare: she had a bundle under her arm, and the coat tail hung out of it. I followed her towards the gate, and asked where she came from; she said from Mr. Wilson's, in Bishopsgate-street - I asked what number - she said No. 10; I said Wilson's was No. 43, and took her to the watch-house. The bundle contained the articles stated in the indictment.
FREDERICK EBERHART. I am constable of the night. The prisoner was brought to the watch-house with this bundle; she was remanded till the prosecutor was found out.
(Property produced and sworn to.)
Prisoner's Defence. He was very much in liquor, and gave me the bundle.
SAMUEL MARSHALL. I swear I did not give it to her; I was quite sober: I took no liberties with her.
GUILTY . Aged 18.
Transported for Seven Years .
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 12 July 2021), May 1825, trial of MARY DAVIS (t18250519-131).
It is not difficult to imagine the terror Mary would have felt when she was sentenced to transportation. It was not death, but it meant the end of her life in England.
Mary went from the watchhouse to Newgate Prison. Apprehended on April 11, she was imprisoned until her appearance in court on May 19, 1825. Found guilty, she remained in jail for eight months before transportation. It must have seemed an exceedingly long eight months before her ship sailed in December 1825.
It was fortunate for Mary that her incarceration occurred during a time of prison reform. This was the age of the great Christian philanthropists and Quakers (Society of Friends), who saw a duty to serve the poor. Slavery and prison reform were two major causes. Elizabeth Fry, a Quaker, is famous for her reform of female prisons. She used her position in society to influence society's view of prisons and prisoners. The Association for the Improvement of the Females at Newgate included Elizabeth, a clergyman's wife, and eleven members of the Society of Friends. The Association provided clothing, instruction and employment for the women and introduced them to the holy scriptures. They wished to inculcate in them "those habits of order, sobriety, and industry which may render them docile and perceptible whilst in prison, and respectable when they leave it".[ii]
Had Mary entered Newgate before these reforms in 1815, she would have walked into a filthy, violent place. The floor was covered with human waste, dank straw, and vermin. Her women's cell was a huge room. Here the tried and untried lived together. Many were drunk and violent. The women had nothing to do. Some continued to work as prostitutes, with men coming and going. Among the throng were pregnant women, newly born babes and children. There was little care for the sick and starving.
The Association transformed the prison into a place where women could learn to read, sew, and knit. In addition, these items could be sold, and the proceeds go towards their future release.
"A careful system of supervision was also established. Over every twelve or thirteen women, a matron was placed who was answerable for their work and kept an account of their conduct. A ward woman attended to the cleanliness of the wards. A yard woman maintained good order in the yard, and the sick room was ruled by a nurse and an assistant. These managers were all prisoners, selected from their orderly and respectable habits, and these situations became the best badge for good conduct".
Elizabeth Fry's reforms extended to the transport ships. A member of the Association (often Elizabeth Fry herself) visited all the female convict ships before leaving. Elizabeth's influence with the Government saw her organisational plans implemented on convict ships and colonial female prisons, commonly called female factories or houses of correction. Despite the reformer's zeal, the subculture of the prison lurked in the shadows.
Inside, Newgate was ruled by strong and hardened criminals. While the good Quaker women believed in rehabilitation through industry and education, the women themselves believed otherwise. They thought themselves abandoned, exiled from the very society the Association wanted them to belong to. Hidden from the reformers was an undercurrent where the strong still preyed on the weak. Fortunately, the ruling criminals saw an advantage in the reforms and a degree of success was achieved. At sea, the underlying corrupt prison hierarchy surfaced the moment discipline on a vessel broke down.
Mary and nine other women were dispatched as a group from Newgate for transportation. The ten women shared similar backstories, similar crimes, yet different futures. The experiences of her contemporaries illustrate the difficulties and choices Mary had. They also provide insights into the complex layers of individual human lives. One hundred women are placed in a confined space. They are lost to all they knew. Now they must survive the journey to another prison.
The ten women from Newgate prison are listed in the table below. Their age, crime and sentence and some goal reports. They are all guilty of minor crimes, yet their lives have different outcomes.
Elizabeth Blacklock received seven years for stealing from her employer the following items.
three pairs of sheets, value 34 s.; four handkerchiefs, value 14 s.; three shifts, value 10 s.; three shirts, value 14 s; two towels, value 1 s. 6 d.; a napkin, value 1 s.; a night-gown, value 1 s.; five tablecloths value 18 s., and a gown, value 8 s. . She pawned the items in dribs and drabs, under several aliases.
Charged with larceny, she received a seven-year sentence. Elizabeth, at 42 years, is the oldest member of the group and has been in prison before. This time she stole from her employer Frederick Boulton. Four pawnbrokers testified to her pawning linen. She offered no defence for her actions.
Jane McDonald is 28 years of age when she skips up to Samuel Hall and picks his pocket. He grabs her hand, revealing she had taken two half-crowns, eight shillings and sixpence from his pocket. He calls the night watchman. The money is found in her hand. She had been acquitted of the same charge twice before and receives a life sentence.
Ann Margaret Wright was found guilty of stealing from her employer John Keen three sovereigns, forty half-crowns, eighty shillings, and forty sixpences. She runs off to Leeds, where she has a grand time drinking and buying clothes.
On the 21st of February 1825, Ann McKenzie and Mary Watson, 19 years of age, and Louisa Hill, 23 years, were charged with stealing twelve yards of printed cotton, value 16 s. They came to trial on 17 April, all were found guilty and given seven years of transportation. Ann and Mary were transported on the Providence, and Louisa was sent to NSW on the Midas in November 1825.
Julia Mullins from County Cork stole on the 9th of July, a half-sovereign, and a shilling, from harness maker David Hay. She was “living off the Town” at the time. However, for the crime of being a pickpocket, she was transported for 14 years.
Only sixteen years of age, Elizabeth Stenson steals from her employer Tom Piper. Only employed for a week, she was caught stealing a handkerchief, a muslin apron, a pair of shoes, a shell, and a pebble, all to the value of 10 shillings. The pebble was worth 6 pence. A sentence of 14 years transportation was given. A petition was raised to plea for clemency given her age. However, the petition was denied.
Sarah Watson and Jane Collier entered Henry Kymers Draper Shop and stole a silk shawl valued at 20 shillings. At their trial, Sarah defended her friend, saying she knew nothing of the theft. Collier was acquitted, and Sarah was found guilty. Sarah and Mary Watson are not related.
Isabella Williams was sentenced to seven years for stealing 25 shillings worth of Kerseyside cloth. Mrs Mary Hester, the wife of the owner Thomas Hester, told the court.
“I am the wife of Thomas Hester, who is a woollen-draper , and lives in Cloth-fair . The prisoner came to our shop about four o'clock in the afternoon of the 22d of July - there was another woman with her - they wanted a waistcoat pattern; the other woman went to the outside of the window, and pointed to some which I shewed them. I then missed a piece of kerseymere from the counter, which had been lying about half way on it. I do not think the prisoner moved from the counter while the other went out. I felt timid, and did not say anything to them; they went out of the shop without buying anything, and I followed; they got to a turning, and I saw the piece of kerseymere at the bottom of the prisoner's gown. I caught hold of her with one hand, and drew it from her; she said "I picked it up." - I was very much confused, and do not know whether I said anything to her or not.”
In her defence, Isabella suggest a different woman stole the cloth and dropped it in the street.
“I was going out to market and met a slight acquaintance, who asked me where I was going; she said she was going to buy a bit of stuff for a waistcoat, where could she get it. I said, in Cloth-fair. When we got to the shop, the lady was playing with an infant on the floor - my child was cross, and the young child on the floor attracted my attention, and I played with the two children. In the meantime I suppose it was the other young woman who took the piece; the lady pursued us, and the young woman dropped the parcel at our feet. I had but one hand at leisure, and could not have concealed it, if I had been disposed.”
Isabella’s child may have stayed with her husband, John Whittle, a bootmaker, as there is no other child record. However, this did not sway the court, and she was found guilty.
Ann Wright, a.k.a Long Ann, started work at the Britannia, a public house in Aldersgate. Beginning on Monday as a “servant of all work” by Saturday, she had run off with the weeks takings of £24.
Constable Hawkins tracked her down in Leeds. She was returned to London. There, her employer, Mr Keen, confronts her, asking,
"What could you be about to behave as you have to me; what do you deserve?" she said. "I don't know what - I deserve hanging;" she pulled off her rings and said she had bought them with my money, and had spent the rest in clothes, and riding about - she had but 5s 8d left."
A sentence of death was the result of her spending spree. However, the penalty was later commuted to transportation for life.
These wayward souls shared a common experience. There is no evidence to suggest they were friends. Most women came from the East End. They are names in a register, women sharing a time and a place, a lifestyle steeped in poverty and despair. They were from the East End of London, and they were poor, uneducated, mainly young, and unskilled. How they coped with transportation and life in Van Diemen's Land is remarkable. Some were broken, some were mended, some were destroyed. A few survived and made a life and gave birth to generations of Australians. None became social champions. All were silent, their voices lost, their life reduced to snippets, marriage, a child's birth, a death certificate, an obituary. Between these events were life, love, laughter, tears, anger, and strife.
Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868
Kommentare